Author: William

Eating Your Own Young

Folks, I keep thinking that I’m done posting about Abolitionists, but they won’t leave me alone. When it suits them, they pull the “we are more righteous than thou” card. As Clint Eastwood once said in one of his many Dirty Harry films, ‘You are a legend… in our own mind.”

Twice recently, they have run hit pieces on people that are on their side—i.e. prolife.

On election day in Idaho, May 19th, local Abolitionists posted a hit piece on Scott Herndon; my local candidate for State Senate. Scott Herndon is a proven conservative leader and prolife. He was running against sitting Senator Jim Woodward. Woodward is vocal in his support of dismantling Idaho’s profile laws. (Woodward was prolife when his votes were pyrrhic but once Roe v Wade was tossed, he changed his tune and started advocating that Idaho undo its prolife stance.)

Scott Herndon

Woodward and Hendon have been swapping the seat in Senate District 1 since 2020. Oh, note to our California readers, the term for a State Senator in Idaho is two years, not four as in California.

Despite the Abolitionists best efforts, Herndon won decisively in the rematch with Woodward. Recently Herndon has won on “off years” while Woodward has won during Presidential election years. Presidential elections bring out low information voters that frequently screw it up for the rest of us. Having Herndon as the local Senator was a key factor in my wife and I deciding to move to north Idaho several years ago.

FYI: An Abolitionist candidate with zero political experience ran for Senate District 3 and scored 28 percent of the vote.

If you don’t recall, Abolitionists want the death penalty for every woman that seeks an abortion, as well as any “physicians” involved to helping her procure said abortion. Herndon is not willing to go that far and in their minds is thus a traitor to the cause of life.

Next, candidate 28 percent posted a piece about Donald Trump being the most bloodthirsty president in the history of the nation. Under the new statistics on abortion making their rounds on social media, they show an upward trend since the Covid lockdowns. I question these numbers since historically the numbers have been in terms of surgical abortions while the proliferation of abortion pills and IVF have not—to my knowledge—been part of the numbers until Roe was tossed by the Supreme Court. Also, the most reliable numbers on abortion in the United States have always been generated by Planned Parenthood. PP has financial and political reasons to monkey with the numbers, so I don’t fully trust them. Decades ago, prolife groups decided to go with the numbers from PP anyway.

Sign “Donald Trump supports baby Murder! Repent”

Joe Biden opened the floodgates on mail order abortion pills and Trump has been slow to restrict them. This is partially due to government bureaucrats pushing back on Trump’s stated agenda. While wanting to restrict mail order abortions, Trump has pushed for wider availability of IVF which is a reason that prolife groups have been attacking him; however, none come close to the vitriol of the Abolitionists.

This brings me to the core of the problem with Abolitionists; namely, they have nothing to offer but complaints.

After I saw the attack on Trump that they posted of Facebook, I stated that Trump was a far superior choice to the Democrat offering for President in 2024. I point blank asked who was their candidate for 2028? Can their guy win a majority of primaries in the 50 states? Do they have 2 billion dollars in cash to help their guy campaign for the White House? (By my math, that’s 500 million for the primary and 1.5 billion for the general election. FYI my numbers are likely too low for the next campaign cycle.) Do they have a majority of people in the House of Representatives and the Senate ready to pass their idea into Law? Do they have enough judges to successfully litigate their Abolitionists Law?  

As expected, they had no response. Sorry, but “Orange Man bad” is not an informed response.

Abolitionists summarily reject any incremental implementation of their ideas. They are scorched earth all the way. They want 100 percent of everything; they want all at one time or nothing at all. Anyone that succeeds in reducing abortion is a traitor because in one fell swoop, they can’t stop all abortions. Abolitionists reject any type of incremental reduction of abortion.

Folks, when you begin with the notion that only thermonuclear weapons can be used to subdue your enemies then you have nowhere to go. This makes Abolitionists a suicide cult not a political movement. What’s worse is that they are doing this in the name of God.

In the 2,000-year history of the Christian Church, I don’t know of a single woman executed by a Christian society for getting an abortion. The Bible has lots more to say about the subject and Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill (or commit murder)” is not the right passage on the subject. Abortion is mentioned in both the Old and New Testament, but most Christians are too lazy or ill-informed to know where to see it in black and white. (I’ve mentioned it elsewhere on the blog, so I won’t go over it here.)

Abolitionists are not about stopping abortion. They are all about unchurching everyone else and taking pride in the fact that they are not like those other sinners. They are smug hypocrites using pride to put everyone else down. There is no salvation via politics or cramming their values upon the unwashed masses by passing a law and then wrapping it around our necks until we agree.

I have asked them repeatedly about starting with educating and persuading the average church member about things like IVF and abortion pills but that takes work which they are unwilling to do. I think they want to pass a law instead of work through the church because they don’t have the numbers to move the needle within the body of Christ.

They want a quick fix. Abolitionists want a law passed and then hope it will force a change in behavior of the church. This is power religion not biblical religion. Baptizing the Messianic State does not make the State suddenly become Christian, at best the State just adopts a few new vocabulary words and consolidates even more power.

Gary North has written so much against this type of nonsense; especially in terms of Pharoah versus Moses. I know Doug Wilson has spoken against it as have many others. Candidate 28 percent has even reposted quotes from R.J. Rushdoony on his Facebook page but clearly, he has never read a single book by the man. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law is about reforming the church and the duty of Christians to subject every area of their life to Christ. Yes, the State has biblical role to play but it is not right for the State to reform the Church. The Church is to reform the State. Biblical government is limited government.

Rushdoony quote from 28%’s Facebook page

Abolitionists are running down a rabbit trail halfcocked and wondering why the rest of the world isn’t following them over the cliff. When you zoom past the roadrunner holding a sign that says, “Gravity” then you know what happens next.

Lastly, the Abolitionists are exactly the type of group the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is accused of funding on the Right to justify painting us all as extremists, as they raise even more funds to promote leftwing causes. Ditto for the FBI under Joe Biden creating domestic terror groups on the right where none existed before. Abolitionists are broken folks tilting at windmills in their own minds.

Acts 1:11 Gary DeMar v Jason Bradfield

The following discusses “Preterism.” Preterism is the belief that certain passages in the Bible were predicted and then fulfilled. To some degree, all Christians are preterists. They believe the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. The issue is which biblical prophecies are fulfilled, and which are future. Within a subset of Protestants, a debate is raging over which prophecies of the coming of Jesus are future and which were fulfilled by the events of 70 A.D.—the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem.

Three Questions

In 2023, a letter was sent to Gary DeMar with three questions. The letter demanded that Gary affirm three statements as true. The statements were about biblical doctrines, but no supporting verses were included.

The three questions asked of Gary DeMar in 2023 were:

  • Do you believe in a future, bodily glorious return of Christ?
  • Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
  • Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?

The letter then goes on to state:

To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview.

CONCERNS RE: GARY DEMAR

Gary DeMar

The letter was leaked onto Facebook because DeMar didn’t respond. Public pressure was brought to bear on DeMar, and a website was even set up to solicit signatures of people that affirmed the questions. On the website, the three questions were expanded to seven weirdly worded questions; supporting verses were also added. The weirdly worded questions employed the type of verbal gymnastics that California voters are frequently confronted with where “no” means “yes” and “yes” means “no.”

The letter’s author, and agreeing signatories, were trying to position DeMar as a heretic—in their mind DeMar is a closeted full preterist—while they are Orthodox because they are partial preterists which affirm the Historic Creeds. (More on that shortly.)

Before being aware of the website, Gary DeMar responded by saying, which verses apply to these questions? Tell me that and then I will respond.

Once the verses were attached, DeMar was presented with a target rich environment. The signatories were at odds with each other as to which verses applied to A.D. 70 and which to the final return of Christ at the end of history.

The Historic Creeds

In the circles that DeMar runs in, folks are Presbyterian. They acknowledge the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Westminster Confession of Faith. The controversy before people contemplating the Three Questions are mostly related to the return of Christ as mentioned in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds.

“… he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” — Apostle’s Creed

“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.” — Nicene Creed

“… and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” — Nicene Creed

DeMar’s Response

DeMar spent many hours on subsequent podcasts pointing out that the signatories did not agree as to which verses listed as supporting the Three Questions applied to the coming of Christ in judgment in 70 A.D. and which applied to a return of Christ at the end of history. Gary’s response was essentially, what am I affirming if y’all can’t even agree amongst yourselves on the position of Orthodox Christianity.

Some of the signatories have changed their positions over the years, one of which is Kenneth Gentry. Gentry has changed his mind on his interpretation of parts of Matthew 24. His current view seems to be nonsense to me and unsupportable. Either Matthew 24 is past or future, but Gentry has decided without any textual support to split it so one verse is fulfilled and the next verse is future and then the next verse is fulfilled again. I don’t agree with splitting past and future at Matthew 24:35 or thereabouts but at least that way keeps verses one to the split together, so the first half is history and the remainder is future. However, Gentry does not do that either.

Part of the issue is that the Creeds have no biblical citations to show where the various clauses come from.

Here is an example of the problems that this creates.

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 16:27.

Again, the Apostle’s Creed “he will come to judge the living and the dead”

These sound a lot alike but read the next verse.

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:28.

Read verses 27 & 28 together. Jesus said the Son will come with angels and reward (judge) every man and some of his First Century listeners would not die before they see this fulfilled. They would live to see him coming into his Kingdom!

Folks, many texts create similar problems. They were future to the people to whom Jesus spoke but fulfilled before the Creeds were even written. DeMar’s point was that the authors of the Creed ignored the time texts and just assumed it was speaking of a future event. As DeMar often says, “They [authors of the Creeds] didn’t show their homework.”

Per this verse, the judgment of all men is not a future expectation as the Creeds imply because some men were already judged—unless you want to say Jesus was a liar—which no signatories or DeMar would allow as a possibility. I think DeMar’s friend, Kim Burgess, would answer that the judgment of men according to their works (Matthew 16:27) was completed when the Old Testament Saints were released from Sheol and allowed to enter Heaven. This would have been between the Ascension and 70 A.D. Thus, Jesus literally opened the way into Heaven and before that time, nobody went there when they died. On this point, the Westminster Confessions are wrong. Only after this First Century judgment was “absent from the body, present with the Lord” a reality.

The problem that Gentry and others have is that they are wedded to the traditions of the Church. Sola Scriptura is not really a thing for them when considering this topic, they assume the tradition is right and then try to shoehorn everything into it. This is why Gentry changed his position on Matthew.

If you took every verse cited by one or more signatories of the Three Questions as applying to A.D. 70, you would end up with no verses applying to what is traditionally regarded as “The Second Coming”. This is why they regard Full Preterism as heresy. The underlying assumption of the signatories is that something must remain to support the position of the Creeds and the Church. DeMar points out that they have no agreement on the topic, but they assume the truth of the proposition because Church tradition and the Creeds demand it.

Jason Bradfield

Jason Bradfield

Kenneth Gentry has been putting forth Jason Bradfield as his attack dog on Facebook to counter Gary DeMar. I have two issues with this. First Bradfield comes across as holier than thou and smug in his attacks on DeMar and second, Gentry reposts Bradfield in a way that completely blocks comments on any of Bradfield articles. Thus, Bradfield does not have to defend his attacks on DeMar. To me it’s gutless if you are unwilling to defend your position.

The most recent volley between the two was on the topic of Acts 1: 9-11. Posts by both men on this topic went up on the Internet on March 22, 2026.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Acts 1:9–11.

First, here is what DeMar posted.

Most futurists use this verse to show that Jesus will return in His physical body because that would be necessary in order to fulfill “just in the same way” He went away. The problem is that this Greek phrase is translated differently in other parts of the NT [New Testament].

Episode 93: Will Jesus Return in “Just the Same Way”?

The above quote from DeMar is not an exhaustive dissertation but from a teaser for a podcast episode on the passage.

Bradfield states this about DeMar:

Stage three is his only real engagement with the text itself: an argument about Greek phrase hon tropon (”in the same way” or “in like manner”). DeMar notes this phrase appears elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:28 Timothy 3:8) and is translated simply as “as” in those passages, not “in just the same way.” From this, he concludes that the translations of Acts 1:11 are prejudicially rendered, that hon tropon doesn’t actually require a precise correspondence between the ascension and the return, and therefore Acts 1:11 “not the slam dunk” people think it is.

Gary DeMar and Acts 1:11: The Art of Not Dealing With the Text

Based on what I have heard DeMar say on his podcast, Bradfield’s summary, which I quoted above, is correct. Bradfield then accuses DeMar of sleight-of-hand because DeMar does not deal with each Greek word in the passage.

If Acts 1:11 is the very text under dispute, you cannot settle its meaning by appealing to your conclusions about other texts. That is circular reasoning. You must deal with what this text says.

I frankly think this is Bradfield invoking his own sleight-of-hand to counter DeMar. To dismiss out-of-hand the way the Greek word is used anywhere else in Scripture as irrelevant to understanding hon tropon is prejudicial. Bradfield also ignores any passages that are parallel to Act 1:9-11. He deals with this verse in isolation. Whether he is employing the magic prophecy scissors, I will let the read decide.

Bradfield then goes on to dissect several Greek words in the passage. Ironically, he does this by citing other instances where certain Greek words are used—which he just castigated DeMar for doing. He does this by selecting quotes from Keith Mathison.

Keith Mathison

Mathison is having an imaginary conversation where he is rebuking someone else’s views as wrongly understanding the text.

Bradfield wants his readers to assume that said person getting rebuked by Mathison is Gary DeMar. In My mind this is a strawman argument or a tearing down via proxy. The things being rebuked by Mathison are things DeMar has never said. Bradfield is putting words into DeMar’s mouth via this method of analysis.

DeMar points out in his podcast that Jesus’s coming is described differently in different biblical passages. In some passages, Jesus comes on the clouds. Sometimes with angels. In Revelation he is coming on a white horse—Darrell Mansfield’s favorite description. Elsewhere, Jesus comes with a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. You get the idea. His coming is a fact, the particulars are more descriptive. Some are more literal than others.

The core of Bradfield’s article is:

DeMar also never addresses the presence of houtōs (“thus,” “in this way”) in this verse. He treats hon tropon in isolation, as though it alone carries the full weight of the comparison. But in Acts 1:11, houtōs and hon tropon work together: “will come thus (houtōs)…in the manner in which (hon tropon) you saw him go.” As Mathison explains, “The construction hon tropon is a compound adverbial phrase corresponding to houtōs. It means ‘in the manner in which’ or ‘just as.’ The use houtōs together with hon tropon serves to emphasize the point that Jesus will come in the same way that he departed.” This houtōs…hon tropon combination creates a double emphasis on correspondence between the manner of departure and the manner of return. This combination does not appear in Matthew 23:37, Acts 7:2 or 2 Timothy 3:8. DeMar’s cross-references, therefore, are not as parallel as he assumes.

Again, DeMar is not a careless thinker. He knows where the exegetical pressure points are. That is precisely what makes the pattern so damning. When he engages Acts 1:11, he isolates hon tropon from its context, ignores the verbs of sight and the spatial language that define the manner of the departure, and imports a conclusion from other passages rather than deriving one from the text at hand.

Essentially, Bradfield is demanding that the passage says that Jesus will physically return to earth in the same way that he left. Taken literally, the return of Jesus will be a local event that almost nobody will see except eleven or twelve folks on an obscure mountain top.

Compare Acts 1:9-11 to Revelation 1:7

Remember that the following verse is about the judgment on Jerusalem, not the end of the world.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 1:7.

So, every eye will see Jesus when he comes in judgment in 70 A.D. (Kenneth Gentry spends over 20 pages of his commentary on Revelation defending this interpretation) but in Acts 1:11, where Jesus is claimed to return physically at the end of the world, it is a private affair because his return is a carbon copy of his departure? Sorry but this makes zero sense. Clearly, Bradfield is trying to shoehorn the Acts passage into the preexisting mold of tradition and the Creeds.

Kenneth Gentry

Jason Brasdfield is trying to force at least two things from Acts 1, the when, and the how of Christ’s Return. If during the judgment on Jerusalem, “every eye will see him” then clearly Jesus came, and on the clouds too! The subject of “The Cloud” is important to the Acts passage too but gets zero mention from Bradfield. There is a long history and much biblical imagery attached to “The Cloud.”

The issue of Jesus coming more than once is also on the table but nothing from Bradfield on that either.

Bradfield can employ all the Greek Fire that he can muster but nobody has disputed that Jesus would return after the Ascension, it is the how, when, and how many times that needs to be addressed. DeMar is right. Once the signatories agree then have a chat with him and bring verses not slogans.

Conclusion

Gary DeMar has been singled out for special treatment for reasons that I just don’t understand. Gary doesn’t have to answer the questions. Frankly, his job is easy, pointing out the inconsistencies on the other side. I think Bradfield is tired of DeMar being evasive. I just think DeMar is having fun poking holes in the other side. They attacked him and he is making them pay for their stupidity.

The truth is that these guys agree on 98 percent of their theology. The Bible doesn’t tell us much of anything about what happens after death. When we die then we will be with Christ. Jesus comes multiple times in judgment throughout human history. It’s part of ruling on the Throne now. That is a present reality not a future hope.

Contrary to tradition, there are zero verses that say Jesus will ever set foot on planet earth again. I think he will, but I can’t find it in the Bible. The point of the New Testament is the end of the Old Covenant with its temples, blood sacrifices, and rituals. In the Kingdom age, we have work to do. The issue facing the Church in our age is Christians hiding out in their Churches praying for the Rapture, so they won’t have to transform their culture so it is subject to the Lordship of Christ.

Contrary to Premillennial/Dispensationalism, the focus of the New Testament is the Kingdom of God and his Church conquering the world. The last, last things (end of the world as we know it) are not for us to worry about. The Second Coming—whatever form it will take—will not happen for a very long time so quit worrying about it.

Enough with the circular firing squad, Jesus is knocking on the door of your church, will you let him in?

Abolitionists Rebels Without a Clue

Imagine taking the CRA at the height of their membership implosion, making them a single-issue group, and then mashing-up the result with Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue. Then hire Hammer Films to be their public relations arm and you might get the Abolitionist movement as found on Facebook.

Folks, you might think I’m being harsh on these guys but hear me out.

Yes, I know picking on the CRA is old hat on this blog, but they earned it. I gave many years of my life to the CRA and watched it spiral ever further downward. You can either describe my time with them as dedication, stubbornness, or simply that I’m a slow learner.

Anyway, I picked CRA and Operation Rescue because they were both built around a core of Evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians have an incredibly short timeframe for any activism and an equally shallow dedication to anything due to their view of theology. This statement is true of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and other similar groups.

Barbara Alby’s CRA

The Barbara Alby led takeover of CRA was the result of Evangelicals wanting to change things politically in the wake of Pat Robertson’s failed 1988 run for United States President. Alby and company found a way to infiltrate the California Republican Party via a hostile takeover of the CRA and County Republican Committee elections. Alby never had any long-term use for CRA, it was just a means to take over the California Republican Party. Once CRA got their hooks in the CRP, they abandoned CRA.

Barbara’s recruitment tactics were effective but totally false and dishonest. Furthermore, they were very unchristian. She cast the struggle to take over CRA as a Frank Peretti style spiritual battle between God’s people and Satan’s minions. She vilified and dehumanized her opponents. As she described it, we were not battling with folks that needed Jesus but people that had chosen darkness and were beyond redemption. We were told that we cannot work to persuade those other people but must vanquish them.

I remember in particular her vilification of Carl Burton. Burton was a liberal (or moderate) Republican and a known homosexual. Alby portrayed Burton as the spawn of evil; a man needing to be defeated and exiled from the Party. Burton ended up working with CRA after Alby & company kicked CRA to the curb. Frankly, Burton was more “christian” than many that went to church each Sunday. Burton wanted to advance the Republican cause and would work with any group that felt the same. CRA, and Alby specifically, owed Burton a huge apology that I’m sure he never received.

Well, Barbara was successful. CRA went from 100,000 members to about 15,000 in a few years. It was a mix of die-hard people and true believers. But CRA was not done employing the circular firing squad. The search for even more purity in the ranks of CRA led to more purges and witch-hunts. When I finally left CRA for good, it was down to about 1,200 members.

Operation Rescue

I mention Operation Rescue because they were a militant prolife group that often made an appeal to the legal doctrine of “necessity”. Necessity is a legal doctrine derived from English Common Law. Their favorite example of necessity was based on the idea of running past a no trespassing sign in order to get people out of a burning building. Human life had more value and thus ignoring the no trespassing sign was justified because a greater good was being served.

Operation Rescue was built from people in Evangelical Churches. What many did not know, at least in the case of the Sacramento California group, the leadership changed in Operation Rescue about every six months. The last man standing in leadership was Reb Bradley.

Post Operation Rescue, Bradley and his wife went every week to an abortion clinic in the Roseville, CA area and held a sign, “We will adopt your baby.” It took about a year, but they finally adopted a newborn as a result. It was a witness that few Christians are willing to display. I have great respect for Bradley. Whenever I think about him it is with warmth and great respect.

Operation Rescue folks would occasionally go to an abortion clinic and split into two groups. One group would block the doors of an abortion clinic while the other, larger, group would peacefully picket on a public sidewalk. The Rescuers would typically be arrested for not disbursing and trespassing on private property (remember they were arguing about the necessity of trespassing to save a life). Part of their gambit was hoping to go to trial to get a judge to rule that the necessity defense was saving a life. Alternately, they were hoping that a judge would rule that abortion was the killing of a baby. In virtually every case that was litigated, the necessity defense was never allowed to be heard by a jury.

Operation Rescue found by experience that the number of folks willing to go to jail to end abortion was a rather short list.

Abolitionists—a Litmus Test No One Can Pass

The Abolitionists, as stated previously, are a mash-up of CRA and Operation Rescue. Like CRA, and many sects and cults, the other guys that claim to be on their side are not pure enough. If you don’t agree 100 percent with the Abolitionists, then they will diss you and very publicly too.

Abolitionists hate every other prolife group that you have ever heard of from National Right to Life to Life Site. Abolitionists have employed the circular firing squad to eliminate the following groups that failed the purity test:

  • National Right to Life
  • Susan B. Anthony List
  • U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — Committee on Pro-Life Activities
  • Americans United for Life
  • March for Life Action
  • Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — Southern Baptist Convention
  • Secular Pro-Life
  • Democrats for Life of America
  • Rehumanize International
  • Louisiana Right to Life
  • Indiana Right to Life
  • Kentucky Right to Life
  • Right to Life of Michigan
  • Ohio Right to Life
  • South Dakota Right to Life
  • Tennessee Right to Life
  • Wisconsin Right to Life
  • And dozens more state Right to Life organizations.

Abolitionists want all abortions to be prosecuted as first degree murder, period.

Like Wow.

Oh, also they hate President Trump because he promotes In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

Folk, this is why I call them a mash-up of CRA and Operation Rescue. Oh, and shout-out to their public relations group, Hammer Films.

Hammer Films because most of the political blood shed in their battles is that of fellow prolifers and not their actual enemies.

Abolitionists Use the Sword of the State not God’s Word

Oh, Abolitionists don’t want to persuade churches to stop abortion or help “problem pregnancies” or work with churches to educate folks, they are going for salvation via legislation. They want all 50 states to adopt a full ban on abortion and implement capital punishment for abortion. They want to execute not only abortion providers but also all women seeking abortion.

Folks, the Bible doesn’t even hold this out as a standard.

Abolitionists don’t want your local state legislature to pass a bill to ban abortion pills via mail or stop surgical abortion or regulate IVF clinics. Nope, for them these are all incremental half-measures that should be opposed. They want all or nothing legislation.

They also want all or nothing candidates. Locally, they are dissing a guy that is prolife because he doesn’t want to execute women seeking abortion. Instead, they call the prolife guy “Judas” and would rather re-elect a guy that supports Planned Parenthood.

Oh, they also want women to voluntarily be implanted with someone else’s frozen embryos so that said embryos won’t be killed. Please note that they don’t want IVF ended first, they want to create a new revenue stream for IVF clinics and then have the clinics closed at some future date. At the very least, this is economic illiteracy.

Scorched Earth Tactics

There are several problems with their scorched earth position. Let’s talk about a few.

First, justice is to be impartial and applied equally. This sounds simple enough but in such an environment who decided how to enforce this rule? The Bible requires two or three witnesses. In the case of abortion, how do you check that box?

Can you prove a woman is pregnant?

Look, I know the people in the Abolitionist movement think they are smarter than everyone else, but I ask this as a serious question.

Back in the day, Carol Everett used to run a chain of abortion clinics in Texas. I think she was based in the DFW area. She said that it was not unusual for them to do a D&C on women that were not pregnant just so they could bill the procedure—likely to the state.

I promise you that these mail order abortion pill places will sell to anyone. They don’t know and don’t care if someone is really pregnant. They are only interested in selling a product and calling it a service.

The IVF clinic doesn’t care. Oh, crap the freeze got unplugged. Or they mixed-up the samples, or whatever.

Except in cases of late-term surgical abortion, I don’t see how you can prove the pregnancy existed or the subsequent abortion action actually ended a life.

If the abortion is proved to have ended a child’s life, then you have to litigate it.

How do you accumulate enough evidence to deprive someone of their life via a court trial?

What if the judge or a jury finds the law unconstitutional? Does this then create a constitutional right to abortion? Isn’t this just a reply of Roe v Wade? Do you really want to risk a court declaration of an absolute right to abortion? Do you want a court declaration that seeking abortion cannot have consequences?

Other Questions

If your abolitionist law can be voted in, then can’t it just be voted out?

Why is the guy totally off the hook on this deal?

Aren’t Abolitionists just baptizing Sharia Law or something remarkably like it?

Hey Abolitionists, what does the Bible say?

Sorry but shouting Exodus 20:13 does not end debate. Yes, this passage says, “Thou shalt not kill” or in more modern English, “You shall not commit murder” but is that the end of the discussion. If you use the magic Evangelical prophecy scissors then maybe, but for the rest of us, I think there is more to discuss.

Folks, there is only one case law in the Old Testament that touches on abortion. Oh, and no, the account about Judah’s son spilling his seamen on the ground is not it.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Exodus 21:22.

Please note in this instance that causing a pregnant woman to lose her child (or children) is not murder or manslaughter. It is a fine to be paid with said amount determined by a judge.

Killing children after they are born was common in ancient Israel. If they offered children to the god Molech, this was punishable by death.

2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Leviticus 20:2–5.

This child sacrifice is not the same as abortion, so I think citing this passage to prove death for women seeking abortion is not applicable.

The New Testament has much more to say about abortion.

To find abortion in ancient times you must first understand that surgical abortion did not exist in biblical times. Instead, abortion was via chemical concoctions purchased from a witch or sorcerer. Think local medicine man (or woman). This language is found in the text of the Hippocratic Oath.

Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

The Classic Hippocratic Oath

Thus, when you see a New Testament list of people that will not inherit the Kingdom of God, a polite way of saying they are bound for Hell, it often includes sorcery, witchcraft, or similar wording.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, tfornication, tuncleanness, vlasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, avariance, aemulations, wrath, bstrife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:19–21.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Revelation 22:14–15.

In addition, early Christians made it a practice to go outside the city walls and collect children that had been abandoned by their parents to die. The abandoned children were saved from certain death by Christians with a high view of human life.

Abolitionists argue that in a godly society, women that get abortions should be executed; however, I don’t know of any Christian society that has even practiced or enforced such a law. Ditto for Sabbath breaking.

Conclusion

Abolitionists are just another group of rebels without a clue. They presuppose an answer and then look in Scripture to find it. When they would rather elect supporters of Planned Parenthood than fellow believers that aren’t pure enough to pass their litmus test, then they are off the rails. The fact that they seek salvation via the State and not the pew, tells you that their fidelity is not really to God. The Church is created by God and the only institution that will last into eternity. If they really want to change the world, then change the Church. I think it’s too hard to persuade fellow Christians, so they want to compel them by the power of the Sword. Then if they balk at the coercion, unchurch the infidels.

Abolitionists summarily reject incremental change and want legislative revolution. Dr. Gary North is known for the saying, “You can’t change just one thing”. This single-issue group will only find a way to make real change more difficult in the future.

Barbara Alby’s real legacy is that California is now a single party state, and has been for the last two decades. She and her minions in CRA, not only destroyed the Republican Party but caused Republicans to forever lockout the grassroots people from ever having input into the Party in the future. The legacy of Abolitionists will be similar.

It looks to me that Abolitionists are just another group of Statists dressed up in Christian camouflage. Their willingness to employ the circular firing squad is a huge red flag. If they think you can just get someone to pass a law and then everybody can go back home, they are sorely mistaken.

Lastly, if you try to look up stuff by Abolitionists, please know that they have their own jargon, buzzwords, and phrases which they employ but rarely define. Like CRA of old, they are God’s people and everyone else is an enemy that must be destroyed as soon as they fall short.

Thought on 2026 Idaho Primary

It’s election season once again. Here in Idaho, we are going to the polls next Tuesday. Unlike, my colleagues in California, we actually have to go to a precinct, present a photo I.D. and then cast a ballot. Furthermore, in Idaho, Republicans, Libertarians, and most Democrats are all registered Republicans. Yep, in most parts of Idaho, you can win a central committee seat on the Democrat side of the aisle with less than fifty votes. In most parts of Idaho, the Republican that wins in the primary is anointed during the general election without any further campaigning after their primary victory.

On the one side you have conservative folks that are true believers. They advocate for educational vouchers, abolishing property taxes, liberal understanding of Second Amendment rights, and liberty. These guys are fun to watch as they try to see who can be the most conservative in the bunch.

On the other side are RINOs and incognito Democrats pushing for more government programs and spending. They will do whatever they can to get more candy from the Great White Fathers in Washington DC. On social issues, they oppose bills keeping men out of women’s bathrooms and women’s sports, want to weaken restrictions on abortion, support the right of local governments to fly the Pride flag, and boost spending on government schools. Of course, they always have an excuse for their undermining of their constituents. Often, they call bills curtailing government unnecessary or a waste of time and energy. They base this on the fact that Idaho has a 90-day legislative session each year. Thus, the budget is front and center.

One political gimmick that RINOs employ to kill proposed legislation is the Committee Chairman’s desk drawer. Think of this as the Legislative equivalent of the roach motel. The bill checks in but never checks out. The bill gets to Chairman PACmoney and he puts it in his desk drawer and somehow it is never seen again. It never gets to be heard by his committee and is stalled for the remainder of the time while the Legislature is in session.

There are other political games employed to euthanize ideas, so they never come to a vote.

I’m hoping that next week we can unseat a few worthless fellows from the RINO camp. You can never give me too much liberty.

A Lesser Discussed Prophecy of Jesus

Folks, Jesus made several predictions about his return happening within the lifetime of those hearing his words. Sadly, many of his followers in our day and age don’t believe him or worse yet, think he was mistaken. If Jesus was wrong on this claim, then he is a liar and thus not God and has no credibility for anything else he claimed or was claimed about him.

Liberal theologians and some atheists believe Jesus made claims about returning within the lifetime of his hearers, not because Jesus was correct, but because they believe he was wrong. Christopher Hitchens used to beat up premil folks with this all the time. He tried it on Doug Wilson and got smacked.

Conversely, many evangelical Christians don’t believe Jesus because it doesn’t fit their presuppositions about what Jesus meant to say. Instead of taking Jesus at his word, they try to weasel out of it.

In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, is an account of Peter and Jesus at a beach in Galilee. Immediately following the “feed my sheep” story is the last documented squabble amongst the disciples. It involves, Jesus, Peter, and John.

21 Peter seeing him [John] saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

John 21:21–23.

Prior to these verses, Jesus had told Peter that “…  when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” This is understood to indicate that Peter would die of crucifixion. Tradition further states that said crucifixion of Peter was conducted with him upside-down.

Peter then looks at John and says, Hey Jesus, what about him?

At this point in John’s narrative, C.S. Lewis fans would expect to hear Aslan say, “it’s not your story” and end the discussion.

But that isn’t how the discussion ends. Instead, Jesus says that if I want John to live until I return, what business is that of yours?

Folks, as you know, John was the only one of the Twelve that was not martyred. John did in fact live until the destruction of the Temple and siege of Jerusalem were completed. He got to see the fulfillment of the Apocalypse that he had authored and the end of the Old Covenant age. The Kingdom of God came into its fullness and John lived to see it.

At the time of authoring the Gospel, John knew it was a possibly but not a certainty that he would live to see the end. In his epistle, John wrote it is the last hour. (I John 2:18.) John knew it was about to happen.

This account reminds me of Simeon and Anna at the circumcision of Jesus (Luke 2:25 – 38). God allowed both Simeon and Anna to see the salvation of God. In a similar way, John got to see the beginning of the next chapter of redemption. God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations through the seed of a woman became a reality in his lifetime.

So, yep, John did tarry until Jesus came. How cool.

Streams of Light in Darkened Places

Drawing above is John Calvin.

In the last few weeks, I’ve seen the fruit of a paradigm shift in the church that I’ve been attending. Some of the clergy have been moving away from premillennial dispensationalism and toward a more historic understanding of the faith. The new pastor and the soon to be leaving one have been tag-teaming the book of Romans. In the last few weeks, they have been defending predestination as above free will and that God has one people—the church—which is the continuing Israel and true children of Abraham. Today the pastor went out of his way to proclaim that God has one people, not two. He even stated that only via faith in Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. God didn’t have one path for the church and a separate one for Jews. It sounded much like stuff that I’ve been posting here lately.

There are some really hardcore Armenians and Premil folks in the group. The pastor stating that eschatology was a secondary issue, not one that is core to the faith, was followed up by a plug for classic dispensationalism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. He said he had limited copies of a sheet with four views of eschatology for people to get at the back of the church after the service. He encouraged folks to consider views other than premillennial dispensationalism. Bold move. The four views documents were all gone when I went looking for one. I was going to photograph it and leave it for someone else but was unable to do that.

Folks, this is a dicey move to make in a nondenominational church. I think the pastors would only move their flock in that direction if they were convinced that it was true. There is a minority that is post millennial in the church but whether the clergy is heading that direction has not been revealed yet. I think they can move their people a ways down that track, but at some point, their paradigm shift will get some pushback.

A couple of the leaders in the church are what I would describe as old school Baptists. I think they will balk at any move away from Arminianism (free will) and Scofieldism.

Many Christians call eschatology a secondary issue, but the reality is that it is not. Eschatology cannot really be separated from core Christian doctrines. There is a huge difference between playing duck and cover, wait for the Rapture, and taking dominion because Jesus claims to be Lord over every area of life. Premillennial dispensationalism leads to escapism while post millennialism leads to progressive growth as nations are discipled not individuals.

I am very happy to see this change taking place. If America is to see revival, then many congregations will need to experience a similar shift in eschatology.

Ambushed by Love

Tomorrow marks one year since my bride died. She took her last breath about eight feet from where I’m sitting right now. I am reminded of her in random ways: smells, sounds, sights, and seasons.

One thing to know about my wife was that music was important to her. She liked the old Roger’s and Hammerstein musicals, opera, and classical compositions. Heck, her major in college was voice or vocal training if you prefer. She often sang at community events before I came along. She continued to sing during our marriage but got invited less frequently as the years went on. In later years, she sang at many funerals.

She and her children sang a song for me at our wedding.

It was a surprise that they sprung on me after the ceremony. As it was recounted to me, she and the children would practice singing it on the way to school in the morning. The song was, “If You Could See What I See” by Geoff Moore. The song became her ringtone for the entirety of our marriage. We’re not the only people to use the song during a wedding but it was special to me.

Oh, eventually my generic ringtone was “Holly Jolly Christmas” by Burl Ives. Each of the children earned their own ringtones too. Child #1 got “When the Saints Go Marching In” which was due in part to this child being a band nerd. Child #2 earned “Now that We’re Men” from the first Sponge Bob movie.

As good as my ringtones were, when each child was born, their mother assigned each a song. The song was mostly a bedtime thing. I don’t recall what the songs were. If I guessed, “Baby Mine” from Dumbo went to child #2. Child #3 was assigned a church hymn like “Amazing Grace” or something like that. Child #1, no clue what song it was although the wife was partial to classic Disney stuff.

I have a special place in my heart for the three songs listed below.

“The Warrior is a Child” by Twila Paris

“Touch of the Master’s Hand” by Wayne Watson

“Tell Me Again” by Geoff Moore

During my wife’s cancer and beyond, I frequently listened to “Stand by Me” by Darrell Mansfield.

Darrell has six or seven versions of the song that I have accumulated over the years. My favorite is from his album “People Get Ready” from 2009. It is a slightly edited version of “Stand by Me” from his live concert video released in 2008. Darrell Mansfield owns this song. He reclaimed it as the church hymn that it once was but stays with the tune made famous by Sam Cook. The video version of the concert is worth it just to watch this song and “Tell the Truth”.

One other song that deserves an honorable mention that has some musical hooks and lyrics that get my attention is “Things Left Unsaid” by Disciple. Many lines really sting when I listen to it, but a few don’t/didn’t apply to our relationship.

Here’s most of the lyrics presented in order.

It’s just a matter of time a few days ago
I saw you, you were fine
Remembering what you said
About the book you read
The one I got you
The Beginning of the End
Oh how we’d talk
For hours upon end
What I give
Just to do it again
But you’re lying there
In this hospital bed
Won’t you open you eyes
And let’s talk once again

If you fly away tonight
I want to tell you that I love you
I hope that you can hear me
I hope that you can feel me

Well I’ve been here all night
And I’m watching you
Breathe in and breathe out
Is it really you
Or just a machine
That’s giving you life
And it’s making it seem
That there could be hope
I could say to your face
If it weren’t for you
That there would be no grace
That’s covered my life
You took the time
To speak into my mind
And my heart
Words of life

If you fly away tonight
I want to tell you that I love you
I hope that you can hear me
I hope that you can feel me

So goodbye for now
And I’ll see you again
Some way, somehow
When it’s my time to go
To the other side
I’ll hold you again
And melt at your smile
Now all I have
Are the ones that I’m with
And you taught me not
To take for granted
The time that we have
To show that we care
Speak into their minds
And their hearts
While they’re here
And say I love you

If you fly away tonight
I want to tell you that I love you
I hope that you can hear me
I hope that you can feel me

I’m gonna call this post a wrap. I’m feeling spent just thinking about her last few hours of life. Disciple’s lyrics hit close to home and emotionally strike a chord with me as well. I’m sure you can find all the songs listed on YouTube or Amazon Music.

Lindsey Graham, Israel, and Bad Eschatology

What do Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Mike Hukabee have in common besides being Republican politicians? Bad eschatology. Specifically premillennial dispensationalism.

The attached meme sums it up, or at least half the story.

Facebook Post captured o4-20-2026

Folks, when you hold views in isolation—in your mind anyway—you can simultaneously claim to value two ideals that are in complete opposition to each other.

Illustration: Life or Death

Let me pick on Liberals first and illustrate what I mean. Let’s take the issue of life. Liberals simultaneously value life and death as the highest ideals. They hold both as true and don’t see the inherent conflict. Let’s explore this.

Liberals oppose the death penalty for those that commit murder. They view this as unjust. They claim nobody deserves the death penalty because it is cruel and unusual punishment, inhuman, and discriminates against minorities. Some even quote the Bible stating, “Thou shalt not kill.” Thus, they assert that executing someone is violating the Commandment of God.

Simultaneously, Liberals support death via abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Lest Liberals dispute my claim of support for all three: abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide then let me sight a few examples that won’t make your brain hurt should you choose to verify them.

Euthanasia is legal in several states and in Canada. Canada called their euthanasia program MAID. As of my writing, Canada is surpassing the deaths of over 100,000 of its citizens via the MAID program.

The United States has killed upwards of 73 million children via legal abortion since 1973. Contrary to what you would expect, abortions are higher now than when Roe v Wade was the Law of the Land. This is due to the availability of abortion pills being shipped over state lines, mostly from California and New York.

Infanticide is legal in California and probably a few other leftist states, I’m thinking maybe Colorado. In California, if an infant dies, it is illegal for any law enforcement officer, doctor, or other government official to investigate the cause of death. If such an investigation occurs, the person investigating can be prosecuted and jailed for committing a crime; thus, a woman has an absolute right to kill her child purposely or by neglect and she cannot be punished. This has been California law for many years. Thanks Gavin Newsom.

Oh, the time limit of how old a child can be before its death is investigated in California is not defined in the law. It was felt that the mother could choose to kill her baby during a period of at least the first 30 days of life, but such a limit was left to be decided by the courts and not the Legislature.  

Thus, killing a human being that is weaker than yourself is allowed in states that oppose the death penalty. One must therefore conclude that life is not valued highly in Liberal states despite protestations that the death penalty is wrong. Life and death are arbitrary and decided on something other than the intrinsic value of human life. Oh, yes, Liberals will cite passages of Scripture in isolation to support ending life and saving life. Their metric seems to be to free the guilty and punish the innocent. There is no single logical proposition to justify both death and life in their worldview.

Scofieldism and the Jews

In like manner, premillennial dispensationalists will proclaim support for Israel and simultaneously believe that Jews only exist to be slaughtered in the largest holocaust in the history of the planet, a yet future even which will make what Hitler did seem like a picnic in comparison.

Huckabee, Cruz, and Graham all hold to this view as do millions of Evangelicals in the West. I hope to illustrate the absurdity of these ideas in what follows.

Some claim that the premillennial dispensational view is orthodox Christianity, but I say that is B.S.

I have previously delt with the idea that the promise in Genesis to bless Abraham has no application to the modern nation called “Israel.” The New Testament makes it clear that the offspring of Abraham are not genetic descendants but those who by faith believe in Christ. Look it up in the New Testament books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Galatians 3:6–9.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:26–29.

Premillennial dispensationalists deny the plain teaching of the New Testament and instead teach that God will eventually get back to dealing with national Israel at some point in the future. A future when the Church is no longer in the picture. Until the Church is Raptured, they think the Bible teaches that in order to be a good Christian that you must support modern Israel, right or wrong, or God will punish you both personally and as a nation.

Again, the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the true Israel and that his followers are the true Israel—people of God. In Jesus, the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled, Abraham is heir to the whole world and through Christ (Abraham’s seed) all the nations of the world have been blessed. The Bible also promises at a future date that Jesus will be the Savior of the World. The Church will fulfill her mission, and the world will be converted. God divorced Israel in 70 AD and has a new people, a new bride, the Church. He is done with Old Covenant Israel.

What Do Evangelicals Believe is Israel’s Fate

Some Evangelicals even raise money to send Jews to Israel. Isn’t that nice? They are so supportive of modern Israel. Did you ever wonder why?

Evangelicals are supportive of Israel because they want the Jews there to die. No, really. They believe that 2/3 of all the Jews in Israel will die. Some even say that 2/3 of all Jews everywhere on the planet will die.

For Evangelicals, this wasn’t fulfilled in 70 A.D. as Jesus predicted but is the future that Jews have to look forward to experiencing. Isn’t that wonderful? So, for every three Jews you help send to Israel, two will die to usher in the End Times.

Yep, they really teach this as the Gospel; the good news that Jews have to expect in their future. Then after 2/3 are killed, the Jews will be so thankful for what just happened to them that all the rest will willingly believe in Jesus and then Christ will return and set up his Kingdom.

Premillennial dispensationalism demands a literal Kingdom, in literal Jerusalem, with Jesus sitting on a literal throne. The millennium will be so wonderful, Jews will reestablish sacrifices in the rebuilt temple (I’m not sure if this is the third or fourth rebuilt temple) and even circumcise babies on the eighth day. It will be just like old times. In fact, it will be just like Jesus never came and accomplished a darn thing by his death.

Oh, nobody ever asks, if the remaining Jews all believe in Jesus, why do they need to restart the Sacrificial system? Didn’t Jesus say, “It is finished?” Doesn’t the New Testament teach that Jesus was the High Priest and the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, so why a new physical temple?

Conclusion

These contradictions don’t matter to the premillennial dispensationalist crowd. Once you start holding contradictory views in isolation, you get to juggle these views in your head and as long as they remain in isolation, people can hold them all to be true.

This belief system is nuts but that is what is taught within the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Millions of people believe this nonsense. Prophecy pimps make millions of dollars printing books teaching these falsehoods. People with itching ears gobble up this teaching and just assume it must be the correct grid to interpret the Bible. Scofield’s system cannot be found within the Bible unless it is assumed before you open the Book. The core of his system is never found in the Bible.

  • Future Rebuilt Temple – not there
  • Antichrist as a political figure– not there
  • Seven years of tribulation– not there
  • Great Tribulation being Worldwide– not there
  • Rapture– not there
  • God not done with national Israel– not there
  • Kingdom of God put on hold– not there
  • Mark of the Beast being literal– not there

    I could go on but you get the point. Everything that made “The Late, Great Planet Earth” and “Left Behind” sensational is not found in the Bible, at least not if the context of the Scriptures matter.

    Final Word

    The nonsense coming from Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, and Ted Cruz about Israel is just that, nonsense. If you want to back Israel because you think they are a good ally in the Middle East then have fun with that, but don’t expect God to bless our country just because you believe we must back Israel right or wrong. Sorry, but I get nervous when someone is more willing to back a foreign country than they are the United States. I thought Donald Trump was booting masses of people out of the United States for doing that very thing. Or is the double standard one way for conservatives and another for everyone else?

    New Testament Polygamy

    With a title like that, if you are expecting a post about Jesus’ friendship with Mary and Martha, please stop reading because you’ll be disappointed. No, I’m once again pointing out a failure in the premillennial dispensational scheme.

    Would You Rather …

    Admittedly, half the reason that I go to the church Bible study is to get blog ideas, and this post stems from such a study that I attended last night. Towards the end of the session, a question was asked that I found interesting. I don’t recall it verbatim, but it was to the effect of, would you rather be a part of God’s chosen people the Jews coming to Christ as such or part of the New Testament Church?

    The respondent thought for a moment and then replied; I guess I would prefer knowing Christ as part of His church.

    Bingo. Right answer.

    Even one of the stopped prophecy clock guys came up with an orthodox sounding answer. It’s a start.

    The guy answering the question is always trying to push every Old Testament prophecy of judgment into the future, but even he seemed content that the book of Amos might actually be something that was fulfilled. He seemed willing to accept the idea that maybe Amos was fulfilled but could be a warning from history that we might learn from. His concluding that God gave us the book of Amos for our instruction is mildly hopeful.

    It was a rare time when folks in the group were not trying to make prophecies of judgment into passages requiring double or triple fulfillments. I think the group leader actually teaching the book as history that was fulfilled was satisfying to attendees. Much of the previous books of the minor prophets were concerning the same judgments but the group kept trying to force fulfilled passages into the future to be fulfilled yet again.

    Sadly, these moments of lucid theological insight were contradicted by invoking that Christ has two brides: namely, the Church and the Jews. This is not the traditional view of the Church. This crazy idea is part of the Zionist scheme of Schofield which has been adopted without any Biblical warrant by much of the evangelical church.  

    Does Jesus Have Two Brides

    Guys let me not confuse you by quoting the Bible since it’s not your authority as to what the Bible says. Try this explanation.

    The purpose of God dealing with the Jews, and Moses, and the Old Testament was to get us to Christ, the Jews’ Messiah.

    A recurring theme in the Bible is that at least a remnant of Jews will be saved. Jesus said that only a remnant of Jews alive in the First Century would be saved. In the same passage however, he also promised that hordes of Gentiles would come streaming into the Kingdom.

    The illustration that Jesus used was that of an olive tree. Branches of the domesticated olive would be broken off, and wild olive branches would be grafted into the root of the tree. Thus, the Kingdom of God is built from the Jews, includes Jews, and even honors the Jews but access to Christ is also granted to the Gentiles (think rest of us in the world).

    Thus, the Jews are never set aside until some future date as Scofield claims. The New Testament Church is built on the foundation of Judaism, and populated with the Spiritual children of Abraham; namely, us.  

    Conclusion

    This is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that the world would be His inheritance (see book of Hebrews). Jesus unites both Jew and Gentile into one new man. There is no separation between male and female, bond and free, Jew or Gentile. We are all the Bride of Christ. This is a forever arrangement not a temporary one. Jesus has only one Bride.

    National Israel was destroyed for the sin of adultery in 70 A.D. This is one of the main points of the Book of Revelation. The harlot, Babylon the Great, where Jesus was crucified is destroyed. Burned forever. (Burning with fire is a punishment reserved almost exclusively in the Bible for the daughter of the priest. Leviticus 212:9)

    Sorry, this is not a do-over of Jacob working to get both Rachel and Leah by slaving away, working seven years for each bride. The idea that Jesus gets Israel and her little sister, the Church at the end is the ages is syrupy, sentimental nonsense.

    What Old People Can Teach You About Family Relationships

    On my recent visit to the once golden state, I saw a behavior that I haven’t noticed before. The older folks purposely decided not to raise certain issues just to keep peace in the family. I think this was for their well-being and not mine.

    My folks don’t talk about my girlfriend. My mom says she doesn’t want to hear about it but keeps bringing it up anyway. I took the hint and don’t tell her that we will get hitched in a few months. On this visit she kept asking me about my future plans. I gave her an evasive answer since she kept saying she didn’t want to hear about my friend. It was kind of weird.

    She also kept talking about women that were previously married not wanting to do it again. No shit Sherlock. I learned that lesson on my trip to Ireland last summer. Somehow, she ignores it when I told her that during my last visit with them, but when she learns it from her friends, more recently, somehow its now true. Keep up with the group mom.

    I’m past caring what my parents think about me getting married again. I don’t get why they suddenly care. They wanted me to divorce my previous wife because she was, in their opinion, a “bad mother.”

    Essentially, my mom wants me to find a white girl with a bunch of baggage, personal and financial, and somehow that will lead to happiness. Sorry, I don’t want to marry someone that looks like my grandmother—or at least my memory of her. I also don’t want a babe that is Dave Ramsey’s worst financial nightmare.

    I know a good deal when I see it. My girlfriend is someone worth pursuing. As I have said before, she checks all the boxes in what I say I want in my next wife.

    My other quiet encounter concerns my father-in-law. It was understood that any discussion of a certain baby was verboten. When others brought the subject up, I just deflected. We both avoided the issue which was fine with me. I’m not a biological relation to the child or its parents so that was easy to take a pass on discussing.

    So, there you have it, avoid certain topics and you can peacefully coexist, even when visiting family. The key is not to be totally honest and learn which things need to be withheld. They don’t want to know what’s really going on in my life. Check the things that promote drama at the door. Nobody knows everything I really did on my recent visit to California.

    Lastly, unless someone ends up in the hospital or the morgue, I don’t plan another trip to the Left Coast this year.