A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, wouldn't it have been better just to provide us with something better than to insult the poster with claims of "sloppy scholarship?"

Ohio, I am not selling my ideas on the market for lucre. Therefore I don't hold my ideas to the same standards. My ideas are opinions, which you will probably notice I do (at least occasionally) try to provide alternatives for, as well as pointing out their possible shortcomings.

But if I had my own publishing house, website, pastorate, YouTube channel or whatnot hopefully I would hopefully do even better than that. I myself make no claims other than being a rank amateur. What bugs me are rank amateurs posing as teachers, guides, apostles, and prophets.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio, I am not selling my ideas on the market for lucre. Therefore I don't hold my ideas to the same standards. My ideas are opinions, which you will probably notice I do (at least occasionally) try to provide alternatives for, as well as pointing out their possible shortcomings.

But if I had my own publishing house, website, pastorate, YouTube channel or whatnot hopefully I would hopefully do even better than that. I myself make no claims other than being a rank amateur. What bugs me are rank amateurs posing as teachers, guides, apostles, and prophets.

At this point aron I'm not sure what you are trying to say. At first I thought you were scolding ZNP for sloppy scholarship regarding his comment, "I guess there are three ways someone can respond: ... "

Or perhaps you were just venting about Bush era politics in the aftermath of 911, as if it were he who subsequently placed troops in a "dozen" places on the Mideast map in violation of the long-standing policy of "containment," which could be considered sloppy scholarship.

Or perhaps, based on some sloppy scholarship, that "rabid" pastor you used to know prayed that Iraq might be "Christianized." Btw, many missionaries did go to Iraq in those days. I personally know one from our young people's group who went to Kurdistan. We prayed much for him.

[OBW]

Z,

I have never said to refrain from praying for the nation. And if you are only focused on Cahn's actual call to prayer, then you might not have any complaint.

But the first half was a run-up to the call to prayer based on the assumption that, like Israel, America was founded in the same manner. And that things like the Mayflower compact, the first inaugural address, and many other statements constituted a basis for Israel-like blessings that we should be able to pray back into existence.

In effect, these historical documents, speeches, etc., are being treated like a contract between America and God upon which we can be blessed. And returning to that state is being treated like a "first love." We love that country so much better than the one we have now. We have the most tolerant country ever (or at least nearly so) and yet we have to have more. It is consuming us. We are willing to redirect the thrust of our prayers to get it back.

I am all for praying for peace within our borders and with the rest of the world. I am for praying for a turn in the minds of those who would call unrighteousness righteousness. I am for prayer to turn hearts from wickedness to God. But even if there is a true revival, I do not dare treat it as some kind of special blessing from God on the nation, but on those who turn back to Him.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. It may be a reasonably favorable land, but it is not the kingdom of God. It is the kingdom of the world. No matter how good an inaugural address is, how righteous the Mayflower compact was, how many references there were to God in various other documents or how many times meetings of the fledgling government were opened with prayer — even of some length — it is a secular nation. No amount or prayer can put on the nation a label that does not apply to all of its citizens. And "followers of God" does not apply to nearly all of them now.

Or even then. They may have had a better percentage. Or at least so if you take into account the fact that much of the major philosophy of the day was Judeo-Christian based. But while a valid study of the scripture is rightly a branch of philosophy, a philosophy merely based upon its tenets does not a Christian make. And there was plenty of that in play in that day and age. Pascal's wager was relatively new and probably was part of some amount of the apparent "belief" of some whose lives did not seem to measure up. Probably a lot of mental hedging of bets.

And I have no problem with them having written our founding documents and leading us into the next century as a nation rather than as a collection of squabbling, independent states.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

I have never said to refrain from praying for the nation. And if you are only focused on Cahn's actual call to prayer, then you might not have any complaint.

But the first half was a run-up to the call to prayer based on the assumption that, like Israel, America was founded in the same manner. And that things like the Mayflower compact, the first inaugural address, and many other statements constituted a basis for Israel-like blessings that we should be able to pray back into existence.

I did not listen to the speech until after reading the debate on it. Therefore I was looking specifically for this and found that the speech was very nuanced and never said this. He used Israel as an example of how God can both bless and discipline a nation. He said that the US is the most blessed nation in human history, but never made a connection to God's covenant with Israel as though the US has a special covenant with God and he never insinuated that either. The point I got is that if you pray for God's blessings then you have to also expect God's discipline. Washington's inaugural address and the subsequent consecration of the New nation were evidence that many had prayed for God's blessing, as further evidenced by a prayer breakfast on the morning of the inauguration for the blessings of God.

His contention is that 9/11 was the harbinger of God's judgment. On the surface that seems like the kind of thing that many false teachers would use to sell books. However, his 9 harbingers based on Isaiah 9:10 are very compelling.

Originally Posted by OBW

In effect, these historical documents, speeches, etc., are being treated like a contract between America and God upon which we can be blessed. And returning to that state is being treated like a "first love." We love that country so much better than the one we have now. We have the most tolerant country ever (or at least nearly so) and yet we have to have more. It is consuming us. We are willing to redirect the thrust of our prayers to get it back.

Yes, he contends that we have removed and erased God from our national psyche, and this is strongly related to God's judgment. His major example was 50 million abortions. This is why I used the verse reference that I did to show that abortions were the basis for God to give the good land to Israel and drive the nations that were there out. 50 million abortions is a strong basis for God's judgment. The NT is clear, God is the one who raises up kingdoms and overthrows them.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am all for praying for peace within our borders and with the rest of the world. I am for praying for a turn in the minds of those who would call unrighteousness righteousness. I am for prayer to turn hearts from wickedness to God. But even if there is a true revival, I do not dare treat it as some kind of special blessing from God on the nation, but on those who turn back to Him.

We are sojourners in a foreign land. It may be a reasonably favorable land, but it is not the kingdom of God. It is the kingdom of the world. No matter how good an inaugural address is, how righteous the Mayflower compact was, how many references there were to God in various other documents or how many times meetings of the fledgling government were opened with prayer — even of some length — it is a secular nation. No amount or prayer can put on the nation a label that does not apply to all of its citizens. And "followers of God" does not apply to nearly all of them now.

Once again, I listened carefully and there was not any suggestion that I picked up that this nation is "the kingdom or God".

According to my reading of the US constitution there is no law that makes abortion legal. However, I do feel there is a law that prohibits the federal government from legalizing abortion. The freedom of religion, as a right, says that the US government will not make any law that prohibits the worship of God. I think the verses that I have quoted as well as many others in the OT make it very clear that sacrificing your child or your seed to Molech (God of fornication) or Baal (your career) is something that inhibits the free worship of our God in this country. Therefore, according to the Constitution the Federal government has no right to legalize it, especially in the way they did with a Supreme Court ruling which essentially makes it a law on some bogus explanation. Abortion is something that each state should decide for themselves. That would not make us any less of a "secular nation".

Originally Posted by OBW

Or even then. They may have had a better percentage. Or at least so if you take into account the fact that much of the major philosophy of the day was Judeo-Christian based. But while a valid study of the scripture is rightly a branch of philosophy, a philosophy merely based upon its tenets does not a Christian make. And there was plenty of that in play in that day and age. Pascal's wager was relatively new and probably was part of some amount of the apparent "belief" of some whose lives did not seem to measure up. Probably a lot of mental hedging of bets.

And I have no problem with them having written our founding documents and leading us into the next century as a nation rather than as a collection of squabbling, independent states.

So then we cannot pray for God's blessing because only a minority of citizens are "followers of God"? I already gave you the verse that God blessed the Egyptian household that Joseph was in for Joseph's sake. Surely Joseph was a minority, but he was a "follower of God" and that was sufficient. Now if God can bless Egypt for Joseph's sake and almost sink a ship for Jonah's sake, I think it is very clear that God can judge this nation for keeping silent while an unimaginable slaughter is going on.

[ZNPaaneah]

The dissenting opinion by the two justices that voted against Roe v Wade

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

To my opinion it is ridiculous to argue that the framers of the constitution were including the right to an abortion to the "right to privacy". Second, the freedom of religion trumps this anyway. I agree with the dissenting opinion. This is something that should be left to the States to decide. That way if you disagree with the decision you can move. I don't live in Nevada and I don't live in Utah.

Why doesn't the "right to privacy" extend to prostitution, a "don't ask don't tell" kind of ruling. Or why doesn't it extend to polygamy.

Laws should be legislated, not imposed by 7 justices.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The dissenting opinion by the two justices that voted against Roe v Wade

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

To my opinion it is ridiculous to argue that the framers of the constitution were including the right to an abortion to the "right to privacy". Second, the freedom of religion trumps this anyway. I agree with the dissenting opinion. This is something that should be left to the States to decide. That way if you disagree with the decision you can move. I don't live in Nevada and I don't live in Utah.

Why doesn't the "right to privacy" extend to prostitution, a "don't ask don't tell" kind of ruling. Or why doesn't it extend to polygamy.

Laws should be legislated, not imposed by 7 justices.

Too true.

How about that. We agree on something. (Probably won't be the last time either.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At this point aron I'm not sure what you are trying to say...

Well, I could also be held up as a sloppy and disjointed thinker and writer. Maybe I am just jealous of those who have also done so, and made such a good living at it! Mea culpa if I have not been clear.

What I was getting at (possibly unrelated to discussions of Jonathan Cahn!) was people like Hank Hanegraaf introducing Gretchen Passantino as a "world-renowned expert" in her CRI write-up on the Local Churches. Number one, world-renowned experts usually don't need to be introduced as such. They simply let their credentials do the talking. Number two, Hanegraaf, her co-worker, is not a good source for such an assessment. But unfortunately there are a lot of gullible rubes out there, and Hanegraaf is handsomely rewarded for making confident assertions to them.

Another example is the Living Stream Ministry-affiliated Local Churches touting the "rich ministry of Witness Lee". Number one, that is not very christian to puff yourself up thusly. If it's true, let your work do the talking. Number two, again we have a clear financial conflict of interest here. A group stands to profit if they can convince potential consumers how good the product/output of the "ministry" of Witness Lee is.

I think that good scholarship says: Here is an idea, a thought, an hypothesis: "X" causes "Y"; or "A" is equivalent to "B". One humbly enters this idea into the discussion not as if it were the final word. One admits that POSSIBLY others have valid ideas as well, perhaps somewhat different from this idea. One offers alternatives, and admits possible flaws. One looks for evidence.

My point was that a lot of Christian shepherds and teachers make a lot of money leading a lot of gullible sheep astray, by presenting them with and oversimplified, distorted gospel. Like cotton-candy sellers at the fair, they don't really care about your health, they just want sales. But to get sales they have to pretend they care about you.

Where Jonathan Cahn falls into this mercantilization of the Gospel I don't know. He seems to point to bothersome questions to a vague publisher: "Don't look at me; I'm only the author. I didn't market this book."

http://standupforthetruth.com/2012/0...ers-questions/

The only thing I really know is OBW wasn't impressed and I kind of think like OBW (I think) so I jumped in. Perhaps my input didn't help this thread and/or discussion. Again, mea culpa.