Should You Fear Hell?

I have been noticing that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been more active lately. They have been coming through passing out tracts and attempting to convert people to their man-centered religion of false hope. The tract I received today has the question on the front page "Should You Fear Hell?" On the fifth page the tract cites Jesus from Mark 9:47-48

"If your eye causes you to sin," said Jesus, "get rid of it. You would be better off to go into God's kingdom with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell. The worms there never die, and the fire never stops burning."

Here are the last two paragraphs responding to what Jesus was referring to.

When Jesus spoke of the undying worms and unquenchable fire, he was apparently alluding to Isaiah 66:24. Regarding 'the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against [God],' Isaiah says that "their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.' Jesus and his listeners knew that these words in Isaiah referred to the treatment of the carcasses of those not deserving burial.

Therefore, Jesus used the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, as a fitting symbol of death without hope of a resurrection. He drove this point home when he warned that God 'can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.' (Matt 10:28, NAB) Gehenna is a symbol of eternal death, not eternal torture."

My basic response to the Watch Tower tract is simple. Should I fear death?

I remember years prior to my conversion asking Christians why can't God just annihilate us. Why does there have to be a hell? In other words, I wanted to have happen to me what JWs say will happen to unbelievers. I was not afraid of death as defined by the Watch Tower at all.

What could Jesus possibly be referring to when He says in John 5,

Joh 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
Joh 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Jesus is teaching about the future resurrection in which all men are raised. Those who committed the evil deeds shall rise to a judgment. Is this a judgment that last 5 minutes? So what if I am judged? Have you ever stood in judgment and wanted to escape it? Of course we all have. Why do we wish to escape it? Simply because of our guilt. If we disappear into annihilation, where is the guilt?

But there is more than this taught in the New Testament. Paul tells us in Romans 2

Rom 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Rom 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

How do we receive wrath if we are annihilated? Is not the contrast with Eternal Life? Now obviously the Jehovah's Witness will say "yes". Why? Because they see living and being alive in contrast with nonexistence. The Bible is clearly seeing a different contrast. Eternal Life with God and living in peace as his image bearers as opposed to the kind of life under God's wrath and judgment.

One more text. Paul teaches us in Thessalonians that God's retribution against the wicked is coming. Out of this judgment the church will be delivered on the Last Day or the Day of the Lord.

1Th 5:3 While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

Again, what kind of destruction are we talking about? If it is instantaneous annihilation, why should I fear? How is retribution received if we are not existing to receive it?

Again the question is obvious. Should you fear God's wrath? If you are a God-hater, keep in mind you are as Paul speaking by the Spirit says, "a child of wrath".

John 3:16 Conference, Reymond Hyper-Calvinist

Now according to my friend Mark (I just love saying this) who is at the John 3:16 conference, David Allen is claimed to have argued that Robert Reymond is a hyper-Calvinist. Being that this information is second hand and interaction with primary material is difficult, caution must be granted. Yet we all know this is a conference against Calvinism. Calling Calvinists hyper-Calvinists or defining Calvinism to mean hyper-Calvinism has been all to common by these pastors. One need only listen to Dr. White (who was also called a hyper-Calvinist) review some of their sermons on the Dividing Line to verify such a claim.

Now hyper-Calvinism has an historic definition. Something which these pastors are often confused about. Allow me to quote Tim Challies for a definition.

A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Now allow to me contrast these definitions with Robert Reymond's "Summary of the Doctrine" of effectual calling found in his Systematic Theology. Keep in mind as you read these two paragraphs that the doctrine of effectual calling according to reformed doctrine comes about primarily through the external call or the Gospel proclamation.

"Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel" (Shorter Catechism, Question 31). By the regenerating work of His Spirit, God the Father irresistibly summons, normally in conjunction with the Church's proclamation of the Gospel, the elect sinner into fellowship with, and into the kingdom of, His Son Jesus Christ. His call is rendered effectual by the quickening work of the Spirit of God the Father and God the Son in the hearts of the elect.

By the Spirit's regenerating work the elect sinner (1) is made spiritually alive, thereby opening and favorably disposing him to the things of the Spirit, which were foolishness to him before (1 Cor 2:14), (2) is convinced of his sin, (3) is enlightened to the all-sufficiency of the Savior Jesus Christ as He is offered in the Gospel, and (4) is renewed in his will, rendering him thereby willing (no sinner is brought to Christ against his will!) and able to embrace Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord. In other words, the Spirit's work makes the sinner willing and able to repent and to believe, but his repenting and believing per se are not aspects of the effectual call itself. They are his divinely effected responses to God's effectual call which, taken together, are indicative of his conversion.

Reymond also discusses the effects of the Atonement. All men need to repent and believe. He writes,

"So too, the God of salvation, in order to save His elect (His particular end), has commanded both that the Gospel should be proclaimed not simply to the elect but to men everywhere (His general means) and that all men should repent (Acts 17:30)." -page 684

After citing several passages speaking of God's goodness to all mankind he writes,

"These and the myriad other passages that speak of God's goodness to all-the just and the unjust (designated by theologians as His "common grace"), and His love for the world which moved Him to give even His own Son for it..." -page 201

I hope it is seen that it is simply impossible to believe what Reymond has written and be a hyper-Calvinist according to the definitions provided. He clearly says that the Gospel proclamation is the normal means by which the sinner is saved (others that might be saved are infants who obviously need different means). He clearly writes that sinners do not come to Christ against their wills but have their wills changed by God's sovereign grace through the means of preaching the Gospel. Since no one knows who the elect are, the external call must be made to all men. This he teaches when he speaks of the "church's proclamation of the Gospel". Reymond teaches about God's common grace as a result of God's mercy. We must keep in mind that Christ's work offers benefits to all.

In conclusion, in has been my observation that non-Calvinists read the writings of Calvinists through their Arminian glasses. They are able to wrest quotes out of their contexts simply because they are not able to grasp one key idea, man is a sinner in the deepest sense. Man does not have a free will, yet he freely chooses to do what he desires (as long as God is not restraining his evil). Until they see that we are not "mostly dead" but really are dead, this conference will not solve anything.

John 3:16 Conference's Mood

I have been noticing for some time that non-Calvinists see Calvinists as being too logically minded. We make logical inferences from Scripture to believe that Jesus died for only the elect. Notice Andrew Lindsey's statement on the mood of the John 3:16 Conference.

The mood of the Conference, as best as I can determine thus far, does not seem to be vitriolic nor panicked in regards to Calvinism. From the conversations I have over-heard, Conference-goers tend to regard Calvinism as an attempt to draw systematic, logical conclusions from Scripture (rather than being based directly upon Scripture), and Conference-goers genuinely believe that Calvinists have come to wrong conclusions, which are contradicted by specific scriptural texts. Conference-goers seem to be looking to the speakers at this Conference to provide an exegetical basis from which they can offer a defense for their rejection of Calvinism.

First notice that Calvinists come to logical conclusions that are in error while the non-Calvinists have their myriad of other texts that speak clearly to the issue. Yet the Conference goers are looking for exegetical support. Ironic isn't it?

Also notice that Calvinists are drawing what they believe to be logical conclusions from ideas being taught from Scripture. In other words, what the Calvinist believes is suposedly not directly taught but only inferred as a logical conclusion. Is this the case? As Waldron argues from his lecture Substitutionary Atonement is simply come to its own. In other words, Calvinists are not arguing logical inferences but the simple definitions of words.

For instance Substitutionary atonement by definition must be limited to the Elect alone. How could it be argued otherwise? Are we going to say Jesus bore the wrath substitutionarily for those who go to hell? Of course not. This is not merely a logical conclusion, it is the meaning of the terminology itself. To say otherwise is like saying the Patriots won the game by 3 points, therefore they won the game. Although this can be stated in a logical format it is not merely a logical conclusion. It is what it is!

Christians also live vicariously through the Savior. When Paul says, Christ died for us all, therefore all died, he is clearly not speaking about every individual ever. He is referring to the elect. When Jesus died, we died. When Christ was buried, we were buried. When He was raised from the dead, we were raised form the dead. When He ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of God, we sat in the heavenly places with Him.

Allow me to offer an illustration. Men in America love the NFL. We watch our team as if we were playing ourselves. When our team wins the Super Bowl, we vicariously live through them. We feel as though we are winning too. There is a real player-fan relationship.

We also do this with our children. When we watch our children play little league, we often live our youth again through their playing. When our child stands at the plate and strikes out, we are in some kind of mystical bond with them feeling their pain.

So let me ask the question this way. Can a lost person in hell say that Jesus bore the wrath of God for him in his place? Can he say that Christ's death and resurrection is his death and resurrection?

The question of the conference should not be whether or not John 3:16 is true. It should be whether or not we will abandon the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.

John 3:16 Conference

For those of you that are unaware, there is currently a conference within the SBC called the John 3:16 Conference. The point of the conference is to deflect the growing Calvinistic movement withiin the walls of the SBC. Unlike the Building Bridges Conference sponsored by Founders, this conference has no Calvinists speaking nor is there any debate or discussion. This is simply a one-sided Conference.

Now if non-Calvinists wish to have a conference on Calvinism that is fine. Go for it. Yet, as usual, non-Calvinists keep repeating the same red herrings over and over again. Andrew Lindsey and my Georgian friend Mark Lamprecht are at the conference. I suppose we could call them Calvinist spies who are offering coverage of the conference from Tim Challies Blog and Mark's Sweet Tea and Theology Blog.

My friend Mark point out a few statements from David Allen's lecture on Limited Atonement.

"Robert Raymond - a hyper-Calvinist. Gives a logical, long quote."

Now I own Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology. Reymond is not a hyper-Calvinist. So I look forward to the MP3s and source that he cites. Oh wait. They seem to not be offering free MP3s? I was really hoping to interact with this material. I guess we will just have to move on.

Mark reports Allen as saying,

Sam Waldron - In Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue the free offer of the Gospel does not require that we tell people that Christ “died for you.” No where in the Bible is the Gospel proclaimed that Christ died for “you.”

Opposition to Waldron - 1 Cor. 15:3 - Paul that Christ died for their sins. Acts 3:26 on Peter. Luke 22:20-21 where Jesus states His blood was shed for Judas. Calvin says Judas was at the table.

Now I have listened to Waldron's lecture from Building Bridges. Waldron was clearly referring to the Gospel call to the unChurched. To then quote Paul in the context of a letter to the church at Corinth and writing to believers is simply mixing apples and oranges. Allen ought to know this. Again, without interaction and discussions and debates, how are we supposed to "get along"?

As for Allen citing Luke 22:20-21, Jesus speaks of the cup of the New Covenant.

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him." 23They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Jesus is very clear He is speaking to the disciples as a whole. Please notice however, that He singles out one and only one. He places that man under a "woe" or a curse. Doesn't the context speak clearly that Judas violates the Covenant and comes under its curses? Isn't there an aspect of the Covenant that seals those for whom it is made unto eternal life? I assume Allen believes in some form of eternal security. If so, what is the basis of that security? Is it himself? Ahhhh, the blessings of not having cross-examination. You simply immune yourself from criticism.

Reformed Baptist Church Garden City

If you are a reformed baptist in the Garden City, KS area, you may have noticed there are no Reformed Baptist churches. It is my hope and prayer that the Lord would be willing to start such a work. Right now, my family is in the preliminary stages of the preliminary stages of attempting to begin such a work.

First, we have have been thinking for quite some time about this. We have been reading articles and talking with pastors as to our approach. Over time we have truly grown to see what a daunting task lays before us. Not only is the difficulty due to the fact we live 30 miles away from Garden City, but other logistical issues come to the forefront. Stan Reeve's articles on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship Blog explains much of what needs to be done.

Some of you may be asking, "Why are you wanting to do this?" I believe there are those who are more of the concrete thinkers that do not seek to be merely experiential but instead desire the Biblical meat that accompanies the desire to glorify God in the proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection. There are those who are interested in apologetics and theology. I also believe there are some people who see the London Baptist Confession of Faith as a confession that is able to bind a fellowship and bring a certain kind of order to that fellowship's worship. This is not to say that other church's are wrong or not Christian. It is simply a need that may be met with this kind of fellowship.

In the end, Christ will do what He wants with His church. I pray He is pleased to start such a fellowship.

Dr. White On the Election

MMFC part 3: Bearing Fruit

Perhaps you have been caught on a Saturday morning by those 2 evangelists from the local Kingdom Hall. You're just trying to get some chores done, but you don't wish to seem rude. So you spend time talking about religion. During the course of the conversation you mention that you are a Baptist or whatever. Then you hear an interesting response.

"You may judge churches by their fruit. We Jehovah's Witness are working with an organization that is the faithful servant found in the Gospels. We go every Saturday door to door witnessing for Jesus. Does your church do the work we do?"

Every once in a while we have to judge something. Since we don't have the ability to look at someone's heart, we must judge their fruit. This can be a dangerous task. Jesus even warns us in our approach to judging others. We should not be judgmental. We should take the plank out of our own eye before we remove the speck from our brother's eye. Judging is serious business.

In my recent email from MMFC, I was told to judge the ministry by their fruit. The context was obvious. I was to do this instead of looking at their doctrinal stance. In other words, doctrine isn't the problem, works are ultimate in determining whether or not something is right.

Here are two different quotes from their email response to me.

"The board of directors is made up of men from various Christian denominations. MMFC in no way seeks to proselytize for any denomination. We feel humbled that God uses this ministry to help Christian Men of diverse experiences and theological backgrounds to come together for prayer, healing and growth in holiness. We feel that our ministry is based on Truth (Christ) because we have seen the fruit of the tree...his healing and powerful grace working wonders in the lives of his men. This ministry bears His Name and is founded upon Him."

"With this being said, may I ask what is holding you back from this checking out this ministry for yourself? Have you seen the fruit of this ministry in the man who is inviting you to participate in a MMFC weekend? I pray that you might seek the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as you discern what Christ wants you to do with that invitation."

In this post, I'd like to look at some of the problems of judging fruit and some things we ought to consider as we do. If you can think of others, please make comments and contribute your thoughts.

1) Time

I am directly asked if I had seen fruit of the man who asked me. What does this fruit look like I am not told. I am not certain if he means religious excitement or if the man came home and was being nice to his kids or some other act of kindness. What is interesting is that fads constantly come and go, especially in religious circles. So I am supposed to judge fruit within a few days. Jesus tells us in one parable,

"Mat 13:20 "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
Mat 13:21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away."

Time is a great test to see whether or not fruit is abiding fruit or if it is fruit that is here today and gone tomorrow. Perhaps in a few years we will see if this fruit is valid. However, Mormons have been around for quite some time now. Does that mean their religion is the one I should follow? Time is a good indicator, but not the only factor.

2) Appealing to the Eye

Sometimes fruit may on the surface appear to be something that is good. We all know the story of Adam and Eve.

"Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. "

She was deceived. She was self-deceived. She knew what God had commanded. Yet she told herself subjectively that the fruit was good based upon appearance. She went by subjective criteria as to whether or not the fruit was good.

In no place in the email does the writer square the fruit with Scripture. I am just to believe that healings happen due to some subjective experience that could be provided by any group therapy. However, the Gospel certainly was not the source for these healings. So whatever fruit is born out by this ministry, we must take that into consideration.

3) Which fruit is good?

In the parable of the wheat and tares Jesus tells us why the Landowner allows both to grow together.

Mat 13:28 "And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves *said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'
Mat 13:29 "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.

One possible reason the landowner does not want the slaves to rid the field of weeds is that while pulling up the weeds they may pull the wheat because they both may look alike. Right now in western Kansas the wheat is beginning to grow up a few inches before the winter sets. Yet surely there are weeds among the wheat.

So again, this is not only a time issue but a recognition issue. There may be two ministries that look alike. Both may be growing together. It may not be until the end of the age that we truly come to know which is of the Lord and which is not.

4) Doctrinal Fruit

How can we possibly read the New Testament and not see the primacy of creeds and doctrine? Prior to the Reformation, there were many reformers that the Pope of the RC church had to deal with. Many wanted to reform the abuses of indulgences and the like. However, Martin Luther once wrote to the Pope saying that the Pope would remember him over all other reformers because all others were reforming the church on morality. Luther would be going to the Gospel itself. He believed that the Gospel would change hearts, not experiences or any other man-made sacraments.

"MMFC makes no implications beyond what is contained in the Apostles' Creed. This provides a basic theological foundation for our work, without putting ourselves in a particular theological school. Each man is free to interpret the Apostle Creed as it is taught in his church."

Is this what the New Testament teaches? We are all free to interpret the Apostle's Creed?

5) Judging according to the Spirit and not our own natural thinking.

Abiding in Christ's teaching brings us to an understanding of truth. I'll end with Jesus' words.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Joh 8:31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
Joh 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Piper On the Election

Kuddos to Ed. Here is a video with Piper on the election. Here is a man that understands the two kingdoms.

Horton On Washington Post

Michael Horton was online with the WashingtonPost.com discussing his book Christless Christianity. You may read the transcript of the questions and answers here. These three questions and answers I thought were informative.

Norfolk, Va.: What do you consider to be the greatest threat to Orthodox (biblical) Christianity today?

Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton: Shallowness. It is far worse than heresy. At least heretics take the gospel seriously enough to distort and deny it. And heresy always makes the church think more deeply about what it believes and why it believes it. However, shallowness is deadly for the Christian Faith.

If you just need some helpful advice, encouragement, inspiration, and uplift from your religion, you just need enough water to get your feet wet. A few slogans and insights will suffice. But Christianity bets all its chips on certain events that happened in history. "If Christ is not raised," Paul said, "then we are of all people the most to be pitied." After all, he says, we are false witnesses-perjurers-and Jesus is a fraud. You have not lived a happier, healthier, more fulfilling life if Christ was not raised from the dead; you've been duped, and we're accomplices in that, Paul said (1 Corinthians 15).

The gospel is not a religious feeling, a spiritual journey within, or pious advice. It is a story�in the words of the British playwright Dorothy Sayers, 'the greatest story ever told." From this unfolding drama of redemption from Genesis to Revelation arise doctrines, which lead to wonder and thanksgiving, motivating grateful love and service to our neighbors. All of this requires that we submit to the discipline of listening, understanding, and growing in our faith.

But we are channel-surfers. We like to create our own soothing sampler of New Age mysticism, self-help lingo, conservative ideas about virtue, and maybe something to help us keep our kids sober and celibate. Accommodating to this shallow narcissism, churches have largely abandoned their responsibility to teach the rising generations even the basics of the Faith.

Generic religion and spirituality can survive a mindless conservatism or a mindless liberalism, but Christianity cannot. It thrives in an atmosphere of questioning, engaging, wrestling, listening, and reading. If we are only looking for whatever "works"-for the moment, at least�or for what�s entertaining, fun, or affirming, we will always be spiritual infants, if Christians at all.

Woodland, Calif.: My family recently left a Bible-focused Baptist church when a new pastor came along who is attempting to change everything about the church into the Rick Warren seeker-centered church paradigm. How do you deal with parishioners who are staying because they believe the new way of doing things is merely a stylistic change and don't see that Jesus is not being preached anymore?

Thank you

Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton: Wow, have you ever hit on an important issue! First, I admire Rick Warren's zeal. I do not question his commitment to encouraging evangelism and discipleship. We've had some fruitful conversations over the years and he agrees that the gospel is being assumed-taken for granted-in evangelical as well as mainline churches today. My disagreement is over the issue you so clearly picked out in your question. Whatever we believe on paper, it's what we do when we gather as God's people that shows what we regard as front-and-center. One of the arguments I make in the book is that we are all capable of obscuring Christ and his saving work for us with perfectly justifiable-even important-distractions.

When Pastor Warren speaks of the gospel as God's giving us another chance to make him happy (Jesus came to give us a "do-over," as in golf, he on a national TV program last Christmas), that's not good news. My problem isn't that I've just chipped a few balls into the lake, but that if I had a thousand chances to do things over again, I'd still fall short of God's purpose for my life. I need to be rescued, not just redirected. The difference between the two is more than style; it's substance.

When you carve up the body of Christ into niche demographics (with different services, each using a different style of music), you just get religious consumers rather than a truly diverse communion of saints united by "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." So if the basic message is "try harder to find God's purpose and fulfill it; it's deeds, not creeds," and the means of God's grace (preaching, baptism, and the Supper) are replaced with our means of commitment, it's not just style. It's substance. And regardless of what one believes formally, the consequence over the long haul is that it's difficult to tell Christians apart from decent non-Christians who try to live a good life.

Of course you have to have intellectual borrowing from Christianity while disputing it.

Sturbridge, Mass.: What is this? You are coming from a primitive, un-evolved consciousness. This is called ethno-centrism. Spirituality is about personal transformation and this is symbolized by the mythological death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no historical independent attestation for a literal, historical Jesus. Do your homework with an objective mind. The only attestation is the bible, which is full of holes, superstition, and contradiction. The truth is that religion and spirituality are about evolution and transformation. Religion is evolving like everything else, albeit much more slowly due to people who cling to literalist interpretations of ancient myth and "theology." The very theology of a savior who had to die to save us from "God's wrath" is a shame based teaching that implied that God did not get it right the first time when he created our Souls in His image. It's nonsense and this is why Christianity is a dying religion.

Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton: I don't think you would like my book very much. As your argument suggests, if "spirituality is merely about personal transformation," then of course it can be "symbolized by the mythological death and resurrection of Jesus"-or of any other religious figure who either did or did not actually live. But if spirituality is only about what happens inside of us, why would I or anyone else come to the subject with an open mind? We only need to open our minds to a reality that is outside of us and Christianity testifies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in history. The concrete life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of Christ in the flesh is simply unnecessary if the point of it all is merely inner enlightenment, moral uplift, and spiritual transformation.

Last year, my family had to evacuate our home due to the San Diego wildfires. I went from "I can handle this" (at about 4am) to "Let's get in the car!" (at about noon). If I had only my inner thoughts, experiences, and feelings to go by, I might never have left, but there was a fire truck driving by, telling everybody in our neighborhood to leave and head for safety. The fire department was not trying to make me feel bad about myself or my situation, but was simply telling me the facts of the crisis. God's wrath is a fact because he is holy and we are sinful. The Good News is that we don't have to face it: Look outside of yourself and flee to Christ!

Take time to read the rest. It is very informative.

Governments We Deserve Through Fear

Scare tactics are often what the Republicans are accused of doing. Republicans keep reminding Americans about the Terrorist threat. Democrats yell foul constantly. Yet if I remember correctly, approximately 3,000 Americans were attacked and killed a few years ago. Apparently that wasn't real.



In this video we see the enemies of the Democrat party. Enemies are evil corporations and industries such as coal. Why are they enemies? They are trying to pollute the planet and destroy our health.

If this is not a scare tactic I do not know what is. Most Americans have always distrusted government. Most Americans have despised taxes. Most Americans used to know that the main source of power for the government is through reaching into your pocket and taking your money. That is power over our lives.

In order for government to have power over us in the United States, our form of government says that we must freely give up our liberties and freedom to the government. Therefore, the Left in this country has made up up a fear, a fear that has never slaughtered 3,000 Americans nor all of us as a whole. Yet we are more afraid of this fear than Terrorists. That fear is a fear of pollution.

Green House Gases and Global Warming, which have never been demonstrated to be real, have so scared our population that we have literally given up our freedoms and liberties to bureaucracies. Try and find a 2-cycle dirt bike. Try and find a place to ride your dirt bike. Or think of Massachusetts and those yearly Car Inspections that always find something. And when they can not find something wrong with your car, they just ratchet up the standards that your car must pass. You might as well be living in the old Soviet Union.

If you really believe that gasoline is bad, if you really have fallen for the lie of "dirty coal plants", if you really think the average corporation wants to kill us all, most importantly, if you really want to live under tyranny, then vote for Obama/Biden. We will get the government we deserve.