Are patriotic political Christians making the same mistake of idolatry and adding man-made traditions as early church did?

I am reposting this article I did back in 2009, with a new picture and updated links.  (both the old photo link was broken, and I felt it needed to have the links to the other articles I was referring to.)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/church-converted-into-mosque.html

Be sure to review all the articles linked to at the end of that article.

Now, in the light of all the controversy over Dr. White's dialogue with Yasir Qadhi, and the impression that many conservative political / patriotic Christians give to Muslims,

see here:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/07/16/the-real-god-of-american-christians/#comment-52592

the question I have is this:  Are American patriotic / political Christians making the same mistake in a different area that the early church did by the over-exalting of Mary, neglect of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the NT; and the additions of other man-made traditions?

It seems to me the same root of idolatry and leaving our first love.  Revelation 2:4-5

See more of my responses to the Dr. White / Yasir Qadhi controversy over at my other blog:
www.apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com
(see many articles on this issue and responses, go to date archive from January to July 2017; since January 2017, since Dr. White's apologetic dialogue with Dr. Yasir Qadhi.)

A way to celebrate July 4 with righteous anger

These three videos are just ways to express my frustration with the evil things that are going on today in our world.

I was born in 1961, and growing up in the 60s and 70s; I fully realize I am a baby-boomer and I have an internal skepticism of authority, especially our government, and most especially, our current government.  The stuff Nixon did at the time seemed really bad, but the stuff that goes on now, with the liberal media protecting the liberal politicians, is much, much worse.  Government take over of health care - ObamaCare, Benghazi- Gate, IRS scandals, Hillary lying Clinton, the Supreme Court's recent decision on so called "same sex marriage"; abortion that has been going on with government sanction since 1973, President Obama refusing to call Islamic governments, ISIS/ISIL/IS as "Islamic" and terrorists and other Jihadists - "Islamic".  For our current government to label what Nidal Hassan did at Fort Hood as "work-place violence" is one of the most disgusting things ever done by our liberal governement idiots.    Judges making laws, judges fining the bakers, photographers, florists - massive injustice!  Of course I also am angry at the evil racist white guy who killed those Black church folks in Charleston too!  (If I don't mention that, the leftist people will ask, "why don't you get upset with that also?"  Well, it is evil and wrong, and sad; but it was not caused by government force or institutionalized racism or "white supremacy" or a flag that just symbolizes history for most people.)



I realize that Randy Stonehill has been divorced, and that he had problems in his life also; but some of his songs, like this one, are just great.

"Be angry, and yet, do not sin"  - Psalm 4:4 and Ephesians 4:26

I like this song, for it communicates there is a time for righteous anger at sin and injustice and corruption.

I think we can say legitimately that, "There is a time for righteous anger" - Ecclesiastes 3:1-8  (a time to kill and a time to hate = killing murderers and wars against evil regimes and hating sin and evil are good things)

"You who love the Lord, hate evil"  - Psalm 97:10


Angry Young Men
by Randy Stonehill

He wants some angry young men
Ones who can't be bought
Ones who will not run from a fight
Ones who speak the truth whether it's popular or not
Ones who'd give up anything to walk in His light

Chorus

Rest assured when Jesus comes again
He'll be looking for some angry young men

He wants some angry young men
With fire in their eyes
Ones who understand what Jesus gave
Ones who have grown weary
of the world and all its lies
Ones who won't forget they've been
delivered from the grave

(Repeat Chorus)

They say if you don't laugh you cry
I say if you don't live you die
Well, well, the road to hell is paved with
some impressive alibis
But unless you thirst for Jesus first
Man, heaven will pass you by
Heaven will pass you by

You'll be tempted, tried and tested
There'll be wars the devil wins
But God's love is not a license to lie 
there in your sins
He understands the human heart
His mercy is complete
But His grace was not intended
As a place to wipe your feet

(Repeat Chorus)

He wants some angry young men
Who love the Lord they serve
Ones who'll do much more than make a speech
Ones who'll act their faith out with a passion it deserves
'Cause if we cannot live it
Tell me, who are we to preach?

(Repeat Chorus)  

Just Gimme Some Truth!!  

Here is another song - John Lennon's "Gimme Some Truth" (from 1971).
I realise that Lennon was talking against Nixon ("Tricky Dicky"), the Vietnam War, hypocrites in government, and that he is seen as an icon of the left.  I also realise that if Lennon was alive today, he would more than likely approve of, at least, the freedom for homosexuals to have "same sex marriage".  Though he was the most radical of the Beatles, and sometimes a real jerk to people, full of anger, sometimes he was refreshingly honest.  The most famous of Lennon's songs, "Imagine", is the leftist anthem of all that modern liberals want and desire and love.  Many people think "Imagine" was Lennon's best song, rivaling McCartney's "Yesterday".  Bolderdash!  Lennon's, "In My Life", "Nowhere Man", "Strawberry Fields", "I am the Walrus", and "Beautiful Boy" were much better than "Imagine".  "Imagine" is a terrible song, because of the words and the philosophy it espouses.  Good music, terrible words.  Leftist utopian dreams, a unity without truth.  Lennon and Harrison were hypocrites also, committing adultery many times and being very rich, but criticizing others who had wealth.  But I do like a lot of their music; I just wish they had come to know Christ before they died.  

But since the left interprets the Constitution in opposition to its original intent, then I am going to interpret Lennon here against his original intent, and say to President Obama, the liberal Supreme Court Justices, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Jonathan Gruber, nbc, cbs, cnn, abc, etc. - "I am tired of your hypocrisy and lies - gimme some truth; just gimme some truth".  



Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

A scene from the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", starring Jimmy Stewart.  He was a "boy ranger" (like a boy scout of the old days) who went on to be a senator and fought the evil graft and greed and control of politicians by corrupt businessmen and newspapers.

I interpret Mr. Smith as speaking truth to the power against all the lies of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and the other leftist liberals and democrats who don't seem to understand that we cannot have a good government when we don't believe in good vs. evil anymore and are throwing out the moral foundation for our society.  Mr. Smith is like a mouse with truth, standing against the large elephants of the government and media, and corrupt business men and women - we take him for our cause and say to all who have shoved so called "same sex marriage" down our throats, - repent of your evil and go back and read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  "the laws of nature and nature's God", "endowed by their Creator", etc.

Celebrate the 4th of July by watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, focusing your anger against sin and lies, scream "Gimme some truth", and praying for our leaders.  (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

I realize I wrote about "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" before on July 4.    And yeah, I know Frank Capra was Roman Catholic, etc.  Read the comments there, if you want to bring that up again.  I appreciate the Supreme Court Judges who are Roman Catholic - Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and sometimes Roberts.  I like the media cultural commentators also who are Roman Catholic and those that are conservative Jews, like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved.  We can agree with each other on those things - moral values and small government, etc.  It is great to have that political freedom, without persecuting or killing one another, as in the theocracy days of Roman Catholicism, and, to a lesser extent, Calvin's Geneva.

2 of Denny Burk's excellent posts on the Supreme Court's bad decision today

Denny Burk:  "Today's Supreme Court decision was a moral and judicial travesty"

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/a-moral-and-judicial-travesty/


Denny Burk:  "A Prophetic word 11 years ago from John Piper"
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/denny-burk-a-prophetic-word-from-11-years-ago-about-today-john-piper/

Hillary Clinton and the Supreme Court upcoming ruling on "same sex marriage" and the "Gay Agenda's" threat to Christian colleges and Universities and churches

Hillary Clinton said that deep seated religious beliefs have to be changed.

No Mrs. Clinton, you must repent of your sinful position.  Luke 13:1-5

She is saying this to her base, and showing them that she is against Christians who believe abortion is murder and evil, and that homosexuality and so called "same sex marriage" is wrong.

She seems to deliberately mix in things about women's rights in other countries with code speech for other issues she wants to change in the USA.  (abortion; homosexuality; so called "same sex marriage")

Her context talks a lot about other countries and the dangers to girls and women in other countries and cultures.  I wonder why she doesn't come out clearly and say anything about the fact that most of these problems and unjust treatment of women are in Muslim countries, which we have no authority to change their own laws and cultures.  We can agree that women suffer great injustices in Muslim countries, but liberals and leftists mix that in with abortion and homosexuality here in USA to try and bolster their base and sway the middle of the road voters.




I tried maybe 100 times, it seems, to embed the fox news video clip below, but I was unable to get it to work.  So be sure to go to click on it and watch it, if you have not seen this.

This report points out that the lawyer admitted to Justice Sam Alito that Christian colleges and Universities and organizations (and probably churches) are going to be hit with lawsuits and this will become a real issue if the Supreme Court rules that "same sex marriage" should be legal in all 50 states.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4220594877001/same-sex-marriage-case-raising-religious-liberty-concerns/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

Piper's insightful analysis of the homosexual / "same sex marriage" issue

Two of John Piper's "Ask Pastor John" podcasts; one recent and one from 2013:

1.  What to say to a pastor who wants to officiate a "gay wedding".   (April 30, 2015)


http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-to-say-to-a-pastor-who-wants-to-officiate-a-gay-wedding

The same can be said of Transgenderism - it is a disorder in the soul and rebellion of the way God created the person.

excerpts:

"The emotional and physical sensations that we call same-sex attraction are disordered emotions and disordered sensations. And that disordering of the soul’s emotions and the body’s sensations are rooted in the fall of humanity into sin and, more specifically, they are rooted in the sin that is understood as exchanging God’s glory for images (Romans 1:23). So the exchange of woman as the glory of man for another man is a parable of the exchange of God for images like ourselves.
A person who experiences this disorder — this disordering of the emotions of the soul and the sensations of the body — may or may not himself exchange God for images. He may be a Christian. But the disordering he is experiencing is rooted in that original sin and in that ongoing human bent of soul that we all have, all of us.
The issue becomes: What do we do with the disordering effects of sin in our lives? I say our lives. And you will see why in a minute — John Piper’s life. The Bible says that if we embrace the disordering as good and normal and live our lives in accord with the disordered inclinations, then we will be living and affirming a parable of rebellion against God. And the Bible says those who live out that kind of rebellion do not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9)."

Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral [that is fornication, because it is distinguished from the next two], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
In other words, if you embrace and live out as normal and good any of these, you perish, because you are living a parable of rebellion.  . . . 

Officiating at a so-called same-sex “wedding” is the same as putting your blessing on the choice of two people to commit eternal suicide. The pastor is solemnizing and making official and blessing their choice not to enter the kingdom of heaven. . . . 

“American society is in the midst of a passionate pursuit of self-destruction.” 

"Now I would say that if a pastor asks his board if he can do that, he has given a signal that he is disqualified from his role of leading the sheep into the kingdom of heaven. And so he has put himself in a position of needing church discipline. And his board should follow the principles of Matthew 18 to seek his repentance as gently and patiently as they can. And then if he does not repent of his willingness to bless people’s eternal suicide and thus lead them out of the kingdom of heaven and into destruction, he should be dismissed as a false shepherd from both the pastorate and the church."
(John Piper; embolding and italics are my emphasis)

2.  Would you attend a "gay wedding"?   (October 10, 2013)

Listen to the voice of broken-ness and compassion, but holding firm to the truth of the Scriptures.  No Christian should attend a "gay wedding"; but we can still love our family members and friends who take this route, talk to them, share the gospel with them, have them over for a meal, etc.

Politicians need to listen to Piper on his issue.

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/would-you-attend-a-gay-wedding

Round-up of some recent videos and articles on the issues of homosexuality and so called "same sex marriage"

An Interview with Kevin DeYoung; and about his book and sermon on "What the Bible Teaches about Homosexuality"


"Top 10 Questions the Supreme Court Justices asked on the Constitutional right to "same sex marriage".

Number 2 was Justice Kennedy, who is the swing vote.
Justice Kennedy expressed concern about whether it was prudent for the Supreme Court to step in and change the definition of an institution that was as old, to use his language as “millennia.” In short, he asked whether it was is imprudent and unwise to suggest that the Supreme Court knows better than ancient history and its belief about marriage.

Denny Burk always has good articles on the issues of homosexuality, "same-sex marriage", transgenderism, etc.  (among other Biblical and cultural subjects)


Dr. James White's response to Dr. David Gushee, Part 1



A few points:
Matthew Vines, author of the book, "The Gay Christian", introduced Dr. Gushee.  See Dr. James White's response to Matthew Vines. "Gay Christianity Refuted".

Dr. Gushee is a professor of ethics, an ethicist at the liberal leaning, historically Baptist (but it formally cut ties with the Southern Baptist denomination in 2006)- Mercer University in Macon, Ga.

Dr. White made an excellent point that conservative Christians need to take time to listen to what those like Dr. Gushee are saying and be ready to respond with apologetic answers, with truth and love; and that those Christians who are just dismissing him, not listening, or calling people names; are not helping matters.

It is amazing that Dr. Gushee used Jeremiah chapter 1:17-19 as his text for his message, claiming that he is giving the "unpopular" message and that somehow Jeremiah and the Lord would agree with him.  The historical background and context of the book of Jeremiah, and the charges that Jeremiah brings against Judah and it's sins and corruption and apostasy - the breaking of God's law by the people of Judah and God's impending judgement by bringing the Babylonians to judge Judah and destroy the temple and take the people into exile; we know that Jeremiah would be on the side of those of us who continue to hold to Biblical and traditional marriage.  Indeed, the heart of the gay agenda is truly deceptive and self-deceptive. (Jeremiah 17:9)  How many passages in Jeremiah speak of the people of Judah forsaking the Lord, backsliding, apostasy, breaking God's law in idolatry, adultery, injustice, deception, murder, greed, etc (see Jeremiah 7:8-11; and also chapter 2-4)?  Jeremiah began his ministry during the time of king Josiah (Jeremiah 1:2), who led a revival, recovering God's law when the high priest, Hilkiah, Jeremiah's father (Jer. 1:1), found the book of the law in the temple, when repairing the temple.  (2 Kings 22:5-8)  The very same book of the law that has passages like Genesis chapters 1-2, chapter 19, and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in it!

Jeremiah even says that the people have become like Sodom and Gommorah in Jeremiah 23:14. (see also Jer. 49:18)  Obviously, Jeremiah himself would not agree with Dr. Gushee's twisting of his message from Jeremiah 1:17-19.

"Now, gird up your loins and arise, and speak to them all which I command you. Do not be dismayed before them, or I will dismay you before them.  Now behold, I have made you today as a fortified city and as a pillar of iron and as walls of bronze against the whole land, to the kings of Judah, to its princes, to its priests and to the people of the land.  They will fight against you, but they will not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you,” declares the Lord."  Jeremiah 1:17-19

In Jeremiah 6:15 and 8:12 he says about the people in their sins, "did not even know how to blush" - they had no shame in their sins.  This reminds us of today's homosexual movement.

Dr. Gushee attempts to make a parallel of unjust treatment against homosexuals with the unjust treatment of Jews in church history; with the wrong interpretation of certain passages (Matthew 27:25; John 8:44; Acts 7:51-53) and treatment of Jewish people in Christian history, with the history of interpretation of texts about homosexuality and the harsh and contemptuous treatment of homosexuals in history - by the church.   It is true that some twisted those passages as meaning "all Jews", including future generations, but that was obviously wrong, because most of the Christians of the first century were Jews, the disciples and apostles were Jews, and Romans 9-11 shows that some Jews are still coming to Christ, and that many in the future will be turning to Christ.  Also, those passages do not condemn all Jews for what the Jewish leaders under Caiphas, Annas, and the Pharisees did to Jesus.  The parallel is not a good one, for the texts about homosexuality are about sinful behavior, not an ethnicity.

 I was surprised that Dr. Gushee did not also use 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 in his case.  It only means those specific Jews who persecuted the Messiah and who were persecuting the churches of the Thessalonians.   I remember years ago listening to a debate between Dr. Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man and author of The Kingdom of the Cults, vs. the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair - where O'Hair said that those Bible texts should not even be mentioned and that when speaking of the crucifixion of Jesus, one should just say, "those guys" or "some people did it", after admitting that the texts don't say "all Jews".

Dr. White has pointed out many times, that not only are there the very clear texts against homosexual lusts and homosexual sex acts, but the Gay activists constantly call those "clobber texts" or "just a few scattered texts"; but they are missing the entire positive message of marriage all through Scripture of creation, marriage as between a man and a woman, passages in Proverbs 5 and the whole book of Song of Solomon, Jesus' quoting of Genesis 1 and 2, and . . . the image of the church as the bride of Christ and that there is only one bride and one Groom/husband - the 2 aspect of the gender binary.

One problem is that Dr. Gushee never even interacted with any of the positive Biblical texts on marriage (Genesis chapters 1-2, Matthew 19:4-6; Song of Solomon, Ephesians 5:21-33; 1 Corinthians 7, Colossians 3, Proverbs 5 . . .

The gender binary of 2 in marriage, between a man and a woman, is all throughout the Bible - man and woman, husband and wife, bride and groom, is seen and pictured in the church and God's love for His own people, His bridge, and the end of redemption history:

Revelation chapters 21-22 - "the heavenly Jerusalem, "like a bride who has made herself ready for her husband"

"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband."   Revelation 21:2 

"they will be His peoples" - Rev. 21:3  (there is a textual variant there, but peoples seems to me to the better reading - laoi - λαοὶ - and it goes with Revelation 5:9 better. 

“Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”  Revelation 21:9

"The Spirit and the bride say, "come!"  Revelation 22:17

At one point (might be in part 2, I am not taking the time right now to go back and find it), Gushee gives an illustration about the rights to get married, and it was interesting that he left out the "B" part of LGBT in his illustration, because for the "B" (Bisexuals) to have marriage rights according to their own desires and inherent attractions, they would have to be able to have the right to marry two other people, thus creating a "Three-some", not a couple.  Dr. White pointed this out and called it a "Thruple" (spelling ?) 

Dr. Gushee, not only did not engage in any of the positive marriage texts (see above) that marriage is between a man and woman, but also never engaged any of the key texts in exegesis, that are clearly against homosexual sex acts and also reveal that any kind of "same sex attraction" is a brokenness from God's original design.  

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:18-28
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:8-11

Conservative, Biblical Christians freely acknowledge that there are people who experience same sex attractions and desires and struggle with them.  We agree with Dr. Gushee that hatred and name calling and bullying is not right, and that is perhaps the big lesson that Christians have to learn today, for it seems that they current "Gay movement" and push for same-sex marriage has a lot of a spirit of revenge in it, like the incident several years ago, of homosexuals ganging up on a little old lady for expressing her views for Proposition 8 that marriage is only for a man and woman; 

for the wrongs that were done against people with these experiences.  (like the pressure put on the CEO, Brendan Eich, of Mozilla Firefox to resign, 

the pressure put on Louie Giglio to pull out of the Presidential prayer; 

and 

the suing and taking to court the bakers, 

photographers, 

and florists who only did not want to participate in "same sex marriage" ceremonies.) 

Dr. Gushee never differentiates between the Biblical view of sin, repentance, and issues of church discipline vs. unjust bullying and name-calling, but rather seems to lump it all together under "contempt for LGBT people"



Part 2 of Dr. White's Response to Dr. David Gushee:



One of the best points that Dr. White made in this section was when he asked Dr. Gushee, "Do you still believe in the Deity of Christ?"  "Didn't Christ know the hearts of man-kind?"  Dr. Gushee claims that 5% of the population is homosexual.  (a larger estimate than others make at around 2.5 to 3 %) "Didn't Christ know that there are 5% of people who are homosexual in orientation, that you claim?"  "At the feeding of the 5,000, that means that at least 250 men were there were homosexual?"  What about the women who were Lesbians?  "Why didn't Jesus, the God-man, say anything about them?"  Why didn't Jesus offer them any words of comfort or compassion?

Gushed talks about the percentages of homeless children and teenagers are LGBT, but he fails to mention that much of that was caused by other factors that usually cause the homelessness - drugs, rebellion, defiant behavior, stealing, etc.

Part 3 of Dr. White's Response to Dr. David Gushee:



Dr. White pointed out, in either in part 2 or 3, Dr. Gushee talks about Christians who just quote a passage out of Leviticus 18, yet they should be focusing on the passage that says "love your neighbor as yourself", seemingly not realizing that the passage that Jesus quoted several times about "love your neighbor as yourself" is originally from Leviticus 19:18 !!

Interesting that Dr. Gushee challenged the audience to:
1.  When this message of inclusion for LGBT in the church is resisted, you "double down".
2.  "Get out there" and spread this message and make your voice known.

However, when Dr. White challenged Dr. Gushee to debate, Dr. Gushee said that he did not have time to deal with him or others who want to challenge him.

Amazing!  What better way for Dr. Gushee to get his message out (Matthew Vine's also, who also told Dr. White that he would debate, but later backed out), than for them to have a fair and moderated debate vs. either Dr. White,

or Dr. Michael Brown, 

or Dr. Robert Gagnon?  

Dr. White rightly challenged Dr. Gushee again, and told him he is under moral obligation to debate the issue, given that he is an ethicist, and given the seriousness of his accusations against the church and accusing the church of the same sins against the LGBT people as was perpetrated against Jewish people by some Christians in history.

See also Dr. White's debate/dialogue with Justin Lee. 

and

debate vs. Barry Lynn

and

debate vs. John Shelby Spong

Rome in politics

Hey Rome: Do you really mean it?

Arctic Pilgrim asks a whole bunch of excellent questions of Rome.

Liberal Media hypocrisy

From USA Today. 

Addendum:  

I realize that if someone has to explain a joke or political cartoon, then it looses it's point.  So I changed the original title and took out too much explanation of the cartoon; and now just want to let the cartoon speak for itself. 

_______________________

  I was recovering from dental work on three teeth and decided to watch and listen to the live streaming of the Benghazi hearings and Secretary of state Hillary Clinton's testimony, while I did some light office work.  

The Benghazi hearings were painful to listen to and watch - all the Democrats on both sides of the Congress waisted their 5 minutes with praise and fawning over Hillary Clinton and no Democrat asked one tough question; not one.  Many questions still remain unanswered.  Only conservative media is asking the tough questions - oh, and a few Republican Senators and Representatives.   But I learned why the American people don't like Congress much at all.  Those that take the time to watch them on live streaming or C-Span type of coverage, are finding out why we are in so much debt and how our tax money is being wasted at an incredibly massive scale.

In his own words . . .

@barackobama Your words about Sandy Hook murders applied to abortion youtu.be/Opl0jnKbn5Y#ABC #CNN #Foxnews #NBC #CBS #ProLife #Abortion
— Ken Temple (@Kenneedsgrace) January 12, 2013

Can doctrinal Islam not always seek to "Conquer the world"??

Here is a story on captured Jihadists in Syria being interviewed.  ( I saw this from Dr. White's tweet and link to it, "Hard times ahead for our brothers and sisters in Syria".)  You should read the article and watch the video.  The beginning of the video was confusing to me without context, but the article makes it more organized.

Not all Muslims believe this application of Islam, but this does seem to be the expression of real doctrinal and consistent Islam from Muhammad and the early centuries of Islamic history.  The news reporter seemed like he did not know what with do with the Muslims who were kind of friendly and smiling and open and yet expressed that to follow real Islam, they will make war with Christians and give them the choice of surrendering and paying the Jiziye or the Muslims will fight you to the death, after they take back Israel and Spain and Portugal.

We hope not, but it does honestly seem that the "Arab Spring" and the take-down of dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Qaddafi of Libya - could eventually result in some kind of Islamist State that seeks to get back to the way Muhammad and the Caliphate carried out aggressive war after 621/622 AD and applied Islamic Law in their lands for centuries.

Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa (خليفة - khalīfah) meaning "successor" (of Muhammad), "viceroy", "substitute", "lieutenant-leader". 

The periods of the Islamic Caliphate - 632 AD - 1924 (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1)

1.  Rashidun Caliphate  - The first four "rightly guided" Caliphs - Abu Bakr, Omar (or Umar), Uthman, and Ali - 632-661 AD)  All Salafi and Wahabi (movement named after the basic philosophy behind the state of Saudi Arabia) and Jihadist movements seek to return the Muslim world to the period of Muhammad after the Hegira (622-632 AD) and the Rashidun Caliphate.   "Salaf" means the "pioneer - leaders of old"; it means Muhammad and his companions and successors and the third generation of successors.  It usually does not include the Ummayid Caliphate, as far as I can tell.

2.   the Ummayid Caliphate (661-750 AD).  (headquartered in Damascus, Syria)

3.  the Abbasid Caliphate, (750 - 1258 AD)  Based in Baghdad.  Within the Abbasid period, the Fatimids gained power in North Africa and Egypt and the Hijaz (Mecca and Medina).  (see below)

4.  The Fatimid Caliphate.  (909 - 1171 AD) was an Ismaili Shiite movement that covered mostly N. Africa and Egypt, until the defeat of the Crusaders by Saladin.

5.  The Mamluk period.   They fought the Mongols and drove the Crusaders out of the land of Israel/Palestine.  They are not technically a "Caliphate" period.  (1250-1517)

6.  The Ottoman Empire Caliphate.  (1517-1924)

The Muslims interviewed in the video were very candid and seemed relaxed in saying that a non-Muslim must convert to Islam, or if they are a Christian (or Jew), they must pay the Jiziye tax with willing submission, being humiliated.  This is clear in the Qur'an Surah 9:29 and many Hadith - see one classic Hadith below, and one on the law of apostasy.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.  Surah 9:29 

Hadith - Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:  Narrated Abu Huraira:
When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right." 

The Law of Apostasy in Islam - death - based on this Hadith

Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:  Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

The historical reality seems to be, that there has never been much of any other kind of political Islam except either the Caliphate Empires or Dictatorships.  (except for modern Turkey and some other farther east countries like Indonesia) There does not seem to be a "middle ground" of a secular/democratic Muslim country that is not a dictatorship.  (What western liberals seem to think is possible.)   What is there by example between the Islamic Caliphate/Sharia Law/no freedom of religion or speech vs. the secular/Arab nationalists Dictators like Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qaddafi, Gamel Abdul Nasser/Anwar Sedat/Hosni Mubarak or authoritarian monarchies like Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world, except maybe secular Turkey since Mustapha Kemal Ataturk and far Asian countries like Indonesia?

Paul Bilal Williams, the British convert to Islam who looks down his nose in arrogance at all Christians who believe the Bible is true; at his own blog, states that the restoration of the Caliphate is obligatory for true Muslims and he gives a whole page on why he supports the Hizb ut Tahrir in England.  (no longer there, Williams has changed his blog twice (?) in 2014-2015. )

"The Khilafah (or ‘Caliphate’) is an obligation for Muslims and something we took for granted for well over a thousand years, much like the obligation of Salah (prayer) and fasting today which, al-hamdulillah, are not open to discussion and debate."  Paul Bilal Williams

Most of my last comments were banned from commenting on his blog, so I have given up trying to comment or reason with him there.  He couldn't handle me calling him out as inconsistent for not debating Dr. White and saying the reason is because he is a "fundamentalist"; but at the same time, he was debating Chris Green who believes pretty much the same things that I and Dr. White believe on issues of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture.   Paul Williams thinks I am a "Fundamentalist Christian" like James White and Chris Green.  I asked him a while back, before being banned, if he wants the Caliphate to be brought to England, he said no, that the purpose of Hizb e Tahrir is to restore the Caliphate in Muslim lands.

I guess my question is, then why does Paul and the Hizb e Tahrir operate in England?  Why don't they go to a Muslim country and work to restore the Caliphate there? 

After quoting a Hadith(you can look it up there at his site), Williams writes:

"This hadith holds a meaning that is especially reflective of our times, for in the last hundred years this noble Ummah has witnessed the destruction of her State and with that, due to the colonization of her lands by the colonialists, the crushing tidal wave of Western culture. Western culture completely engulfed her to the point of suffocation. It turned black into white and white into black. Never did the Ummah encounter such cultural strangulation, which left her bewildered and confused about the most basic and rudimentary tenets of her Deen."

Williams and Hizb-ut-Tahrir blame the downfall of the Khalifate on colonialism, but it was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk of Turkey who abolished the Khalifate in 1924.  Ataturk was a secularist but from a Muslim culture.  And the Ottoman Empire was justly punished for siding with Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany in World War I (1914-1917).  The breakup of the Ottoman Empire and Khalifate was the Muslims doing, not the west.  The west just came in and filled the vacuum left by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the desire for the Arabs to be free from their Turkish masters.

 He gives a link to Hizb-Ut-Tahrir and says it does not work to re-establish the Khalifah here in the west.  But it honestly does seem to be part of the agenda, if one reads the articles and subjects that Paul writes on and emphasizes.  It honestly seems that they want the west to fall from within because of secular liberalism/socialism/homosexual/abortion/pornographic/materialistic culture, and then the Muslims will be happy to fill the vacuum that left-wing liberalism/secular anti-Christian and pro-homosexual culture is creating.

"Hizb-Ut-Tahrir is a global Islamic political party working to re-establish the Khilafah in the Muslim world. It does this by a political and intellectual method, following the example of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). Hizb-Ut-Tahrir does not work to re-establish the Khilafah here in the West. It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West, and carry a correct understanding of Islam to non-Muslim society."

I am glad they state that they are not working to re-establish the Khalifah in the west, but the statement "It also works to preserve and protect the values of Muslims in the West" is by nature contradictory to that; because in order to have all of consistent and doctrinal and Sharia law Islam all the way in the west would be to seek to destroy western freedom of speech(insults to Islam and Muhammad are forbidden), freedom of religion (apostasy from Islam is punishable by death); and separation of church/ religion/Mosque and state are contradictions in Islam, and free market capitalism (Zakat and Islamic finance law are by nature contradictory to free market capitalism and banking systems in the west.)  Some Muslim articles and speeches offer Islamic law as a moral alternative to the homosexual agenda in the west that the church is failing to fight; and offering Islamic "justice and equality" by the Zakat and Islamic finance instead of, what Islam sees western capitalism is - a kind of greedy, self-interest, Ayn Rand-type capitalism, materialism, and secularism.

If you want to understand the hizb-ut-Tahrir's agenda for seeking to re-establish the Khalifate, see here, where they answer some questions.  It seems clear that if the Khalifate is re-established, they will eventually attack Israel(see the question on how they will deal with Israel.)   Not all questions that westerners have are asked there, and some of the answers need a lot more details, but if someone understands doctrinal Islam from all the Islamic sources - Qur'an, Hadith, Tafsirs, Sira literature, Tarikh (history of Islam by Al Tabari) and the subsequent history of how Islam actually carried out it's agenda of spreading Islam, it seems obvious that if they establish the Khalifate in a part of the Muslim world and then work out from it by Da'awa and then Jihad, they will seek to take back all lands that used to be Islamic - especially Spain and Portugal (Al Andalous) and Israel, and then declare Jihads against the west, atheist Russia, pagan Hindus and pagan Buddhists.

Government use of scientism as power

Below are two videos.  The first one is about the dangers of western secular scientism - and C. S. Lewis' warnings against governments using scientism for power.  The second video is about how Iran allows and helps fund sex change operations and gender re-assignment.

I thought this first one was a very well done video.  This video is very timely in light of many recent effects of President Obama's first term and re-election victory.  The video starts with President Obama's statement in his first inaugural address of "we will restore science to it's rightful place".   Was this a reference beyond "global warming" and renewable energies? Was he  implying other issues related to ObamaCare, like eugenics and euthanasia (mercy killing) and other uses of technology that go beyond moral bounds? - gender re-assignment, sex-change operations - forcing companies to provide insurance for those things also - like the "woman" in prison who got government funds for "her" hormone therapy and sex-change operations?

Also in light of the case of our government forcing Hobby Lobby to provide Insurance that provides for abortions and abortifacient drugs, this video is very timely.    ObamaCare is not just economically stupid and a step in socialism; but it is evil coercion by our government; violations of freedom of religion and speech.   It is the result of our culture leaving it's Judeo-Christian roots.   The film quotes C. S. Lewis as writing, "I dread government in the name of science, that is how tyrannies come in."  I tried to find the quote on line or in my own copy of The Abolition of Man, but could not find the exact reference for the quote. This article seems to indicate that the statement is a summary of what Lewis thought.   In that article, it  quotes Lewis again on the problem with Theocracy: (From the context of the 1950s and 1960s, and Lewis as an Englishman, one can discern that "democrat" does not mean what it does today in the USA.)

I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. . . . [S]ince we have sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. . . . Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us.  (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and other Essays, pp. 168-169.)  (pages 113-114 in my copy of an older edition.) 

The second video is also very well produced, but disturbing in the realities it exposes in our fallen world today.  The other danger is when a false religious system is the government and then approves of sex-change operations, helps fund them, and uses technological advances to perform them.  The Sunnis are embarrassed by this phenomenon in Iran.  (Warning: the comment section on the YouTube site is full of inappropriate language.)

Here is a disturbing, shocking, and ironic video documentary of sex-change operations in Iran, a Muslim country where Shiite Sharia Islamic law is supreme.  It is ironic because one would have thought that religious Muslims would view all sex-change operations as wrong and sin.   Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and punishable by death, but if one changes himself or herself first, then it will be ok for that person to fulfill their desires and attractions.  They can then marry the opposite sex or they can, in Shiite Iran, sell themselves for temporary marriage.  (Farsi:  صیغه - pronounced: Seegheh or Siqeh;  Arabic:  مُتعه (mota'eh, or it is usually written in English as Muta. Iranians pronounce Arabic words differently, that is also why you will see "Moslem" - the more Iranian way of pronouncing it; and "Muslim" - the more Arabic way of pronunciation.) (*see  more at bottom) This (the Muta issue) is revealed at the end of the film, after one of the main characters in this documentary changes himself into a woman and then sells "herself" in order to make a living.  Wow.  Very disturbing stuff.  They never explain how they understand the contradiction/tension of Allah creating someone "with the wrong body" is justified.    This issue came up in my own evangelism with Iranians, and discipling and pastoring and counseling former Muslims.  It created doubts and struggles in the minds of some of the other Iranian believers as we taught them apologetic issues and how we as Biblical Christians respond to these realities of our fallen world.  How do believers in Christ respond to the struggles that some people have that we don't have?  We had an Iranian lady visit our church who claimed she was created in the wrong body, and she used Gnosticism and Gnostic writings and material from Elaine Pagels and the DaVinci Code type reasoning to argue her points against me.  She came a dozen or so times to church over several months, and heard the gospel and I was able to explain what the Bible says more in depth to her questions after several church services. (Eventually she never came back.  I pray that the message of the gospel will be haunting her mind and heart, from hearing it clearly in her own language, and that God would draw her to Himself, wherever she is now.  John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

Does Islam believe that creation is fallen? (Genesis 3, Romans 8:21) I honestly don't know how they explain these things.  The Bible explains that after God created all things, that after sin, then corruption and decay entered our world   After the fall - after sin entered the world, came decay, corruption, and death.  Birth defects are part of that corruption.  Creation today is "enslaved to corruption" because of sin.  Islam is adamant in denying original / inherited sin, but it seems that with this, they are agreeing that creation has defects/corruptions in it now.  At one point early in the documentary, the doctor is heard and seen saying to one of his patients, "nature has created you this way."  I wonder how religious this doctor is.  I suppose he could agree that nature has been corrupted from Allah's original design, but I wonder how they explain the corruption - since Adam, in Islamic theology, did not become a sinner by nature, nor pass that sinful nature on to his children.

* You can see a discussion of Muta here, even by Sunnis calling for it to be allowed in the current civil war in Syria and quotes from the Hadith that mention it. )



Another disturbing and evil thing, is that if the liberal / gay agenda keeps advancing, the liberal /big government in the USA will be forcing religious institutions to pay for abortions and sex-change operations, not just contraception and abortifacient drugs.

Trueman on Catholic-Evangelical Relations in Voting for a President

I followed a link back to Carl Trueman's old review of Noll's Is The Reformation Over? and came across this socio-political tidbit, which to me, appears to apply as well to conservative Roman Catholics and Protestants voting together for a Mormon:

As one would expect from any book which carries Mark Noll’s name on its cover, the work is meticulously researched, very clearly written, and exhibits a generosity of spirit that will be disarming even to its critics, among whom it will be clear I number myself. The insights it contains are also fascinating. For example, as a foreigner on American soil, I found the book extremely useful in outlining and explaining the history of Catholic-Evangelical relations in US society. It is, after all, puzzling to an outsider that as late as 1960, a presidential candidate’s Catholicism was seen as an electoral liability, particularly with reference to the conservative Protestant sections of the electorate; and it is arguable that Kennedy won the election despite his religion and then only because he managed successfully to distance himself somewhat from it; yet in 2004, it was John F. Kerry’s perceived failure to be a consistent Catholic on issues such as abortion and sanctity of life-related matters which was seen as the electoral problem, particularly with that same, conservative Protestant core. Much of the answer to this conundrum, of course, lies with Roe vs. Wade and the way in which the abortion debate in America has polarized society, politicized the judicial process, placed moral issues at the center of politics, and driven religious conservatives, Catholic and Protestant, into an unlikely alliance which fifty years ago would have seemed inconceivable. Now it seems (at least to an outsider) that much of the evangelical hopes, culturally and politically, hang on the decisions of Catholics such as Roberts and Scalia on the Supreme Court. Indeed, if, as this change perhaps implies, evangelicalism functions for some, or perhaps for many, of its adherents not so much as a statement about God but rather as an idiom for protesting the moral chaos in America, we can expect to see yet more rapprochement and maybe even significant numbers of conversions from evangelicalism to Rome, especially given the potential for clear moral leadership by the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

Attention Roman Catholic Voters!

Remember 2008?

 http://www.zenit.org/article-24180?l=english

CHICAGO, Illinois, NOV. 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- More than half of U.S. Catholics voted Tuesday for a presidential candidate at odds with the Church's stance on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, despite the urging of more than 50 heads of dioceses to support pro-life candidates.

In fairness, the article goes on to say:

 Q: An estimated 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama, despite the strong stand of over 50 heads of dioceses against candidates who support abortion. How did Obama successfully win the majority of the Catholic vote?

Burch: The notion of what constitutes the "Catholic vote" is widely debated. While Obama won the Catholic vote overall 54% - 45%, among Catholics who attend mass every week, McCain won 55% - 43%. Clearly the main reason Obama succeeded overall was the fact that Catholic voters echoed the concerns of the rest of the electorate in citing the economy as their top issue.

And well, I guess this part is worth cut and pasting also:

Q: Did the strong stance of the episcopate have any noticeable affect on the election? What could the Church have done more of? 

Burch: The results of the election seem to indicate that, for the most part, Catholic voters ignored the guidance of their bishops. The results simply do not show any dramatic shift away from the larger trends seen during the past several election cycles.

3 Benghazi Scandals? Yes; it sure seems so

3 Benghazi scandals? (1) Incompetent response to military emergency. (2) WH cover-up that deliberately misleads. (3) MSM cover-up of 1 & 2.
— Andy Naselli (@AndyNaselli) October 29, 2012

Comparing Mormonism and theological Liberalism in the Two main candidates Faiths

1.  An excellent summary of the bottom line of the Mormon religion.  It is not Christian, as it at its core denies monotheism and God as the eternal uncaused Creator of all things.

"The Real Issue with Mormonism:  God is an exalted man" by James White
http://americanvision.org/6549/the-real-issue-with-mormonism-god-is-an-exalted-man/

Here is just one excerpt, I encourage everyone to read Dr. White's article and also get his two books on Mormonism, which are mentioned and highlighted in this article at American Vision.

"We will look more at the evidence supporting this view of Mormonism below, but it must first be insisted that on any meaningful analysis of religious faith, Mormonism is far, far removed from Christianity. In fact, if one takes as one’s starting point the belief of a religion relating to God’s nature and God’s relationship to the universe, Mormonism is about as far removed on the theological spectrum from Christianity as any religion could be. Whether a religious movement believes in monotheism or polytheism is the first indicator of its nature and categorization, and on this point, Joseph Smith separated his followers for all time from Christianity when he made the statement, quoted above, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” In refuting this idea, Smith made it possible for me accurately and forthrightly to say today: Islamic theology of Allah is significantly closer to Christianity in its affirmation of God’s uniqueness, creatorship, and eternality, than Mormonism ever could be. This is a fact known to anyone who takes seriously the teachings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church."  Dr. James White

2.  President Obama's Faith - the article here by Denny Burk, linking to an interview that a journalist did with then Senator Barak Obama, shows he doesn't believe in the Bible or the doctrines that would make his "faith" true faith.  Also, he supports radical abortion and infanticide, same sex marriage, and refuses to call Islamic terrorism what it is.  And the Benghazi/Lybia scandal will eventually become worse than the Watergate/Nixon scandal, I think, given enough time.  Unfortunately, the main stream media is not reporting on this very much, and they and Obama's team seem to be trying to avoid it until after the election.  Among many other bad economic and social and defense policies . . .

"President Obama's Christianity" - By Denny Burk
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/

When Denny uses the term "liberal Christian" to describe President Obama, he means a theological liberal, which means Obama is not a Christian at all, since theological liberalism denies all the essentials of doctrine that make faith in Christ true faith in the real Christ.  J. Greshem Machen wrote a famous book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923, where he shows that theological liberalism using Christian words in main line churches, is not Christianity at all.

Denny Burk February 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

When I use the term “liberal Christian,” I mean to denote a theological liberal, which is not a synonym for political liberal. A person can have politically liberal views and still have conservative theological beliefs.

Excerpt: 

In short, though candidate Obama professes to be a Christian, his beliefs are that of a theological liberal. Here’s a summary with some quotes:

• He believes that “there are many paths to the same place,” and he doesn’t believe that God would “consign four-fifths of the world to hell” for not believing the gospel.

• When asked about his belief in the afterlife, he says he doesn’t know if there is one.

• Obama defines “sin” as “being out of alignment with my values.”

• Obama says that one need not embrace “Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior” to avoid judgment.

• When asked “Who’s Jesus to you,” what Obama didn’t say is as important as what he did say. He confesses Jesus to be a “historical figure” and “wonderful teacher” but says nothing about Jesus being a Savior, Messiah, or Son of God.

• He confesses that he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to his own church’s “set of doctrines.”