Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: [ot] GCB: Prelude to Persecution of Christians, by Rev Ted Pike
220 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
reqluq
Mar 23, 2012, 10:22:29 AM3/23/12
to
"Ø" <Ø@set.null> wrote in message
news:4Kuar.171820$5f3....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
> Hey, gang!
> How's it going????
Going great null, not void hehe.
I think you have ol' dennyboy landed. He's in the boat, hooked deep in his
gills and floundering around. He needs only to be scaled and gutted then
baked, fried, boiled, or whatever your teatse. Stick a fork in him to see
when he is done. hahaha
The christians don't understand the jewish hatred for jesus, and for them
also for that matter for worshiping jesus as a god. Thery laugh at the
christians for that.
req
> By Rev. Ted Pike and Harmony Daws 21 Mar 12
>
> The Bible is clear: Christians will be globally persecuted in the
> years to come. They will be "worn out," their power "destroyed" by
> the descendants of the Jewish leaders who persecuted the early
> church. (Daniel 7:25, 8:24) Jesus could not be clearer about the
> identity of future persecutors: "they will lay their hands on you
> and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and
> prisons..." to be condemned and even killed. (Luke 21:12).
>
> Jewish cultural activists now trash Christianity in "Good Christian
> Bitches" on ABC. Why should this filthy sitcom concern every
> Christian? Its activist Jewish creators and producers are building
> a reputation of Christians as the most ridiculous, hypocritical,
> contemptible people alive. (See [10]The Jews Behind "Good Christian
> Bitches" (GCB)) This week's episode mocks Christian heterosexual
> marriages and sexual ethics, skewering not just Christian "bitches"
> but Christian marriage seminars, reclaimed virginity and the idea
> of heterosexual marriage itself.
>
> On this show, the only sympathetic, desirable, dimensional
> characters are non-Christians. The Christian women are neurotic and
> sexually spurned as a result of all their other horrible traits. At
> a marriage seminar, the three main couples wear "marriage all-star"
> t-shirts while we as the audience know that each of their marriages
> is, at best, nothing to envy. Carlene's husband isn't having sex
> with her; Sharon's husband regrets getting married (her husband had
> tried to seduce Amanda); and Cricket's husband is homosexual.
> Cricket, this supposed model of virtue and marriage, hires
> attractive male fitness instructors and pays them for sex! The
> scene makes a mockery of Christian marrieds who try to set an
> example. During the seminar, Cricket and Blake talk about tax
> breaks that come with being married. All Carlene's husband cares
> about is money. Cricket and Blake read a horrible, corny script
> about reclaimed virginity. Cricket says her homosexual husband,
> Blake, is the only man who ever loved her for who she is. As in the
> previous episode, Blake is held up as revealing greater humanity
> and forbearance than the "Christian" bitches. This show is not just
> another mean-girl TV comedy. It is a pointed and specific political
> attack on Christianity and its moral agenda in America today.
>
> History Repeats Itself
>
> In 33 A.D. the vast majority of Jews were silent as their leaders
> had Christ crucified. In 2012 A.D. the vast majority of God's
> people in America and Canada are silent as Christ and His church is
> mocked and reviled by Jewish ABC's "Good Christian Bitches."
>
> Nearly 2000 years ago God's people did not realize that their
> permission of evil would lead directly to God's judgment; He
> allowed Roman armies to level Jerusalem and exile Jews to the
> nations. Today, God's people are also permitting great evil. This
> will lead to Jewish-inspired persecutions, decimating the church as
> we know it.
>
> Present failure of Christians and most of their "watchdog"
> organizations to protest and boycott GCB is a powerful index of the
> alarming level of apathy in Christianity today. Around 2800 years
> ago the prophet Isaiah described the same type of spiritual
> leadership: They "are dumb dogs who cannot bark." (Isaiah 56:10).
> Jesus said that in the last days Christians will be hated by all
> men (Luke 21:17). How will Christianity fall to such a low level of
> respect that every last person hates Christians as much as the
> world hates Hitler now?
>
> I believe there are at least three primary reasons, all related to
> Jewish power.
>
> First, by the time this prophecy is fulfilled, international Jewish
> supremacist control has established uncontested dominance over the
> nations. Ezekiel 38-39 say a wicked Israel dwells safely in the
> land without need of conventional defenses. It is also said of her
> spiritual husband, the Beast, "...who is able to make war with
> him?" (Rev. 13:4) Talmudic Judaism has completed an ascent we are
> now witnessing. Someday we Gentiles, having lost all significant
> freedom, must be content with material gratification from the world
> commercial empire of Babylon the Great (See [11]'Babylon the Great'
> is Israel). It will be worse than futile to dissent. It will be
> suicide.
>
> The enslaved world in their bondage and loss of freedom will
> remember how evangelical, Israel-first Christians helped build the
> impregnable walls of Babylon the Great. American Christians helped
> forge the chains which now bind mankind. Thus, every last Gentile
> will abhor not only Jews but also the detested Christians.
>
> Secondly, Christians will be hated because of how the American
> church has mistreated unbelievers, particularly as Pentecostal
> "prosperity" teachers and "healers" fleece gullible followers and
> as Calvinists live sinfully and preach that they have a "get out of
> hell free" card denied to the "unsaved" who commit the same sins.
> Even now, Jewish media is capitalizing on the present decline of
> Christian integrity. Regretfully, we must admit that much of what
> GCB lampoons does exist. Apathetic, compromised evangelicals and
> their leaders present on a silver platter to Jewish media the
> material out of which to construct their own coffins.
>
> Meanwhile, as we have witnessed over the past weeks, right-wing
> Christian "watchdog" groups are a dying breed. Their spiritual
> whoredom in bidding godspeed to evil Israel has rotted their souls.
> Terrified of offending ADL, they protest only in a
> Zionist/ADL-permitted way. Where can you find a person who will
> speak out against incessant, overwhelming assaults by Jewish media?
> The once vibrant Christian/populist base that swept Reagan into
> office is so eroded by sin, divorce, materialism, heresy and
> downright apathy that "Christians" are losing all will to fight
> evil. The church is losing its youth to the world, as over 90
> percent abandon the church after high school. Some 43 percent of
> evangelical teens engage in extramarital sex by age 19.
>
> Calvinism--which teaches that sin is inevitable--is like acid.
> Christians are incapable of rebuking sin when they themselves
> practice it. Without the cleansing, inspiring, unifying practice of
> death to self, continuous trust in Jesus, and old-fashioned
> obedient holiness, Christianity is vacant. Unable to offer true
> spiritual transformation, it must compete with the world in
> offering sin management rather than sin eradication. This is
> obvious in the growth of Christian self-help strategies, addiction
> specialties and feel-good mega pastors like Joel Osteen. It is also
> obvious in the exit of youth, who can find tough-minded, worldly
> activists more committed and inspiring than Christians.
>
> A final reason Christians will be persecuted in the last days is
> noble. In every age, there are true Christians whose holy lives
> bear witness against sin. The world hates these Christians for the
> same reasons it fed them to lions in Rome. The true gospel of
> Christ is hateful to sinful man because it asserts all are lost
> without Christ and must repent and give loyalty to Him as our
> Creator - or lose our souls in hell.
>
> It will become much easier to hate and mock Christians because of
> the groundwork for persecution that GCB lays today.
>
> We Seek a Greater Victory
>
> American evangelicals have clearly, through silence and inaction,
> given permission for Hollywood Jews to mock and re-crucify our Lord
> for the next seven weeks. As such, it is doubtful that the church
> may ever be counted on again as a fighting force for truth and
> freedom.
>
> What else can we hope in? Scripture makes it clear that God has
> tremendous respect for a very small remnant of faith who put their
> trust in Him and speak His truth fearlessly. Throughout Scripture
> He emphasizes that, for the sake of such believers, He will
> actually forestall judgment on the unworthy majority.
>
> Rather than feel that all is lost if we cannot save America
> politically, the spiritual maturing of true believers is a very
> practical way to invite God's favor and hold back evil. One of the
> very best ways to do this is by listening to the in-depth, online
> [12]Bible studies at www.truthtellers.org. Thousands are letting
> us help them find their way back to New Testament spirituality and
> power.
>
> We do very well to spiritually prepare ourselves and our fellow
> Christians to respond to and survive persecution with grace, purity
> and power instead of panic. History has shown Christ's true
> invisible church is most pure and spiritually vigorous within
> persecution, as in communist China today.
>
> Even Jesus could not convince His chosen people, the Jews, to
> repent. Was He a failure? Hardly. Rejected by His own, He went
> forward boldly to accomplish something much more lasting and
> transcendent: bringing to others newness of spiritual life that
> redeems the here and now and gives us joy in heaven forever.
>
> Again, here is the list of sponsors from this week's episode.
>
> List of GCB Sponsors:
>
> Huggies Diapers: 1-877-648-2484 (US and Canada Only)
> [13]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Zyrtec-D Allergy Medicine: 1-800-343-7805 (McNeil Consumer Care
> Center)
> [14]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Kellogg's Eggos: 1-800-962-1413
> [15]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Cadillac: 1-800-458-8006
> [16]Click here for an Email Form
>
> T-Mobile: 1-800-866-2453 and 1-877-453-1304 (Customer Care)
>
> Royal Caribbean Cruises: 1-800-398-9819
> [17]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Honda Civic: 1-800-999-1009
> Twitter: [18]@HondaCustSvc
>
> Prolia Osteoporosis Medication: 1-877-477-6542
> [19]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Clinique Makeup: 1-800-419-4041
> [20]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Werther's Caramels
> [21]Click here for an Email Form (Click "Contact Us" on bottom
> left)
>
> Dove (Unilever)
> [22]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Olive Garden
> [23]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Reebok
> [24]Click here for an Email Form
>
> America's Mattress
> Email: [25]in...@americasmattress.com
>
> Progressive Insurance: 1-800-776-4737
> [26]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Aveeno: 1-877-298-2525
> [27]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Mazda Crossover: 1-800-222-5500
> [28]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Xfinity Voice: 1-800-XFINITY (1-800-934-6489)
>
> Toyota Camry: 1-800-331-4331
> [29]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Hulu Plus: 1-310-571-4700
> [30]Click here for an Email Form
>
> JCPenny: 1-800-322-1189 and 1-972-431-8200
> [31]Click here for an Email Form
>
> Advil: 1-800-882-3845
>
> _________________________________
>
> Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a
> Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
>
> TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call
> (503) 631-3808.
>
> The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National
> Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and
> your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
>
>
> National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
>
>
> [32]Back to Top
>
>
> ©2007 National Prayer Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://www.truthtellers.org/index.html
> 2. http://www.truthtellers.org/hatecrimes.html
> 3. http://www.truthtellers.org/israel.html
> 4. http://www.truthtellers.org/biblicalanswers.html
> 5. http://www.truthtellers.org/bookvideo.html
> 6. http://www.truthtellers.org/aboutnpn.html
> 7. http://www.truthtellers.org/contactnpn.html
> 8. http://www.truthtellers.org/alertarchives.html
> 9. http://www.truthtellers.org/links.html
> 10. http://truthtellers.org/alerts/jewsbehindGCB.html
> 11. http://truthtellers.org/alerts/babylonthegreatisraelreprint.html
> 12. http://truthtellers.org/biblicalanswers.html
> 13. http://www.huggies.com/en-US/contact-us
> 14. https://www.zyrtec.com/contactus
> 15. http://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/home/contact-us.html
> 16. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 17. https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/contactUsOnline.do
> 18. http://twitter.com/HondaCustSvc
> 19. http://www.prolia.com/contact-us.html
> 20. http://www.clinique.com/customer_service/contact_us.tmpl
> 21. http://www.werthers-original.us/#/A10000
> 22. http://www.unilever.com/resource/Contactform/
> 23. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 24. http://shop.reebok.com/US/customer-service/contact-us
> 25. mailto:in...@americasmattress.com
> 26. https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx
> 27. https://www.aveeno.com/contactus
> 28. http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/emailMazda.action
> 29. http://toyota.custhelp.com/app/ask/s/561/p/191,194
> 30. http://www.hulu.com/support/support_form
> 31.
> https://shop5.jcpenney.com/jcp/frm_generalinquiries.aspx?VID=&Email=&Referer=http%3a%2f%2fwww.jcpenney.com%2fjcp%2fCustomerServiceSub.aspx%3fDeptID%3d12476%26CatID%3d25278%26CatTyp%3dCSR%26cmResetCat%3dTrue%26CmCatId%3dhomepage&Subject=General+Inquiries&Topic=&CmCatId=
> 32. http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/GCBpreludetopersecution.html#Title
>
> Hidden links:
> 33. http://www.huggies.com/en-US/contact-us
> 34. http://www.huggies.com/en-US/contact-us
> 35. https://www.zyrtec.com/contactus
> 36. http://www.huggies.com/en-US/contact-us
> 37. https://www.zyrtec.com/contactus
> 38. http://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/home/contact-us.html
> 39. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 40. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 41. https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/contactUsOnline.do
> 42. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 43. https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/contactUsOnline.do
> 44. http://www.prolia.com/contact-us.html
> 45. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 46. https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/contactUsOnline.do
> 47. http://www.prolia.com/contact-us.html
> 48. http://www.clinique.com/customer_service/contact_us.tmpl
> 49. http://www.cadillac.com/help-center/contact-information.html
> 50. https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/contactUsOnline.do
> 51. http://www.prolia.com/contact-us.html
> 52. http://www.clinique.com/customer_service/contact_us.tmpl
> 53. http://www.werthers-original.us/#/A10000
> 54. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 55. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 56. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 57. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 58. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 59. http://shop.reebok.com/US/customer-service/contact-us
> 60. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 61. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 62. http://shop.reebok.com/US/customer-service/contact-us
> 63. https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx
> 64. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 65. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 66. http://shop.reebok.com/US/customer-service/contact-us
> 67. https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx
> 68. https://www.aveeno.com/contactus
> 69. http://www.dove.us/Contact-Us/default.aspx
> 70. https://www.olivegarden.com/About-Us/Contact-Us/
> 71. http://shop.reebok.com/US/customer-service/contact-us
> 72. https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx
> 73. https://www.aveeno.com/contactus
> 74. http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/emailMazda.action
Message has been deleted
Dennis M Reed "Califa"
Mar 26, 2012, 5:39:14 AM3/26/12
to
judge not lest........
"Ø" wrote in message
news:1%Obr.124794$Ub2....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
"reqluq" <scredcrop...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:JoKdnZqMl8HRGvHS...@supernews.com:
>
> "Ø" <Ø@set.null> wrote in message
> news:4Kuar.171820$5f3....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>> Hey, gang!
>> How's it going????
>
> Going great null, not void hehe.
> I think you have ol' dennyboy landed. He's in the boat, hooked deep in
> his gills and floundering around. He needs only to be scaled and gutted
> then baked, fried, boiled, or whatever your teatse. Stick a fork in him
> to see when he is done. hahaha
This was the predictable outcome once he decided to defend the
indefensible.
His arguments might work with someone who gets his news from JudeoMasonic
media (FOX, etc), but the inet is tearing rabbinical narratives faster
than they can create them.
He has tainted himself by defending this evil.
He should do some charitable work.
He should also pray for forgiveness.
> The christians don't understand the jewish hatred for jesus, and for
> them also for that matter for worshiping jesus as a god. Thery laugh at
> the christians for that.
> req
>
Douglas Reed, Controversy of Zion, p180:
<snip>
The Talmud contains no lofty law of righteousness applicab1e to all men,
but sets up the creed of Moloch, shorn of the universal applications; it
is one book, not two. It is the uncompromising response to Christianity:
"the precepts of justice, of equity, or charity towards one's neighbour,
are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a
crime in anyone who would act differently.
The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a non-Jew from death . . . to
restore lost goods, etc. to him, to have pity on him" (the former Rabbi
Drach, already quoted). This was The Law of the Slavic Ashkenazim in their
ghettoes; the Ashkenazim, under stern direction, became the engineers of
the world-revolution; and according to the Judaic authorities the
Ashkenazim are now "the Jews", or 85 percent of them.
<snip />
That snippet was more or less picked out at random from Reed's book.
Laughing at Christians is only the tip of the Talmudic iceberg.
Ø
The Nakba: Genocidal, sadistic, Talmudism in action!
http://www.ziomania.com/holocaust/holocaust.htm
Please help stop the suffering of the Palestinian people.
"Ø" wrote in message
news:1%Obr.124794$Ub2....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
"reqluq" <scredcrop...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:JoKdnZqMl8HRGvHS...@supernews.com:
>
> "Ø" <Ø@set.null> wrote in message
> news:4Kuar.171820$5f3....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>> Hey, gang!
>> How's it going????
>
> Going great null, not void hehe.
> I think you have ol' dennyboy landed. He's in the boat, hooked deep in
> his gills and floundering around. He needs only to be scaled and gutted
> then baked, fried, boiled, or whatever your teatse. Stick a fork in him
> to see when he is done. hahaha
indefensible.
His arguments might work with someone who gets his news from JudeoMasonic
media (FOX, etc), but the inet is tearing rabbinical narratives faster
than they can create them.
He has tainted himself by defending this evil.
He should do some charitable work.
He should also pray for forgiveness.
> The christians don't understand the jewish hatred for jesus, and for
> them also for that matter for worshiping jesus as a god. Thery laugh at
> the christians for that.
> req
>
<snip>
The Talmud contains no lofty law of righteousness applicab1e to all men,
but sets up the creed of Moloch, shorn of the universal applications; it
is one book, not two. It is the uncompromising response to Christianity:
"the precepts of justice, of equity, or charity towards one's neighbour,
are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a
crime in anyone who would act differently.
The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a non-Jew from death . . . to
restore lost goods, etc. to him, to have pity on him" (the former Rabbi
Drach, already quoted). This was The Law of the Slavic Ashkenazim in their
ghettoes; the Ashkenazim, under stern direction, became the engineers of
the world-revolution; and according to the Judaic authorities the
Ashkenazim are now "the Jews", or 85 percent of them.
<snip />
That snippet was more or less picked out at random from Reed's book.
Laughing at Christians is only the tip of the Talmudic iceberg.
Ø
The Nakba: Genocidal, sadistic, Talmudism in action!
http://www.ziomania.com/holocaust/holocaust.htm
Please help stop the suffering of the Palestinian people.
reqluq
Mar 26, 2012, 10:56:01 AM3/26/12
to
http://www.christianciv.com/Judge_Others.htm
Judge Others. Jesus Said To.
by Michael H. Warren, Jr.
"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
Jesus Christ (John 7:24)
We often hear from both atheists and Christians that the Bible says
that we are never supposed to judge others. To put it as nicely as
possible, that's boloney. We all know deep down that it's not true. If we
catch someone stealing our neighbor's TV, we'll yell at the thief, "Put that
back! Stealing is wrong!" It wouldn't cross our minds that we're doing
something wrong by saying that.
But we all know the atheist's three favorite verses in the Bible:
"Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1), "He who is without sin cast
the first stone" (John 8:7), and "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Why are these
his favorites? Because they allow the atheist to escape accountability to
God. He is guilty before God and doesn't like to hear about it - just like
the thief would like people to stop judging him and saying that stealing is
wrong, especially the cops, judges, and lawmakers (until he becomes the
victim of theft). But there's bad news for the atheist. These verses don't
say what they think they say. The Bible commands us to judge, and these
verses are fully consistent with the rest of the Bible. Let's take a look
at them one at a time.
"Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1)
Here is the full quote of what Jesus said:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you
pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be
measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye,
but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to
your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log
in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:1-5)
The problem with interpreting this passage to support
non-judgmentalism is that Jesus says to judge in the last line - "take the
speck out of your brother's eye." He is commenting on how to judge, not
forbidding it. He is condemning hypocritical judgment, in which the person
judging does a poor job making judgments about his own life, but thinks that
he is an expert at solving the same problems in other people's lives. It's
like a person who is constantly in financial trouble confidently telling
another person how to make financial decisions. Jesus warns that such a
person is inviting scrutiny in his own life on the same issue: "You're in a
financial mess! Why should I listen to you?" Jesus says that once a person
is able to make judgments about his own life, then he is competent to take
the speck out of someone else's eye. A person who learns from his financial
mistakes and becomes a success is then in a good position to give financial
advice to others. Or as in the AA program, alcoholics that kick the habit
are able to help others with the same problem.
The Pharisees thought that they were experts in the law of God, but
Jesus pointed out that they were really substituting human traditions for
the law of God. For example, they would dedicate money to the temple in the
name of their parents, and claimed that by this they had fulfilled the
command to honor their father and their mother (Matt. 15:1-9). Mishandling
the application of God's law to their own life so badly, they were in no
position to give advice to others on how to be faithful to the law of God.
"He who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7)
The popular interpretation of this passage is that only someone who
never sins can declare that someone else has sinned. But the issue before
them, adultery, was a criminal act under the law of Moses. Given this
context, the popular interpretation would require us to conclude that Jesus
was demanding that the State be abolished because it would mean that nothing
could be called a crime. All judges in court systems are sinners, all
legislators who make the laws are sinners, and all executives who enforce
the laws created by the legislators are sinners. So the popular
interpretation is absurd. Jesus was not an anarchist. He recognized the
authority of Caesar (Matt. 22:21).
Here's an alternative interpretation that makes sense: "without sin"
refers to the particular sin under discussion, adultery, not absolute
sinlessness.[1] Jesus was expressing the rule that a person who should be
prosecuted for committing a particular crime is not a legitimate witness
against someone else for that same crime. If these men were guilty of
adultery, they should be the "stonees," not the "stoners." How did these
men know how to find the woman "in the very act of adultery" (John 8:4)?
Probably because they had visited that location to engage in adultery
themselves. That's why they left, leaving no witnesses against the accused.
The law of Moses required at least two witnesses, and those witnesses had to
be the first ones to cast stones to execute the criminal:
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who
is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the
evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against
him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. (Deut.
17:6-7)
If the witnesses refused to initiate the execution, no execution could
take place. Jesus is not saying anything against the law of Moses; He is
upholding it. He is not saying that stones should never be cast. "He who
is without [this] sin cast the first stone" means, "If you can do it
lawfully, go ahead and stone her." Shocking, isn't it? But this is the
real Jesus, not the Sunday School Jesus, meek and mild.
The Pharisees thought that they had trapped Jesus. As one who claimed
to be the Messiah, the Pharisees knew that Jesus would have to uphold the
law of God. Yet the Roman government had taken the authority to execute
criminals away from the Jews. Only a Roman court could execute a criminal
(which is why they had to deliver Jesus to the Roman authorities to have Him
put to death). Jesus avoided the horns of the dilemma by endorsing the
Mosaic law, but showing the Pharisees that the requirements of the Mosaic
law had not been met in order to carry out a judgment against the woman.
Jesus' last words to the adulteress release her from liability before
the impromptu court, but He still judges her for her sin of adultery: "Go
and sin no more." He's like a judge who tells an accused when charges are
dropped because of tainted evidence, "The police didn't get the goods on you
this time, but don't let me see you back here again. Stay out of trouble."
There's no support for non-judgmentalism here.
Lastly, there is good reason to believe that this passage doesn't
belong in the Bible. There is probably a note to that effect in the margins
of your Bible. The passage is not found in the oldest extant manuscripts.
So this is hardly a good passage for non-judgmentalists to stake their case
on.
"God is love" (1 John 4:8)
God is love. That's His fundamental nature. So the liberal thinks
that he can ignore all the harsh stuff in the Old Testament. That was just
because humanity was less evolved, but the New Testament expresses a higher
view of God's nature when it teaches the "new commandment" of love. But
once again, the liberal is pouring his own ideas into the Biblical text.
When Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John
13:34), He was quoting the Old Testament. Leviticus 19:18 says, "you shall
love your neighbor as yourself." So the Old Testament teaches the same
ethic here. Since the Old Testament is no less God's word than the New, and
God's fundamental nature is eternal, you would expect the Old Testament to
express God's nature of love as much as the New. If the Old Testament God
does not seem loving, then you need to change your definition of love to
conform to God's.
The newness that Jesus mentioned was 1) in having the new example of
perfect love to follow, Jesus Christ ("just as I have loved you"), and 2)
in a new expansion of the practice of the commandment to love others with
the expansion of the "light" of Christianity. As John says about the
commandment to love one another:
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment
that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you
have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to
you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away
and the true light is already shining. (1 John 2:7-8)
Furthermore, harsh punishment to the enemies of God is not something
left behind in the Old Testament era. Jesus talked more about Hell for
those that refused to believe in Him than He talked about heaven. Eternity
in Hell is a penalty far more severe than the capital punishment meted out
against God's enemies so many times in the Old Testament.
And also, while God is love, the New Testament also says that "God is
a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). God's just wrath against those who rebel
against Him is also a part of God's eternal nature. The expressions of God's
mercy outweigh the expressions of His wrath, but the wrath is still there,
as Numbers 14:18 says, "'The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in
steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no
means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the
children, to the third and the fourth generation."
In the immediate context of John's quote, non-judgmentalism is
indefensible. John defines what he means by love: "For this is the love of
God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3). The details of Biblical
law are what define Biblical love. But modern liberalism, both secular and
religious, wants to set law and love in opposition to each other, especially
the law of God in the Bible, with its condemnation of adultery,
homosexuality, and high taxes (1 Sam. 8). 1 John is not on their side.
Jesus judged
Jesus told the Pharisees, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are
you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (Matt. 23:23) That's pretty severe
judgment. Examples of Jesus making severe judgments could be listed for
pages. The whole Sermon on the Mount is a series of condemnations of the
evil teachings and practices of the Pharisees. Jesus told the Pharisees
that they should judge, but with a different standard than what they had
been using: "Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the
law. . . . Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
(John 7:19, 24)
John the Baptist judged
The one who prepared the way of the Lord, John the Baptist, publicly
rebuked King Herod for marrying his brother's wife contrary to the law of
God. (Matt. 14:3-4) He was beheaded for it. Jesus said of him, "Truly, I
say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than
John the Baptist" (Matt. 11:11)
The Apostles judged
The apostle Paul said, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually
immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuals are going to
hell - not very politically correct, is it?
The apostle Peter launched into a denunciation of false teachers
similar to Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees. He calls them "waterless
springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness
has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by
sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who
live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of
corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved." (2
Peter 2:17-19)
The apostle John coined the term "antichrist" to describe anyone who
"who denies that Jesus is the Christ" (1 John 2:22). Contrary to the
doctrine of the antichrists, "No one who denies the Son has the Father" (1
John 2:23). As part of denying the Son, antichrists refuse to confess that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2). That would include most
liberals, both in the church and outside it. They teach that someone can
come to God the Father apart from His Son, and they claim that Jesus'
physical life, death and resurrection either did not happen or are
irrelevant to the "spiritual" message of Christ.
James, the brother of Jesus, was a fire and brimstone preacher,
telling his audience to repent, resist the devil, and turn from their lusts:
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is
hatred toward God? . . . Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you
sinners; and purify your hearts, you double minded. Be afflicted, and
mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to
heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift
you up. (James 4:4-10)
We are commanded to judge
Not only did Jesus and the Apostles judge, they told us to judge. We
already saw where Jesus said take the speck out of our brother's eye after
we have learned to examine our own life by the same standard (Matt. 7:5).
In Luke 17:3 He commanded us to rebuke a trespassing brother: "If your
brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." Likewise Paul
said to rebuke sin. In 1 Timothy 5:20 he says, "Those who continue in sin,
rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of
sinning." In Titus 2:15 he tells Titus, "These things speak and exhort and
reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." In 2 Tim. 4:2 he
tells Timothy to "reprove, rebuke, exhort." In 1 Thess. 5:14 he says to
"admonish the unruly." In Rom. 15:14 he tells the Roman church that they
are "able to admonish one another." In Eph. 5:11 he tells the church, "Do
not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose
them." Paul tells the Corinthians to establish church courts to judge
disputes between believers:
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the
world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do
you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters
pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them
before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame.
Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute
between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that
before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:2-6)
Jesus and Paul commanded the church to excommunicate church members
who have been rebuked but remain unrepentant for their sins. Jesus says
that if a brother that has sinned against you will not repent after being
confronted privately, and then will not repent when confronted by two or
three witnesses, then "tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt.
18:17-18) If the church's judgment is accurate in excommunicating a member,
Jesus says that God Himself will remove the person from the kingdom of
heaven.
Paul says,
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and
of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's
wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has
done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present
in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one
who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus
and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to
deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:1-5)
Paul expresses the hope that the one cast from the kingdom of God into
the kingdom of Satan will learn his lesson and eventually be saved. But the
idea of excommunication is cruel and unusual punishment to a lot of American
churches because of the influence of Roger Williams, who rejected the idea
of a church body having special divine authority and claimed that the church
was merely an association of people with no more authority than any other
voluntary assembly of people, like the Lions Club or the Red Hat Society.[2]
But for anyone who calls himself a Christian, the teaching of Scripture
should trump the teaching of the Roger Williams tradition.
The Bible teaches that to give a godly rebuke is an act of kindness
and to be considered a blessing to the one who receives it. A person who
wants to live a life pleasing to God should be grateful that someone shows
him where he has veered off the path. In Psalm 141:4-5 David says,
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice deeds of
wickedness with men who do iniquity; and do not let me eat of their
delicacies. Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; it is
oil upon the head; do not let my head refuse it.
In Prov. 25:12 Solomon says that a godly rebuke should be valued like
fine jewelry: "Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a
wise reproof to a listening ear." A godly rebuke should be gladly excepted,
as Prov. 10:17 says, "He is on the path of life who heeds instruction, but
he who forsakes reproof goes astray." Prov. 12:1 says, "He who loves
discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." Prov. 15:5
says, "A fool rejects his father's discipline, but he who regards reproof is
prudent." Prov. 29:1 says, "A man who hardens his neck after much reproof
will suddenly be broken beyond remedy." Eccl. 7:5 says, "It is better to
listen to the rebuke of a wise man than for one to listen to the song of
fools." Finally, Heb. 12:5 says, "My son, do not regard lightly the
discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him".[3]
"Don't judge"-in certain ways
All judging is not godly reproof however. The Bible condemns certain
ways of judging.
1. The Bible says not to judge hypocritically, which means to
fail to accurately judge your own life by the same terms that you judge
others' lives, as we saw in Matt. 7. The Pharisees claimed to follow Moses
and the law of God, but they nullified the law of God by their human
traditions. The Protestant church broke with the Roman Catholic Church
because of this very issue. But Protestant churches have developed their
own traditions that have no Biblical basis, and yet are seen as Biblical
standards. As long as Christians fail to diligently study the Bible from
Genesis to Revelation, they will continue to make inaccurate judgments about
what the Christian way to live and think really is. Jesus said that if you
can't follow the law of God better than the Pharisees, then that is a sign
that you are not saved:
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom
of heaven. (Matt. 5:19-20)
2. The Bible says not to judge hastily, that is without
sufficient evidence. We shouldn't judge without having diligently
investigated the facts. Proverbs 29:20 says, "Do you see a man hasty in his
words? There is more hope for a fool than for him." In Deut. 13:14 God
says that when someone is accused of committing a crime, the court is
supposed to "enquire, and make search, and ask diligently" about the matter
(also see Deut. 17:4). Furthermore, the Bible requires at least two or
three witnesses to corroborate the facts in order for a public accusation to
be made: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or
for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or
at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut.
19:15). The Apostle Paul upholds the same standard in the church in 1
Timothy 5:19: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two
or three witnesses." We saw in the case of the woman caught in adultery
that this standard could not be met because all the alleged witnesses walked
away.
3. The Bible says not to judge humanistically, that is by human
standards rather than by God's law.
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus,
saying, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For
they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." But He answered and said
to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother";
and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death.' But
you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever you would gain
from me, it is a gift to God"'; and in no way he honors his father or his
mother. And you voided the commandment of God by your tradition.
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying, 'This people draws
near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart
is far from Me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.'" Matt. 15:1-9.
Some Christians are under the impression that the Pharisees strictly
followed the law of Moses, but we see here that it was the oral traditions
of the elders that they followed rather than the written word of God. At
another time Jesus told them, "Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of
you keeps the law. . . . Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right
judgment." (John 7:19, 24) As we have seen, Biblical love is defined by
God's law. John says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments" (1 John 5:3).
4. The Bible says not to judge falsely. The ninth commandment
is, "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor." That should be
enough said.
5. The Bible says not to judge unlovingly. "But speaking the
truth in love, may [we] grow up into Him in all things, which is the head,
even Christ" (Eph. 4:15). We can speak the truth without love, for selfish,
boastful, or vengeful purposes and tear down the body of Christ. This is
what gossip often is. You aren't exposing a sin in order to correct it, in
order to help the one who committed the sin to overcome it, but simply to
feel superior to the other person. Usually when we tell a third party about
someone else's sin, it's not doing anything to fix the situation. Paul
warns against young women in the church being "idle, wandering about from
house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not." (1 Tim. 5:13). "Tattlers" create
bitterness and infighting, which is the work of Satan. It tears down the
body of Christ rather than builds it up. Paul adds about these "tattlers,"
"For some are already turned aside after Satan" (1 Tim. 5:15). An issue
should usually be directed to the person with the sin, or a supervisor who's
responsible for that person. But even when we do confront someone directly
over a sin, we should do it respectfully. Paul advises the young pastor
Timothy, "Do not sharply rebuke an elder, but exhort as a father, and the
younger ones as brothers, older women as mothers, the younger women as
sisters in all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2).
Four problems with non-judgmentalism:
1. It's inconsistent with Scripture, as the discussion above has
shown.
2. It's irrational (self-refuting) - A person who says that "it's
wrong to judge" is making a judgment against those who judge. This is akin
to the statement often made by atheists that "there are not absolutes." The
statement itself is an absolute statement. It makes a universal negative
claim that there are no universal negative claims. These types of
self-refuting statements are endemic to atheistic thinking.[4]
3. It entails amoralism - To forbid judging is equivalent to
never making ethical distinctions. Nevertheless, non-judgmentalists make
ethical judgments all the time: Save the environment, make love not war,
tax the rich and give to the poor, etc. They don't want all laws abolished.
They want their laws to replace other laws - humanistic laws to replace laws
from the Christian past. Even though it's self-refuting, atheists like to
claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. They try to have
their cake and eat it too by using utilitarianism as their guide to right
action. They claim ethics is just a matter of efficiency to achieve greater
pleasure than pain. This way they think that ethics can be removed from the
realm of "dogmatism" and reduced to a scientific investigation of empirical
facts. But "efficiency" has no meaning apart from a goal, which leads us
back to an absolute.[5]
It should be noted that the self-refuting amoralism of
non-judgmentalism has found its way into interpretations of American
Constitutional law through the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. This clause is often said to prohibit "discrimination." But
there is no ethics without discriminating between right and wrong. The
distinction between right and wrong can be incorrectly defined in particular
cases, but that makes the issue one of bad ethical discrimination versus
good ethical discrimination, not an issue of discrimination versus
non-discrimination. Whether a particular ethical distinction is valid or
not depends on which ethical system one appeals to. It's not
worldview-neutral. Most people at the present point in history would agree
that a person's skin color has no ethical significance, therefore
discrimination based on skin color is illegitimate. But some want to say
that homosexuality is a class of people that are discriminated against by
sodomy laws and laws that define a family. They often talk as if merely
defining homosexuals as a class and pointing out that the class is being
treated differently is enough to prove that anti-homosexuality laws violate
the equal protection clause. But thieves would like to do the same thing -
have the State stop discriminating against them by making laws against their
behavior. To treat everybody "equally" without regard to an ethical system
would mean making all behavior equally blameless in the eyes of the law; in
other words, all laws would have to be abolished. Laws against homosexual
behavior are illegitimate discrimination only if it can be proven that
homosexuality is like skin color and genetically determined. But even here
the issue of worldviews comes up. All facts are interpreted facts, and from
the Christian perspective, no matter how many facts the scientists have
studied and not matter how smart they are, they do not know more than God
and are not smarter than God. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a
sin, and engaging in homosexual relations is punishable by the state.
Therefore it is not genetically determined and laws against it are not
illegitimately discriminatory.[6]
4. It disarms Christians of their weapon to defeat evil. I've
spoken of non-judgmentalism mainly as an atheist view, but the language has
been adopted by probably most Christians in our day. Without Christians
able to identify the fallacies of anti-judgmentalism, atheists are allowed
to advance their moral agenda and stop Christians from asserting theirs.
The atheist shouts, "The Bible says do not judge," and the Christian is
supposed to stop asserting the moral authority of God's word. Ephesians 6
lists the armor of God that Christians are commanded to put on. Every part
is defensive except one offensive part, "the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God" (Eph. 6). It's the sword of God's word that "judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). When Christians are
deceived into non-judgmentalism, they have laid aside their only weapon to
defeat the enemy. When Christians lay aside the authority of God's word, in
which we are given God's standards for living and God's solution to sin
through Jesus Christ, the atheists avoid the power of the word of God to
convict the heart of sin and to provide the blueprint to build God's
kingdom. Satan's kingdom, by default, triumphs. When confronted by the
devil, even Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, used God's word to
defeat the evil one. "It is written" Jesus declared, and the devil was
forced to flee. Martin Luther summed it up well in his hymn, "A Mighty
Fortress is Our God":
And though this world with devils filled should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God has willed His truth to triumph through us,
The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure;
One little word shall fell him.
Who are you to judge? You know you will be asked that, and you may
have already asked it to yourself. You are an ambassador for Christ (Eph.
6:20), that's who! Revelation 1:5 says that Jesus Christ is "Ruler of the
kings of the earth." You are an ambassador of the King of the universe, the
King of kings. It's not your word that you bring. It's God's word. And no
one can escape the judgment of God. And there is no other way of salvation
than that which is given in God's word. Those who say you shouldn't judge
will judge nonetheless. They ask "who are you to judge?" only to substitute
the word of man for the word of God as the ultimate authority. But whether
they like it or not, you have a duty to proclaim God's word. As Paul says,
it will be the savor of death to those who are perishing, but the savor of
life to those who are being saved (2 Cor. 2:16-17).
"Dennis M Reed "Califa"" <dmr...@dmreed.com> wrote in message
news:GbKdnWrGmZTFpO3S...@giganews.com...
> judge not lest........
>
> "Ř" wrote in message
> Ř
Judge Others. Jesus Said To.
by Michael H. Warren, Jr.
"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
Jesus Christ (John 7:24)
We often hear from both atheists and Christians that the Bible says
that we are never supposed to judge others. To put it as nicely as
possible, that's boloney. We all know deep down that it's not true. If we
catch someone stealing our neighbor's TV, we'll yell at the thief, "Put that
back! Stealing is wrong!" It wouldn't cross our minds that we're doing
something wrong by saying that.
But we all know the atheist's three favorite verses in the Bible:
"Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1), "He who is without sin cast
the first stone" (John 8:7), and "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Why are these
his favorites? Because they allow the atheist to escape accountability to
God. He is guilty before God and doesn't like to hear about it - just like
the thief would like people to stop judging him and saying that stealing is
wrong, especially the cops, judges, and lawmakers (until he becomes the
victim of theft). But there's bad news for the atheist. These verses don't
say what they think they say. The Bible commands us to judge, and these
verses are fully consistent with the rest of the Bible. Let's take a look
at them one at a time.
"Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1)
Here is the full quote of what Jesus said:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you
pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be
measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye,
but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to
your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log
in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:1-5)
The problem with interpreting this passage to support
non-judgmentalism is that Jesus says to judge in the last line - "take the
speck out of your brother's eye." He is commenting on how to judge, not
forbidding it. He is condemning hypocritical judgment, in which the person
judging does a poor job making judgments about his own life, but thinks that
he is an expert at solving the same problems in other people's lives. It's
like a person who is constantly in financial trouble confidently telling
another person how to make financial decisions. Jesus warns that such a
person is inviting scrutiny in his own life on the same issue: "You're in a
financial mess! Why should I listen to you?" Jesus says that once a person
is able to make judgments about his own life, then he is competent to take
the speck out of someone else's eye. A person who learns from his financial
mistakes and becomes a success is then in a good position to give financial
advice to others. Or as in the AA program, alcoholics that kick the habit
are able to help others with the same problem.
The Pharisees thought that they were experts in the law of God, but
Jesus pointed out that they were really substituting human traditions for
the law of God. For example, they would dedicate money to the temple in the
name of their parents, and claimed that by this they had fulfilled the
command to honor their father and their mother (Matt. 15:1-9). Mishandling
the application of God's law to their own life so badly, they were in no
position to give advice to others on how to be faithful to the law of God.
"He who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7)
The popular interpretation of this passage is that only someone who
never sins can declare that someone else has sinned. But the issue before
them, adultery, was a criminal act under the law of Moses. Given this
context, the popular interpretation would require us to conclude that Jesus
was demanding that the State be abolished because it would mean that nothing
could be called a crime. All judges in court systems are sinners, all
legislators who make the laws are sinners, and all executives who enforce
the laws created by the legislators are sinners. So the popular
interpretation is absurd. Jesus was not an anarchist. He recognized the
authority of Caesar (Matt. 22:21).
Here's an alternative interpretation that makes sense: "without sin"
refers to the particular sin under discussion, adultery, not absolute
sinlessness.[1] Jesus was expressing the rule that a person who should be
prosecuted for committing a particular crime is not a legitimate witness
against someone else for that same crime. If these men were guilty of
adultery, they should be the "stonees," not the "stoners." How did these
men know how to find the woman "in the very act of adultery" (John 8:4)?
Probably because they had visited that location to engage in adultery
themselves. That's why they left, leaving no witnesses against the accused.
The law of Moses required at least two witnesses, and those witnesses had to
be the first ones to cast stones to execute the criminal:
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who
is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the
evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against
him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. (Deut.
17:6-7)
If the witnesses refused to initiate the execution, no execution could
take place. Jesus is not saying anything against the law of Moses; He is
upholding it. He is not saying that stones should never be cast. "He who
is without [this] sin cast the first stone" means, "If you can do it
lawfully, go ahead and stone her." Shocking, isn't it? But this is the
real Jesus, not the Sunday School Jesus, meek and mild.
The Pharisees thought that they had trapped Jesus. As one who claimed
to be the Messiah, the Pharisees knew that Jesus would have to uphold the
law of God. Yet the Roman government had taken the authority to execute
criminals away from the Jews. Only a Roman court could execute a criminal
(which is why they had to deliver Jesus to the Roman authorities to have Him
put to death). Jesus avoided the horns of the dilemma by endorsing the
Mosaic law, but showing the Pharisees that the requirements of the Mosaic
law had not been met in order to carry out a judgment against the woman.
Jesus' last words to the adulteress release her from liability before
the impromptu court, but He still judges her for her sin of adultery: "Go
and sin no more." He's like a judge who tells an accused when charges are
dropped because of tainted evidence, "The police didn't get the goods on you
this time, but don't let me see you back here again. Stay out of trouble."
There's no support for non-judgmentalism here.
Lastly, there is good reason to believe that this passage doesn't
belong in the Bible. There is probably a note to that effect in the margins
of your Bible. The passage is not found in the oldest extant manuscripts.
So this is hardly a good passage for non-judgmentalists to stake their case
on.
"God is love" (1 John 4:8)
God is love. That's His fundamental nature. So the liberal thinks
that he can ignore all the harsh stuff in the Old Testament. That was just
because humanity was less evolved, but the New Testament expresses a higher
view of God's nature when it teaches the "new commandment" of love. But
once again, the liberal is pouring his own ideas into the Biblical text.
When Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John
13:34), He was quoting the Old Testament. Leviticus 19:18 says, "you shall
love your neighbor as yourself." So the Old Testament teaches the same
ethic here. Since the Old Testament is no less God's word than the New, and
God's fundamental nature is eternal, you would expect the Old Testament to
express God's nature of love as much as the New. If the Old Testament God
does not seem loving, then you need to change your definition of love to
conform to God's.
The newness that Jesus mentioned was 1) in having the new example of
perfect love to follow, Jesus Christ ("just as I have loved you"), and 2)
in a new expansion of the practice of the commandment to love others with
the expansion of the "light" of Christianity. As John says about the
commandment to love one another:
Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment
that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you
have heard. At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to
you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away
and the true light is already shining. (1 John 2:7-8)
Furthermore, harsh punishment to the enemies of God is not something
left behind in the Old Testament era. Jesus talked more about Hell for
those that refused to believe in Him than He talked about heaven. Eternity
in Hell is a penalty far more severe than the capital punishment meted out
against God's enemies so many times in the Old Testament.
And also, while God is love, the New Testament also says that "God is
a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). God's just wrath against those who rebel
against Him is also a part of God's eternal nature. The expressions of God's
mercy outweigh the expressions of His wrath, but the wrath is still there,
as Numbers 14:18 says, "'The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in
steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no
means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the
children, to the third and the fourth generation."
In the immediate context of John's quote, non-judgmentalism is
indefensible. John defines what he means by love: "For this is the love of
God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3). The details of Biblical
law are what define Biblical love. But modern liberalism, both secular and
religious, wants to set law and love in opposition to each other, especially
the law of God in the Bible, with its condemnation of adultery,
homosexuality, and high taxes (1 Sam. 8). 1 John is not on their side.
Jesus judged
Jesus told the Pharisees, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are
you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (Matt. 23:23) That's pretty severe
judgment. Examples of Jesus making severe judgments could be listed for
pages. The whole Sermon on the Mount is a series of condemnations of the
evil teachings and practices of the Pharisees. Jesus told the Pharisees
that they should judge, but with a different standard than what they had
been using: "Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the
law. . . . Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
(John 7:19, 24)
John the Baptist judged
The one who prepared the way of the Lord, John the Baptist, publicly
rebuked King Herod for marrying his brother's wife contrary to the law of
God. (Matt. 14:3-4) He was beheaded for it. Jesus said of him, "Truly, I
say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than
John the Baptist" (Matt. 11:11)
The Apostles judged
The apostle Paul said, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually
immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuals are going to
hell - not very politically correct, is it?
The apostle Peter launched into a denunciation of false teachers
similar to Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees. He calls them "waterless
springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness
has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by
sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who
live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of
corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved." (2
Peter 2:17-19)
The apostle John coined the term "antichrist" to describe anyone who
"who denies that Jesus is the Christ" (1 John 2:22). Contrary to the
doctrine of the antichrists, "No one who denies the Son has the Father" (1
John 2:23). As part of denying the Son, antichrists refuse to confess that
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2). That would include most
liberals, both in the church and outside it. They teach that someone can
come to God the Father apart from His Son, and they claim that Jesus'
physical life, death and resurrection either did not happen or are
irrelevant to the "spiritual" message of Christ.
James, the brother of Jesus, was a fire and brimstone preacher,
telling his audience to repent, resist the devil, and turn from their lusts:
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is
hatred toward God? . . . Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you
sinners; and purify your hearts, you double minded. Be afflicted, and
mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to
heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift
you up. (James 4:4-10)
We are commanded to judge
Not only did Jesus and the Apostles judge, they told us to judge. We
already saw where Jesus said take the speck out of our brother's eye after
we have learned to examine our own life by the same standard (Matt. 7:5).
In Luke 17:3 He commanded us to rebuke a trespassing brother: "If your
brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." Likewise Paul
said to rebuke sin. In 1 Timothy 5:20 he says, "Those who continue in sin,
rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of
sinning." In Titus 2:15 he tells Titus, "These things speak and exhort and
reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." In 2 Tim. 4:2 he
tells Timothy to "reprove, rebuke, exhort." In 1 Thess. 5:14 he says to
"admonish the unruly." In Rom. 15:14 he tells the Roman church that they
are "able to admonish one another." In Eph. 5:11 he tells the church, "Do
not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose
them." Paul tells the Corinthians to establish church courts to judge
disputes between believers:
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the
world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do
you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters
pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them
before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame.
Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute
between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that
before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:2-6)
Jesus and Paul commanded the church to excommunicate church members
who have been rebuked but remain unrepentant for their sins. Jesus says
that if a brother that has sinned against you will not repent after being
confronted privately, and then will not repent when confronted by two or
three witnesses, then "tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt.
18:17-18) If the church's judgment is accurate in excommunicating a member,
Jesus says that God Himself will remove the person from the kingdom of
heaven.
Paul says,
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and
of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's
wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has
done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present
in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one
who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus
and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to
deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:1-5)
Paul expresses the hope that the one cast from the kingdom of God into
the kingdom of Satan will learn his lesson and eventually be saved. But the
idea of excommunication is cruel and unusual punishment to a lot of American
churches because of the influence of Roger Williams, who rejected the idea
of a church body having special divine authority and claimed that the church
was merely an association of people with no more authority than any other
voluntary assembly of people, like the Lions Club or the Red Hat Society.[2]
But for anyone who calls himself a Christian, the teaching of Scripture
should trump the teaching of the Roger Williams tradition.
The Bible teaches that to give a godly rebuke is an act of kindness
and to be considered a blessing to the one who receives it. A person who
wants to live a life pleasing to God should be grateful that someone shows
him where he has veered off the path. In Psalm 141:4-5 David says,
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice deeds of
wickedness with men who do iniquity; and do not let me eat of their
delicacies. Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; it is
oil upon the head; do not let my head refuse it.
In Prov. 25:12 Solomon says that a godly rebuke should be valued like
fine jewelry: "Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a
wise reproof to a listening ear." A godly rebuke should be gladly excepted,
as Prov. 10:17 says, "He is on the path of life who heeds instruction, but
he who forsakes reproof goes astray." Prov. 12:1 says, "He who loves
discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." Prov. 15:5
says, "A fool rejects his father's discipline, but he who regards reproof is
prudent." Prov. 29:1 says, "A man who hardens his neck after much reproof
will suddenly be broken beyond remedy." Eccl. 7:5 says, "It is better to
listen to the rebuke of a wise man than for one to listen to the song of
fools." Finally, Heb. 12:5 says, "My son, do not regard lightly the
discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by Him".[3]
"Don't judge"-in certain ways
All judging is not godly reproof however. The Bible condemns certain
ways of judging.
1. The Bible says not to judge hypocritically, which means to
fail to accurately judge your own life by the same terms that you judge
others' lives, as we saw in Matt. 7. The Pharisees claimed to follow Moses
and the law of God, but they nullified the law of God by their human
traditions. The Protestant church broke with the Roman Catholic Church
because of this very issue. But Protestant churches have developed their
own traditions that have no Biblical basis, and yet are seen as Biblical
standards. As long as Christians fail to diligently study the Bible from
Genesis to Revelation, they will continue to make inaccurate judgments about
what the Christian way to live and think really is. Jesus said that if you
can't follow the law of God better than the Pharisees, then that is a sign
that you are not saved:
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom
of heaven. (Matt. 5:19-20)
2. The Bible says not to judge hastily, that is without
sufficient evidence. We shouldn't judge without having diligently
investigated the facts. Proverbs 29:20 says, "Do you see a man hasty in his
words? There is more hope for a fool than for him." In Deut. 13:14 God
says that when someone is accused of committing a crime, the court is
supposed to "enquire, and make search, and ask diligently" about the matter
(also see Deut. 17:4). Furthermore, the Bible requires at least two or
three witnesses to corroborate the facts in order for a public accusation to
be made: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or
for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or
at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut.
19:15). The Apostle Paul upholds the same standard in the church in 1
Timothy 5:19: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two
or three witnesses." We saw in the case of the woman caught in adultery
that this standard could not be met because all the alleged witnesses walked
away.
3. The Bible says not to judge humanistically, that is by human
standards rather than by God's law.
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus,
saying, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For
they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." But He answered and said
to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother";
and 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death.' But
you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever you would gain
from me, it is a gift to God"'; and in no way he honors his father or his
mother. And you voided the commandment of God by your tradition.
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying, 'This people draws
near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart
is far from Me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.'" Matt. 15:1-9.
Some Christians are under the impression that the Pharisees strictly
followed the law of Moses, but we see here that it was the oral traditions
of the elders that they followed rather than the written word of God. At
another time Jesus told them, "Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of
you keeps the law. . . . Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right
judgment." (John 7:19, 24) As we have seen, Biblical love is defined by
God's law. John says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments" (1 John 5:3).
4. The Bible says not to judge falsely. The ninth commandment
is, "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor." That should be
enough said.
5. The Bible says not to judge unlovingly. "But speaking the
truth in love, may [we] grow up into Him in all things, which is the head,
even Christ" (Eph. 4:15). We can speak the truth without love, for selfish,
boastful, or vengeful purposes and tear down the body of Christ. This is
what gossip often is. You aren't exposing a sin in order to correct it, in
order to help the one who committed the sin to overcome it, but simply to
feel superior to the other person. Usually when we tell a third party about
someone else's sin, it's not doing anything to fix the situation. Paul
warns against young women in the church being "idle, wandering about from
house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not." (1 Tim. 5:13). "Tattlers" create
bitterness and infighting, which is the work of Satan. It tears down the
body of Christ rather than builds it up. Paul adds about these "tattlers,"
"For some are already turned aside after Satan" (1 Tim. 5:15). An issue
should usually be directed to the person with the sin, or a supervisor who's
responsible for that person. But even when we do confront someone directly
over a sin, we should do it respectfully. Paul advises the young pastor
Timothy, "Do not sharply rebuke an elder, but exhort as a father, and the
younger ones as brothers, older women as mothers, the younger women as
sisters in all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2).
Four problems with non-judgmentalism:
1. It's inconsistent with Scripture, as the discussion above has
shown.
2. It's irrational (self-refuting) - A person who says that "it's
wrong to judge" is making a judgment against those who judge. This is akin
to the statement often made by atheists that "there are not absolutes." The
statement itself is an absolute statement. It makes a universal negative
claim that there are no universal negative claims. These types of
self-refuting statements are endemic to atheistic thinking.[4]
3. It entails amoralism - To forbid judging is equivalent to
never making ethical distinctions. Nevertheless, non-judgmentalists make
ethical judgments all the time: Save the environment, make love not war,
tax the rich and give to the poor, etc. They don't want all laws abolished.
They want their laws to replace other laws - humanistic laws to replace laws
from the Christian past. Even though it's self-refuting, atheists like to
claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. They try to have
their cake and eat it too by using utilitarianism as their guide to right
action. They claim ethics is just a matter of efficiency to achieve greater
pleasure than pain. This way they think that ethics can be removed from the
realm of "dogmatism" and reduced to a scientific investigation of empirical
facts. But "efficiency" has no meaning apart from a goal, which leads us
back to an absolute.[5]
It should be noted that the self-refuting amoralism of
non-judgmentalism has found its way into interpretations of American
Constitutional law through the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. This clause is often said to prohibit "discrimination." But
there is no ethics without discriminating between right and wrong. The
distinction between right and wrong can be incorrectly defined in particular
cases, but that makes the issue one of bad ethical discrimination versus
good ethical discrimination, not an issue of discrimination versus
non-discrimination. Whether a particular ethical distinction is valid or
not depends on which ethical system one appeals to. It's not
worldview-neutral. Most people at the present point in history would agree
that a person's skin color has no ethical significance, therefore
discrimination based on skin color is illegitimate. But some want to say
that homosexuality is a class of people that are discriminated against by
sodomy laws and laws that define a family. They often talk as if merely
defining homosexuals as a class and pointing out that the class is being
treated differently is enough to prove that anti-homosexuality laws violate
the equal protection clause. But thieves would like to do the same thing -
have the State stop discriminating against them by making laws against their
behavior. To treat everybody "equally" without regard to an ethical system
would mean making all behavior equally blameless in the eyes of the law; in
other words, all laws would have to be abolished. Laws against homosexual
behavior are illegitimate discrimination only if it can be proven that
homosexuality is like skin color and genetically determined. But even here
the issue of worldviews comes up. All facts are interpreted facts, and from
the Christian perspective, no matter how many facts the scientists have
studied and not matter how smart they are, they do not know more than God
and are not smarter than God. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a
sin, and engaging in homosexual relations is punishable by the state.
Therefore it is not genetically determined and laws against it are not
illegitimately discriminatory.[6]
4. It disarms Christians of their weapon to defeat evil. I've
spoken of non-judgmentalism mainly as an atheist view, but the language has
been adopted by probably most Christians in our day. Without Christians
able to identify the fallacies of anti-judgmentalism, atheists are allowed
to advance their moral agenda and stop Christians from asserting theirs.
The atheist shouts, "The Bible says do not judge," and the Christian is
supposed to stop asserting the moral authority of God's word. Ephesians 6
lists the armor of God that Christians are commanded to put on. Every part
is defensive except one offensive part, "the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God" (Eph. 6). It's the sword of God's word that "judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). When Christians are
deceived into non-judgmentalism, they have laid aside their only weapon to
defeat the enemy. When Christians lay aside the authority of God's word, in
which we are given God's standards for living and God's solution to sin
through Jesus Christ, the atheists avoid the power of the word of God to
convict the heart of sin and to provide the blueprint to build God's
kingdom. Satan's kingdom, by default, triumphs. When confronted by the
devil, even Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, used God's word to
defeat the evil one. "It is written" Jesus declared, and the devil was
forced to flee. Martin Luther summed it up well in his hymn, "A Mighty
Fortress is Our God":
And though this world with devils filled should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God has willed His truth to triumph through us,
The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure;
One little word shall fell him.
Who are you to judge? You know you will be asked that, and you may
have already asked it to yourself. You are an ambassador for Christ (Eph.
6:20), that's who! Revelation 1:5 says that Jesus Christ is "Ruler of the
kings of the earth." You are an ambassador of the King of the universe, the
King of kings. It's not your word that you bring. It's God's word. And no
one can escape the judgment of God. And there is no other way of salvation
than that which is given in God's word. Those who say you shouldn't judge
will judge nonetheless. They ask "who are you to judge?" only to substitute
the word of man for the word of God as the ultimate authority. But whether
they like it or not, you have a duty to proclaim God's word. As Paul says,
it will be the savor of death to those who are perishing, but the savor of
life to those who are being saved (2 Cor. 2:16-17).
"Dennis M Reed "Califa"" <dmr...@dmreed.com> wrote in message
news:GbKdnWrGmZTFpO3S...@giganews.com...
> judge not lest........
>
> "Ř" wrote in message
> news:1%Obr.124794$Ub2....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> "reqluq" <scredcrop...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:JoKdnZqMl8HRGvHS...@supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "Ř" <Ř@set.null> wrote in message
>
> "reqluq" <scredcrop...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:JoKdnZqMl8HRGvHS...@supernews.com:
>
>>
Message has been deleted
0 new messages