protestant-christian

[protestant-christian]

2 Corinthians 4:18 "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal."

So many times, we are told not to look to the things of earth which pass away. The earth, and everything in it, will pass away. Even the earth itself, is of a temporary nature. This again, is speaking of the flesh and the spirit. The flesh represents all that you can see with the physical eye. The spirit is not seen with the physical eye. The spirit is the hope of mankind. Faith is spirit. We have faith that all that God promised, He will do.

Pursuing God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the souls of men should consume the believer.

[protestant-christian]

IS WORSIP OF MARY BIBLICAL?

First veneration is a synonym of Worship, so no matter what kind of word games Catholics like to play, anything the Catholics say that they don’t—they do.

The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. The only instances of anyone other than God receiving worship in the Bible are false gods, which are Satan and his demons. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, “Worship God!”

Roman Catholics attempt to “bypass” these clear Scriptural principles by claiming they do not “worship” Mary, but rather that they only “venerate” Mary. Using a different word does not change the essence of what is being done. A definition of “venerate” is “to regard with respect or reverence.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told to revere anyone but God alone. There is nothing wrong with respecting those faithful Christians who have gone before us (see Hebrews chapter 11). There is nothing wrong with honoring Mary as the earthly mother of Jesus. The Bible describes Mary as “highly favored” by God (Luke 1:28). At the same time, there is no instruction in the Bible to revere those who have gone to heaven. We are to follow their example, yes, but worship, revere, or venerate, no!

When forced to admit that they do, in fact, worship Mary, Catholics will claim that they worship God through her, by praising the wonderful creation that God has made. Mary, in their minds, is the most beautiful and wonderful creation of God, and by praising her, they are praising her Creator. For Catholics, this is analogous to directing praise to an artist by praising his sculpture or painting. The problem with this is that God explicitly commands against worshiping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship the form of anything in heaven above or earth below (Exodus 20:4–5). Romans 1:25 could not be more clear: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Yes, God has created wonderful and amazing things. Yes, Mary was a godly woman who is worthy of our respect. No, we absolutely are not to worship God “vicariously” by praising things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.

The major way Catholics “venerate” Mary is by praying to her. But prayer to anyone other than God alone is anti-biblical. Whether Mary is prayed to, or whether she is petitioned for their prayers—neither practice is biblical. Prayer is an act of worship. When we pray to God, we are admitting that we need His help. Directing our prayers to anyone other than God is robbing God of the glory that is His alone.

Another way Catholics “venerate” Mary is by creating statues and images of her. Many Catholics use images of Mary as a “good luck charm.” Any cursory reading of the Bible will reveal this practice as blatant idolatry (Exodus 20:4–6; 1 Corinthians 12:1–2; 1 John 5:21). Rubbing rosary beads is idolatry. Lighting candles before a statue or portrayal of Msry is idolatry. Burying a Mary statue in hopes of selling your home (and countless other Catholic practices) is idolatry.

The terminology is not the issue. Whether the practice is described as “worship” or “veneration” or any other term, the problem is the same. Any time we ascribe something that belongs to God to someone else, it is idolatry. The Bible nowhere instructs us to revere, pray to, rely on, or “idolize” anyone other than God. We are to worship God alone. Glory, praise, and honor belong to God alone. Only God is worthy to “receive glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4:11). God alone is worthy to receive our worship, adoration, and praise (Nehemiah 9:6; Revelation 15:4).

[protestant-christian]

Who are the “Real” Israelites?

Is it the African-Americans, The Native Americans, The Hispanics, or all of them?

First, let’s look at Abraham real quick.

Where is Ur of Chaldea? Well, Archaeologists have now determined where exactly the city of Ur was located in ancient times. Ancient Chaldea The southernmost portion of ancient Sumer was called Chaldea, and the most important Sumerian city was located on the western portion of the Euphrates River and it was called Ur. The land of Chaldea contain riches beyond imagination, and Ur was the wealthiest city.

So Ur of the Chaldeans was clear across the Saudi Arabian Penninsula from Africa.

And where was Abraham—the father of many nations to include a Israel—from? So, while the Bible does not state that Abraham was born in Ur, his father and Uncle were. And God said in Genesis 15:7; 7: Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.”

And God told Abraham to go to the land of Canaan where God gave that land to Abraham as an inheritance, for his descendants, mainly the Israelites. So if any thing the Israelites can trace their lineage back through Abraham to ancient Sumeria, not Africa.

Anyway, I digress.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how many different theories there are regarding what happened to the lost tribes of Israel. There are many different groups who claim to be the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.

British-Israelism (also known as Anglo-Israelism) claims that the ancient Israelites migrated to England and other parts of Europe. As a result, the people of England and the United States are the true Israelites.

The Black Hebrews or Black Israelites claim that Africans are the true Israelites.

Groups such as the “Gathering of Christ” claim that African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders are the true Israelites.

There are also groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India which claim to be the true descendants of the Israelites. There is even a Japanese Israelism which claims some of the lost tribes migrated all the way to Japan.

But why do all these groups claim they are the true Israelites? The simple answer is found in (Genesis 12:1-3; Deuteronomy 7:7-9). Where God Chose Israel ad His chosen nation. Why wouldn’t people want to be a part of Gods plan.

So, maybe, just maybe, the Israelis of today are the true descendants of the ancient Israelites.

So sorry to burst anyone’s bubble out there concerning the Anglo-Israelites, Black Israelites, and whoever-else-says-we-are-the-true-Israelites. God keeps excellent records. God knows who His people are. And the identity of His chosen nation is not a secret or a mystery to Him.

[protestant-christian]

Was there a Pre-Adamic Race of Humans before Adam?

The concept of a pre-Adamic race is the idea that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This theory has been postulated by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa A.D. 331–363) and Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère (1596-1676) are two notable examples.

Let us look at two popular facets of the Preadamite theory and then at what the Bible says about it: The hypothesis as it was proposed by Isaac de La Peyrère and the form which it takes in the “Gap Theory” (also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation). According to La Peyrère, God created the Gentiles on the sixth day when He said, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26). He did not create the Jews until after the seventh day, His day of rest. At some point after the seventh day, God created Adam, the father of the Jews.

La Peyrère cited Scripture to support his theory. Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17) are all interpreted as evidence that another race of men coexisted with Adam and his family.

La Peyrère subsequently reinterpreted other passages of Scripture in light of his peculiar understanding of the Genesis account. Consider a very familiar passage, Romans 5:12-14: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”

This passage is traditionally interpreted as meaning that death began with Adam’s sin and reigned unchecked among men (even among those who haven’t actually eaten the forbidden fruit, those who have sinned but not “in the likeness of the offense of Adam”) until the Law was given to Moses.

La Peyrère interpreted this passage another way. According to La Peyrère, the pre-Adamic Gentiles sinned against God, but in a manner less egregious than Adam (which is why Adam’s sin brought death while theirs didn’t). They merely sinned against God’s moral will, while Adam sinned against His Law. Adam disobeyed God’s prohibition by eating the forbidden fruit. He broke what La Peyrère called the Law of Paradise. Thus, according to La Peyrère, the pre-Adamic Gentiles were those who “had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.”

By now it’s obvious how misinterpreting one or two passages of Scripture can lead to all kinds of warped perceptions. The Scriptural problems with La Peyrère’s interpretations are numerous.

First, Adam is called the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45). This is inconsistent with the idea that God created men before Adam.

Second, according to La Peyrère, the Gentiles were to live outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam enjoyed paradise (a privilege which came with the responsibility of obeying the Law of Paradise—not eating the forbidden fruit). Genesis 2:5-8, however, says quite plainly that before God created “the man whom He had formed,” the very same man which He placed in the garden, there were no men upon the earth to cultivate the ground.

Third, God created Eve for Adam because he was alone, there was no one else like him around (“It is not good for the man to be alone… but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” Genesis 2:18, 20).

Fourth, Adam named his wife “Eve” “because she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). The list goes on, but these passages should suffice to refute La Peyrère’s misinterpretation.

As for Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17), Adam was almost 130 years old by the time that Cain killed Abel (Adam had Seth, his next son after Abel’s death, when he was about 130 years old; Genesis 4:25; 5:3). And we know that Adam had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:3). At 130 he could have had grandkids and great-grandkids by the time that Cain killed Abel. Cain had plenty of family members to be afraid of after killing his brother.

Cain apparently married a family member (a necessity back then) at some point before Abel’s murder. It seems odd to us today, but incest wasn’t outlawed by God until the Law of Moses. It may have been around that time that generations of degenerative genetic mutations began to take a toll on our DNA. God outlawed incest for our protection. It became (and remains) dangerous for close relatives to procreate because of shared genetic defects which become expressed in their children causing severe deformities and other problems.

As for Cain founding a city, if he lived to be the average age back then, he probably lived to be about 900 years old. By the time he died, his family would have been a small city. If Cain had a child at the age of 30, and his child had a child at the age of 30 and so on, Cain could have produced 30 generations by the time he died (30 generations times 30 years each equals 900 years).

The Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, or Gap Theory, takes a somewhat different approach to the pre-Adamic race theory. According to this Theory, an unspecified amount of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which God created a pre-Adamic race of men who lived upon the earth until God destroyed them in judgment. Other extinct creatures, like the dinosaurs, are said to have also lived during this time. Afterwards, the theory goes, God remodeled the earth in six days. He created Adam on the sixth day, and the rest is history. Some say that Satan’s fall occurred at some point during the ambiguous gap.

A “mistranslation” has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.” They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is mâlê’, and it simply means “to fill” or “to be full.” Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.” They chose “replenish” because, in 17th-century Elizabethan English, “replenish” meant “to fill” (similar to how in modern English the word “replete” doesn’t mean to “abound again,” it simply means “abundant” or “abounding”). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish” means “to fill again.” It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate mâlê’ as simply “fill” in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).

Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [mâlê’] the earth” (Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill” the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,” that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,” that argument falls flat.

The real problem with the Gap Theory is that it places human mortality (pre-Adamic human mortality) before Adam’s sin. The Bible is quite clear that death entered in through Adam’s sin. “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Regardless of whether or not we believe in animal mortality before sin, the Bible is quite explicit about human mortality before Adam’s sin. There wasn’t any. To deny this is to deny a central Christian doctrine.

[protestant-christian]

IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONE TRUE CHURCH?

PART TWO

There is no mention in the Bible of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

We know that for about the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. Some Emporers threw Christians in the Gladiator Arenas., some hung Christians alongside roads then set them on fire at night to help light the roads to see better. However, this changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. One reason is that Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. So, where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.

Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.

The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

[protestant-christian]

IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONE TRUE CHURCH?

PART TWO

There is no mention in the Bible of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

We know that for about the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. Some Emporers threw Christians in the Gladiator Arenas., some hung Christians alongside roads then set them on fire at night to help light the roads to see better. However, this changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. One reason is that Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible. So, where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice.

Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.

The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

[protestant-christian]

IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONE TRUE CHURCH?

PART ONE

The Catholic Church claims to be the One True Church. The Church that was founded by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church makes this claim primarily from the verse in Matthew 16:18

18: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

All the way from the Pope down the chain to the Priests, the Catholics believe they were given this authority from Jesus Himself.

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has the burden to proove that the claims they make are true, Biblical and in line with Gods Word.

So, when did the Catholic Church have it’s beginnings? Do they have the Biblical authority to interpret Scripture, do they have the Biblical Authority of Apostolic Authority, and is it Biblical to claim Peter as the First Pope?

Are the Catholic Church traditions and dogmas in line with Gods Word, and their interpretation of Gods Word, is it correct?

But if you do even a casual reading of the New Testament you will find that the Catholic Church does not, in fact, have Its teachings from Jesus Christ or the Apostles as given to us in the New Testament.

So, first let us look a Matthew 16:18.

Was Peter the First Pope?

The Catholics see Peter as the First Pope whom God chose to build His Church. It also contends that as the First Pope he would have primacy or authority of the other Apostles. They also contend that sometime after the events in the Book of Acts Peter became the Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome was accepted as the central authority over all the other Churches. It also contends that God passed Peter’s Apostolic Athority on to those who would come after him. This is know by Catholics as Apostolic Succession.

While Peter certainly was a central figure in the spread of the early Church what does Matthew 16:18 actually teach?

But what does this actually teach. Using the one verse I can certainly see where they get this idea but you have to read the verses before verse 18 to get a complete understanding of the message.

You cannot cherry pick certain verses to make your claim. Unfortunately, this happens all the time with some churches, especially Christian Cults.

Anyway, back to Peter and verse 18.

Actually we are going to look at the verses preceding verse 18.

Matthew 16: 13-18

“And when Jesus came into the area of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the son of men am? And they said unto him, Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, say that you're Elijah, others think you're Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets. And he said unto them, Who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona [or Simon Bar is son, the son of Jonah]: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Now we have one of two choices. The church is built upon Peter, or the church is build upon Peter's confession, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.

Catholics assert that the church was built on Peter. There are problems with this. Number one, Jesus said unto him, "Thou art Petros", which in the Greek is a little stone. And then He declared, "upon this Petras", which is a giant stone, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The church was not build upon the little stone, but upon the giant rock; "Thou art Petros", a little stone, "upon this Petras".

Paul the apostle in 1 Corinthians 3:11, tells us: "For other foundation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is",

Not Simon Peter, but Jesus Christ. "No other foundation can man lay, but that which is".

That is Jesus only.

It seems, and should seem quite obvious that Peter is not the foundation of the church. And it's not build upon him, but it is build upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and Peter's declaration that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the son of the living God. And that is the true foundation of the church. The church is build upon Jesus Christ. He is the foundation upon which the church stands.

When Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God!" Jesus said, "All right Peter, flesh and blood it not reveal this unto you, but my father which is in heaven." Peter you've had a spiritual revelation. This didn't come out of your own chemical juices that flash the little electronic impulse across your brain, this came from God. And I am certain that Peter didn't realize this that had come from God, because it just came to him, I am sure, as just a flash. Peter as we said was impulsive, and I am sure that when Jesus said, "Who do you say that I am?" He just said impulsively, "You're the Christ the Son of the living God." He said all right, blessed are you; you've had a revelation from God. "Flesh and blood didn't reveal this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven".

Jesus said,

And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Mat 16:19).

We have power as the children of God to bind the forces of darkness, and to loose the work of God. God has given us that authority over these spirit forces, these spiritual entities, that as children of God, we do have authority over them. We can bind these spirit forces and we can loose the work of God.

And there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the other Apostoles didn’t have this same authority as Jesus gave Peter.

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

Things God cannot Do

GOD CANNOT LIE.

“That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:18). [Other verses supporting this truth are Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Romans 3:4; Tutus 1:2; 1 John 1:10; and 1 John 5:10.] Aren’t you glad God is not lying to us about what He has done, is doing and soon will do concerning His Plan and His Word? Praise God!

GOD CANNOT CHANGE.

“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6). [To verify, compare Psalm 90:2,4; Psalm 102:27; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17; and Revelation 1:8.] God is absolutely committed and resolute about His plan for man. Aren’t you grateful that God does not change your world randomly or change His mind about your calling and salvation?

GOD CANNOT BREAK A PROMISE.

“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips” (Psalm 89:34). [Also see: Leviticus 26:44; Jeremiah 14:21; and Jeremiah 33:20–22.] Aren’t you grateful God has kept His promises in the past and will keep His promises concerning you, His saints, and His plan of salvation for all in the future?

GOD’S INTENT AND POWER CANNOT BE STOPPED.

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35). [See also Job 34:39; Job 42:2; Proverbs 21:30; Isaiah 43:13; Acts 5:39; and 1 Corinthians 10:22.] Aren’t you awed God cannot be thwarted, deceived, or overthrown?

Gods Word Cannot be Broken

“… the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) [Compare Psalm 12:6–7, 119:89; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; and Peter 1:25.] Aren’t you grateful God’s Word is pure and sure forever, and that you can trust it with your eternal life?

GOD’S LAW CANNOT BE ANNULLED.

“…all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness” (Psalm 111:7–8). [Match Psalm 119:160; Matthew 5:17–18; Luke 16:17; Luke 21:33; Romans 3:31; and Hebrews 13:8.] Aren’t you relieved that God’s physical as well as His spiritual laws cannot be altered or done away?

GOD CANNOT STAND SIN.

“But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1–2). [See Proverbs 15:29; Jeremiah 5:25; Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Ezekiel 39:23–24; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Galatians 6:7–8; and 1 John 3:4.] Aren’t you thankful that Jesus Christ came and paid your eternal death penalty for you, in your stead?

GOD CANNOT DESPISE A BROKEN AND CONTRITE HEART.

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise” (Psalm 51:17). [Cross reference Psalm 102:17; Psalm 138:6; Luke 15:10; and Romans 12:1] Aren’t you happy that, no matter what you have done, you can return to God through repentance and His saving grace?

GOD CANNOT BE PLEASED WITHOUT FAITH.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). [See also Numbers 14:11; John 3:18 John 8:24; Hebrews 3:12, 18–19; Hebrews 11:1; and Revelation 21:12.] Aren’t you humbled that you can be counted worthy and be added to God’s faith “hall of fame” through Jesus Christ?

GOD’S CHURCH CANNOT BE DESTROYED.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). [Compare Psalm 125:22; Matthew 7:25; Acts 5:39; and Romans 8:33–38.] Aren’t you at peace that the Guardian of this universe is protecting you and yours as long as you abide in Him?

GOD CANNOT BE WORSHIPPED TOO MUCH FOR WHO AND WHAT HE IS.

“…and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8). [Compare Psalm 30:12; Psalm 41:13; Psalm 99:3,9; Psalm 103; 1 Timothy 1:17; and Hebrews 13:15.] Aren’t you awed that we have such a perfect, Almighty, and loving God that is worthy of such praise?

GOD CANNOT STOP LOVING YOU.

“The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee” (also see Jeremiah 31:3; Deuteronomy 7:7–9; Psalm 103:17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:3–6; and 1 John 4:19.) Aren’t you thankful that God loves you enough to give His only-begotten Son for you?

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

Six reasons atheism is dead wrong

I. The universe had a beginning.

Atheists believe that the universe is eternal. We see from Edwin Hubble’s work at the Palomar Observatory (on Mt. Wilson near Los Angeles) that the universe is expanding. This expansion is confirmed through observation of the “red shift.” In physics (especially astrophysics) redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Albert Einstein traveled to see Hubble’s work and famously said “I now see the necessity of a beginning.” Since the universe is expanding, it follows that reversing the expansion would ultimately lead to a contraction or what physicists call “the singularity” known as the beginning of the universe. The Kalam Cosmological argument (widely accepted in professional philosophy and logic communities) states that:

Everything that began to exist, has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Time and space came into existence at the singularity. Since there was a cause to bring the universe into existence, it has to be a cause that is outside of time and space. As a result, the cause is both immaterial and transcendent. This is God.

II. A life-permitting universe requires that cosmology and physics are exactly tuned to support life.

This concept is called “the Anthropic Principle.” We currently understand that there are about 35 parameters that are perfectly harmonized to support life on our planet. These parameters must all be set within a very narrow range to support life. The probability of these 35 attributes being set at the correctly to support life is less than 1 in 1040 equating to essentially zero probability. Some examples of these parameters include:

The unique properties of water

Earth’s atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, and small amounts of other gases)

Earth’s reflectivity or “albedo”

Earth’s magnetic field

Earth’s place in the solar system

Our solar system’s place in the galaxy

The color of our sun

The force of gravity

The density of matter must equal the critical density needed to prevent the Big Crunch

The earth must be angled in its orbit perfectly to prevent temperature extremes.

Our moon must be its exact size to support the earth’s orbit.

The rate of universe expansion (cosmological constant).

This fine tuning requires a fine tuner. This is God.

III. The origin of life did not arise by chance.

There are 20 individual amino acids that are used in building proteins. Most proteins have a combination of approximately 450 amino acids. There are about 600 proteins in the most elementary cell. There are a total of about 30,000 proteins.

Darwin thought the cell was a globule and did not understand cell complexity. If you calculate the probability of individual amino acids combining to form one protein you would multiply (since sequence matters) 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 (for each protein) all the way out to 450 amino acids (an average protein length) equating to a probability of essentially zero. A protein that is 150 amino acids in length has a chance probability of 1 in 10145. There is zero probability that the origin of life came about by chance. When one adds the additional complexity of DNA (which goes beyond the complexity of amino acid formation), we must further reduce the probability of chance creating life. Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of DNA, acknowledged that chance played no role in creating DNA.[5] He was a philosophical atheist so he supported the idea of Panspermia (that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was transported through interstellar systems by some unknown space aliens.) Scientists agree that chance alone using matter alone has a zero probability of explaining life. The sequence hypothesis (DNA nucleotides) confirms this.

The origin of life requires both design and an animating force based on biogenesis. This force is God.

IV. The origin of information did not arise by chance.

Information is the immaterial foundation of all biological life yet it requires material to transmit through. Information requires an intelligent source. We saw this in the formation of proteins and DNA. How much does information weigh? It is a nonsensical question because information has zero weight since it has no physical properties. Highly intelligent people Don’t weigh more than others because they have more information. According to information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt, DNA is billions of times more densely packed information than is our most sophisticated technology. Darwin was ignorant about information coding. Neo-Darwinists believe that natural selection and mutation explain the advancement of new species. However, a new species requires new information. Mutations by definition are the loss of original information, not the creation of new information. Microevolution has existed for centuries (adaptation within a species, a.k.a. “breeding”). Macroevolution, one species creating a new life form, is without example in the fossil record (the Cambrian explosion showed a sudden appearance of all current life forms without transitional forms.) Darwin tried to use microevolution to explain macroevolution. His philosophical descendants today try the same trick. This deception is widely perpetrated throughout the American education system.

Information, by definition, requires a transmitter or source. There are 1080 elementary particles (electrons, etc.) in the known universe. The oldest estimate of the age of the earth is 1016 seconds[6], thereby creating 1043 number of particle interaction possibilities or 10139 maximum event probabilities in the history of the universe.

The intelligence behind the information that created the enormous but finite universe, the 30,000 proteins, the complexity and wonder of DNA, and life itself is called God. There is no naturalistic/materialist explanation that can fit within the event horizon of probabilities. Information requires intelligence. This intelligence is God.

V. Morality did not evolve physiologically by chemical or biological evolution. Morality requires a transcendent measure.

Atheists pretend that God does not exist by using the intellectual arguments of science while the root cause of their opposition to confessing God’s existence is moral. By pretending that God doesn’t exist, the atheist deludes himself into thinking that he is not morally accountable to the God that created him. Evolutionary ethicists state that there is no free will; we are the products of time and chance. There is no concept of right or wrong or ought in DNA. If our morality is evolved, who can say that torturing children for fun is wrong? Who can say that the Nazis were wrong in killing Jews? Evolutionists must say they are just doing what their genes programmed them to do. If evolutionary ethics were true, how do you explain acts of courage, valor, and sacrifice that appear noble but would not lead to reproduction (they die in battle for example.) If evolutionary ethics and morality were true, the biggest, strongest, and smartest would do anything to advance their cause. This has happened occasionally with horrors such as eugenics, Nazi Germany, and other examples of genocide, etc. If everyone chose their own morality, there would be chaos and evil rampant with no punishment and no justice. Necessary conditions for moral objectives are:

A transcendent standard of measurement

A human free will or freedom to choose

The belief that humans have intrinsic, not instrumental, value

Moral evolutionist/relativists can not ascribe right or wrong or the word “ought.” They can’t complain about justice or evil. Everybody would do just what their genes programmed them to do, based upon chemistry and evolution. The contrasting reality is that humans are free will creatures who recognize moral right and wrong and therefore are free to choose beyond their genetic endowment. This is clearly indicated in the economic and social mobility of classes and individuals who operate as moral agents. This moral awareness comes from God.

VI. The life, death, resurrection, and fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus of Nazareth requires theism.

The life and impact of Jesus is corroborated through the eyewitness testimony contained in the Bible. The biblical manuscript evidence attests to its authenticity. Extra-biblical sources, e.g., Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonious, Phlegon, Lucian, and Josephus are just a few examples of those that wrote of the historical veracity of Jesus’ existence. The evidence for the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the transformation of the early church all best explain the circumstances surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Finally, there are approximately 100 prophecies in the Old Testament that relate to the first coming of Jesus. Mathematics professor Peter Stoner, author of Science Speaks, assembled other mathematicians to calculate the probability of one man fulfilling 48 of the 100 Old Testament prophecies. The resulting probability was estimated at 1 in 10157[8] This miraculous fulfillment is from God.

Conclusion The cumulative weight of evidence from cosmology, physics, biology, information science, ethics, and fulfillment of prophecy clearly establishes that God is the best explanation as the creator of the universe, of life, of information, of morality, and as the one who transcends time and space, thereby fulfilling prophecy without error.

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]

[protestant-christian]