Sunday, April 26, 2015

Justin Peters in Brazil: God Does Not Speak to You Today Through Prophecy and Revelation

Justin Peters in Brazil: God Does Not Speak to You Today Through Prophecy and Revelation

By Julio Severo
There was a lot of confusion among some experts on Christian apologetics in Brazil early this year about whether Justin Peters preached or not cessationism when, as a VINACC guest speaker, he taught against prosperity theology preachers by calling them “heretics.”
Justin Peters
Actually, he wanted also to call believers in supernatural charismatic gifts of “heretics,” but he was hindered from doing so in his VINACC public meetings.
He was prevented from teaching his cessationist gospel in VINACC.
How did Peters become an intransigent cessationist?
Apparently, after attending several meetings of prosperity theology proponents and receiving no miracle, Peters, who is a disabled man, let his bad experience create a bad theology: If he received no miracle in these meetings is because God gives no supernatural gifts in our days.
Today, he is an avid cessationist — a theological jargon to design adherents of the theory that says the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased 2,000 years ago and that they are no longer available today. In fact, his non-healing experiences have been used by Calvinist theologian John MacArthur to back his anti-Pentecostal “Strange Fire” conferences, where Peters is one of the speakers.
In Campina Grande, Brazil, where the VINACC meeting was held, Peters was recorded as saying,
“Anytime somebody says God has spoken to me and has given me a word, has given me a new revelation, has given me a prophecy, that you automatically write that person off as a false teacher as a false prophet. And we could talk for an hour at least about how God does or does not speak to people. Hebrews 1:1,2 pretty clear: God long ago spoke through the fathers in the prophets in many portions in many different ways, but in these last days has spoken to us in His Son Jesus who is the final speaking of God. We have the perfect, inerrant, infallible and sufficient record of that. So God is not giving certain individuals special revelations, special insight into His future plans. He’s not doing that anymore. Everything that we need is right here in the Word of God. We’re the dwell of the Spirit who illumines the meaning of this Word in our hearts and minds. That’s all we need. The second thing: anybody who claims to be an apostle or a prophet, write that person off immediately.”
After reading Peters’ words, Dr. Michael Brown, author of “Authentic Fire” (a book that exposes the fallacies of “Strange Fire,” a book by MacArthur), said to me:
“What a bizarre statement about God not speaking today. The Word plainly says that Jesus, by the Spirit, continues to speak. If I believe the Word, then I must believe the Spirit is still speaking today. It’s troubling to see how Mr. Peters terribly misuses the Bible to justify his claims and rather than dealing with the detailed scriptural evidence I provided in my Authentic Fire book, he dismisses it all because I accepted Benny Hinn’s invitation to appear on his broadcast and preach the gospel to millions of viewers.”
With his words, Peters showed that he has not a problem just with prosperity theology preachers. His problem is with all people professing Pentecostalism or charismatic experiences. In fact, his main foundation to attack Pentecostal leaders seems to be his fierce opposition to the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit today.
By the way, Brazil was a huge challenge for him, because most Brazilian evangelicals are Pentecostal. Brazilian evangelicalism is basically Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal.
Peters would get a good audience among followers of Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the Kingdom of God Universal Church (KGUC). Macedo also believes that God gives no prophecy or revelation today. He said, “In former times, God used to speak through dreams, visions or prophecies, because there was not His written Word. Today, He speaks through His Word.”
What is to be done to people today who say that they had a prophecy or revelation? Macedo answers, “If someone learns that there is a ‘prophet’ or ‘prophetess’ in KGUC, denounce it immediately to the minister and also to the regional leader, so that we may take immediate measures.”
It would sound ok for Peters, wouldn’t it? After all, this is his theology!
Macedo is relentless in his anti-prophecy stance. Incredibly, he is a neo-Pentecostal (neo-charismatic) leader who preaches the prosperity theology. Yet, whether or not you bring Macedo a prophetic revelation or God’s Word about the value of life, he remains fierce and equally relentless in his defense of abortion and birth control.
If Peters’ attacks were directed to this real strange fire (abortion, birth control, partial cessationism and the Gospel together), it would be fair. But his attacks are directed to other issues and against all Pentecostals. For Peters, all gifts of prophecy and revelations today are “strange fire,” are demonic. Of course, Macedo would say, “Amen!”
There are false gospels and false miracles, but you should never use the false gospels and the false miracles to disqualify the true Gospel and the true miracles.
Because I am charismatic Christian, should I accept all manifestations of supernatural gifts coming from Christians? No. Some years ago, an American preacher said that he received a prophecy about Brazil winning the 2014 World Cup and also about an evangelical woman getting elected as Brazilian president in the 2014 election. His prophecy was interpreted as God supporting Marina Silva, a socialist militant who began in the Catholic Church and today is an Assemblies of God member.
Brazil suffered its worst defeat in the 2014 World Cup. I knew that his prophecy was not correct, especially for its interpretation favoring Marina, who has solid socialist stances. While many evangelical leaders were supporting her because of the prophecy, I was, before the election, exposing Marina and her avid socialism. Eventually, she lost.
Apostle Paul, who had many charismatic gifts, never taught that you should reject prophecies, but that you should be free to prophesize and free to evaluate what each person says in prophecy: “Two or three people should speak what God has revealed. Everyone else should decide whether what each person said is right or wrong.” (1 Corinthians 14:29 GWV)
To reject all prophecies is not the Bible way. To accept all prophecies is not the Bible way. The Bible ways is freedom to prophesy and freedom do evaluate.
In Campina Grande, Brazil, Justin Peters lambasted prosperity theology preachers. He also lambasted the VINACC organizers because he wanted to teach cessationism (the strange doctrine that says God no longer grants supernatural gifts today), but they did not allow him. Even though several VINACC speakers are cessationist Calvinists, its public is mostly Pentecostal. Peters’ cessationism would have been extremely offensive to this public.
Peters’ declarations against prophecy and revelation were recorded in an interview with him in Campina Grande and show how eager he was to teach the VINACC public to reject “heresies,” misinterpreted by him as an acceptance of prophecy and revelation for today.
In his recorded declarations, Peters also attacked Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish charismatic leader who has been prominent for his defense of the Gospel and Israel. He said,
“A lot of pastors will have invite questionable people to come to their churches to preach. They will go on to questionable or maybe I should say questionable because it could sound like mad, television programs associated with false prophets. One good example is Dr. Michael Brown, who is considered to be one of the intellectual leaders of the charismatic movement. He blasted the Strange Fire Conference that was held at John MacArthur’s church, because he claimed that the Strange Fire Conference plained all charismatics with raw brush and it was really as if the Strange Fire Conference should talk about the strange time fringe of the charismatics. He said that is not who we are. So he blasted the Conference and then three months later he goes on Benny Hinn’s television program and records five programs with Benny Hinn who is one of, if not the world’s most infamous bad influence, that’s the bad way influence in believers. If you can’t tell Benny Hinn is a false teacher then something is really wrong. And so associations pick volumes about who we are and what we believe.”
In answer, Dr. Michael Brown clarified that, because Peters tried to misrepresent him in Brazil, he is open to a public debate about these issues. The debate could happen in Brazil. Brown said,
“1) I invited Pastor MacArthur to private discussion or public debate on numerous occasions, but he refused to engage in private or in public; 2) I would debate Justin Peters in a heartbeat as to what the Bible says about divine healing; 3) I exposed false accusations made against Benny Hinn by Justin Peters; 4) my appearance on Benny Hinn’s show is not an endorsement of his theology any more than my appearance on Piers Morgan. Instead, I was able to reach his audience with the message of Jesus the Messiah. Is this wrong? 5) I have exposed errors in the Charismatic church for decades, and I continue to do so to this day, but I am Charismatic because of the plain teaching of Scripture and again. I would gladly debate what the Scriptures say with any qualified non-Charismatic leader.”
Dr. Brown is willing to debate John MacArthur and Justin Peters, in Brazil or in the U.S., about their stance against prophecy, revelation and other supernatural gifts for today. He said:
“I invite Mr. Peters to have a formal, moderated debate with me on what the Bible says – not what people say – about the gifts of the Spirit, including healing and prophecy, being promised by God in His Word for today. Let’s not engage in rhetoric. Let’s look at the Word.”
I do not know if Brazilian charismatics are prepared for such debate.
CPAD, the biggest Pentecostal publishing house in Brazil, has published several books by anti-Pentecostal Calvinist John MacArthur, but it has not published “Authentic Fire,” by Dr. Brown. In contrast, cessationist Calvinist publishers in Brazil will never publish any book by Dr. Brown or by any other charismatic, even though there is no anti-Calvinist Pentecostal version of John MacArthur in Brazil.
CPAD belongs to the Assemblies of God, which has over 12 million members in Brazil. The Presbyterian Church of Brazil, the first Calvinist denomination in Brazil, has 1 million members, but not all of them are cessationist.
MacArthur’s “Strange Fire” has been published in Brazil by Thomas Nelson. Both Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, the two largest Protestant publishing houses in the world, belong to HarperCollins, which publishes the Satanic Bible, by Satanist Anton LaVey.
So the publisher and promoter of “Strange Fire” in Brazil is owned by HarperCollins, which publishes and promotes satanic books. This is satanic fire!
Yet, the publisher and promoter of other books by MacArthur in Brazil is Pentecostal giant CPAD. Does it make sense?
A schizophrenic contrast. Brazilian Pentecostals promote MacArthur. MacArthur does not promote Brazilian Pentecostals. MacArthur uses and abuses the Gospel to attack Pentecostals. Brazilian Pentecostals do not use and abuse the Gospel to attack MacArthur. Are Brazilian Pentecostals spiritual masochists who love to be labeled “heretics” for believing in supernatural gifts for today?
There is a real strange fire when “Strange Fire” and the Satanic Bible are published and promoted by the same source.
There is a stranger fire when books of an anti-Pentecostal Calvinist author are published and promoted by the biggest Pentecostal publisher in Brazil.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Armenian President Warns about Danger of Genocide Denial, Brazilian Congressman Marco Feliciano Denounces Genocide of Armenian Christians

Armenian President Warns about Danger of Genocide Denial, Brazilian Congressman Marco Feliciano Denounces Genocide of Armenian Christians

By Julio Severo
Armenian President Serge Sargsyan warned Wedsnesday about the danger to the world of the denial of the genocide of over 1.5 million Armenians by Muslim hordes of the Ottoman Empire.
Armenian genocide
The national day for the remembrance of this massacre, which hit especially Armenian Christians, will be held in Armenia next Friday.
“Genocide is a failure of the international community and its impunity is the premise for its repetition,” said Sargsyan in his opening speech in an international forum on the genocide, held in the Armenian capital.
Sargsyan will pay homage to the dead in the massacre Friday, in a ceremony that will include the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President François Hollande.
The Armenian president made several references to Turkey, but without mentioning it directly.
“Genocide denial contains components of a new wave of national hatred and it is followed on many occasions by intolerance and a justification for the genocides committed,” said Sargsyan.
Sargsyan stated that Armenians have a moral obligation, but also a right to remember the death of over 1.5 million people, the suffering of other hundreds of thousands in deportations and the extermination of the material and spiritual legacy accumulated over millennia.
Armenian genocide
The president remembered the Russian, European and American missionaries, diplomats and businessmen who helped the persecuted Armenian and saved several lives.
The genocide anniversary is stained by the Turkish denial, because Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insists on saying that Turkish Muslims did not commit any genocide against Armenian Christians.
So far, just 22 nations have recognized the Armenian genocide, among them France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Greece, Russia, Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile and Bolivia.
The United States, the largest Protestant nation in the world, and Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, have never recognized the Armenian genocide in order not to make Turkey “angry.” And now under Barack Obama, it is much harder for the U.S. government to recognize it, because Turkey is one of the main allies of the U.S. policies in the Middle East.
By officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, Germany, Canada and Russia took the lead over the U.S. and Argentina, while Chile and Venezuela took the lead over Brazil.
Even with the resistance of the Brazilian government, in the Brazilian Congress a voice has risen to remember the genocide of Armenian Christians. In April 22, 2015, Congressman Marco Feliciano shouted from the Congress floor:
“From this floor I declare my solidarity with the Armenian People for the occasion of the centennial commemoration of the genocide committed by Turks against their defenseless population in the Ottoman Empire, where 1.5 million lives were destroyed.”
“This the first genocide in modern history left lasting scars among Christians around the world, because the overwhelming majority of the victims in this massacre were Christians descended from the first groups converted to Christianity around the third century AD.”
“Yet, as taught by Jesus, His followers will experience suffering, but not in vain. Today the courageous Armenian people maintain their culture, language and customs and, most importantly, a free homeland, and they commemorate this event in order to hinder its repetition and so that the world may more and more recognize the inhumanity committed against them.”
That same day, Feliciano, who is also an Assemblies of God minister, sent an official letter to the Armenian Embassy in Brazil, saying:
“It is with great honor that I express my solidarity with you and with all the Armenian people for the occasion of the centennial commemoration of the genocide committed by Turks against your people.”
“It is important in this centennial commemoration, with its sad memory, for us to fraternize with one another in one ideal of faith and forgiveness to build a better world for our children and so that deplorable facts such as this may never happen again.”
It is worrying that with the non-recognition of the genocide of Armenian Christians, the Brazilian government shows more interest in the feelings of Turkey’s Muslims, particularly since Turkey has plans to advance Islam in Latin America.
With the recognition of the Armenian genocide, Congressman Marco Feliciano shows that he cares about the feelings of Christians in Armenia and Brazil.
With information of Terra, EFE and Marco Feliciano.
Reviewed by Don Hank.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Conservative Babylon in “Persecuted”: Hybrid Televangelist Framed by Pagan Neocon, and the Free Speech or Patriotic or Equality “Gospel” Replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Conservative Babylon in “Persecuted”: Hybrid Televangelist Framed by Pagan Neocon, and the Free Speech or Patriotic or Equality “Gospel” Replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ

By Julio Severo
At last, a conservative movie! Days ago I enthusiastically watched “Persecuted,” a movie that, according to leftist Dorri Olds, is “made up of mostly real-life conservatives.” Olds, who watched its premiere last year, adds that it “was pure religious right propaganda” and that it is a “A Movie For Christian Conservatives Only.” So it is just for me!
Televangelist John Luther with his rosary and gun
According to WorldNetDaily, “‘Persecuted’ tells the story of evangelist John Luther’s life-and-death battle to preach the gospel without compromising its message to a political agenda motivated by greed.”
MovieGuide says, “‘Persecuted’ is a suspenseful political thriller about a renowned evangelist who finds himself being targeted by a secret conspiracy to limit religious freedom in America.”

A Framed Telelevangelist

James Remar plays John Luther, a nationally acclaimed Christian televangelist whose fame and influence make him an essential political tool for Senator Donald Harrison (Bruce Davison) in his efforts to get his “Faith and Fairness Act” through Congress. The ill-defined bill, having something to do with providing equal standing to all religions, doesn’t sit well with the televangelist Luther, who refuses to cooperate, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Since the action takes place in the sort of cinematic Washington, D.C., where political conflicts are resolved through heinous criminal acts, Luther soon finds himself abducted, drugged and photographed, in racy photos, with a young girl in a plot, executed by nefarious Secret Service agents, where the senator orders him, to destroy his credibility and ensure passage of the senator’s bill, to be framed for the rape and murder of the innocent teenage girl, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Luther escapes and becomes a rosary-carrying version of Harrison Ford’s character from The Fugitive, according to Jon Webster in the Examiner. He becomes a wanted man with his face all over the media. So he uses a classic disguise — dark sunglasses and a hoodie. To watch the trailer, go here:

He attempts to find the evidence that would prove his innocence, while trying to avoid the police and government agents and while his ministry is being taken over by its opportunistic vice-president (played by conservative Christian comedian Brad Stine).

A Televangelist and His Father, a Catholic Priest

Vulnerable and desperate, he cries out to God for direction. Luther’s father is Fr. Charlie Luther, a Catholic priest, played by Fred Thompson. The priest helps his son, but he knows that big forces are against them. The senator sends government operatives and assassins after them. Fr. Charlie is killed.
MovieGuide says, “the movie also implies that the President of the United States is in on the schemes to get the evangelist out of the way, but that plot twist could use more clarity. Finally, the movie as now edited doesn’t explain how exactly the evangelist could have a father who’s a Catholic priest.”
There is no explanation on how a traditional Catholic priest became the father of a popular televangelist. Even though the movie has no malicious innuendo, there was obviously a breach of the Catholic celibacy. But because father and son are very conservative, no suspicion was raised about the hybrid televangelist who loves the Bible and the rosary.
MovieGuide says that “Persecuted” “gives a warning to the Christian Church, the Body of Christ, to be careful about getting in bed with the government. In the movie, the new law offers churches and religious groups a special tax benefit to entice religious leaders into supporting the new law. When the evangelist gets framed for the girl’s murder, his right-hand man convinces the organization’s board of directors to support the new law so they can get more financial donations. This leads to an intense confrontation between the evangelist and his board of directors, including his right-hand man who clearly wants to take away leadership of the group from the evangelist.”
MovieGuide labels “Persecuted” as “a provocative political thriller from a strong Christian, and somewhat conservative or libertarian, perspective.”
The Hollywood Reporter says, “By the time the film reaches its violent conclusion, Luther, armed with rosary beads and a gun, is forced to take matters into his own hands.” This for me is Babylon, a word that means “confusion.”
In many respects, I liked “Persecuted.” It has no foul language. I am very tired of U.S. movies with dirty language, even from supposedly Christian actors.
Yet, even though Luther was almost murdered because he did not put his support behind legislation to unify people of all faiths, “Persecuted” gives the message that the Catholic faith and the evangelical faith are equal.

Free speech: a problem only in Russia and China, not America and Saudi Arabia

The movie also seems to suggest that the most important value is free speech and, fully satisfying the will of neocons, Luther tells about his worry that America could become a “Russia, China or Iran,” with repressive laws against free speech.
This is exactly what neocons want to hear. Yet, if free speech is so important, why not include Saudi Arabia, which is as Islamic as Iran, but much worse in Christian persecution? In Saudi Arabia, no churches and Bibles are allowed, and this is the most important Islamic ally of the U.S. Why not expose it?
Russia does not persecute people who express their views against abortion and sodomy. What about America? How should we measure free speech in these critical conservative cases?
About China, why complain about them? America has been the main financial feeder of China, which is building the largest communist army in the world through massive investment from U.S. companies in Chinese soil.
Besides, while Protestantism in America, the largest Protestant nation in the world today, is shrinking, in China evangelical Christianity is increasing and it is poised to surpass the Protestant population in America in the next few years. That is, China will be the largest Protestant nation in the world.
America has free speech. China has not.
Protestantism in America is shrinking. In China, it is increasing. What does it tell us?
True Christianity grows under persecution. The early Christian church had no free speech, but she increased.
Free speech is not essential for Christian survival. The preaching of the Gospel is.
In an interview with Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, “Persecuted” producer Daniel Lusko said, “John Luther is the hero of our story. And he becomes a major evangelist at the level of a Billy Graham, at a time when America becomes an unwelcoming environment for the Gospel.”
My mother was converted to Christ through Billy Graham’s Gospel message. She had her rosary. But after accepting Christ, she understood that a rosary is not necessary to pray to God, who hears us through Jesus Christ. Yet, John Luther’s example seems sometimes to suggest that a nationalist conservative lifestyle is more important than a Gospel lifestyle and that you can be a hybrid Catholic-evangelical-non-denominational conservative, with no spiritual loss.
We can gain the whole world to conservatism, but if conservatives do not know Christ in a personal way, what is it good for?
“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?” (Matthew 16:26 ESV)

Fundamentalists Yesterday and Today

Jon Webster said, “To sum up, this is a film that fundamentalist Christians will be drawn to.”
If these fundamentalists are like the original fundamentalists, they will certainly not like “Persecuted.” The original term for fundamentalism was used for evangelical Christians who developed and followed “The Fundamentals,” a massive theological book, edited by R. A. Torrey, to confront liberalism, ecumenism, socialism and heresies among Protestant churches in the early 20th century.
“The Fundamentals” rejects many of the Catholic doctrines as incompatible with the Bible. It encouraged U.S. Protestants to avoid the hybrid Christianity of John Luther.
Among Brazilian evangelicals, a rosary-loving evangelical would be labeled a confused and disturbed Christian. In fact, they would not understand why their American counterparts see no problem in such evangelical.
I am not be worried about Catholics or Orthodoxies with rosaries. But an evangelical televangelist? A “Billy Graham” with a rosary? Could John Luther be representative of what is happening to U.S. evangelicals?
The ministry of the hybrid televangelist Luther is named “Truth,” a bold name requiring bold words and attitudes. So it is very appropriate to tell the truth about this movie.
“Persecuted” does not attack Islam, the single greatest persecutor and murderer of Christians today and for many centuries. But it attacks the geopolitical enemies of the United States: Russia, China (a special trade partner, a muy amigo “enemy”) and Iran. This greatly pleases neocons.
“Persecuted” does not attack the complete ban on free speech in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic dictatorships that are allies of the United States. This greatly pleases neocons.

Pro-Family Union, Yes, Hybridism, No

“Persecuted” pleases Catholics and evangelicals by creating a hybrid Catholic-evangelical conservative: a “Billy Graham” with a rosary. Why not a hybrid Catholic-Orthodox-evangelical-Jewish conservative? My worry is that this dangerous trend can lead to a future hybrid Muslim-Christian-Hindu-Buddhist conservative, and all of us know how America is prone to “diversity.”
I am not against a pro-family union among Catholics, Orthodoxies, Jews and evangelicals. But, in a very profound spiritual level, do we need to create hybrids? Do we need a genetically (in a spiritual way) modified televangelist?
Sometimes, John Luther seems more nationalist conservative than an evangelist. Other times, he seems more evangelist than a nationalist conservative. This is confusion. This is Babylon.
Conservatism is important, but it is not the Gospel and it cannot replace the Gospel. I talk as an evangelical to evangelicals.
Let Catholics be Catholics. Let Orthodoxies be Orthodoxies. Let Jews be Jews. Let evangelicals be evangelicals. Let them be united in conservative pro-family efforts. But why use the Gospel to break differences among Christians and create hybrids for the sake of a nationalist conservatism? Why create a strange “ecumenism” in the name of conservatism, patriotism or nationalism?
In the WorldNetDaily article, Daniel Lusko said, “Once you have put all that trust into an institution that cannot replace God, then it becomes a trap. That’s why this story is so essential because he could have been a believer in any kind of faith.”
I could also add, “Once you have put all that trust into in nationalism or patriotism, which cannot replace God, then it becomes a trap.”
Take away his rosary, and “Persecuted” will be perfect. If Lusko wanted a hero with a rosary, he should let the Catholic priest be the only hero.
Take away also his nationalist criticism only of nations not aligned with the U.S., and “Persecuted” will be perfect. Saudi Arabia deserves to be criticized for its complete ban on free speech.
And why not praise Russian laws banning homosexual propaganda to children? If America is better than Russia in free speech, why in Russia Christians can criticize sodomy, and in America cannot they do it? Why Russia protects children from the gay agenda, and America does not?
Introduce this Russian example, and “Persecuted” will be perfect.
It is remarkable that John Luther (two Christian names combined; one right from the Bible, the other from Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation) fights for a new reformation.
Yet, while the original Luther fought corruption in the Catholic institution 500 year ago, modern John Luther is an American patriot fighting the dark forces of the U.S. government as represented by Senator Donald Harrison (Bruce Davison) and a cartoonish white-haired corrupt president (James R. Higgins) of the United States who looks like Ted Kennedy and sounds like Bill Clinton.
Patriot evangelical hybrid Luther opposed the “Faith and Fairness Act,” supposed to protect all religions and give them equal free speech.

Religious Freedom Above the Gospel

In the WorldNetDaily article, titled “Trust in God or government?” Fred Thompson, who played Fr. Charles Luther, said “Quite frankly, any religion people should feel the right to practice what they believe in. That’s why I think this movie is central to anyone who has ever felt that freedom of speech or religion is under attack in any shape or form.”
Concisely, is not this the “Faith and Fairness Act”?
So the father of the hybrid televangelist eventually betrayed his son and his movie.
Yet, on the other hand, John Luther is a mirror of the “Faith and Fairness” with his hybridism that equals the Catholic faith and the evangelical faith. Somewhat, he opposes something that he lives. This is confusion. This is Babylon.
An evangelical minister with a Bible and a rosary is also a betrayal, not to Catholics, who follow these traditions, but to R. A. Torrey and all American evangelical leaders who defended their faith against what they saw as unbiblical Catholic traditions.
Lusko said, in a ChristianPost piece, that he is a pastor’s kid and that he has grown up around megachurches and preachers — both the good ones and the charlatans. I wonder how many of these preachers prayed to God with rosaries.
In all my lifetime, I have never seen a televangelist or any evangelical using a rosary in his desperation and troubled times. Why would an evangelical seek God this way?
Is to preach patriotic religious hybridism to save the national honor more important than to preach the Gospel that offends trust in religious objects, but saves eternal souls?
Sometimes, “Persecuted” shows the correct Gospel. Other times, it shows confusion. It shows Babylon.
In the end, “Persecuted” shows a John Luther tired of corruption in the U.S. government, of ministry filled of opportunists eager to go to bed with government and he seems to want only to preach the Bible — with or without a rosary?
What is happening to evangelicals in the U.S.?
“Persecuted” was screened at the February 2014 National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Tennessee and March 2014 at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C, becoming a model for evangelicals and conservatives.

What’s a real Christian?

“Persecuted” producers committed the error of inviting liberals to attend the film’s world premiere in New York City last year. One of them was pro-abortion feminist Dorri Olds, who wrote about her talks with “Persecuted” actors and producers.
“Much of our culture is eroding,” actor and producer James R. Higgins told her. “There aren’t as many real Christians as there used to be.”
Olds asked, “What’s a real Christian?”
Higgins replied, “Somebody who will stand up for what he believes in and will not back down.” He praised the Luther character, saying, “Whenever people are willing to die for their cause, I think that is really special.” As recorded in TheBlot, Olds added, “Yeah, that’s it. Let’s all become suicide bombers!”
She also remarked, “When Higgins voiced how important it is to protect our right to freedom, I asked if he thought women should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. He said, ‘Oh boy, that’s a tough question. That’s what I call a social issue.’”
To defend freedom and free speech in a Christian society, as happened in the U.S. 200 years ago, produces freedom. In contrast, to defend freedom and free speech in a morally decaying nation today produces freedom for abortion, sodomy and other evils.
In Higgins’ definition, as written by Olds, even radical Muslims can be “real Christians.” But is such definition correct?
If feminist Olds had asked me, “What’s a real Christian?” I would have answered: “A real Christian is a man who knows and follows Jesus Christ. His passion is to preach the Gospel to every creature to give them an opportunity to know that Jesus can rescue and save their eternal souls from the eternal hell.”
Preach free speech to feminists like Olds, and they will use it for abortion. Preach the Gospel to them, and they can be delivered from their sins, including abortion activism.
To preach the real Gospel, regardless free speech, produces freedom, here and forevermore.
The power of Jesus and his Gospel have never been dependent on free speech. Just ask Chinese Christians.
With information from MovieGuide, WorldNetDaily, Hollywood Reporter, The Blot and Examiner, ChristianPost, CBN and Wikipedia.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Israeli Journalist: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, he’d be impeached

Israeli Journalist: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, he’d be impeached

By Julio Severo
I came across an intriguing article, by Chemi Shale, in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Shale makes some interesting points about Reagan, who is a conservative icon and is my conservative hero.
Reagan is considered a friend of Israel, but he never visited Israel. I ask a question: what hinders a friend of Israel from visiting Israel?
I am a friend of Israel. But my reason for not visiting Israel is economic. Given a chance, I would visit Israel.
Certainly, if I were a conservative president of the United States, I would pay a yearly visit to the Promised Land given by God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their Jewish descendants.
Above all, I would have the U.S. government to recognize officially Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Incredibly, even though some U.S. presidents, including Reagan, said that they were friends of Israel, no one of them recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Chemi Shale highlights other major problematic issues a friend of Israel would never get involved with, but which Reagan got involved with. He said, “Former President Ronald Reagan’s confrontations with Israel were harsh and personal, yet Republican conservatives revere him and the Jews remember him as a great friend.”
In his first election in 1980, Reagan earned 39% of the Jewish vote. In his 1984 reelection, he managed to garner just 31%. In comparison, socialist Barack Obama earned an astonishing 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008, even though Obama is more pro-Islam and anti-Israel than Reagan.
Shale forgot mentioning the cruel case of the Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who has spent 29 years of an unprecedented life sentence in a U.S. federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. The typical sentence for this offense is 2 to 4 years. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for this offense. He was condemned by the Reagan administration.
Pollard was not spying for Israeli economic advantage against the U.S. He was spying just to help to make Israel safe against its neighboring Islamic nations, because the U.S. did not (and does not) reveal to its “friend” Israel the military secrets it knew about its other friends: the Muslim neighbors of Israel that hate Jews.
While NSA goes unpunished for spying the whole world for suspicious political and financial interests, a Jewish man was incredibly punished by the Reagan administration.
As a Reagan fan, what should I think? I believe that Reagan was a sincere conservative. He had friendship with prominent evangelical leaders, including George Otis, who delivered a prophecy to Reagan in 1970 about the U.S. presidency. Otis was a man of God.
Even with his best political intentions, Reagan was never successful in his efforts to defeat the disgraceful abortion law, enacted in 1973 in the largest Protestant nation in the world. Since then, abortion, in any stage, has become a “sacred” right in America.
There are powerful dark forces in the U.S. government, and these forces use the U.S. government to keep a world hegemony, including in the Middle East. No one can “interfere” in their interests. These forces will not tolerate anyone — Israel, Russia or other nation — to disrupt their global influence. Possibly, this is the reason Reagan was so harsh, as pointed by Shale, to Israel. In fact, if we saw today Obama doing to Israel what Reagan did, Shale thinks we would call him an “enemy of Israel.”
The blame for Reagan’s allegedly anti-Israel policies and behavior should be laid on oligarchic neocons, who use the U.S. and its presidents to keep their hegemony in the world.
I wonder: what would neocons have done to Reagan if his administration had officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? What would they have done to him if he had put Israel above their hegemonic interests? What would they have done if he stopped burning incense to them?
If Reagan was not strong enough to defy these exceedingly bad boys, who will do it?
Perhaps Israel should stop recognizing Washington as the capital of the United States while the U.S. does not recognize Jerusalem. Yet, who is able to stand the brutish force of the American neocon empire?
Let’s be honest: Reagan did not act as a real conservative when he gave in to anti-Israel pro-Saudi Arabia neocons.
The real conservative should stand against these bad boys, even if defying them means martyrdom.
With Obama or Reagan, the supreme oligarchy in the U.S. government never recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, always imposes on Israel an intrusive Promised Land partition and failed peace plans and always, in one way or other, is harsh to Israel. Because whether a Reagan or an Obama, whether a liberal or conservative president occupies the White House, powerful oligarchic forces rule behind them.
Probably, Chemi Shale is like most Jews around the world: socialist. But his words in the Haaretz should be examined:
Imagine if Israel would launch a successful preemptive strike against a country that is building a nuclear bomb that threatens its very existence, and the American president would describe it as “a tragedy”.
And then, not only would the U.S. administration fail to “stand by its ally,” but it would actually lend its hand to a UN Security Council decision that condemns Israel, calls on it to place its nuclear facilities under international supervision and demands that it pay reparations (!) for the damage it had wrought.
And then, to add insult to injury, the U.S. president would impose an embargo on further sales of F-16 aircraft because Israel had “violated its commitment to use the planes only in self-defense.”
Can you imagine the uproar? Can you contemplate the brouhaha? I mean, if [Republicans believe] that President Obama is throwing Israel under the bus — what would they say about a president who actually turns his back on Israel in its greatest time of need? That he hurled Israel over the cliff with a live grenade in its pocket and into a burning volcano?
And what if that very same president, only a few months later, would decide to sell truly game-changing sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia, an Arab country that is a sworn enemy of Israel? And not only would this president dismiss Israeli objections that these weapons endanger its security, but he would actually warn, in a manner that sent shivers down the spines of American Jews, that “it is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”
I mean, what words would be left to describe such behavior, after the entire thesaurus’ arsenal of synonyms for “insult” “perfidy” and “knife in the back” have been exhausted to describe the official White House photo of President Obama talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu with his shoes on the table?
And what if this same president — you know who I’m talking about by now, but let’s keep up the charade — what if this same president, time after time after time, not only failed to exercise the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council to block anti-Israeli resolutions, but actually joined Muslim and Communist and other heathen countries in supporting Security Council decisions that condemned Israel for assassinating well-known terrorists; for annexing territories that Michele Bachman has clearly stated belong only to Israel; for killing violent jihadist students at Bir Zeit University; for waging war against the enemies of Western civilization in Lebanon; and even for “Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.” Denying the human rights of Palestinians? Who wrote that?
Especially when that president called for a settlement freeze that “more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks”; when he threatened a reluctant Israeli prime minister in an official letter that “the relationship between our two countries is at stake”; when the same Israeli prime minister — that this president couldn’t stand, by the way — is forced to ask why the US is treating Israel as if it was a “banana republic”; when this Administration’s secretary of defense doesn’t veil his criticism of Israel before a pro-Israeli crowd at the Saban Forum, but actually tells Congress in open session that the Israeli leader “is not a moderate”; or when the White House spokesman — Marlin Fitzwater, for God’s sake — says that the Israeli “occupation” actually “damages the self-respect and world opinion of the Israeli people.”
And finally imagine if this president not only never once visited Israel, despite being eight years in office, but he even balked at visiting a concentration camp, as Obama did after his speech in Cairo. You want to know why? Because — take a deep breath — because the Germans “feel that they have a guilt feeling that’s been imposed upon them.” Poor things.
But wait, I’m not finished yet. So where does this president insist on going, despite overwhelming Jewish objections and an emotional last-minute appeal by Elie Wiesel in the name of Holocaust survivors? To lay a wreath at a ceremony commemorating the memory of the soldiers of the Waffen SS, a Nazi unit designated as a criminal organization at the Nuremberg trials, whose soldiers committed countless war crimes, including the razing of the Warsaw Ghetto, and murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews. And what does this president, this American idol of Republican conservatives, this righteous gentile of right-wing Jews, what does he have to say about these Nazi war criminals? That “they were victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
NOW, SERIOUSLY, can you even begin to imagine what mayhem would break out if Obama would say such an insensitive, obtuse and borderline Holocaust-denying sentence? Can you picture the earthquake of rage and the tsunami of venom that would spontaneously and simultaneously erupt?
Recommended Reading: