America, Please Wake Up

Posted on June 4, 2020 by ccpastormike

America, you are being corrupted by the racist Critical Race Theory propaganda machine and other lies that insist racism is systemic. DO NOT DRINK FROM THAT CONTAINER. IT IS POISON TO YOUR SOUL.

BLM and Antifa are front groups for Marxists and their plan is the destruction of America. Americans better wake up to the real threat to our nation before it is too late.

IF Black lives matter there would be ongoing protests in Chicago and many other major cities every day over the dozens of black on black murders that occur there. Are there? No.

IF Black lives matter then BLM and Antifa thugs would be protesting outside of every abortion clinic in America where thousands of black lives are systematically ended every single day, many by white abortionists. Are they? No.

IF black lives matter then blacks would stop voting for any politician who continues to use them for nothing but their vote for a political office while simultaneously voting against everything that would actually help their communities. I’m looking at you, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and the king of Marxist subterfuge, Barack Obama. Do blacks continue to elect these criminals? Yes.

IF black lives matter you would not support the murder of innocent people, the destruction of the property and business of innocent people, and the continued rioting, looting, and devastation while shouting it’s all about justice. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. Yet, many of these criminals think they are justified in their behavior. Are they? Absolutely not!

Finally, if black lives matter, law enforcement officials across this nation would not all be painted with the broadest of brush strokes as being evil and racist, as many of them are in fact black, and the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officials are not racist and do their jobs very well. Yet, BLM and Antifa call for violence against all Law Enforcement Officials. Is this just? It is not just.

All lives matter and the family of George Floyd has been very vocal in saying they do not support what is happening and it is dishonoring to George’s memory.

Many people claim to want to have a conversation about race but few people want to start with the truth. You cannot have a conversation about race when one side thinks the other is inherently racist because of the color of their skin. That is a satanic lie clothed in Critical Race Theory propaganda. It has replaced the old satanic lie that blacks are somehow inherently inferior because of the color of their skin. Both of these views originated in the pits of hell. We are one race with many different colors. It is the enemy of our souls that seeks to divide us. Don’t let Satan win.

Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 1 Corinthians 13:6

A Failing Movement – Pastor Sam Jones

Posted on March 15, 2019 by ccpastormike

It has been said that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. I am afraid this statement is all too true in the conservative Christian culture. We are called to learn from history and to fix our mistakes, which brings me to some great concerns from what I am seeing today. I think of Henry Parsons Crowell who once said it would not be the “modernists nor the conservative who was tolerant of the modernists; but the conservative fundamentalist who was tolerant of those who were tolerant of modernists that would defeat fundamentalism.” Henry Parsons Crowell was the founder of the Quaker Oats Company and a lifelong Presbyterian who at the end of his life withdrew from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Crowell feared the reason fundamentalists were losing to modernists was simply because the fundamentalists “were tolerant toward those who were tolerant toward unbelievers.”

You may be reading this wondering what this has to do with today, but I assure you it has everything to do with today. In Christianity, there is a great battle going on and it is a battle that is very similar to the historic one of Modernists vs. Fundamentalists. This isn’t just something that I am seeing. There was a statement put together and signed by over 10,000 Christians, many of them being Christian leaders. This statement was titled “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”, it is also known as “The Dallas Statement”. This statement has been a “shot heard around Christianity” and is the hallmark of Christianity standing against the false gospel of Social Justice (the newest incarnation of the Social Gospel). At this point it is imperative that you understand that I see the need for a movement in Christianity, I see Social Justice as a great threat to the church, and that I am all for standing against Social Justice and for Biblical truth. The issue that I have is that we seem to be racing to a defeated destination because we are unwilling to learn from the Fundamentalist movement and heed the words of Henry Parsons Crowell.

We need to understand that there is a difference in a movement and doctrine. From a doctrinal perspective fundamentalism is still very much alive today, but from a movement perspective it is dead. There are a few things that a movement needs. Firstly, a movement must recognize where the enemy is attacking (this was well executed through The Dallas Statement). Secondly, a movement needs a unified message to stand upon (this is how Christians from across the theological perspectives still claim the title of Fundamentalist). Thirdly, a movement needs a very distinct line drawn that is tied to their unified message and recognition of where the enemy is attacking. If you lose one of these elements it impacts the other two and completely stalls the movement. For instance, if you do not recognize where the enemy is attacking, you will either fight a strawman or have a battle front in disarray, both making it impossible to be unified in message or to have a distinct line drawn between you and the enemy. If you do not have a unifying message then you have nothing to combat the enemy with (so it doesn’t matter where they are attacking, they will win), and you have no substance to draw a line with. If we do not have a clear distinct line drawn between us and false teachers, it confuses the foot soldier on where the enemy is attacking and it makes it impossible to have a unifying message to defend our doctrinal position as our position itself becomes blurred. This is where the words of Crowell ring true that it would be the “conservative fundamentalist who was tolerant of those who were tolerant of modernists that would defeat fundamentalism.”

This is where I will present my great concern with what is happening in the movement that is fighting the dangers of Social Justice. So far, the biggest name pastor to speak out against Social Justice and sign the Dallas Statement is Pastor John MacArthur. John MacArthur has presented some good material on the subject and provided what should be one of the most lethal statements towards the false gospel of Social Justice. When in his initial article on Social Justice, “Social Injustice and the Gospel” he said, “Over the years, I’ve fought a number of polemical battles against ideas that threaten the gospel. This recent (and surprisingly sudden) detour in quest of ‘social justice’ is, I believe, the most subtle and dangerous threat so far.” Let me say, I love that statement, I agree with that statement, I have quoted that statement, but John MacArthur has betrayed that statement. John MacArthur has betrayed that statement through the speakers that he is allowing at the Shepherd’s Conference. This is an annual conference that John MacArthur’s church hosts (along with Master’s Seminary, Grace to You, and a host of other MacArthur related ministries). In this conference the list of speakers has some of the usual suspects who have spoken out against Social Justice (John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, etc.), but there are also some speakers who have positioned themselves on the other side of the issue (Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Dever). Galatians 5:9 has never shouted louder in my mind, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”

John MacArthur has blurred the line of the movement. This makes it impossible to truly have a unifying message and it has started to confuse the foot soldiers on where the enemy is attacking. This has been made clear when he said in a Q & A with Mohler, Duncan, and Dever.

“I don’t think there is any difference theologically with where we stand we’ve navigated that together on every possible platform and every situation. How we respond to the culture around us and the pressures that come on us from the culture how we navigate those relationships that face us… you may have expressed yourself differently on the issue of social justice… look these are my friends these are men who have served Christ and have given their life to Him. (God) Has given each of you guys a formidable place in the kingdom and have had an impact on my life. I’ll fight error but I don’t fight my friends.”

I will let MacArthur speak to his own sin, “Over the years, I’ve fought a number of polemical battles against ideas that threaten the gospel. This recent (and surprisingly sudden) detour in quest of ‘social justice’ is, I believe, the most subtle and dangerous threat so far.” If this is true (and I believe it is), why would MacArthur bring the most subtle dangerous threat to the gospel into his conference? I wish I had an answer to that question, but I am afraid if I give my thoughts on that question I will only be diving into judging John MacArthur’s motives.

I don’t have an answer as to why Macarthur has blurred the battle lines, but I do have an answer in what we need to do if we want to see the movement march forward. We need to take the words of Henry Parsons Crowell to heart and we need to stop tolerating those who are tolerating those who are teaching Social Justice. I understand this is a hard statement and it is not fun, but do we fear God or man? Do our friendships mean as much to us as gospel purity? Is your admiration or friendship of MacArthur worth the souls of those in the nursery at your church? It is doubtful that the toleration of MacArthur would impact your church tomorrow on the issue of Social Justice, but it will have a long-term affect as the stance against Social Justice is weakened and the line is further blurred.

The best thing that could happen is repentance from John MacArthur, this is what I hope and pray for. The question each of us need to ask is if we like John MacArthur more than we fear the threat of Social Justice? If Social Justice is just a small doctrinal mistake, then keep on going as you are, but if you, like MacArthur and believe Social Justice is a big deal, then don’t kill a movement by compromising its integrity.

Pastor Sam Jones is co-host along with Patrick Wyett of The Shining Light Podcast found here.

They Destroy Everything They Touch, Volume 2 – Scott McKay

Posted on September 9, 2018 by ccpastormike

Now it’s Nike the social justice warrior crowd has set ablaze. Plus, various items from hither and yon.

“Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” That’s the caption attached to a gritty, black and white picture of Colin Kaepernick in the publicity marquee of Nike’s new marketing campaign announced Friday, a corporate branding decision which will be studied in business schools for decades along with New Coke and the Edsel as What Not To Do.

Nike’s decision to turn Kaepernick, the National Anthem-defiling, skills-atrophying, cellar-dwelling Social Justice Warrior ex-quarterback who last played NFL football with the then 2-14 San Francisco 49ers in 2016, into its latest corporate product pitch man was announced over the Labor Day weekend, and on Tuesday when the New York Stock Exchange got its first opportunity to weigh in on it the results weren’t good. Nike’s stock closed Tuesday at $79.60, though it did rise a bit in after-hours trading. That was a pretty serious bath from the $82.20 at which the stock closed on Friday before word leaked of Kaepernick’s contract — a loss of 3.16 percent of its value, or more than $3.5 BILLION in market capitalization.

There’s a great, though underrated, Cameron Crowe movie from 2005 named Elizabethtown, starring Orlando Bloom as a Portland athletic shoe designer whose big idea results in a marketing disaster which nearly wipes out the multinational company he works for. Bloom’s character is not-unsurprisingly fired at the beginning of the movie, and what follows is his soulful journey back from the personal brink. The guess here is Elizabethtown is likely going to be a hot rental in Portland over the coming weeks as many of the marketing geniuses responsible for flying Kaepernick’s stupid social justice warrior standard atop Nike’s flagpole get a similar treatment to Bloom’s Drew Baylor in the movie.

How can it be otherwise? Kaepernick has already laid waste to one American corporate giant’s market share, almost single-handedly tubing the NFL’s TV ratings by double-digits through his idiotic kneeling histrionics during the national anthem, and though he’s been out of the league for more than a year now many of those fans are not rushing back. It could well be that Kaepernick has done significant permanent damage to a brand many thought indestructible before he came along.

And Nike has now embraced that contagion. And why? After all, Nike’s brand was made through affiliation with the best of the world’s athletes — Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, and many more at the top of their games. Now? Nike’s brand will be Shoes For Losers.

After all, Kaepernick’s fall from status as one of the NFL’s top young quarterbacks to that of whiny political poseur incapable of winning football games and losing focus on his craft has made him toxic to NFL owners, who can’t justify the distraction he presents against the upside that he might offer as a backup quarterback — and because of that he’ll not likely play in the league again. But let’s not consider him any sort of martyr, because he most certainly isn’t. It should be remembered that Kaepernick wasn’t blackballed by the NFL, as he’s alleging in his new lawsuit against the league. Both San Francisco and the Denver Broncos offered him contracts as a backup quarterback last year and he turned them down. That isn’t sacrifice; it’s arrogance. He made himself toxic as the face of a franchise, and he furthermore didn’t pursue the opportunity to play in the Canadian Football League, where he could have reclaimed his promise as a top-level quarterback (particularly given the style of play north of the border).

In other words, Kaepernick is a loser as a pro athlete — because he lacks the focus of the other greats on whose success the Nike brand is built. As Jordan famously said when asked about his apolitical stance as an athlete and product pitchman, “Republicans buy basketball shoes, too.” Williams, Woods, and so many others built their personal athletic brands on being soft-spoken on matters political, which is one reason Nike grew to such immense popularity and market share. That’s all gone with this decision.

It’s the kind of action no good businessperson would ever take. But it most certainly is the kind of thing the social justice warrior crowd who increasingly populate the decision-making positions in corporate America can be expected to do.

Again, why? The answer is something we said in our last entry in this space: because the Left is a political movement made up by and for people incapable of doing a good job at honest work.

And because of that, when you allow the social justice crowd a foot in the door they will soon destroy the entire institution. If they can take down the Catholic Church, after all, how hard is it for them to wipe out Nike?

While Nike’s stock was tanking on Tuesday, so was any semblance of decorum in the Senate, as the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee — including the potential 2020 presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who apparently achieved her position largely on the strength of her reputed former status as Willie Brown’s “side piece” — followed through on a planned attempt to disrupt Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. And the Democrats’ foot soldiers in the audience proceeded to show their collective derrières with a cacophony of heckling, sign-holding, and farcical costume displays.

Exactly how this is supposed to affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation beyond making the Republican majority more resolute in passing his nomination to the Senate floor is a mystery. One has the strong feeling all political activism in America now, and particularly on the Democrat side, can be reduced to the simple acting-out of children.

But when children act out, typically they are punished. We’ll see if the voters are turned off enough by the anti-Kavanaugh idiocy Tuesday to deliver approbation on Election Day in November.

This article appeared here.

Spiritual Formation as Spiritual Deception: Beware the Peddlers of Grace (Part 2)

Posted on September 22, 2015 by ccpastormike

Evangelical Sanctification Historically Expressed

Both D. A. Carson[1] and Steven L. Porter[2] recently wrote articles that appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society questioning the approach and methodology of spiritual formation teaching. Although separated by eight years, Carson’s article explaining the dangers of spirituality apart from a robust bibliology appears to have laid a solid groundwork for Porter’s article espousing the need for a biblical methodology that presents a clear and thoughtful evangelical theology of sanctification. In the process of their individual critiques they offer some pertinent historical context related to sanctification.

Porter begins his critique of spiritual formation teaching by asserting that its practices must fall within prescribed biblical territory and as such the effort to define acceptable spiritual formation activities belongs to Christian theologians. That Christian theologians have not been involved in establishing parameters is evidenced by the “plethora of false spiritualities plaguing church and society”[3] in our present day. This is to be expected when the purpose or goal of sanctification is not rooted in biblical revelation and directive.

Continue reading →

How An Evangelical Christian Can Support a Mormon For President by Dr. Andy Woods

Posted on September 22, 2012 by ccpastormike

I am a theology professor at a Bible College and a pastor. I am also a political conservative. I frequently write posts and articles promoting political conservatism. Recently, some of my students have politely inquired how I could publically criticize Mormon theology in the classroom and from behind the pulpit and yet privately promote the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, who is a professing Mormon. Here is my basic response:

The last time I checked, Jesus is not on the 2012 presidential ballot. Therefore, I have to vote for which of the two existing candidates, I believe better reflects biblical values. Keep in mind that a president is not in power to promote theology. That is what pastors and theologians are for. Rather, a president is elected to politically and economically govern our country. Therefore, I pick a president not based on his personal theology but rather upon his philosophy of government. When you compare Romney’s philosophy of government to Obama’s philosophy of government, which philosophy better mirrors biblical values? This is a question that all Christians need to ask in this upcoming election. For me, the answer is a no-brainer. Romney’s philosophy of government, while not perfect, is much closer to Scripture than Obama’s.

Here are some issues that I look at to discern the biblical orientation of the governing philosophy of any politician. With each issue I have included some Bible verse references in order to demonstrate to the reader that these preferences are not uniquely mine but rather are derived from the pages of God’s Word. These issues can be categorized under the following headings: economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs matters.

Economic Matters

Because of biblical prohibitions against stealing and covetousness (Exod. 20:15, 17) as well as the scriptural promotion of economic self-sufficiency through labor (Gen. 3:17-19; 2 Thess. 3:10), I typically inquire whether the candidate will use the power of the state to take the income of the earner and redistribute it to the non-earner? Due to the fact that the Bible teaches differing God-given abilities among human beings (Matt. 25:15), will the candidate use the force of government to guarantee equality of opportunity for all and leave equality of result to individual initiative, drive, work ethic, and talent?

Because God has given the role of charity to the church (Jas. 1:27; 5:14) rather than the state (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:1-7), will the candidate ignore this boundary by imposing upon the state ever increasing charitable obligations thereby marginalizing the church’s God-ordained role in this critical area?

Also, the Bible views the family as the essential building block towards a healthy society (Eph. 5:22–6:4). Since today’s families are under tremendous stress, will the candidate increase this pressure through the added burden of further taxation? Will he advocate excessive government regulation, which has the net effect of spiking consumer prices? Will he place employers under greater taxation and burdensome regulation leading to inevitable downsizing, layoffs, and the re-location of factories beyond America’s borders? All of these repercussions increase financial stress upon the family unit.

Moreover, because the Scripture advocates leaving one’s wealth to one’s descendants (Prov. 13:22; 1 Tim. 5:8), I am always curious about whether the candidate will hamper generational wealth transfer through onerous inheritance taxes, which force the deceased’s relatives to visit the undertaker and the IRS agent on the same day.

Also, does the candidate understand that the earth experiences cyclical heating and cooling (Gen. 8:22)? For example, global warming transpired during the time of the Vikings, long before the advent of SUVs and modern industry. Does he instead attribute such cycles exclusively to human activity? If the latter, he will likely favor increased government control over economic behavior, which can cripple an economy and yet simultaneously have a negligible impact upon either global warming or cooling.

In addition, does the candidate through rejection of true worship of God instead embrace earth worship (Rom. 1:22-23), otherwise known as the Gaia Hypothesis? In other words, has common sense environmental stewardship given way to pantheism and environmental extremism? If so, he will likely impede domestic fossil fuel and oil production. Such domestic drilling has the benefit of reducing America’s dependence upon foreign sources of oil that are often controlled by governments that do not have our nation’s best interests at heart.

Furthermore, because the Bible warns against the bondage associated with excessive debt (Prov. 22:7) and also categorizes unpaid debts as theft (Ps. 37:21), will the candidate continue to add to our runaway national deficits and debt? Increasing our national debt not only steals from future generations, but it also compromises America’s economic well-being.

In a similar vein, because respect for America’s founding documents are the best insulation against runaway government spending and concentration of power into too few hands, will the candidate favor appointing individuals to the judicial branch of government who actually care about the original intent of our Constitution? If not, he may allow judges onto our courts who see our Constitution as merely a “living and breathing” amorphous document. Virtually anything can be read into such a meaningless document in order to socialize our country.

Social Matters

Since Scripture makes no distinction between the born and the unborn (Ps. 139:13; Jer. 1:5), does the candidate favor legal protection for the unborn?

Also, because God has established heterosexual monogamy as the pattern for marriage (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:18-25; Rom. 1:26-27), will the candidate promote this divine standard as the societal norm, or will he instead reduce this time-honored standard to simply one among many lifestyle alternatives?

Moreover, because God has given to the state the power to execute criminals in instances of murder (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4), will the candidate seek to abolish or promote capital punishment?

In addition, because the Scripture routinely warns of the dangers of abusing alcohol (Lev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4-5; 1 Tim. 3:3), pornography (Matt. 5:27-28), and gambling (Prov. 13:11), will the candidate support the legal right of communities to restrict such deleterious influences and establishments from their neighborhoods, schools, children, homes, and churches?

Furthermore, because God has entrusted the task of rearing and teaching children to parents as opposed to government bureaucrats (Deut. 6:6-7; Josh. 4:20-23; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4), does the educational philosophy of the candidate empower the parents or the government teachers’ unions? The former can be empowered through educational choice, vouchers for private or parochial schools, and opt out alternatives for public school courses and presentations deemed offensive and harmful by parents.

Also, in view of the fact that the Scripture commands believers to preach the Gospel to every creature (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15), will the candidate use the force of government to restrict public expressions of Christianity in public places and schools as well as over the airwaves and on the internet? Interestingly, in Luke 22:36, as Christ was sending out His disciples into the hostile world from the Upper Room, He said, “and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one” (Luke 22:36). In so doing, Christ provided not only for the self defense of His disciples but also their right to defend themselves from aggression. Therefore, a good question for any candidate is whether he believes that individual and private citizens have a right to keep and bear arms? In other words, does he believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms or does he instead believe that the Second Amendment is some sort of nebulous collective right that has nothing to do with personal freedom to retain a firearm? Does the candidate instead support endless regulations and licensing requirements upon firearms thus paving the way toward their ultimate and total governmental confiscation?

Because the Bible teaches that all people have equal dignity and worth (Gen. 1:26-27; Gal. 3:28), will the candidate enforce all of our laws equally and fairly among all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (Deut 25:16; Prov. 20:23)? Discrimination against racial minorities should no more be tolerated than reverse discrimination against whites through quotas, timetables and set asides. White aggression against racial minorities should be punished to the full extent of the law and so should Black Panther voter intimidation against whites.

Foreign Affairs Matters

Because the concept of the individual nation state originated with God (Gen. 10:32; 11:1-9; Deut. 32:8; Acts 17:26), will the candidate favor submitting the political sovereignty of national governments to unaccountable trans-national political organizations all in the name of global governance? A related issue involves national borders. Since God has established national entities and their existing borders, will the candidate enforce our borders or will he leave America vulnerable to terrorist attacks through a porous border policy?

In addition, God has promised to bless the world through national Israel (Gen. 12:3b; Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Consequently, He promises to bless those who bless Israel and conversely vows to curse those who curse her (Gen. 12:3a; Joel 3:2b). Therefore, another important question entails whether the candidate favors reducing Israel’s existing borders in exchange for the illusory promise of peace. Such a process makes Israel more vulnerable to aggression and attack by her surrounding hostile neighbors. After all, it is Satan’s ambition to eradicate the Jewish people and state (Rev. 12:1, 13-17; Gen. 37:9-10). Thus, a candidate’s view on Israel largely tells me whether He is cooperating with God’s agenda or the devil’s.

Moreover, due to the fact that many evil rulers and terrorists abroad will only be deterred from violent behavior through the counter threat of force (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 17:9), will the candidate pursue a foreign policy of peace through military strength? Without this perspective, the danger is that the candidate will naively and ineffectively seek to deter evil in the world through American military reduction and unpreparedness. Such a policy of appeasement will in turn lead to endless dialogue, treaty and peace agreements not too dissimilar from the pattern espoused by Neville Chamberlain, apology tours, and financial subsidies given to America’s sworn enemies, thus endangering our own national security.

Conclusion

For me, the whole issue in selecting a political leader relates to his philosophy of government as opposed to his personal theology. As the old adage goes, “I would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.” Jimmy Carter serves as a perfect example. While professing faith in Christ, he had a non-biblical philosophy of government. Consequently, he has gone down in history as one of our worst presidents. Besides, if we are going to vote based on a candidate’s personal theology rather than his philosophy of government, I hardly see how Obama is much of an improvement over Romney. Obama attended a church for over 20 years that taught the non-biblical doctrine of Liberation Theology.

When all of the evidence is considered, Obama also seems quite sympathetic to the non-biblical Islamic religion. While I disagree with both men on personal theological issues, I will take Romney’s philosophy of government over Obama’s any day of the week. When it comes to governing philosophy, which is what really counts in a President, Romney is far closer to my understanding of scriptural truth than Obama.

http://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2012/09/how-evangelical-christian-can-support.html