Recently while studying the history of a city in California, I came across the specific place and time when Satan seems to have gained entrance. The earliest days in a city's history are very important because one of Satan's main strategies is to interfere with the process of birth. "And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born" (Rev. 12:4).
In this particular town the Christians among the early settlers had gathered together to plan the building of a chapel that would be used alternatively by several compatible congregations, such as Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists. The process was proceeding smoothly until two prominent citizens had a personality conflict. This outburst of petty bickering eventually led to a rupture of the Christian community into two factions. One hundred years later this town is still marked by division and religious controversy.
John Dawson. Taking Our Cities For God - Rev (Kindle Locations 541-547). Kindle Edition.
So, let's see...
Are we to assume that, before this conflict, this particular unnamed town (a city today) must have been something like the Garden of Eden, because Satan had not gained entrance into it until then? It must, then, have been a town of sinless people, perfect in all their ways, probably even walking about in their birthday suits but free of lust and unholy desires? These early settlers must have been on the verge of creating a paradise on Earth until, like the serpent and the apple, these two people had their conflict and paradise was lost?
If you're thinking that it would be ridiculous to assume that, I would agree. But if that is true, then we are to conclude that what Dawson says about this town is ridiculous.
Satan didn't have an entrance into this town? The only way we could believe such a thing is to assume that the early settlers of this town really were sinless. Because if they were sinners, than we must conclude that either Satan and demons were already in the area when the settlers arrived, or they tagged along with the settlers as they traveled overland or by sea, and were well with them before a tree was felled, a board was shaped, a plot was laid, an acre was tilled, a building frame was raised, and a church service was held, let alone a quarrel was started.
And let's be real...the early settlers of this town that became a city were sinners. I don't know who they were, and since Dawson gives no name for this city, I can't really do much research, but since these people were humans, I think I can safely say that whatever else they may have been, they were certainly sinful people, like all people they were born in tresspasses and sin.
As such, then, Satan and his minions wouldn't have had to have waited for this conflict to have had access to the people of this town. While the people may have been religious, I've little doubt that not all the people of the town were Christians. Given that, there is no doubt that demons were about, tempting and influencing people, lost people as well and Christians.
Having considered all that, shall we conclude that Dawson's claims are bogus and ridiculous? I think so.
"Narcigesis" seems to have become quite the popular term, at least in some circles. It's basically a mashing together of the words "narcissistic" and "eisegesis". Narcissitic, you probably know, is unseemly self-love. Eisegesis maybe a more obscure word, but it basically means reading ideas into a text or maybe other things rather then trying to understand what the text is itself saying. Narcigesis is usually being used in regards to the Bible, to how biblical passages, verses, or even verse fragments are being used or misused.
The idea goes something like this--a pastor or some kind of teacher reads a passage or verse, let's say the story of Gideon putting out the fleeces to see if God had really told him to do what he'd been called to do. The pastor then tries to replace Gideon with someone else, maybe himself, maybe his listeners. He teaches that, just as Gideon tested what he had heard from God, so we need to "put out a fleece" to make sure that what we may have heard or thought we'd heard is from God.
(Actually, "heard" is not the right word for what people today experience. Gideon had an angel give him a message, he actually heard real words. People today don't really "hear" anything, they just get strange feelings which, by and large, will be different in a few days)
So, although the Bible in no way commands us to do what Gideon did, we are told that we should do something like it. Not necessarily going outside and putting a piece of wool or other cloth on the ground, of course, but...well, come up with something.
Here is another example, courtesy of 24-7 Prayer.
This man, I think it's Peter Grieg who is the head honcho of the organization, begins by reading John 1:40-42, about Andrew getting his brother Simon and bring him to Jesus, and Jesus giving Simon the name Cephas. All well and good so far, but then...
Dont you love that? This is Jesus meeting the great apostle of the church, Peter, for the first time. And the very first thing his does is, he gives him a nickname, Cephas, Peter, it means 'the rock', of course. And in a way they would all have been sniggering, it was all a joke, because Peter was the least rock-like person ever. He was impetuous, he blew hot and cold, he shot his mouth off. But Jesus saw something different in Peter. And in fact, of course, the history books tell us he went on to be someone who was even faithful to Jesus unto death.
Isn't it amazing that God looks at you today, not as you are with all the problems and struggles you bring in to this day, or even as you were, but he sees you as you will one day be. And so my challenge, my question for you today is, "What are the seeds of brilliance that God has put in you?" "What is the destiny being out-worked in you?" "What is the unique contribution only you can bring to the world for his glory?"
Wow. Just. Wow.
First, here's the passage. Yes, he read it, but then went tangent.
jn.1.40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. jn.1.41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.† jn.1.42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 167503-167508). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
Listening to Grieg speak, one would think that Jesus should have felt honored to have finally met "the great apostle of the church, Peter", instead of noting that it was Simon Peter who should have felt honored beyond the telling of it that he should be in the presence of Jesus.
Now, yes, in this passage, Jesus gives Peter a new name. Ok, very well. On the other hand, Jesus didn't seem to be in the habit of changing people's names like that. I can't think of any other disciple to whom He did that. I know there were the Sons of Thunder, the brothers James and John, though I'm not sure if Jesus gave them that nickname or if they were given it elsewhere. But, really, poor Thaddeus and Philip seemed doomed to be just plain Thaddeus and Philip.
It's always interesting to see how people read Peter's life. It seems like every two-bit pastor or teacher wants to claim Peter as their favorite, portraying him as being rather head-long, acting before thinking, sticking his foot in his mouth, if he had two thoughts in his head at the same time they'd complain about the sudden lack of space, and all that. They don't do that to Thomas or Matthew, one may wonder why.
So, does this encounter between Jesus and Peter teach us that God sees us as we one day will be? Now, why didn't Grieg try to take, let's say, an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees, and try to teach this same lesson? Well, I guess that would have been a bit more negative.
I'm rambling a bit here, I fear, so, to finally get to the point...
This passage is not about what a great guy Peter was. It's not about the "seeds of brilliance" in Peter, or some destiny being out-worked in Peter, or Peter's unique contributions. And it for sure isn't about you or me and anything about us.
Andrew did not bring Peter to Jesus so that Jesus could see what a great guy his brother was. He brought Peter to Jesus because Jesus was the Messiah, the Lamb of God who had come to take away the sins of the world.
Peter was like all of us, lost in sins and in need of a savior. Christ died for his sins, just as He died for those of all of us. Jesus loved Peter, not because Peter was a swell guy, because he wasn't. Jesus loves us, but not because we're lovable. We're not, we're filthy in our sins, we have no seeds of brilliance.
God has shown his love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Grieg is playing to your ego. He's trying to sell you Christianity by making you think it's about you and how wonderful a person you are, how much you have to offer.
You have nothing to offer. Nothing. Christ is the one who gave Himself for you, because you couldn't help yourself. You have no seeds of brilliance, your were dead in sins and your attempts at righteousness are as the vilest of rags. Your destiny was hell, but Christ gave Himself so that you might have forgiveness of sins through faith in Him and repentence. You have no unique contribution that God couldn't do without, you are the one who needs Christ's sacrifice.
This video is pathetic. Shame on Peter Grieg for distorting this passage, and trying to make it say things that it shouldn't. Shame on Peter Grieg for teaching things designed solely to tickle itching ears and draw people, not to Christ in repentence, but to his organization so that it will grow.
This marks the official end of my attempts to like or tolerate 24-7 Prayer. I'm done, they've crossed the line, they're concerned only with their own popularity.
In order to understand the hypocracy behind this, image a headline like this "The Obama Question: Should Theology Affect the Way We Vote?", where conservatives look at the things said by Obama's pastor (which Obama himself claims to have not heard).
Sojrones would be falling all over themselves to cover for him.
And, of course, Sojo is constantly pressing for their views, based on their own biblical interpretation or lack thereof, to be used in the way voters or politicians vote on things. They support their views on illegal immigration by pointing to real or supposed biblical injunctions about "welcoming strangers" (apparently, that means strangers don't have to abide by a nation's rules). They go all into hissy fits when the notion of fiscal responsibility concerning the so-called "safety net" is concerning, claiming it's somehow being hard on the poor and oppressed.
And don't get started on war and the military.
So, I find it ironic indeed that people so committing to having their own religious veiws affect (or is that effect?) how people vote, are wanting to raise it as suspicious with regards to Santorum.
But liberal catholic politicians like the Kennedys and Pelosi? Eh, not so much. And Obama's socialistic black liberation theology church? Bring that up, and you're a racist.
The double standard is glaringly obvious. But if you want real amusement, read the comments to that sojo piece. One person tries to raise the issue of the double standard, and committed sojrone commentors say he's being unfair.
On the surface, this seems almost like a regular news story. I think, though, that Sojo lets their biases out in the caption with the photo.
No Room at the Inn. Image via Wylio, http://bit.ly/ADRtVi.
If your familiar with the account of Christ's birth, you know what "no romm at the inn" means--it refers to Mary having to give birth in a stable because the inn was filled.
So, in putting "No Room at the Inn" to this caption, Sojo is linking the birth of Christ, and there being no room at the inn where Joseph and Mary were at, to the fact that the Christian owners of this guesthouse did not permit a homosexual couple to stay in their rooms and so practice their immorality.
England is making the guesthouse owners pay a fine, which is rather bad in itself, but the topic is Sojo.
Look at what they are doing--taking the birth of the sinless Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world, and using it to promote sinful and immoral sexual behavior.
I remember mentioning once that the old Emergent Village was pretty much dead. In fact, visiting the old site a day or so ago, I saw that it is not very much dead.
Sadly, there is zombie of sorts out there, and if anything, it's doubling down on the heresies that marked the old site. One of their contributors now is Michael Dowd, who believes more in evolution than God of the Bible. Every one of his teachings is the rawest of blasphemy, as you can see here...
Biblical literalists who pick and choose which passages to preach and which to studiously ignore are thus faced with a nagging inconsistency. The way forward, I suggest, for all Christians—liberals as well as moderates and conservatives—is to join this crusade against idolatry of the written word as we embark together on the cross-cultural enterprise of interpreting our evolving world as best we know it today
Meaning, time to put aside the Bible, peoples (Dowd's own books, though, you can keep close at hand, along with all the other books he recommends in another post at the new EV).
Ultimately, the temptation of converting fluid stories and interpretations of stories into dead-end scripture and creed makes it nearly impossible for God/Reality to continue to suggest the kinds of functional modifications that our ancestors consistently sensed and assimilated
So, Scripture and creeds not only are not of God, but they handicap this God/Reality he worships (actually just himself in pseudo-divine make-up).
What this is is, simply, the elevation of mankind, the worship of us, the divination of ourselves. We do bow to God, because we are so full of ourselves and our cleverness and evolution.
So, yeah, the emergents are out there still, they haven't repented of their milder heresies, but are throwing themselves deeper into the cesspool, relishing the filth they are bathing in. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad, and if there weren't people being drug down with them.
I’ll admit I’m a sucker for stories about the malleability of human morality. From the mob movies, where a guy can whack his cousin but better not show his Patron any “disrespect,” to justice-seeking serial killers like “Dexter,” there’s plenty of justified violence to be found.
Where do such seemingly contradictory value systems come from? And do they actually happen in the real world today?
How about the politician who claims a platform that values a respect for “all life,” while justifying war and advocating for capital punishment? Or those who celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? And the list goes on.
Oh, boy, and there we go...
So, somehow, it's the fault of those who are think there are good reasons for going to war and executing murders that we have "Dexter"?
Sorry, I'm laughing my head off here. Or I would be, if I weren't in a library.
Because, really, how does that work?
I haven't watched "Dexter", and frankly have no wish to. Why should I watch anything that glorifies what is essentially murder, and the glorification of a serial killer no matter his reasons?
So, let's change this argument a bit, shall we? How about if we call it "NCIS theology"? That being one of my favorite shows, I'm a bit more familiar with it.
"NCIS" is essentially a detective show about usually military situations and issues. The team of investigators are law-enforcement officers. They use investigative techniques and technology to solve crimes. Sometimes, that also involves pulling out guns and having to shoot people, and sometimes that means the criminal is killed.
So, we have law-enforcement officers, abiding by the law and rules of their organization (even if they sometimes bend those rules a lot sometimes) and who sometimes have to use lethal force. A far cry from "Dexter", I would guess.
Do they show a disrespect for life when they try to bring criminals to justice and sometimes have to use lethal force? I would say, no. There is nothing in the position that supports capital punishment that leads to a lack of respect for life.
(and would one dare point out that those on the left are the ones who advocate for the real killing of innocents, the unborn, in the form of abortion?)
So, yes, I respect all life, and am pro-life in that I am against abortion, and wish to see it's legality ended. I am also pro-capital punishment, because there are crimes that deserve that punishment.
But, I think this sojrone has a bigger fish to fry.
Some even suggest that a culture of justified violence was applied to Jesus’ own crucifixion. This can even be found in the writings of Paul, who came from a culture in which blood was used to purify one of sinfulness. The sacrifice of life, was a common practice in ancient Judaism as well. So it’s understandable when this same model is applied to Jesus’ death.
His "bigger fish" is the substitutionary atonement of Christ, that "Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures tell us".
Jesus forgave sin while he was still alive. Was this a lie? A Mistake? Or did he actually present a grace to the world that was greater than sin, even then?
How does Jesus forgiving sins while He was alive contradict anything? Christ was going to lay down His life for us. Forgiveness, then, was likely based on Him doing that, just like all other sins before His death were forgiven through it. There is nothing contradictory there.
I believe that Walter Wink’s interpretation of Jesus’ message rings the most true, and it can be summed up in three simple words:
Violence never redeems.
We come to it, the real point of this whole sad sojo post--the death of Christ is needless.
It’s love that redeems, and love requires no blood to be spilled in order to exist, or else it’s not really love. There’s no such thing as conditional love; love never comes with an asterisk, a caveat or fine print. It is whole, complete and absolute in and of itself.
Justified violence may be culturally acceptable. It may even be considered Biblical in some cases. But it’s not Christ-like.
"Without shedding of blood there is no redemption of sins". That is God's Word, and if the words of Walter Wink or this sojrone contradict it, then they are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".
Even heathens honor those who sacrifice their own lives for their family or countries, but this sojrone belittles and dishonors the Christ who gave His life for us by his trite and unscriptural positions. This is blasphemy, pure and simple. He is one who trods upon the blood of Christ, calling it an accursed thing.
Deuteronomy 28 tells us what it looks like to be the head:
Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come against you one way and flee before you seven ways. The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses, and in all which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you. -DEUTERONOMY 28:3-8
The Lord describes blessing in every conceivable way. It even extends to the defeat of all enemies who rise against them. This is clearly and pointedly what life in the promised land is supposed to look like. The enemy will "flee before you seven ways." Though the seven nations are greater and mightier than you, they will run away in seven directions. This promise of blessing is not something to be "named and claimed" while we are committed only to life in the wilderness. That's the central error of the prosperity message-that God wants us to have and be all these things in the wilderness. Only in the active conquest of the seven greater nations will He bless us like this. And there's more:
The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. Then all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to you. -DEUTERONOMY 28:9-11
Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (pp. 183-184). Kindle Edition.
A few things to point out here.
First, who is God talking to here? This is recorded in Deuteronomy, God made this statement to Israel at the of Moses, which means it was said roughly 3,500 years ago. That's a long time ago. I hadn't been born yet, my father hadn't yet been born, even my grandfathers were not yet born. God was speaking to the people alive at that time, and more particularly to the people of Israel, and one could say by extension their descendents after them. It was a promise to a particular people, Israel.
As such, then, this promise is not to the church. The church does not have some kind of metaphorical or spiritual land that we must conquer, somehow analogous to Israel's conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land.
Second, look at this passage. It has a stipulation to it, an "if". I'll single it out here, but keep in mind the context above.
if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.
The promises Enlow refers to are not without condition. They are promises based on Law, conditioned on the obedience of Israel to the Law God had given to them. And dare I say, it had to be a perfect obedience, for as it is written, to keep the whole Law but to violate it on one point is to break the whole Law.
So, Enlow makes a couple of errors here. One is that he's claiming a promise not addressed to him or to the church, and the other is that he is claiming a promise that's conditioned on perfect obedience to the Law, which he as a fallen sinful man cannot accomplish, nor can anyone in the church today.
Only one has lived a sinless life, has lived in perfect obedience to the Law, and that would be Christ.
Israel could not live up to the stipulation of this promise. They failed, and so they did not receive these blessings. But I think that the Bible says that God is not finished with His dealings with Israel, but that's another topic.
This rhetoric of "We should be the head and not the foot" is an insult. It insults those who over the years have had faith in Christ but have struggled in regards to material things because of their beliefs--they were outcast, they were persecuted, they were robbed and beaten, they were persecuted and even martyred. It insults the early church and the Apostles. It is about the Apostles that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4, "1co.4.9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.† 1co.4.10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 1co.4.11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 1co.4.12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 1co.4.13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day." The Apostles certainly weren't treated like the head and not the foot, and in fact did not seem to have much expected to be.
Finally, it is an insult to Christ, who humbled himself to become a man, and became obedient to the point of death by crucifixion, one of the most shameful and painful and humiliating deaths man has deviced. By his own words, He came to serve and to be served. Here is what Isaiah wrote concerning Him.
is.53.1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?† is.53.2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. is.53.3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.† is.53.4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. is.53.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.† is.53.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.† is.53.7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. is.53.8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.† is.53.9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.† is.53.10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.† is.53.11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. is.53.12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 144642-144666). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
Christ did not live His life on Earth as the head, but the day is coming when He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But we the church are not called to rule in such a way. As it is written somewhere, let us go outside the camp, bearing his reproach. And as Christ Himself said, If they hated Him, they will hate those who love Him.
Every nation has a redemptive destiny, and the Lord is urging us to ask Him for the nations as an inheritance (Psalm 2:8).
Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 26). Kindle Edition.
Sadly, Enlow's mistake here is quite the popular one. In my time with YWAM, it was quite common for someone in prayer to use this bit from Psalm, "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations", and to ask for some nation or another themselves. In their understand, and in that of Enlow, it is us who are being addressed in the Psalm, we who are suppose to ask for the nations, and they will be given to us as an inheritance.
So, let's look at this verse in context.
ps.2.1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?† ps.2.2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, ps.2.3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ps.2.4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. ps.2.5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.† ps.2.6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.† ps.2.7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.† ps.2.8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. ps.2.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. ps.2.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. ps.2.11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. ps.2.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 136830-136847). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
Look at the verse before 8, v 7, " I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This is obviously a messianic statement, the Lord is speaking to His Son, Christ. Once that is established, we can see when He says to someone "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession", He is still speaking to Christ.
God wasn't and isn't speaking to us in this Psalm. We can learn from it, yes, but let's not pretend that simply because v. 8 has an implied "you" in it that that "you" means, well, you.
It doesn't. You weren't there, the church hadn't even yet been formed, and the Psalms were written several hundreds of years before Pentacost. God is not urging us to ask for the nations as an inheritance, that's just arrogance to even think He would. This Psalm is about Christ, not us.
I've said nothing about things Tebow here, for a few reasons. 1. He was a Gator. 2. Did I mention Gators? 3. Everyone else is saying everything anyway. 4. Gators. 5. The whole Gators thing. 6. I did cheer for him some (as a Bronco, not a Gator). 7. Like I said, everyone and his brother was voicing opinions all over the place.
Ok, having said all that, I must give him major props for this.
Tebow was scheduled to appear in March at the three-day Columbus, Ohio, event being hosted by televangelist Rod Parsley. In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Tebow’s brother Robbie confirmed that his brother is canceling. ABC6 reports that this decision is based on Parsley’s controversial teachings...
Apparently, the Tebow camp hadn’t looked into the event prior to committing. And now, something has led the player — perhaps the aforementioned elements — to backtrack on his commitment.
The page has a photo of the website for the event, and along with Parsley it also has Kenneth Copeland.
I'm glad Tebow is getting out of that thing. There's nothing there he should be getting involved in.
In the chapters of this book I will refer to these foundations of culture, or sectors of society, as "mountains." Revelation 17 describes a "harlot" who sits on a "beast with seven heads" that are "seven mountains." This demonic entity, described as a woman, must be displaced from the mountains, or seats of power. This is our mission that we were co-missioned by Jesus to do.
Johnny Enlow. The Seven Mountain Prophecy (p. 9). Kindle Edition.
In some episodes of his Fighting for the Faith podcast, Chris Rosebrough has discussed the Seven Mountains dominionist teaching and movement, and one thing he's pointed out that in the Bible the idea of seven mountains is not something good. It is associated with this passage, Revelation 17.
rev.17.1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: rev.17.2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. rev.17.3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:† rev.17.5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.† rev.17.6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. rev.17.7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. rev.17.8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. rev.17.9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. rev.17.10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. rev.17.11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Brown, David; Fausset, A. R.; Jamieson, Robert (2011-06-02). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on the Whole Bible (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 175321-175352). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.
Keep in mind what Enlow said, that it is out job, the church's job, to "displace" the woman in the vision from the mountains represented by the beast's heads. Remembering that, look at the rest of the prophecy.
According to the prophecy, who "displaces" the woman? "rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17...rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. " If we are to take Enlow at his words, this these ten kings would represent the church, would they not? They are the ones who displace this woman from her position, though they do so in partnership with the beast.
If that seems suspect, consider a part of the passage that I left out.
rev.17.12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. rev.17.13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. rev.17.14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. rev.17.15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. rev.17.16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. rev.17.17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. rev.17.18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
So, these ten kings who displace the woman also go to war against the Lamb, who is Christ.
Now, does that sound like the church to you? I have to say, no, it doesn't.
So, looked at in context, we can see pretty plainly that what Enlow is claiming the passage says is not actually in the passage at all.
