Archives

Speaking in tongues was NOT a sign for unbelieving jews, and the gift is still in use

Oct29

speaking in tonguesSpeaking in tongues was NOT only a sign for unbelieving jews (as a sign of God’s judgment on Israel)

1 Cor. 14: 3-4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth HIMSELF; but he that prophesieth edifieth THE CHURCH

Paul writes extensively about speaking in tongues in the Bible, and he devotes three chapters in his first letter to the Corinthians to describe how the speaking in tongues should be used properly. At no time did he suggest that speaking in tongues would soon cease, but he rather encouraged the Corinthians (and all of us) to seek this gift and the others, in order to get edified and maybe even edifying others. We are to be EAGER to get the gifts, so it’s a shame that there are some christians who try to amend what Paul is telling us, by suggesting that speaking in tongues was only a sign for unbelieving jews and of God’s judgment on Israel. Instead, we are told to pray for one another so that we may be healed, regardless of if unbelieving jews are present or not. Since we can read “is any sick AMONG YOU”, it suggests unbelieving jews might not be present at all.

Ja. 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.16 Confess your faults one to another, and PRAY ONE FOR ANOTHER, THAT YE MAY BE HEALED. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

John. 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

A few questions – mainly about Paul’s teaching…

  • Why would Paul give the Corinthians instructions how to handle the tongues among themselves, when they were NOT “unbelieving jews“?
  • Why does he suggest that the gift of tongues is one of many gifts that helps to build up the body of Christ? What does this have to do with unbelieving jews, particularly when Paul emphasizes that this is a rule for both jews and gentiles? (1 Cor. 12:10-13)
  • Why would he suggest that God has set diversities of tongues IN CHURCH apart from apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healings, helps and governments? Where do the unbelieving jews fit in here? (1 Cor. 12:28)
  • Why does he say that we don’t even speak to man but UNTO GOD, if the signs were supposed to be for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:2)
  • Why does he say that NO MAN UNDERSTANDS due to tongues being a MYSTERY, if unbelieving jews were supposed to understand? (1 Cor. 14:2)
  • Why does he distinguish speaking in tongues (not understood) with prophesies (understood), if the speaking of tongues were supposed to be for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor.14 1-3)
  • Why does he suggest that the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself if they were supposed to be for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor 14:4)
  • And why doesn’t even interpreted tongues (prophesies) seem to be for unbelieving jews, since Paul specifically says they are for edification, exhortation and comfort, rather than being a sign for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:3)
  • Why are the tongues called “unknown” tongues, if tongues were always supposed to be known and understood by unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:4)
  • Why does he again say that interpreted tongues are good for the edification of the CHURCH rather than unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:5)
  • Why does he say that speaking in tongues can be made among BRETHREN (so not unbelieving jews), but that it wouldn’t profit anything unless there were interpreted – when they would indeed be profitable for these brethren? (1 Cor. 14:6)
  • Why does he indicate that speaking in tongues is not connected to knowledge (unless interpreted)? (1 Cor. 14:6-9)
  • Why does he again suggest that spiritual gifts (such as speaking in tongues if interpreted) can be used for edification of the church, rather than being for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:12)
  • Why is there a separate gift called “interpretation of tongues”, if tongues were always understood by unbelieving jews, and why do not all people who can speak in tongues have this gift? Why even call them “unknown tongues“? ( 1 Cor. 14:13)?
  • Why does he again say that a person’s understanding is unfruitful if he speaks in tongues, if they are always supposed to be understood by unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:14)
  • Why does he make a distinction between praying with our spirit (when we don’t understand) and praying with our understanding? And if speaking in tongues are always supposed to be understood by unbelieving jews, why does Paul say we should pray in BOTH ways (without our understanding and with our understanding) and IN CHURCH? (1 Cor.14:15)
  • Why does he again suggest that not all people understand the tongues (unless interpreted), and why does he suggest that people are able to say AMEN to tongues whenever they DO understand them (when they are interpreted)? Why does he suggest that speaking in tongues can involve GIVING THANKS, if they are supposed to be for a judgment towards unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:16)
  • Why does he again make a distinction between speaking in tongues with and without interpretation if tongues were always supposed to be understood? And why does he say that whenever tongues ARE understood, they can be used for TEACHING, rather than being for a sign/judgment for unbelieving jews? (1Cor. 14:18-19)
  • Why would he assume that unbelievers, who might visit the church, think we are mad when we speak in tongues? Could it be because we speak gibberish? (1 Cor. 14:23)
  • Why does he again make a distinction between speaking in tongues (no one understands) and speaking in prophesies (interpreted tongues) where people DO understand, and where they can even get the benefit of being convinced of all and able to worship God – thanks to realizing that God is with these christians who speak with interpreted tongues? (1 Cor.14:24-25)
  • Why does he again suggest that speaking in tongues has a valid place in the body of Christ, and that they can be used for EDIFICATION of the body/church, rather than being for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:26)
  • Why does he again separate the gift of speaking in tongues with the gift of interpretation of tongues? (1 Cor. 14:26-27)
  • Why does he suggest that we should speak in tongues to OURSELVES and to GOD, if we are not able to get the gift interpreted IN CHURCH? How many unbelieving jews do we expect to find in our own closet where we are told to pray? If the tongues were for unbelieving jews, why would we think about using them for ourselves and for GOD? (1Cor. 14:28)
  • Why does he again say that speaking in tongues is for learning and comforting (of the church), rather than being for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:31)
  • Why does he again suggest that speaking in tongues has a place among the saints in church, rather than being for unbelieving jews? (1 Cor. 14:33)
  • Why does he give instructions for the church that they should seek to get the gift of prophesy (interpretation of tongues) and not forbid people to speak in tongues? (1 Cor. 14:39)
  • Why does the Bible provide a few accounts of people who are speaking in tongues where unbelieving jews are not around?
  • Why did so many people from various countries understand the tongues to be about “the wonderful works of God”, rather than being judgments/signs for unbelieving jews?(Acts. 2:11)

We are encouraged to speak in tongues

Speaking in tongues is never labelled as means to spread the gospel, but if someone will hear interpreted tongues they will hear a christian praising and magnifying God about his wonderful works, and/or making prophesies. If the tongues are not interpreted, they will come out as gibberish because the person speaks mysteries which NO MAN UNDERSTANDS, and Paul specifically says that the tongues (unless they are interpreted) are not even supposed to be for man but UNTO ourselves and UNTO GOD. We are not told to not pray in tongues every again if we don’t have the gift of interpretation, but we are told to pray at home for ourselves and to God. Tongues (if interpreted) are supposed to be for the edification of the church, but how can one be edified by speaking words of judgment against the Jews? The reason God sent tongues (prophetic speech) to the believers is for power and praise.

Believing jews (not unbelieving jews) were astonished when they realized that gentiles had received the holy Ghost, and they were confident that they had received the holy Ghost precisely because they heard the gentiles spoke in tongues and magnified God.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

We can get power, after the holy Ghost has come upon us, and we can begin to speak with other tongues:

Joh. 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts. 2:1 2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Some people use Acts 2 as a proof text and as a filter to read Paul’s letter to the Corinthiansspeaking in tongues 3

It’s a risk that skeptics misunderstand Acts 2 (or purposely add things which are not stated), and read 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the light of their misunderstanding of Acts 2. They are not as keen to read Acts 2 in the light of 1 Corinthians 12-14! 

Acts 2 says that “every man heard them speak in his own language”, but it does NOT say that ALL men understood ALL tongues by ALL disciples. If that were the case, then each of those individuals understood an awful lot of languages and must have been incredibly talented! Note that people from EVERY NATION under heaven were present, and is it really likely that every single one of those men understood ALL languages that the disciples spoke?! Just imagine how it would be to understand all languages under heaven! Depending on how we count, no less than 14 different people are listed as present. I don’t know to what extent these 14 different groups of people understood each other’s languages (I’m for instance Swedish and I also understand Norwegian and Danish), but the whole point with this story is to tell us that different kinds of people from all nations, still understood what the disciples said. Maybe it wasn’t unusual for some exceptionally learned men to speak maybe 2-3 languages, but to understand more languages than that must have been highly unusual, even if we reduce the 14 languages to a smaller amount.

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, OUT OF EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN.6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

1 Corinthians 14:21 and the quote from Isaiah 28:11

Just as the OT Jews were perplexed by the Assyrian dialect, so they are perplexed today by tongues they don’t understand, and uninterpreted tongues will not help them in any way.

Paul’s message is to NOT stand up and speak in tongues in church unless there is interpretation, because only then will the listeners be able to understand, learn and be edified. The consequence of tongues-speaking is that unbelievers (Jew and Gentile) do not understand what is being spoken, so to them it is just a mysterious “sign” and nothing they can grasp.The Greek word for “sign” can apart from “sign” also mean “wonder”, “mystery” or “perplexity”.  Paul wrote 1 Cor 14 to show that tongues without interpretation does not benefit anyone except the speaker, and therefore the Corinthians should not speak tongues loudly in the church service (without interpretation) because for others, it is just a mystery/sign.

1 Cor. 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.22 Wherefore tongues are for a SIGN, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Isaiah 28:5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.—:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

Paul also talks about the church order, and he says that tongues are for a sign (sēmeion Strong’s 4592) to them who do not believe, but prophesying (interpreted tongues) are for those who BELIEVE – for their instruction and edification. Prophesying can also convict a stray unbeliever that happens to be there, and therefore prophecy is better than tongues in the church unless there is an interpretation. Mark tells us on the other hand that speaking in tongues is one of the signs that shall FOLLOW a believer, but then he is referring to  something that you would normally expect to see among christians (and he doesn’t say this was a fact for his generation only).

Mark 16:17 And these signs (sēmeia Strong’s 4592) shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

As Paul gives these instructions, he lets us know that speaking in tongues had actually been prophesied beforehand by the Prophet Isaiah, centuries before Pentecost. Paul didn’t say that tongues are a sign to only unbelieving Jews, but that tongues were a sign “...to them that believe not…“, and tongues can be a sign to unbelieving Jews and/or to unbelieving Gentiles alike. If speaking in tongues were a sign to only Jews, and Jews had to be present before speaking in tongues could be exercised, he would have made this clear. Are we actually to believe that Paul would not pray to God in other tongues, unless an unbelieving Jew were present with him in his prayer closet? In Isaiah 28 God is basically telling Israel that they have been so wicked that he will allow them to be conquered by Assyria, so it was a judgment and an assurance that they would be taken captive. The quote in Isaiah can’t be a prophecy that is fulfilled by the church because Christians did not take the Jews captive to a foreign land. The prophecy was only to be fulfilled once – in the 700’s B.C. Cessationists might say that tongues are still a judgment against the Jews, to show them that they are no longer God’s exclusive people, but Paul is speaking of prophecies/tongues in the church service where there are believers – for their edification and instruction. If tongues are a sign of judgment against the Jews because they do not understand it, then it is also a sign of judgment against everybody (including apostles) because NO MAN understands unless it is interpreted.

Speaking a message in tongues and interpreting it in a public service can have convicting effect on an unbeliever – by exposing them to their  faithless state, and stirring them to rededicate their lives to Christ. Today millions of millions of christians speak in tongues despite no presence of unbelievers, and if the tongues have ceased, we must ask ourselves why they haven’t ceased! Many true born again christians, who show lots of good fruit, still speak them! Are they demonic? Would God give a stone to someone who asks for a spiritual gift?

Did they speaking in tongues occur only when unbelieving Jews or Gentiles were present?speaking in tongues 2

Unbelieving jews were not always present when people spoke in tongues.

Peter preached the gospel to the gentiles in Cornelius’ house, and those present were already believers before coming there, or they were born-again in that instant. So now, you have a room full of christians, speaking in tongues, with no unbelieving jew hear them.

Acts. 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In Ephesus, Paul found 12 of John the Baptist’s disciples and he preached the Gospel to them, resulting in that they believed and were baptized.  The only ones present were Paul and twelve born-again christians – so no unbelieving jews.

Acts. 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.7 And all the men were about twelve.

Saved despite taking THE MARK OF THE BEAST? No way, John MacArthur

Oct23

mark of the beast

Getting the mark of the beast is the same as losing your soul

It’s not certain what the mark of the beast really is (we can only speculate) but it’s absolutely certain that it’s not possible to enter the kingdom of God if you choose to get this mark in the future when it’s going to be offered. I don’t believe that this mark will be forced on people who have no choice in the matter – like newborn babies – because it wouldn’t be a righteous judgment to send people to the lake of fire due to something that is outside of their control. I also don’t believe it’s a mark that we will get by mistake, without realizing what it really is. Since our souls are involved, I believe it’s going to be a very clear choice, so that we will know what is at stake.

John MacArthur usually gets his theology views twisted (see for instance this article) and that includes the issue of the mark of the beast. He claims that it’s possible to take the mark of the beast as long as you don’t worship it, but the Bible doesn’t give such assurances. He starts with making the mistake to use a pretribulation rapture as a foundation, which the Bible doesn’t teach. Saints will be on earth at the same time as Antichrist, and that means that they will have to go through at least part of the tribulation until they will see Christ. On the other hand, they will escape the wrath of God, but that’s not the same as the tribulation.

Saints are being warned from taking the mark of the beast throughout the book of Revelations, and it wouldn’t be logical to warn christians for something that they will never have to face or endure.

Below we can read that those who, at this point, do not have their names in the book of life (there is only one book of life), will be the same as those who will worship the beast, and they will naturally also have the mark of the beast if they also choose to worship him. This is interesting to note, because according to Rev. 20:15, those who are not in the book of life will be those who end up in the lake of fire. So the option we have are 1) being in the book of life, or 2) worship the beast.

If anyone refuses to worship the beast, he will be killed by the beast, but at least the beast doesn’t have power over our souls. It also says that “he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads”, but this must means “all kinds of people from all across the world“, because we know that not every single person will choose to take this mark – namely those who we previously read about, who will be killed due to refusing the mark.

Rev. 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the SAINTS, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the SAINTS.—15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Below the angel says that if any man worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark, he will have to go through the wrath of God and and shall be tormented with fire and will have no rest day or night. So based on the below passage, we can read twice that this horrible promise seems to be for:

  • whosoever worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark in his forehead, or in his hand
  • whosoever worships the beast and his image (again)
  • whosoever receives the mark of his name

Rev. .14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.12 Here is the patience of the SAINTS: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Below we can read that there will be a certain amount of people who will get victory over the beast, over his image and over his MARK. We know that they won’t be able to claim victory if they worship the beast and/or take the mark:

Rev. 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

There will be a grievous sore on those who have the mark of the beast, according to the below passage, and on those who worship his image. We can read about the blessings involved for those who are being prepared and who keep their clothes, which means that there is such an alternative – for those who have not taken the mark or worshiped the beast:

Rev. 16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.—15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Those who will be cast alive into the lake of fire will be 1) them that had received the mark of the beast, and 2) them that worshiped his image – which seem to be one and the same people:.

Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Those who will live and reign with Christ for a thousand years are those who:

  • were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God
  • and who had not worshiped the beast
  • and who had not worshiped the beast’s image
  • and who had not received the beast’s mark on their foreheads/hands

All others will not live again until 1000 years have passed, and will be thrown in the lake of fire (the second death). The choices are 1) not being involved with the beast in any way – either worshiping him or taking his mark – which means you have your name in the book of life, or 2) being involved with the beast – worshiping him and taking his mark – which means your name is not in the book of life:

Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.—14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How do we endure the tribulation?

How is it possible to endure the great tribulation? We must be very close to God (praying, reading his word, singing worship songs, fasting, etc) and live according to the Spirit. If we are lukewarm and live too much in the world, the temptations around us will be much too difficult to endure. We must live in the promise that we will be getting power to overcome, and the holy Spirit is our guide.

Deut. 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;31 (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Matt. 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Matt. 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.—29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The question to John MacArthur was “once the person takes the mark, is there any possibility of Him coming to Christ?”

John answered: —-“Now, the question is, if you’re living in the Tribulation period, and you take this mark, in other words, you identify with the beast’s empire, will you still be able to be redeemed? And I think the answer to that is yes. Yes!  Otherwise there would be no salvation of anybody in the end of the Tribulation; and you’ve got to have the salvation of folks in the end of the Tribulation.”

Since MacArthur still has the recordings and transcripts on his website (it’s the year 2013) as per this site, one must assume that this is still his view until he claims something else.

A good article from Charisma News here about John MacArthur and his war on charismatic christians.

TOM CLANCY, författaren död under mystiska omständigheter

Oct7

tom clancyFörfattaren Tom Clancy, död vid 66 – 1 oktober 2013

Var han en i mängden som visste för mycket? Precis som journalisterna Michael Hastings, Andrew Breitbart och flera andra? Det låter för grymt för att vara sant, men eftersom det hänt flera gånger förut att folk som vetat för mycket dött under mystiska omständigheter så måste frågan ställas – och speciellt om trovärdiga källor gör ett sådant påstående. Ett svar kommer vi förmodligen aldrig att få, och inte ens hans förläggare verkar vilja eller kunna berätta så mycket.

Artikeln nedan kan läsas i original här

On tonight’s The Wise Shall Understand Radio Broadcast, our guest was Dr. Jim Garrow whom you may remember shocked the world by saying this back on January 21, 2013:

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” –source.

Dr. Jim Garrow reveals himself to be covert government agent.

As a long-time friend and guest on NTEB Radio, we know Dr. Garrow to be a previous Nobel Peace Prize nomineeand executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda Girls school and rescue outreach in China. But on our show tonight, Dr. Garrow made the amazing revelation that he had, in fact, right up until this past Wednesday night at midnight, spent 45 years as a covert CIA operative. Garrow said that as a result of his “litmus test” statement in January, he was outed from the agency by Obama, and forced to accept early retirement.

But the revelations didn’t stop there.

In addition to revealing that Andrew Breitbart had been killed under orders from Obama administration officials, he also said that spy thriller novelist TOM CLANCY had also be killed in much the same way, and for the same reasons. Garrow said that Clancy had been spoon fed inside information for years from covert operatives for his novels, and he knew too much. Interestingly, when asked about where he got his ideas for his novels, Clancy had said this before he died:

““I hang my hat on getting as many things right as I can,” Mr. Clancy once said in an interview. “I’ve made up stuff that’s turned out to be real — that’s the spooky part.” NY Times

A little too real, as it turns out. Dr. Garrow said the reason no autopsy was performed for the first 5 days is that it ‘takes that long for the chemicals he was poisoned with to work their way out of his body’.

Lastly, he revealed that Obama’s administration was made up of Marxist Muslims who all take their orders from Senior Adviser to the President, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. Dr. Garrow said that it is well known to intelligence agencies all over the world that Obama is a foreign plant who was placed on the path to the presidency by ultra-rich Saudi nationals This is why, Garrow said, that all of Obama’s education records have been permanently sealed.

Garrow paints a bleak picture of a compromised America that is collapsing under internal attack from foreign forces.

Guardian Express:

Tom Clancy, master detective writer, died mysteriously on October 1st, at the age of 66.  The reason he was taken before his time is as mysterious as his books.  Clancy’s publicists are still not telling.   John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has not released a statement either.  The Baltimore Sun announced, most discretely, that the cause of death was, “a brief illness”.  No source was provided.  His family has added to the intrigue by saying they were not expecting to lose him.

It’s a growing mystery and his son, Thom Clancy, blanketed the tragedy further by tweeting about his father, “One of the last things that dad and I talked about was how grateful he was for his fans. That’s a sentiment that I share right now.”  How did it happen?  The fans do not appear to be to blame.

 

 

YHWH ALONE knows the hearts of the children of men, and JESUS too!

Oct7

alla6YHWH, or God, or God the Father (or the entire trinity) ALONE knows the hearts of the children of men according to 1 King. 8:39, but the very same attributes are mentioned in relation to Jesus Christ in Rev. 2:23. So is it a lie that God ALONE possesses such incredible knowledge? The only way to solve this and avoid making God a liar, is to accept that Jesus is God and the trinity is valid. Or else God is NOT alone knowing the hearts of the children of men, as he claims he is.

This is about God in the old testament

1 King 8:39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even THOU ONLY, KNOWEST THE HEARTS OF ALL THE CHILDREN OF MEN;)

Jer. 11:20 But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause.

Jer. 20:12 But, O Lord of hosts, that triest the righteous, and seest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I opened my cause.

Ps. 7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.

Ps. 26:2 Examine me, O Lord, and prove me; try my reins and my heart.

Pro. 24:12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

1 Chronicles 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

Jer. 17:10 I THE LORD SEARCH THE HEART, I TRY THE REINS, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

This is about Jesus in the new testament

Notice that Rev. 2:23 contains almost the exact same phrase and wordings as Jer. 17:10. Is God the author of confusion, or does he maybe wants us to understand that Jesus is God, and that he shares the same trinity as God the Father?

Rev. 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith THE SON OF GOD, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I AM HE (ego eimi) WHICH SEARCHETH THE REINS AND HEARTS: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

The Spirit makes intercession for us, and we can read about “he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit”. Who is this referred to? Could it be Jesus, since we know that he too makes intercessions for us before God (God the Father)? We can read that the REASON why he searches the hearts of the saints, is due to the plan to make an intercession for them, and it’s not possible to make an intercession before God (God the Father) for someone unless you know what’s in this person’s heart and can see his true motives.

Rom. 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Hebr. 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.—24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens

So we can see that God the Father, Jesus the son, and the holy Spirit, are linked together in the same unity – even if they are not one and the same.

Westminster Confession of Faith 1647, and related contradictions

Oct1

calvinism 5Westminster Confession of Faith from the year 1647 – which many calvinists adhere to

Claiming that “God authors everything but not sin” simply doesn’t make it so – not even if you use fancy words in a document and spread it around throughout a large christian community – because it doesn’t make the obvious contradiction go away. Neither would it make sense to say “I believe in the trinity but I don’t believe that Jesus is God, and not the holy Spirit either for that matter“, or “God predestines every thought and every step of the entire humanity, but we are still responsible for our actions”. It’s one or the other, and you can’t have the cookie and eat it too. If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass and if nothing happens against his will, then this by necessity must include sin! It doesn’t help to blame “second causes” because if you push another person who hits another, then you’re still the cause for the whole chain of actions.

If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then this must include also second causes, and if it’s impossible to act against God’s will, then also sin must be according to God’s will. If God is the one who decides who to save based on nothing that we believe or do, and who to give the ability to seek him, believe, repent and obey, then the only outcome is that he didn’t want the rest (the non-elect) to seek him, believe, repent or obey. Many calvinists admit that they believe that God is the author of sin and that he delights in people who sin (since he predestined them to be wicked sinners), but other calvinists protest and argue against their own doctrines. My view is of course that it’s better to avoid adding calvinism into the Bible in the first place, because that will result in 1) no Bible contradictions, 2) no unanswered questions, puzzles or unsolved mysteries, 3) we suddenly understand why Jesus Christ had to die on the cross – because something went WRONG and didn’t go as God planned, and 4) God and Satan can be totally separated (instead of working as a team) leaving God as a righteous and holy God who has no darkness within him and who doesn’t tempt anyone or delights in anyone’s sin.

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ORDAIN WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF)

Long texts with lots of fluff and fancy words might help the author to hide obvious contradictions for the readers, but if we remove the fluff and make the statement shorter and only keep the necessary outline, the contradictions will be more obvious. It’s of course easier to detect the contradiction if we only stick with the main idea with the statement, which is “God ordains whatever events come to pass, but not in such a way so that God ordains the sinful events that come to pass”.

“The [Calvinist] doctrine is, that God decreed, from eternity, whatsoever comes to pass in time — and that according to his own good pleasure — every particular thing, event, and act. I must insist, according to this [Calvinist doctrine], that he decreed the sin of every sinful man — nay, each particular sin of each particular man, and all the sins of all men, long before the human race was created.”

Hence, the Westminster Confession contains a palpable contradiction namely, that God did cause all things, sin included, yet in such a way that He did not cause sin.” Randolph Foster – Objections to Calvinism 

To reconcile the obvious, the Calvinist simply waves his hand and says God is not the author of sin. Double talk.

The following section is from Daniel Gracely

This sentence is a contradiction because it involves two ideas in which each idea makes it impossible for the other idea to be true. Yet under the Westminster Confessions these two opposing propositions form a ’system’ (or synthesis) that is nevertheless held to be true. Let me give another example of a contradiction to make this clearer. Suppose I packed nothing but one apple and one orange for lunch. I might make the following statement:

“Today I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick, yet not in such a way so that the orange was eaten last, which would have made me sick.”

Me: I feel sick.

You: Apparently you got sick by eating the orange first. Whydidn’t you eat the apple first?

Me: I did eat the apple first. Don’t you remember what I said? “I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick.”

You: Then why are you sick?

Me: I believe I told you why. I said I didn’t eat the orange last, which is why I feel sick.

You: I’m a little confused—which fruit did you eat first?

Me: I’ll repeat myself entirely: “Today I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick, yet not in such a way so that the orange was eaten last, which would have made me sick.”

You: But you’re sick—is that right?

Me: Not at all. I said a bit earlier that “I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick.”

As long as I respond with this “logic” you cannot come to any conclusions about what I said. You cannot know whether I am sick or well, which fruit I ate first, or even if I ate at all. You cannot know what events happened because I affirmed everything, and yet denied everything. Consequently, all the statements you heard are inconclusive. In effect, I used language to say nothing. You could not even determine properly if I was actually describing myself in the above events, since nothing was being said about ‘me.’ I created this confusion by upholding two ideas that were in contradiction to each other, but which I claimed were simultaneously true.

God’s Eternal Decree – to save some and to damn some – despite that both categories are obedient to God calvinism 8

iii. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 

John 1:12  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name

vi. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

vii. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. 

Eze 33:11  Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

1Ti 2:3-4  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  

viii. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

Deu 29:29  “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Calvinist want you to believe that God has revealed the mysteries to them and no one else, and this could be a good ground for boasting.

The financial might of the gun industry

Sep16

Michelle Cox is a researcher for a site that provides education and industry insights to current and prospective MBA students, and included in their collection of resources is a series of business-focused videos that have been featured by news outlets like The Huffington Post, Forbes, and Businessweek. The video “The Business of Guns” can be found on this website, and it illustrates the financial might of the gun industry in the United States.

hair dryer

 

 

John MacArthur causes a division in Church on false grounds – Strange Fire?

Sep16

john macarthur

John MacArthur and his Strange Fire Conference, where he attacks christian charismatics

John MacArthur is a professed calvinist, and calvinists believe in TULIP which means (IF they want to be consistent with their own teachings) that they don’t believe that Jesus died for everyone (Limited Atonement), that God doesn’t want everyone to be saved, that people are born elect/non elect (saved/doomed), that nothing comes to pass against the will of God, that even sin is according to God’s will, etc. So not only does MacArthur preach false doctrines and insults our holy God, but as can be seen below it also looks like he is awfully close to committing the unpardonable sin by publicly ascribing the power of the holy Spirit – when it comes to casting out demons and healing people – to SATAN. It’s obviously not an unpardonable sin to simply doubt the truthfulness of a person’s supposed healing – not even if you express your doubt out loud, because you certainly might be right in your observation – HOWEVER if a person truly has cast out demons and healed someone and you as a believer of God publicly claim that this is not from the holy Spirit at all but of Satan, then it appears that you fit the description of blaspheming the holy Spirit. Being unsure is not a sin, and expressing your doubt is not a sin, but to publicly ascribe ALL modern cases of healing to Satan will lead to sin because not all of those cases are of Satan but of the holy Spirit. MacArthur seems to suggest that 100% of all claimed cases of casting out demons and/or healing are either fake or of Satan (unless it’s by the hands of Jesus or his apostles). If he is wrong in some of those cases – which he is – then this results in that he is guilty of suggesting that people have unclean spirits despite that they do NOT. The holy Spirit should rather be praised for what just happened instead of being attacked and compared with darkness. Only God can be the judge here, but MacArthur should reevaluate his mission – if it isn’t too late.

Matt. 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.—24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.—27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.—31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mark. 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.—28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.30 BECAUSE THEY SAID, HE HATH AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.

A transcript from MacArthur from his “Strange fire” conference 2013, sponsored by Grace To You:

“Why don’t evangelical leaders speak against this movement?  Why is their such silence? Look When somebody attacks the person of Christ the Evangelical world rises up and says “no, no, no!”  . . . the Holy Spirit has been under massive assault for decades and decades, and I’ve been asking the question ‘where are the people rising up in protest against the abuse and the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?‘ The only thing I can suggest is that they have been literally backed up into a corner by intimidation that they need to be loving and accepting and tolerant and not divisive in the body of Christ, that’s been the mantra. . .”

He also says:

“people caught up in any kind of error are cut off from God’s blessing.”

“Why are evangelicals silent about charismatic error?”

“The Lord calls His people to honor Him, to treat Him as holy. Leviticus 10 pictures the consequences of not doing so—of offering to Him strange fire. For the last hundred years, the charismatic movement has been offering a strange fire of sorts to the third Person of the Godhead—the Holy Spirit. And evangelical churches have chosen to be silent or indifferent on the matter. This hasn’t served the church or the Spirit of the church with honor.”

Where did he get the term “strange fire” from, which is the title of his conference, and which he ascribes to the entire charismatic movement? This Biblical incident:

Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.2 And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.

Numbers 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord, when they offered strange fire before the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest’s office in the sight of Aaron their father.

Numbers 26:61 And Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before the Lord.

Clearly the strange fire offered to God in Leviticus was sinful and against his will, because he had forbidden that kind of unlawful fire. Nadab and Abihu were immediately devoured before the Lord when they transgressed his law. Since MacArthur equals the entire charismatic movement (Assembly of God, the Pentecostal church, etc) with this type of unlawful strange fire, then he couldn’t possibly regard any of the members as saved – but rather as gangsters who oppose the holy Spirit and side with Satan. How could anyone be saved who purposely present strange fire (which is nothing but demonic) before the Lord?

On his website MacArthur favors the idea that speaking in tongues is DEMONIC/SATANIC/HERETICAL and HAVE CEASED. Can anyone be saved who are demonic/satanic/heretical and who engages in spiritual matters that are no longer in use? Of course not, because then you’re engaging in Satanic matters instead of godly matters! So if you belong to Assembly of God or a Pentecostal church, you’re not saved according to MacArthur. Moreover, the gifts of the holy Spirit are not only in use in those type of churches, but they can also be found in various other churches even if they are more common in the charismatic ones. If you happen to be a person who belong to a charismatic church and don’t use any the spiritual gifts, how could you be saved if you choose to remain in the midst of demonic/satanic/heretical/false christians who present strange fire before the Lord? What does light have to do with darkness? Nothing! So the only conclusion is that MacArthur doesn’t believe that any of the members of the charismatic churches are saved, and that’s about 450.000 – 500.000 christians according to the statistics – and even more if you add all others (in other types of churches) who use the spiritual gifts. MacArthur says on his website:

“No, it is significant to note that Pentecostals and Charismatics can’t substantiate their claim that what they are doing is the Biblical gift. There’s really no evidence to prove it. There is no evidence that it’s language. You say then, “What is it?” Could be demonic. Could be satanic. I think it was in Corinth, in some cases. Could be that. Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don’t know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic.

Now all of these supposed manifestations of tongues were always identified as heretical, fanatical, unorthodox, outside the Church; and we conclude that when they ceased they ceased, and there have been continual off and on fabrications of counterfeit tongues. Since these gifts did cease, the burden of proof is on the Charismatics to prove that what is happening today is valid. Why do we always have to get backed in the corner and prove our case? Why don’t they take the Bible and prove theirs and look at history as well and do the same?

Wherever in the Bible does it say that you are to speak in a private tongue? Never! A private ecstatic, angelic speech–never! It’s hard for me to argue against those who say that tongues is a private prayer language because I can’t go to some text and correct them because there isn’t any text!

Suffice it to say that this unique gift given for the Apostolic time is irreproducible today, and whatever purports to be that is not that; it is something counterfeit. A myriad of studies, which I’ll deal with in the book [Charismatic Chaos], and when you get a copy you can read them in detail, give evidence of the fact that motor-autonomism (sp.), ecstasy, hypnosis, psychic-catharsis, collective psyche, memory excitation, and all other kind of terms are used to describe people who go into these kinds of trance like experiences.  

So there are no verses which say that we can speak in tongues privately? What’s wrong with these?

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue EDIFIETH HIMSELF; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and LET HIM SPEAK TO HIMSELF; AND TO GOD

I don’t feel those who speak in tongues need to prove anything to Mr MacArthur and he can continue to believe that speaking in tongues is “trance like” even though they aren’t. If pentecostals today don’t do anything else but speaking in counterfeit demonic tongues, then only cessationists could be saved – unless he believes demon possessed people can enter the kingdom of God. This means that MacArthur concludes that a person is definitely NOT a christian as soon as he hears him speaking in tongues or making use of any other spiritual gifts. That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what the Bible says, because Peter and other believing jews realized that the gentiles around them had received the holy Ghost precisely because they spoke in tongues and magnified God (speaking in tongues in combination with good fruit). MacArthur, however, understands speaking in tongues totally different from the apostle Peter does, because when he hears someone speaking in tongues he (MacArthur) believes that person is not saved because of the tongues.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.46 FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, WHICH HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST as well as we?

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

1 Thess. 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.20 Despise not prophesyings.21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

MacArthur doesn’t do anything else than causing a huge DIVISION in church, but I admire his ability to twist the Scripture to make it say what he wants at the same time as he suggests that other preachers (but not himself) are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe he who shouts “beware of the wolf” the loudest is one of the biggest wolves himself? He would do well to consider the following verses which he either avoids or butchers in his “charismatic chaos series” and in the Strange fire conference:

1 Cor. 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.—10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.—30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?31 But COVET EARNESTLY the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Paul tells us to covet earnestly the best gift. Does MacArthur obey Paul in doing so? Does he realize that speaking in tongues might not be understood (since the Bible says that NO MAN UNDERSTANDS) and that there wouldn’t even be a need of the gift of interpretation of tongues IF tongues were always understood? Paul doesn’t say “if you don’t have the gift of interpreting, then don’t use the gift of speaking in tongues at all”.duva

1 Cor. 14:1Follow after charity, and DESIRE spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.  2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT UNTO MEN, but unto God: for NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM; howbeit in the spirit HE SPEAKETH MYSTERIES.  3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.  4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue EDIFIETH HIMSELF; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.  5I WOULD THAT YE ALL SPAKE IN TONGUES but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”— 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are ZEALOUS of spiritual gifts, SEEK that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue PRAY that he may interpret.14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.—18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet IN THE CHURCH I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.—28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and LET HIM SPEAK TO HIMSELF; AND TO GOD.—39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Does MacArthur understand that we are not even speaking to men but unto GOD when we speak in tongues (and no man understands), UNLESS the tongues are interpreted? Does he realize that Paul recommends us to speak in tongues privately at home? Does he realize that Paul NOWHERE says that the speaking in tongues shall cease before the coming of Christ, when we shall see him as he really is? If speaking in tongues has ceased, as MacArthur claims, how come it hasn’t? How come millions of true born again christians still speak in tongues? If they are all Satanic, why didn’t Paul bother to warn us about this? Wouldn’t it have been better for Paul to say somewhere that “the true speaking of tongues shall cease close after my own death, but there will be millions and millions of so-called christians (who show good fruit) who will speak in FALSE tongues, so be aware of them and don’t fall into the same trap”, etc?

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

If Paul spent a few months in a certain church and noticed that none of the spiritual gifts were present, wouldn’t he have been disappointed and reproved the leaders of this church for neglecting to encourage these gifts – which could have been to much edification both for individuals and/or for crowds of people? I fear that people are so afraid of the misuse of the gifts of the holy spirit that they don’t seek them at all, and this ends up being a victory for the devil.

Unfortunately, John MacArthur has made a study Bible, and you would do well to disregard it. He gets a lot of things right, but he also gets lots of things wrong and there is a risk you will fall for gnosticism/calvinism (and that God is the author of sin) if you start to believe MacArthur’s claims in his book. I can also say that quoting MacArthur where it sounds like he believes that man has free will, that we all have a chance to be saved, etc, only proves that he is not consistent with his own teaching (TULIP) and that he contradicts himself.

“Yes, someone says, but can’t Christians put themselves outside God’s grace? What about those who commit ABOMINABLE SINS? Don’t they nullify the work of redemption in themselves? Don’t they forfeit the love of God? CERTAINLY NOT …. it’s preposterous to think that we can forfeit it [salvation] BY ANYTHING WE DO” (John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God, Word Publishing, 1996, p. 159.)

“Secondly, you asked about occasional SEXUAL SIN or getting drunk. Again, THESE SINS CANNOT CAUSE A TRUE BELIEVER TO LOSE HIS SALVATION” (Personal letter dated 1/10/94 sent by Bryan Johnson, a counselor from John MacArthur’s ministry.)

The Bible says:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

2 Peter 2:2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

1 Tim. 4: 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no other desire than seeing also John MacArthur receiving the gift of speaking in tongues (and other gifts), but if puts so much energy in fighting against the holy Spirit and His gifts, the chances are slim that it will happen.

John MacArthur teaches that it’s possible to be saved even after having taken the mark of the beast (he starts with the incorrect premise of pre-tribulation). The Bible says the opposite. What if people in the future trust MacArthur’s assurance and take the mark of the beast? It’s of course no valid excuse to blame others (false teachers) for our choices, but teachers who present damnable doctrines have blood on their hands. Let’s pray for their repentance, and that people won’t trust MacArthur’s false assurances.

See below how MacArthur makes it known, that if you’re in the charismatic movement you’re NOT saved and you’re NOT part of the body of Christ. I get chills down my spine listening to his war against charismatic christians, and how he gets applauds from the other leaders (and the audience), and how people laugh when he makes jokes about the whole matter. I also don’t trust his concern for lost souls, because if he is right about his own gospel, then his God doesn’t even want all people saved, but only the elect – and of course all calvinists belong to the elect.

Kärnvapenspetsar förflyttas i hemlighet i USA – används för false flag attacker i South Carolina?

Sep6

USADet är vist att varna för false flag attacker medan de ännu är i planeringsstadiet så att de INTE utförs i själva verket. Det ser onekligen dumt ut att skylla på terrorister och “vi hade ingen aaaaning att något sådant skulle hända” om nyhetsmedia långt innan visar att just en sådan attack simulerades med stora övningspådrag långt innan den utfördes. Det är mycket troligt att en lång rad attacker undvikits på det sättet – exempelvis en kärnvapenattack på Texas Super Bowl 2013, och bombattacker vid en stor scoutkårsamling i Virginia, också 2013. Andra false flag attacker har tyvärr inte bromsats, såsom 9/11 i NY, 7/7 i London, bombingarna i Boston Marathon, skolskjutningen i Sandy Hook, Operation Northwood, etc. Jag är rädd att Obama i detta läge känner att kemiska attacker i Syrien inte räcker för att motivera ett krig i landet (vilket kan leda till världskrig), och därför kanske han hittar på fler drastiska åtgärder i form av attacker – som han skyller på terrorister – för att få större stöd för ett krig.

Senatorn i South Carolina menar att delstaten är fokus för terroristattacker, såvida inte USA går i krig mot Syrien…

Hela artikeln nedan med videoklipp från Infowars kan ses här.  

“Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.” 

Det kan vara REBELLERNA i Syrien som orsakat kemiska attacker och inte al-Assad

Aug30

syriaDet är vanligt i krig att orsaka terrordåd som man sedan tillskriver fienden

Lögnhalsarna Obama och Kerry är verkligen inga herrar att lita på. Om det visar sig att rebellerna är de som ligger bakom de kemiska attackerna så var det väldigt väntat, och varför skulle någon höja ögonbrynen?

Ang. artikel i Dagen om påståendet:

“Att det är regimen och inte rebellerna som använt kemiska stridsmedel mot civilbefolkningen tycks fullständigt klarlagt. Och ingen trodde väl något annat.”

Min första tanke när jag hörde om dessa otäcka kemiska attacker var att rebellerna och INTE Assad stod bakom, för det har nämligen hänt förr att USA orsakat terrordåd som sedan tillskrivs fienden för att få en legitim orsak till anfall. Den tanken var jag inte ensam om, vilket en daglig newsfeed på Facebook konfirmerar med råge, men framför allt visar alternativ media (och faktiskt även en del annan media) att de har samma tankegång pga olika vittnesuppgifter som kommit fram. Jag tror inte Obama kommer att lyckas bevisa Assads skuld i frågan, men han hade ju redan bestämt sig för att starta krig med Syrien långt innan dessa attacker.

När det gäller politiska nyheter från USA så är det tryggare att inte nöja sig med Amerikansk mainstream media som ofta bara upprepar allt det som det politiska styret säger, och framför allt så gäller detta CNN som egentligen borde heta CNN/CIA. MSNBC är presidents direkt högra arm, så det organet skulle jag aldrig vända mig. Så det gäller att också undersöka vad alternativ media säger för att undersöka om det finns andra sätt att tolka nyheter, och framför allt om det finns nyheter som tigs ihjäl bland övriga kanaler. Jag brukar vända mig till wnd, before it’s news, Mr Conservative (fast knappast neutral) och infowars. Ibland funkar även Fox News men även de kan välja att inte vädra känslig information för att inte  bli straffade. Youtube kan vara en bra källa till alternativa nyheter, men givetvis kan vilka galna påståenden som helst presenteras både där och på andra nätsidor så det gäller att se upp. På youtube kan man åtminstone läsa nyheter som inte är politiskt korrekta och sen får man lära sig att sålla. I mainstream media finns ofta ingenting att sålla eftersom man endast delges den politiskt korrekta åsikten. Sverige har ofta en bättre mediahantering där det är öppet att kritisera politiska ledare, men när svensk media ska rapportera amerikanska nyheter så hämtar man förstås informationen från mainstream media, och då blir rapporterna därefter. Man får säga vad man vill om halvvilde Alex Jones (Infowars), men han får faktiskt mycket rätt. 

Hur många i Sverige vet exempelvis vem personerna Michael Hastings och Kermit Gosnell är som det skrivits mycket om i alternativ media men knappast något alls i övrig media? Den förre blev mördad (fast inte officiellt förstås) för att han visste för mycket om CIA-toppen och den andra är känd för att ha aborterat bort bebisar som levde i flera timmar efter födslarna och som var stå stora att “de kunde ha gått till bussen själva” som han själv uttryckte det. Vet folk i Sverige att USA inte har en ambassad i Benghazi och att en antimuslimsk film (som bara setts av ca 200 personer) inte hade någonting med Benghazi-attacken att göra, samt att personal vid ett flertal tillfällen bönade och bad om hjälp pga upprepade hot? Känner de till att Obama gav “stand-down-order” trots att hjälp fanns att få? Känner de till den känsliga vapensmuggligen som pågick med ambassadören Chris Stevens som kontaktperson? Förstår svenska folket varför amerikaner blir upprörda när de läser om Trayvon Martin och George Zimmerman? Inte för att Martin blev dödad pga att han är svart, utan för att Zimmerman ANKLAGAS för att ha dödat Martin pga att han är svart och inte pga att han (Zimmerman) blev attackerad. Amerikaner är upprörda över att det skrivs så ofantligt mycket om Martins fall, medan det dödas både vita och svarta AV SVARTA regelbundet utan att mainstream media säger ett knyst. Endast fall där vita dödar svarta är intressanta att skriva om, och Obama själv gör allt för att kasta in bränsle i brasan och orsaka splittringar i USA och göra något till en rasfråga som inte är en rasfråga.

Det är inte alls säkert att Assad och den politiska ledningen i Syrien är de som står bakom gasattackerna – tvärt om så ser det ut som rebellerna är de skyldiga

“Russian officials are saying it was a clear case of rebel antagonism – the UN investigators back in May found evidence the SFA mercenary army were using Sarin nerve agent. Russian officials conducted tests and proved they were. Today, a chemical attack taking place under the nose of UN investigators, just as the rebel army are coming to near defeat, is said by Dave Cameron/John Kerry etc to “definitely” be the Syrian Govt. (before the UN investigators have even done their work) as the rebels “don’t have the capacity to produce Sarin”. ”

Och sådana uttalande sväljer förstås resten av världen med hull och hår!

Här nedan bifogar jag länkar till olika nyhetsmedia om fallet, som visar att det kan vara rebellerna som är skyldiga. Vi vet redan att rebellerna är extremet blodtörstiga och inte tvekar att använda knivar för att mörda kristna och andra i landet. Inte för att Assad är någon ängel, men nu verkar det som en dålig ledare ersätts av en ännu sämre regering som inte kommer att vara sekulär utan förmodligen kommer att gå hårt fram mot kristna och andra med avvikande livsåskådningar.

http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-rebels-admit-to-being-behind-chemical-weapons-attack

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/26/russia-no-proof-syrian-government-behind-chemical-weapons-attack/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

http://www.infowars.com/history-repeats-cia-docs-reveal-us-aided-saddams-chemical-attacks/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/now-egypt-looks-to-expose-obama/

http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2013/08/video-shows-fsa-rebels-launch-chemical-attacks-in-syria-2453742.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/08/un-says-rebels-used-nerve-gas-large-explosion-rocks-damascus-assad-flees-to-iran-2447880.html

http://rense.com/general96/johnk.html

Can we all be called GODS, as per John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6?

Aug27

Jesus4Is it not written in your law, I said, YE ARE GODS? (John 10:34)

Yahve (Strong’s 3068) is used 6220 times in the Bible, and it’s the name of our only Creator God. No one else but our only true God is called by this name. (Yahve was one of three who ate with Abraham outside his tent – see my article about the angel of the Lord.)

Elohim (Strong’s 430) is another name for God and is used 2598 times in the Bible. This word has a little broader meaning even if our only true God is the most common meaning. – divine (1), divine being (1), exceedingly (1), God (2326), god (45), God’s (14), goddess (2), godly (1), gods (204), great (2), judges (3), mighty (2), rulers (1), shrine* (1).

El (Strong’s 410)  is used 248 times in the Bible and also means God in singular or plural. (A suitable name for a trinity.)

Adon (Strong’s 113) is used 325 times in the Bible and means Lord or Master, which of course God is

Theos (Strong’s 2316) is used 1327 times in the Bible (NT) and means God and/or Creator of all

People who refuse to accept the Biblical message that Jesus Christ is God

Whenever the above titles for GOD are used, the majority of the time they concern either 1) our only Creator God, or 2) false gods who are not real Gods at all according to the Bible. It’s not difficult to understand whether the text is referring to our real God or false gods, and we also get a great help by knowing Jahve is only used for our real God. However, it seems like the only times when some people are in doubt about which type of god the text is talking about, it’s only in those verses where Jesus Christ is called God, as in Hebr. 1:8. That’s because they often have an agenda to never accept the deity of Jesus, even if the verses clearly say so. It’s actually not surprising that some people take it as their mission to promote the idea that Jesus is not the WORD who was with God and who was GOD and lived among us (thus Jesus is God) because the spirit of Antichrist is active among us:

John 8:24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.’ Young’s Literal (I AM = ego eimi)

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and anantichrist.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.2 The same was in the beginning with God.3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.—14 And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Excuses – “Anyone can be called God, so it’s not a big deal that Jesus too was called God in Hebr. 1:8“?

We can read that Moses was to be AS GOD  for Pharao, and it’s not to be understood as though Moses is one God among many other gods. That would only make God the Creator to be a liar for suggesting that he is the only God if the truth is that polytheism is a reality. JAHVE (God) is only applied to our only Creator God in the Bible, but here Elohim is used.

Ex. 7:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

Ex. 7:1 And the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you LIKE God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. (ESV)

Ex. 7:7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you AS God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. (NASB)

God said something similar about Aaron, and his status in relation to Moses:

Ex. 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and THOU SHALT BE TO HIM INSTEAD OF GOD. (KJV)

Ex. 4:16 He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and YOU SHALL BE AS GOD TO HIM. (ESV)

Ex. 4:16 Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and YOU WILL BE AS GOD TO HIM. (NASB)

So the above cannot be used as support for that people other than God can be called gods. There is, however, one particular verse that some people desperately put all their hope and energy on, in order to escape the clear meaning that Jesus is God – and that is John. 10:34

John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6 – ye are Godsjesus 4

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for BLASPHEMY; and because that THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF GOD.34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?*) 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand (* See Ps. 82:6)

The above is a reference to the below psalm, and psalms often contain POETRY that MIRRORS the truth and uses SYMBOLIC PHRASES with a deeper meaning. Let’s keep this in mind so we don’t interpret such text in the wrong way and end up starting a false doctrine.

Ps. 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

To start with, the reason these jews provide for wanting to stone Jesus is due to blasphemy, “because you being a MAN, make yourself GOD”. The jews were experts on the Scriptures, and they understood that human beings should not call themselves GOD. The first commandment is, after all:

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

If people other than GOD can literally be called “gods” (like mighty judges) by others, then we end up having other gods before GOD, and we also end up making God to be a liar for falsely saying that we should have no other gods when he himself endorses multiple gods. But doesn’t Jesus confirm the availability of other gods in his statement in John. 10:34? He confirms this PSALM and the correct meaning of both the psalm and the term “gods” in its proper context – the way they are supposed to be understood. If certain individuals (like judges and leaders) can also commonly be addressed as gods, then there would be a huge risk that the above commandment would be watered down, and this wouldn’t be according to God’s plans. The jews did not relax the slightest bit when Jesus confirmed that he was the son of God and that the Father is in him and he is in the Father, because calling oneself the son of God and suggesting that the Father and the son are inside each other, is still calling oneself GOD! God certainly doesn’t have any children together with a woman, so if you’re a son to God you have your origin in God himself which means you’re God. So the jews still wanted to kill Jesus, and they knew exactly which psalm that Jesus was quoting from.

The jews were familiar with all the psalms, including Ps. 82:6 which Jesus was referring to when he said “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods”. If godly judges can be called “gods” because they represent God, how much more should not Jesus Christ be able to call himself this (despite not being a judge) since he is sent by God the Father who was with him from eternity past in the trinity? This seems to be the way the jews understood him too, because we can read n v. 39 that THEREFORE (for this reason) they tried to take him once again. They felt Jesus confirmed his deity by referring to that passage where he gave his arguments for why he had the right to be called God.

The word for God in Ps. 82:6 is not “Jahve” but “Elohim“, and while this usually refers to either the Creator God or “false gods who are no real gods”, it can also be translated as “mighty ones” which could apply to judges who are ordained by God to do his work, and God himself is a mighty one – even the mightiest one. “I have said, Ye are gods”, i.e. “in my law I have called you gods”. They are given such name and status since they judge on God’s behalf and act as his representatives, but they are not “gods” in the strictest sense. They are possessing a derived divinity, and in a sense “children of the most high”. In the law, they were so by God’s appointment because he constituted them judges and  although they were gods by office, they were also mortal men and would die. It’s not likely that any of those judges were at any time literally called “god” in real life, due to the commandment to have no other Gods but GOD.

Examples of judges appointed by God to do his work:

Deut. 1:13 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.14 And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.15 So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.18 And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.

2 Cron. 19:6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.

Ps. 58:1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.—5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord.—10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

Rom. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Paul explains why there on one hand exists only ONE God, and on the other hand we learn about multiple gods, and even multiple lords. “There is none other God but ONE”, says Paul, and “TO US there is but ONE GOD”. (Do read my blog article about the claim “the only true God” in this blog article.) Surely we can trust him? So if God the Father dares to call his son “GOD” in Hebr. 1:8, he isn’t contradicting what Paul is saying here, and neither does he contradict himself from his own previous claims where he says there is ONE GOD only. Other lords are only lords in the sense of being “masters” (and they are certainly not “Lord of Lords” which the Father AND the son call themselves), and other gods are either false gods (so no gods at all), or gods in the symbolic sense due to their office and they are likely never literally addressed as gods by others (in order to not disobey God’s commandment about serving only one God).

1 Cor. 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that THERE IS NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE.5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)6 But TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

5 Mosebok 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him.— 39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

John is told to NOT worship the angel but to worship GOD. John didn’t ask “which one of all gods should I worship?”

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: WORSHIP GOD: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev. 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: WORSHIP GOD.

If it’s alright for other individuals apart from God to be called God, then why was the prince of Tyrus (or Satan, which is the angelic comparison) sinning for also calling himself God? As a prince (or as a messenger of God, as Satan was) he would be a person in lead of others, and he was also supposed to act as a judge for them, so maybe calling oneself “god” in the Psalm 82:6- sense was rather fitting? Yet, God is not at all pleased with prince of Tyrus calling himself a god, and he criticizes him heavily and calls him proud. Why did God motivate his criticism towards him with “yet thou art A MAN and not God”? That sounds like God finds it preposterous for a mere human being to call himself God. So did the jews who wanted to kill Jesus!

Ezekiel 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God

The house of David will be “LIKE” God, so LIKE the angel of the Lord (who is Jesus Christ incarnate) going before them – just like the angel of the Lord (Jesus) went before the Israelites in the desert.

Zechariah 12:8 On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD going before them.

Jesus is trying to get the jews to understand that if the symbolic term god can be applied to certain individuals with a certain mission from God and with a proper office, and this is NOT considered blasphemy, then neither should they accuse Jesus of blaspheming, because he is in the Father and the Father is in him. Who can make such a claim unless you’re the son of God? Being the son of God equals having the source in God, meaning you originated in God which means you’re GOD!

Do read another blog article about Hebrews 1:8 where Jesus is called GOD by his Father.