Who are the real "Christian" Cyber Bullies?

If Jesus’ disciples and Paul had all been alive today and living in South Africa our dear friend and enemy-lover, Guillaume Smit, would probably have branded them “Christian Cyber bullies” and “agents of the devil.” I say this on account of Guillaum’s reluctance to quote any of them on his blog for fear that his own agenda may be opened wide and revealed to the entire world for what it really is — an attack on the core doctrines of Jesus Christ. This is what he said amongst other things:

“The damage these Christian Cyber bullies inflict, is tremendous. As these things go, they attract a multitude of readers who only want to hear the bad news about people. Their frequent quoting of Scripture hides the fact that they are only busy with slander in the worst possible form – the incessant and unsolicited attack on God-loving Christians who try to reach this generation for Christ. The Christian Cyber bully accuses other Christians of departing from biblical principles, while they negate the second most important command given by God – loving another as you would love yourself. I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” (Emphasis added). Read the entire article here.

To what do we owe Guillaum’s most recent scathing and ill-worded attack on all those who in honour of God and his command are earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints? (Jude 1:3). Hamlet’s famous quote from Shakespeare’s book could easily have been applied to his diatribe with only a slight alteration; in stead of saying “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark” we ought to contend that “There is something rotten in state of the Emergent Church.” Could it be that Guillaume hurriedly and irritatingly grabbed the first opportunity he could find to demonize the “Christian cyber bullies” and “agents of the devil” head-on after he had read my comment “Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” . . . sodat derduisende mislei kan word?” (“Place a heavenly guard before your mouth . . . so that thousands may be misled?”)? Perhaps we should do Guillaume at least some honour and look at what he said with sincerity and circumspection. Would you join me while I scrutinize the things he said in the light of God’s word?

• “The damage these Christian Cyber bullies inflict, is tremendous.” I really couldn’t help smiling when I read this. Perhaps Guillaume should sit down sometime and quietly ponder the great possibility that it is he and his emerging friends who are inflicting tremendous damage to the church and the Christian faith. In one of my recent comments, which he seems to have found so profoundly aggravating, I merely quoted Brian McLaren who openly and brazenly heralded the groundbreaking news that he and other “deeply committed Christians” were going to join Muslims in their Ramadan festival this year. I have heard many strange and odd things in my life but Brian McLaren’s claim that he and his friends are “deeply committed Christians” is a real prize-winner. Do you know what a deeply committed Christians is, Guillaume? Please bear with me while I quote to you some groundbreaking truths from God’s Word. You have twice made it clear that you yourself are reluctant to quote relevant Bible verses, but please bear with me and read these verses with an open and receptive heart.

2 John 9 Anyone who runs on ahead [of God] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ [who is not content with what He taught] does not have God; but he who continues to live in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ [does have God], he has both the Father and the Son.

John 8:31 So Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples.

John 14:15 If you [really] love Me, you will keep (obey) My commands.

John 14:21 The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]

Brian McLaren and his “deeply committed Christian” friends have wilfully and disrespectfully disobeyed Jesus Christ who commanded us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and most certainly not with their religious practices and festivals. And yet McLaren has the audacity like that of a well-perfumed skunk (1) to say “We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.” “As a God-honouring expression” while Muslims dishonour Him by refusing to admit that He has a Son who died for all (including the Muslims)? Do you as as a self-proclaimed God-loving Christian approve of Brian McLaren’s disobedience of God and Rob Bell’s brazen “unequal yoke” with the Dalai Lama (who is worshipped as a god) at his Seeds of Compassion Conference? You would do well to change your disposition from a “God-loving Christian” to a “God-fearing Christian” who honours, respects and obeys His commands, such as the one I have quoted above. Being boastful of one’s love for God while one disrespectfully dishonours and disobeys Him will most certainly be seen as a highly hypocritical misdemeanour by the Muslim world, for they know with precise and accurate knowledge what it means to obey Allah. In fact, only the so-called “God-loving” Christians do not know how to obey and honour the God of the Bible, especially when they are so fearful and reluctant to quote Him from His Word.

I have a slight suspicion that you would not repudiate Brian McLaren’s sharing in the Muslims’ celebration of Ramadan while claiming to be a deeply committed Christian. How do I know? Your approval of his book “The Secret Message of Jesus” which you advocate on your blog is ample proof thereof. Do you as a self-proclaimed God-loving Christian approve McLaren’s warped view of the Gospel when he says things like the following?

“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be “saved?” (Read here)

“I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.”  (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260)

I cannot question your sincerity when you say that you are trying to reach this generation for Christ but I do put a big question mark behind your continued affirmation of Brian McLaren who does not even know what it means to be saved. I sincerely and prayerfully hope that you know what it means because you will never be able to reach this generation for Christ if you do not know what it means to be saved.

• As these things go, they attract a multitude of readers who only want to hear the bad news about people. The fact of the matter is that, by the grace of God, many Christians’ eyes have been opened to the infinitely dangerous teachings of the emerging church. The problem with you guys is that you truly believe that when fundamentalist Christians contend for the faith that they are targeting you personally. The sooner you realize that you are not that important the better for you. Do you really think that I am going to waste my time to target you personally when there is much more at stake in this warfare we are waging on a daily basis? This warfare is all about sounding the alarm and to pluck the precious souls of men and women out of the fire of the infamous labyrinth of lies the emerging church is proliferating throughout the entire world. How odd that you should suggest that my blog attracts a multitude of readers while some of you have already made fun of the insignificant amount of people my blog attracted in the past. Come on Guillaume, give credit where credit is due! I really don’t have many readers but I’m growing.

• Their frequent quoting of Scripture hides the fact that they are only busy with slander in the worst possible form. We are commanded (and that includes you) to test the spirits to discern whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). In order to do so we must at all cost know what God’s Word teaches and to refute any argument that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. I’m sure you will agree that it is the TRUTH that sets one free. How on earth would you ever be able to present the TRUTH to a generation you are trying to reach for Christ when you refuse to quote from God’s Word. If you are so certain that my arguments exalt itself against the knowledge of God then it is your God-loving duty to show me from Scripture that I am wrong and need to repent or at least make amends. Why do you need to do that? . . . Because it is the worst possible sin one can do and that is to lead people astray away from God, Jesus Cjhrist and his Word.

• The Christian Cyber bully accuses other Christians of departing from biblical principles, while they negate the second most important command given by God – loving another as you would love yourself. I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” I have reiterated again and again in the past that love without truth means nothing — zilch, nada, zero. You may recall that Jesus once said this superbly quotable TRUTH: “A time will come, however, indeed it is already here, when the true (genuine) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking just such people as these as His worshipers” (John 4:23). You may have noticed that He did not say “in spirit and in love.” Is “love” of lesser importance or of no importance? No! certainly not! But the very fact that the genuine worshippers worship Him in TRUTH is the very proof that they love God and their neighbours because they know that the TRUTH sets people free and NOT a humanly generated love that tolerates lies, deceit and anti-biblical doctrines. The TRUTH of God alone sets people free from bondage to sin, Satan and the world because God’s TRUTH is the embodiment of His Love who is Christ, the only Truth, the only Way and the only Life. If you are really and truly a God-loving person then you should start telling the lost generation you are trying to reach for Christ the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. I can assure you that Brian McLaren’s assertion “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be “saved?” is NOT the TRUTH and will never reach this generation for Christ. The TRUTH is in 1 John 5:13

I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life.

Who’s the liar here — is it God or Brian McLaren? I don’t know about you but I prefer to believe God who is not capable of telling a lie. Please remember that the faith which John refers to was qualified by Jesus when He said: “He who believes in Me [who cleaves to and trusts in and relies on Me] as the Scripture has said, From his innermost being shall flow [continuously] springs and rivers of living water” (John 7:38). Have you noticed, Guillaume, how important Jesus regarded the Scripture as opposed to your own magna carte of “I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” Indeed, you won’t because you have a rather eschewed view of what genuine love is. Your love, like that of the emergent brotherhood, boils down to a tolerance of every conceivable religious persuasion, tolerance of everyone who has no qualms whatsoever to be yoked to the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ, and an intolerance and animosity of everyone who dares to question the doctrines of the emergent church and its adherents. In your view the one’s who dare to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints are the enemies of the cross and not those who are blatantly disobedient to God and call themselves “deeply devoted Christians” and are brazenly fellowshipping with unbelievers in their religious festivals and practices.

I urge you to repent of your evil ways and to start learning what true love is in the light of God’s Word so that you may truly begin to reach this generation for Christ according to his will and not according to the doctrines of the abominable emergent church. Like them you are paving the way for Antichrist of whom God said:

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace [tolerance, mutual love, prosperity] shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

(1) A “well-performed skunk” is the post-modern name for a fox. You may recall that Jesus once said: “tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected” when the Pharisees warned Him of Herod’s intentions to kill Him (Luke 13:32-33). No one, not even hell itself, is going to prevent Him from building his church, and least of all the Emerging Church that is venturing to transform the church (Matthew 16:18).

tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Die dag toe Jesus op die grond geskrywe het

Johannes 8:1-11 En vroeg in die môre het Hy weer in die tempel gegaan, en al die mense het na Hom gekom, en Hy het gaan sit en hulle geleer.  En die skrifgeleerdes en die Fariseërs het ‘n vrou wat in egbreuk betrap was, na Hom gebring. En toe hulle haar tussen hulle in laat staan het, sê hulle vir Hom: Meester, hierdie vrou is op ‘n daad van egbreuk betrap; en Moses het ons in die wet bevel gegee om sulke vroue te stenig; maar U, wat sê U?  En dit het hulle gesê om Hom te versoek, sodat hulle iets kon hê om Hom te beskuldig; maar Jesus het neergebuk en met die vinger op die grond geskrywe.  Maar toe hulle aanhou om Hom te vra, het Hy Hom opgerig en vir hulle gesê: Laat dié een van julle wat sonder sonde is, die eerste ‘n klip op haar gooi.  En weer het Hy neergebuk en op die grond geskrywe.  En toe hulle dit hoor, het hulle, deur hul gewete bestraf, een vir een weggegaan, van die oudste af tot die laaste toe; en Jesus het alleen agtergebly, en die vrou wat daar tussen hulle in gestaan het.  En toe Jesus Hom oprig en niemand sien behalwe die vrou nie, sê Hy vir haar: Vrou, waar is daardie beskuldigers van jou? Het niemand jou veroordeel nie?  En sy antwoord: Niemand nie, Here. En Jesus sê vir haar: Ek veroordeel jou ook nie. Gaan heen en sondig nie meer nie.

Miskien het u ook al gewonder waarom Jesus hurkend op die grond begin skryf het toe die Fariseërs en die skrifgeleerdes ‘n owerspelige vrou na Hom gebring het. Sommiges beweer Hy het dit gedoen om die Fariseërs en die Skriggeleelerdes te herinner dat watter sonde die mens ookal doen — sy dit in die daad of in die gedgates is — dit in ‘n boek in die hemel opgeskryf word en dat dit in die oordeelsdag tevoorskyn gehaal gaan word as bewysstuk teen die oortreders. Om hulle standpunt te staaf, verwys hulle na die gedeelte in die Skrif wat sê dat “die skuldbrief teen ons [al die gelowiges], wat met sy insettinge ons vyandig was, uitgedelg en weggeruim het deur dit aan die kruis vas te nael (Kolossense 2:14). Daarom kon Paulus jubelend in Romeine 8 skryf:

Romeine 8: 1 Daar is dan nou geen veroordeling vir die wat in Christus Jesus is nie, vir die wat nie na die vlees wandel nie, maar na die Gees.

Ander beweer weer dat Jesus die Fariseërs en die skrifgeleerdes se dwaasheid om Moses se wette met haat en agressie te handhaaf, aan die kaak wou stel  en dusdoende hulle eie bose harte vir hulle oopvlek. Diegene wat hierdie standpunt voorhou, beweer dat Hy verwys het na Spreuke 27:3 soos dit neergepen is deur ‘n man wat self ook ‘n goddelose, afgodiese en owerspelige lewe gelei het.

Spreuke 27:3 Klip en sand is swaar om te dra, maar die ergernis wat ‘n dwaas veroorsaak, is swaarder as altwee.

Die Amplified Bible stel dit soos volg:

Stone is heavy and sand weighty, but a fool’s [unreasoning] wrath is heavier and more intolerable than both of them

Hoe dit ookal sy, ek wil u nooi om gou saam met my in die geestesoog terug te gaan na dié dag toe Jesus Christus, die enigste Verlosser van die mensdom, met sy vinger op die  grond geskryf het.

‘n Tengerige vrou word huilend en strompelend voor ‘n skree-mal en jouende klomp mans uitgejaag. Elkeen het ‘n swaar klip in albei die hande en hulle brand behoorlik in hulle ywer vir Moses en sy wette om dit met die bloed van die hoer te bevlek. “Weg met haar! Sy is ‘n skandvlek op ons en die wette van Moses!” skree hulle bokant hulle stemme uit. Die vrou se handpalms en knieë bloei reeds soos sy telkens val en hande-viervoet probeer wegkom van die woedende skare, maar die twee voorste Fariseërs gryp in reëlmaat haar polse stewig vas sodat sy hulle nie kan ontvlug nie. Die wete dat haar man tussen die skare is en moontlik ook klippe dra om haar lewe te neem, sny soos ‘n mes deur haar hart. Skielik sien sy die Man na wie hulle haar gedra-sleep het en soos ‘n hond aangejaag het in die tempel tussen ‘n klompie mense sit. Tot haar eie verbasing is sy nie meer bang nie. Sy vriendelike dog gesaghebbende stem bring ‘n kalmte oor haar wat sy nie kan verstaan nie. Dan word sy weer deur ‘n skel stem teruggeruk na die werklikheid wat hoogdrawend en met gemaakte gesag sê “Meester, hierdie vrou se man het haar met ‘n ander man betrap en in gehoorsaamheid aan die wet van Moses na ons gekom om haar aan te kla. Sy verdien die dood want Moses het beveel dat sulke vrouens gestenig moet word. In sy ywer om Moses te eer, het hy vergeet dat die wet ook vir mans geld en nie net vrouens nie en hoogdrawend gevra “ Wat sê U?”

“Aha! Nou het ons Hom,” dink hulle met handevryf-genoegdoening. “Ons het Hom in ‘n hoek gedryf waaruit Hy hom nie sal kan loswikkel nie, en dit is vir ons die bewys dat Hyself, nes hierdie owerspelige vrou, die dood verdien.” “Aha” dink hulle, “Kyk! Hy kan ons nie antwoord nie. Is dit al wat Hy kan doen . . . om af te buk en verleë met sy vinger op die grond te krabbel?” “Toe sê vir ons” vra hulle weer en weer en weer om Hom in ‘n hoek te drywe. Dan kom die antwoord soos ‘n skerp tweesnydende swaard uit sy mond: “Laat dié een van julle wat sonder sonde is, die eerste ‘n klip op haar gooi.” ‘n Doodse stille volg wanneer elkeen se gedagtes op onverklaarbare wyse ingekeer en omgekeer word; hulle aandag is nie meer op die slegte vrou gevestig nie maar hulle eie gedagtewêreld. “Ek het net gister met smaak en wellus na ‘n mooi vrou gekyk terwyl ek besig was om God in die tempel te dien,” dink die een. “Maar dit kan tog sekerlik nie sonde wees nie al het hierdie Persoon wat ons as Meester aanspreek op ‘n dag gesê het dat ‘n enkele wellustige blik op ‘n vrou netso goed soos die daad is.” Geeneen van die mans wat met klippe in hulle hande staan, kon dit ontken nie, ook nie die owerspelige vrou se man nie. Hulle was al almal aandadig aan hierde stille, geheime en interne ou sondetjie, maar nouja, hoe sal ons nou weet as Moses net gesê het dat sulke vroue gestenig moet word en die mans daarvan gevrywaar word.

Jesus het nie weer iets gesê nie; Hy het klaargepraat, weer afgebuk en op die grond begin skrywe want dit wat Hy gesê het was genoeg om elke selfregverdigmakende mens se mond te snoer. Toe hulle dit hoor, kla hulle “mooi” en “skoon” Fariseïese gewetens hulle aan en hulle draai een vir een om en gaan weg. Ja! Die hele ou spulletjie kon soos een man omgedraai en weggeaan het, maar hulle het een vir een weggegaan. Terwyl die een omgedraai en weggegaan het, het die ander nog bly staan omdat hulle darem eers seker wou maak of hulle wel in die verlede gesondig het en of hulle sondes netso groot en doodsverdiend was as die sonde van die vrou. “Ja, ek het dit of dat gedoen, maar dit of dat is darem nie so erg soos owerspel nie,” dink hulle.

Die allerversriklikste en hartseerste ding omtrent hierdie episode in die lewe van onse Here Jesus, is dat almal wat die vrou dood wou hê, kragdadig deur Jesus oortuig was van hulle eie sondes maar nie een van hulle — nie ‘n enkele een van hulle — het bly staan om by Jesus om genade te pleit vir hulle redding nie. Hulle het een vir een omgedraai en weggegaan, waarsklynlik om nooit weer by Hom uit te kom nie. Hoekom . . . .? Die antwoord hierop is dat hulle die owerspelige daad van die vrou en haar oortreding van die wette van Moses maar net as ‘n rookskerm wou gebruik om Jesus Christus te beskuldig en uiteindelik om die lewe te bring. Ja! Natuurlik het sulke dinge soos selfveronsuldiging, selfregverdigmaking en ‘n roemryke selfvoldaanheid in hulle skynbare onderhouding van Moses se wette ‘n rol gespeel, maar die eintlike rede was om hulle Messias te pootjie sodat Hy ook ‘n misstap teen Moses se wette moes begaan, hoofsaaklik met die doel om Hom te kan beskuldig en dood te maak. Hulle het omgedraai en weggestap om maar net weer ‘n nuwe plan van aksie teen Hom te smee. Die enigste persoon wat bly staan het, was die owerspelige vrou. Streng gesproke moes sy ook, hoewel sy die slagoffer was in hierdie verhaal, omgedraai en weggegaan het omdat ook sy deur haar gewete aangekla is van haar eie sondes en oortredige. Nee! Dié slagoffer was die enigste een wat agtergebly het. Sy het geweet en ervaar dat hierdie Man wat hulle hul Meester genoem het maar nie as hulle Meester geëer en gehoorsaam het nie, iets vir haar kon doen — iets wat ewigheidswaarde het en toe Hy opkyk vra Hy haar: “Vrou, waar is daardie beskuldigers van jou? Het niemand jou veroordeel nie?  En sy antwoord: Niemand nie, Here. En Jesus sê vir haar: Ek veroordeel jou ook nie. Gaan heen en sondig nie meer nie.” Hy, die enigste Persoon wat kan en mag veroordeel, het haar nie veroordeel nie. Hy het haar vrygespreek en vrygemaak van haar sonde en die smet van haar sondes en haar opdrag gegee om nie meer te sondig nie.

Niks het sedertdien verander nie. In baie godsdienstige kringe word die vrou veel makliker van die oortreding van hulle wette en reëls beskuldig terwyl die mans dikwels ligter daarvan afkom of selfs nie eens dieselfde strawwe verduur nie. Die volgende berig het onlangs op die webblad Radio Islam verskyn:

A religious court in Malaysia has sentenced a Singapore model to six strokes of the cane for drinking  beer in a nightclub. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, has  pleaded guilty to consuming alcohol at a hotel nightclub last year. The Sharia High Court judge Abdul Rahman Yunus says the sentence is fair. He says “The cane is aimed at making the accused repent and serves as a lesson to Muslims. Malaysia, operates a two-track legal system. Civil courts function alongside state-based sharia courts, which can try Muslims for religious offences.

Die regter het geen ander keuse gehad om die vrou so ‘n vernerende straf op te lê nie, in die eerste plek omdat die hof waarin sy gevonnis is ‘n religieuse hof is en tweedens omdat die Qur’an en Mohammed mans toestemming verleen om hulle vrouens te slaan. Terwyl die Nuwe Testament (in Efesiërs 5) mans opdrag gee om hulle vrouens life te hê, selfs tot die mate dat hy bereid moet wees om sy lewe vir haar af te lê soos Jesus sy lewe vir ons afgelê het, verklaar die Qur’an sonder omhaal dat die mans hulle vrouens mag tugtig sodra hulle enige tekens van ongehoorsaamheid toon.

In Surah 4:34 staan daar geskrywe:

As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and sourge them.” *

In die Yusuf Ali vertaling lui dieselfde vers onder die opskrif Surah 4. An Nisa’ (Women). In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful as volg

As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (Klem bygevoeg)

Dis duidelik dat die word “lightly” later ingevoeg is om die straf wat mans hulle vroue mag toedien, te versag. Maar skynbaar was hierdie slanery nie so ligtelik toegedien toe Islam in sy beginstadia was nie. Daar’s ‘n bekende insident wat al die Moslem geskiedskrywers aanhaal (verwys na Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin, “The Orchards of Righteous Men.” P. 107-108.)

“Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, ‘Women have dared to disobey husbands.’ He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women approached Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a verse for the Qur’an which commands their husbands to scourcge them.” * (Klem bygevoeg).

In die Kash-shaf (the revealer) deur al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), lees ons die volgende skokkende openbaring:

On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it.’ * (Klem  bygevoeg)

Ook op die gesag van Asmaa die dogter van Abu Bakr El Sedik, lees ons die volgende:

“I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabauyr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken.” *(Klem bygevoeg).

Baie hedendaagse Moslemskrywers beaam hierdie optrede teen vrouens. In die boek, “You ask an Islam Answers” (p.94 bevoorbeeld), sê Abdul-Latif Mushtahiri die volgende:

“If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on the man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not break her bones nor shed her blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses.” * (Klem bygevooeg) (As die mans in die Qur’an die reg gegun word om hulle vrouens te slaan maar slegs ligtelik dan is dit mos nie nodig om ‘n addendum by te voeg wat sê dat hulle net nie hulle bene moet breek of bloed sort nie. Dan moes dit eerder soos volg bewoord gewees het: Die Qur’an verleen aan die mans die reg om hulle ongehoorsame vrouens ‘n les the leer deur hulle ligtelik te slaan maar hulle moet versigtig wees om nie hulle bene te breek of bloed te stort nie.)

In sy boek, The Inidividual Guarantee in the Islamic Law” (p. 63), sê Ahmad Ahmad,’n professor aan die regskollege van die Universiteit van Qatar, die volgende onder die titel Family Problems and Solutions.

“If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest her, she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bring mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the bed, then by scourging which deters.” * (Klem bygevoeg).

Volgens die Qur’an het Allah die man as heerser oor die vrou aangestel, omdat hulle ‘n trappie hoër en beter is as vrouens. Op bladsy 79 verklaar die Jalalan:

“Men have been given authority over women to discipline and control them by the merits of knowledge, intelligence and custody, etc., which God bestowed on some over others.” *

Op bladsy 11 sê die Jalalan:

God preferred men over women, and the reason for the bestowing on this verse (4:34) is a well-known episode which says that a man from the helpers beat his wife, whose name was habiba, the daughter of Zayd. Her father took her to the apostle of God (to complain). Muhammad said: ‘Let us punish him.’ But God sent down this verse 4:34. The woman returned home without having her husband punished. Muhammad said: ‘I intended to do something (that is, to punish the man), but God willed otherwise, and what God wills is better.’” * (Klem bygevoeg).

Wat die ware God en Vader van Jesus Christus werklik wil hê, is om mans en vrouens, soos die vrou wat in sonde betrap is, vry te maak van hulle sondes en hulle weg te stuur met die vermaning om nie weer te sondig nie. Hy het onder geen omstandighede die man oor die vrou aangestel as ‘n superlatiewe wese nie en nog minder het hy die man die reg gegee om sy vrou te slaan of the mishandel. En dan wil baie sg. Christene jou wysmaak dat die God van die Bybel en Allah een en dieselfde God is? ‘n Armsalige en beteuterde Biskop van die Roomse Kerk in Amsterdam, Martinus Muskens, het onlangs versoek dat Christene na God moet begin verwys as Allah omdat dit kwansuis die verhouding tussen “Christene” en Moslems sal verbeter. Dink hy werklik die Moslems gaan die gedeeltes wat Allah vir Mohammad  gegee het om in die Qur’an op te skryf waarin hulle aangesê word om Jode en Christene dood te maak, verwyder? Die man is voorwaar “in sy bol gepik.”. Radio Islam het hierdie storie baie gou opgetel en dit in hulle Latest News kolom geplaas.

Hennie Stander het natuurlik weer eens die hele debakel rondom die openbare geseling van ‘n 32-jarige Islamitiese vrou, Kartika Shukarno, versag, netsoos hy die onthoofding van Christene in Somalië onderspeel het. Hennie skryf:

Ek neem aan dat een en elkeen in SA hierdie wandaad teenoor hierdie vrou sal veroordeel. Ek het nogal gewonder hoe voel die Moslems in SA hieroor. Maar ek neem aan dat ook hulle dit sal veroordeel. Alhoewel sekere politici en vroueregtegroepe in Maleisië kritiek uitgespreek het teenoor die straf, is daar tog baie mense in Maleisië wat dit goedkeur, en dink dat dit alles reg is dat sy met ’n rottang geslaan word omdat sy oortree het. Dit is darem snaaks tot watter mate ’n mens beïnvloed word deur die gemeenskap waarbinne jy jou bevind. Solank jy binne ’n situasie is, is dit baie moeilik om objektief van ’n afstand na ’n saak te kyk. Dit is hoekom dit altyd vir my lekker is om ’n rukkie in die buiteland te kom en net weer van ’n afstand af na ons eie land te kyk. Dit gee weer vir ’n mens soveel ander perspektiewe.

Nee Hennie, my ou vriend, die Moslems in Suid-Afrika is nie anders as die Moslems in Moslemlande nie en sal NIE die wrede geseling van ‘n weerlose Moslem vrou in die openbaar teenstaan nie maar dit eerder terdeë goedkeur. Die rede hiervoor is eenvoudig. Soos die regter wat die wrede straf opgelê het geen ander keuse gehad het nie, netso moet alle Moslems dit goedkeur want as hulle dit nie doen nie bring hulle oneer op die name van Allah, sy profeet, Muhammad en die Qur’an, en veral omdat “what God wills is better” hulle finale riglyn is. Jy slaan die bal ook ver mis wanneer jy beweer dat die gemeenskap waarbinne jy jou bevind jou handelinge en leefwyse bepaal. Die gemeenskap se lewens, wêreld en godsbeskouing word bepaal deur die godsdiens wat hulle bedryf, wat op sy beurt weer bepaal word deur die geskrifte van ‘n gemeeskap se godsdiens, in hierdie geval, die Qur’an. Die Christene wat in Somalië deur die al-shahaab Moslems vermoor is, was getroue Moselms totdat hulle Jesus Christus as hulle enigste Verlosser ontmoet het. Daar was dus ‘n tydstip in hulle lewens toe hulle in ‘n regstreekse botsing met hulle Moslemgemeenskap gekom het en het as gevolg daarvan met hulle lewens geboet. Spaar maar gerus jou geld want jy het nie nodig om jou land te verlaat om ander perspektiewe op jou land te kry nie. As ‘n deurwinterde akademikus behoort jy te weet dat jy midde in ‘n gemeenskap en hulle omstandighede moet wees om gesonde perspektiewe daarop te kry. Miskien moet jy jou eie raad navolg en “probeer vir ’n slag om buite jou situasie te staan en objektief na jou eie optrede in ’n bepaalde situasie te kyk.” Dan sal jy ‘n geheel ander perspektief kry op die geweldige stryd wat tans in Moslemklande aan die gang is vir die kosbare siele van mense.

‘n Belangrike naskrif:

Onthou gerus ook maar om jou biertjie en jou wyntjie te geniet want sodra die Moslems hulle shariawette in Suid-Afrika begin afdwing, sal jy nie meer langer jou plesiertjies kan geniet nie. En moenie dink die 70 tot 80% sg. Christene gaan jou help nie. Die meerderheid van hulle wat desesdae verstrengel geraak het in die goddelose Ontluikende kerk volg manne na wat die Moslems se Ramadanfeeste en Bhoedistiese konferensies ewe lustig bywoon. Hulle name is onderskeidelik Brian McLaren en Rob Bell.

——————————————————————————-

* Soos aangehaal in Beyond the Veil, Unmasking Islam deur Abd El Schafi, Pioneer Book Company 2001

“Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” . . . sodat derduisende mislei kan word?

‘n Mens hoor dikwels sommige van ons hedendaagse “toleransie-predikers” vir jou sê: “As jy niks positiefs of moois oor iemand kan sê nie, bly dan maar liewer stil.” Ongelukkig het hierdie mooi ongeskrewe reël baie mense in die afgrond help dompel eerder as om vir hulle van enige werklike waarde te wees. Ek het gevind dat wanneer die “toleransie-predikers” jou kritiek op hulle openbare en onbybelse uitsprake nie vanuit die Skrif kan repudieer nie, hulle na die “persoonlikheids-lat” gryp om jou aan te kla van karkatermoord omdat jy hulle kwansuis persoonlik aanval en nie die dinge wat hulle sê of skryf nie. Hulle skroom nie om jou te besluldig van halwe waarhede nie, maar versuim gerieflikheidshalwe om die halwe waarhede wat jy kwansuis oor hulle uitbasuin duidelik uit te spel. Om vir u ‘n aanduiding te gee wat ek bedoel, neem ek u graag na Stephan Joubert se e-kerk webblad waar hy onlangs onder die opskrif “Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” met verwysing na Psalm 141:3 o.a. die volgende gesê het.

Navorsers het bevind dat wanneer mense baie negatief oor iets of iemand anders voel, dan vertel hulle dit vir 17 ander mense. Maar wanneer hulle baie positief voel, dan vertel hulle dit slegs vir 11 mense. Nou ja, daar het jy dit! Nou weet jy hoekom ‘n handjievol negatiewe mense dit regkry om ‘n ganse gemeenskap lam te lê met hulle negatiewe praatjies oor ‘n leier, of oor een of ander nuwe inisiatief, ook al voel die meeste mense positief. Slegte nuus trek gewoonlik strate verder as goeie nuus . . .

Dis verstommend hoe baie kerkmense eerder ‘n koerant of ‘n plaaslike skindermond sal glo as om hulle tonge onder beheer van die Here te stel. . . .

Die beste geneesmiddel vir ‘n gevaarlike tong is om ‘n hemelse Wag voor jou mond aan te stel (Psalm 141:3). Vra die Here om jou tong elke dag op te pas.

‘n Verkeerde eksegese van Bybeltekse en –hoofstukke lei onafwendbaar tot verkeerde lering en selfs ergerlike dwaallering. In Psalm 141 is daar geen sprake dat Dawid

View Full Album

daarop aandring dat jy niks mag sê oor iemand se leerstellige eierdanse nie. Ja! natuurlik bedoel hy hier dat die Here hom moet bewaar van slegte dinge en om slegte dinge te sê, menenende dat Hy hom moet keer om verkeerde dinge te sê; dinge wat indruis teen God se Woord en sy Wette. Dit is opvallend dat Dawid in die lig hiervan in vers 5 sê “Laat die regverdige my met liefde slaan en tugtig—hoofsalf sal my hoof nie weier nie.” Hoewel Dawid met hoofsalf deur Samuel as koning gesalf is en hy die hoogste gesag in die land beklee het, het hy nogtans ‘n leerbare gees (“teachable spirit”) gehad. Hy was bereid om hom te verneder onder die tug van die regverdiges wanneer hulle hom sou bestraf oor enigiets wat hy verkeerd gesê of gedoen het. Vir hom was dit soos hoofsalf. Dis interessant dat Dawid se seun Salomo ‘n soortgelyke ding in Spreuke 27:5 gesê het: “Openlike teregwysing is beter as verborge liefde.” Hy skryf o.m. ook die volgende:

Spreuke 10:17 Wie hom laat leer, ken die pad na die lewe; wie teregwysing verwerp, dwaal van dié pad af.

Spreuke 12:1 Wie hom laat leer, wil graag kennis ontvang; wie hom nie laat teregwys nie, is ‘n dom mens.

Spreule 13:18 [Geetselike] Armoede en vernedering wag vir iemand wat hom nie wil laat leer nie, wie ‘n teregwysing ter harte neem, word geëer.

Spreuke 15:31  Wie op ‘n teregwysing ag slaan, sal lewe en ‘n tuiste vind tussen mense wat wysheid het.

Spreuke 15:32 Wie onderrig in die wind slaan, gee nie om vir homself nie; wie op ‘n  teregwysing ag slaan, kry insig.

Paulus sluit pragtig hierby aan wanneer hy in 2 Timotheus 3:16 die volgende skryf:

Die hele Skrif is deur God ingegee en is nuttig tot lering, tot weerlegging, tot teregwysing, tot onderwysing in die geregtigheid,

Teregwysing, vermaning, bestrawwing en tugtiging is dus ‘n integrale deel van die liggaam van Christus. Ongelukkig sien die postmoderne mens en veral die toleransie-predikers en leierfigure hierdie vermaning en bestrawwing  as ‘n aanval op hulle persoon, so asof hulle sooooo belangrik is.  Pleks daarvan om gesonde vermaning met nederigheid te aanvaar en om ‘n “leerbare gees” te kweek, verkondig Stepan Joubert die volgende Twitter”-twak:

If you can’t be a good example, at least be a horrible warning—this is the motto of thousands of churchgoers. Dont follow them. 10:53 AM Aug 6th from web

Kom ons vergewis ons dan nou eers van die goeie voorbeeld wat die e-kerk en e-church familie veral vir ons jeug stel deur ‘n slag weer te kyk na die mense met wie hulle so graag langs dieselfde vuur sit. E-kerk ondersteun en onderskryf verkeie leierfigure in the ontluikende kerk wat onbeskaamd ‘n kontemplatiewe, “New Age” en intergeloof spiritualiteit verkondig terwyl hulle daarop aanspraak maak dat hulle toegewyde Christene is. Brian McLaren, een van e-kerk se voorbeeldigste sg. “volgelinge van Jesus,” is besig om toenemend die Naam van Jesus deur de modder te sleep. Suid-Afrikaanse geestelike leiers in die ontluikende kerk soos Guillaume Smit, Dries Lombaard, Dries Cronjé, Cobus van Wyngaard, Nelus Niemandt en natuurlik ook Stephan Joubert, e.a. praat met groot lof van Brian Mclaren op hulle onderskeie blogs en adverteer veral sy boeke “A Gennerous Orthodoxy,” “The Secret Message of Jesus” en “Everything Must Change.” Hier’s wat Brian McLaren onlangs op een van sy blogs kwytgeraak het. Terwyl u dit lees hou asseblief in gedagte wat ek onlangs oor die onmensllike onthoofding van Christene deur die Moslemgroep, al-Shahaab, in die Suide van Somalië geskryf het sodat u ‘n idee kan kry waarmee Brian McLaren en sy meelopers hulle deesdae vereenselwig, en ook die soort mense wat die-kerk familiekring ondersteun. U kan die volledige artikel hier lees.

Ramadan is the Muslim holy month of fasting for spiritual renewal and purification. It commemorates the month during which Muslims believe Mohammed received the Quran through divine revelation, and it calls Muslims to self-control, sacrificial generosity and solidarity with the poor, diligent reading of the Quran, and intensified prayer.

This year, I, along with a few Christian friends (and perhaps others currently unknown to us will want to join in) will be joining Muslim friends in the fast which begins August 21. We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.

Muslims observe Ramadan in the same basic way world-wide: they fast from food, water, sex, etc., from dawn to dusk. We Christians who are joining in the fast will share these four common commitments.

We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness. Each of us will have at least one Muslim friend who will serve as our partner in the fast. These friends welcome us in the same spirit of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.

We will seek to avoid being disrespectful or unfaithful to our own faith tradition in our desire to be respectful to the faith tradition of our friends. For example, since the Bible teaches us the importance of fasting and being generous to the poor, we can participate as Christians in fidelity to the Bible as our Muslim friends do so in fidelity to the Quran. (Klem bygevoeg)

Waarom sou iemand wat daarop aanspraak maak dat hy deel is van die liggaam en die bruid van Jesus Christus hom met die Ramadan-fees vereenselwig waarvan die feesgangers ontken dat God ‘n Seun het en die vermoording van Jode en Christene goedkeur? Benewens die feit dat die Moslems ontken dat Jesus self God is en dat Hy die Seun van God is omdat God nie ‘n Seun het nie, verwerp die Moslems ook Jesus Christus se kruisiging en verklaar dat iemand anders in sy plek gesterwe het, i.p.v. dat Hy in ons en in die Moselms se plek gesterwe het. Hulle verklaar ook dat enigeen wat in die Drie-Enige God glo direk hel toe gaan en dat Moslems nie vriende moet maak met die Jode en Christene nie. Kan u sien waarheen die Ontluiikende Kerk (“Emreging Church” of “Emergent Church”) op pad is? Sal u werklik deel wil wees van so ‘n kerk wat ‘n ander Jesus navolg? Dié is seker; die eindtyd Babiloniese kerk (Openbaring 19:2) waarin almal van watter godsdiensoord ookal ‘n heenkome sal vind, is baie vinnig besig om deur die fasiliteerders (“change agents) in the Ontluikende Kerk gevestig te word.

So van fasiliteerders (“change agents”) gepraat. Ron Martoia wat tans op besoek is in Suid Afrika noem homself ‘n “transformational architect.” Die volgende berig het op Dave Hunt en Tom McMahon se webblad The Berean Call verskyn.

[McLaren has joined forces with individuals such as Linnea NIlsen Capshaw. According to her resume, Capshaw works with Dr. Ron Martoia who is a transformational architect . . . . His area of expertise is on the new and shifting landscape of church/cultural intersection, where he helps churches consider how they can shift their theological outlook which in turn will shift and adjust their ministry trajectory and cultural interface. . . . Ron is using his cultural intonation to help churches shift paradigms from the old Newtonian world to the Quantum world of the 21st century context.

“In addition to monthly consultations, Ron currently facilitates a new experimental learning community model in Jackson, Michigan called Vortex. Meeting in an arts enclave with over 20 other artists, there are weekly facilitated conversations on everything from string theory and the origins of the universe to the insights of Aristotle on personal development, as well as theological discussions about world religions and global spiritual formation praxis. Vortex hosts immersive learning experiences as well as weekly yoga classes. This experiment hopes to be part of shaping a new learning container for 21st century spiritual and personal formation.” (Klem bygevoeg).

http://www.velocityculture.com/aboutron.html

Dis hoegenaamd nie moeilik om af te lei nie dat Ron Martoia se kerklik/kulturele en “transformerende argitektuur” (“transformational architecture”) in ‘n baie groot mate geskoei is op kontemplatiewe spiritualiteite en selfs ook joga, ‘n Oosterse merditatiewe praktyk wat Hindoes met hulle Hindoegode saam in dieselfde juk laat trek. Lees gerus hierdie artikel oor die gevare van joga en transendentale meditasie. Die volgende aanhaling toon baie duidelik hoedanig Ron Martoia meditasie propageer en aanwend om transformasie in die kerk en kulture te bewerkstellig.

“I want to infuse you with the insight and energy to assist you in attaining the transformation you desire. My experience in my own personal life and as a transformational architect helping other people along on the journey is that most of us realize the obvious growth barriers we face.”

“We must become aware of being aware and make a commitment to make that happen. If we were to do this on our own personal level it would transform who we are. If we begin to do that on the inner personal level with spouse and friends and kids, what might that do to transform the very systems of our lives and the very family units we live in. Second, we need to cultivate a daily practice of meditation. . .

The fact is meditation is a concentrated dose of awareness. It is quite clear that those who cultivate a daily practice of meditation have that as an anchor all day and can at times throughout their day go back to it and affirm the quiet center they are attempting to maintain. . . a quiet center, the place from which our true life flows. . . For us to grow at all we have to be aware.”- (Klem bygevoeg)

Ron Martoia – www.vortexdownload.com

En wil baie graag u aandag vestig op Martioia se gebruik van die woorde “journey,” en “growth barriers.” Thomas Keating, ‘n Rooms Katolieke mistikus wat as een van die belangriikste aavoerders van die moderne kontemplatiewe beweging beskou word, het soortgelyke terme gebruik om die struikelblokke en die oorkoming daarvan op jou geestelike reis (“journey”) in sy boek “A Contemplative Journey, Vol. II” te omskryf. U kan meer hieroor lees hier.

From infancy, Father Keating teaches, we accumulate emotional layers, or “programs,” as a result of traumatic experiences. The practice of Centering Prayer engages directly with the unconscious and loosens old traumas that hinder your spiritual development. This form of “divine therapy” draws from a contemplative method that has brought profound inner transformation into the lives of thousands of practitioners. The Contemplative Journey is Father Thomas Keating’s great masterwork: a complete curriculum devoted to a Christian path for achieving the “still point” of resting in God. Each volume includes a study guide.

Soos u reeds hierbo gesien het, noem Ron Martoia die “still point” waarna Thomas Keating verwys die “quiet center, the place from which our true life flows.” U het seker ook dadelik opgemerk dat die woord “transformation” telkens in die kontemplatiewe ghoeroes se taalgebruik opduik. Dis nie om dowe neute nie want “transformasie” wat aan die hart lê van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus moet ten alle koste vervang word met ‘n parallel-klinkende “transformerende argitektuur,” d.w.s. ‘n ander weg en nie dié Weg nie (Jesus Christus) om transformasie in individue en samelewings te bewerkstellig. Nouja, so ‘n argument klink miskien by die eerste aanhoor ‘n bietjie vreemd, maar laat my toe om te verduidelik. Wanneer ek sê “transformasie” lê aan die hart van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus dan verwys ek spesifiek na die essensie van bekering wat deur die woord metanoeo { met-an-o-eh’-o} omskryf word. Die woord beteken om ‘n algehele gemoedsverandering te ondergaan, soveel so dat jy anders begin dink oor God, sy geregtigheid, sy regverdige oordele, en sy genade asook oor jou eie sondige en verlore toestand. Die Engelse verklaring vir die woord lui as volg:

1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent

2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins

Bekering begin dus in die mens se gemoed of verstand. (Let asseblief noukeuring op ek sê “BEGIN” in die mens se gemoed deurdat die Heilige Gees die verlore sondaar oortuig van sondes, geregtigheid en oordeel. Jou gemoedsverandering is nie jou redding nie. Dis slegs die aansporingselement in jou gemoed om terug te draai na God toe en jou na Hom te wend vir redding deur Hom daadwerklik aan te roep vir jou redding—om van bo gewederbaar te word.–Kyk gerus weer na Romeine 10:13). Daarom sê die Here Jesus ook baie pertinent: “Kom na my toe, almal wat vermoeid en belas is en ek sal julle rus gee.” (Mattheus 11:28-29). Die “aanroep” om redding geskied dus wanneer die verlore sondaar hom na Christus wend (na Hom toe gaan in die gebed) om sy saak met Hom reg te maak (Jesaja 1:18).  Die noodsaaklikheid van ‘n veranderde gemoed ten aansien van redding en ‘n voortdurende transformasie in jou lewe word baie goed deur Paulus opgesom in Romeine 12:2: “En word nie aan hierdie wêreld gelykvormig nie, maar word verander deur die vernuwing van julle gemoed, sodat julle kan beproef wat die goeie en welgevallige en volmaakte wil van God is.” Diie Engelse weergawe lui as volg:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Japie Grobler skryf:

Oosterse meditasie wat as “Christelike meditasie” voorgehou word is ’n inwaarste reis wanneer mense hulle gedagtes leeg maak van alle gedagtes in hulle soeke na God sonder die gebruik van woorde, sodoende word God se Woord nietig gemaak. Deur op hierdie manier te mediteer beweeg die persoon na ’n alternatiewe bewussynsvlak waarin hy ontneem is van sy onderskeidingsvermoë. Sy rasionele denke is afgeskakel, dus kan hy nie analities dink nie en sodoende is hy onmagtig om sy gedagtes in die lig van sy kennis van die Skrif onder leiding van die Heilige Gees te toets. Dit is ’n heidense praktyk wat in totaliteit verwerp behoort te word.

Die mens se denke en gedagte is aktief betrokke by die bestudering en oordenking van die Woord. Die Here Jesus stel geloof bo die onsienlike en ondervinding, en die Skrif waarsku teen misleiding en stel dat alles aan die Skrif as maatstaf getoets moet word: (Joh 20:29; 2 Kor 5:7; Rom 10:17; Jes 8:20; Hand 17:21; 1 Tess 5:21; 1 Joh 4:1; 2 Kor 12:1‑4; Matt 24:4)

Nouja! Daar het u dit. Dis klinkklaar duidelik dat God nie buite-om die mens se verstand of gemoed te werk gaan in die voltrekking van sy redding en ook nie in sy heiligmakende werk in ‘n gelowige se lewe nie. Die Calviniste kan dus maar gerus vergeet dat die mens nie ‘n vrye-wil het nie. God wil juis hê dat die mens se gemoed (verstand) nugter, waaksaam, wakker, aktief en vernuwe moet wees wanneer Hy hom tot redding en daarna tot heiligmaking, diens en aanbidding oproep. En nou kan ‘n mens ook beter verstaan waarom die duiwel die gemoed (verstand) wil uitskakel en verblind (2 Korinthiërs 4:4) en hy het beslis ‘n baie gevaarlike wapen in die hande gekry toe die sg. Westynvaders kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit gewild gemaak het. ‘n Passiewe gemoed is voorwaar ‘n baie gevaarlike instrument in die hande van die duiwel, óf dit nou deur Oosters-geïnspireerde sg. Christelike meditasie is, óf deur die val–in-die-gees fenomeen is, en óf dit deur die leuen dat ‘n mens nie ‘n vrye-wil het nie is, hy vryf sy hande met bose vergenoegdheid wanneer hy jou gemoed (verstand) kan uitskakel.

Dat daar gevaar in lê word deur meditasieskole erken en selfs ook nie deur Dr Nicol ontken nie. “Hy skryf:

As mens op ingewings wag, kan jou eie innerlike of selfs bose magte ook met jou praat.” (Stem in die Stilte :97) (Klem bygevoeg).

Hiermee erken Willem Nicol dat meditasie (die onderbou van die kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit) ook ‘n kanaal na die Satan kan wees. ’n Voormalige en bekeerde New Ager, Richard Baer, beaam Nicol se ruiterlike nerkenning in sy beskrywing van sy vreesaanjaende ervaring, wat ook die ommekeer in sy lewe gebring het, tydens ’n meditasiesessie so:

“…my spirit was roaming some of the farthest reaches of ‘heavenly light’ that I had ever perceived…I was surrounded by a virtually overwhelming luminosity—it was as if I was looking straight into the sun. Waves of bliss radiated through my spirit. I was totally captivated by the power. Suddenly another force stepped in. It took me by complete surprise. In the twinkling of an eye, it was like a supernatural hand had taken me behind the scene of the experience that I was having. I was taken behind the outer covering of dazzling luminosity and there saw something that left me literally shaking for a full week. What I saw was the face of devouring darkness! Behind the glittering outer facade of beauty lay a massively powerful, wildly churning face of absolute hatred and unspeakable abominations—the face of demons filled with the power of Satan.” (Richard Baer, Inside the New Age Nightmare, Huntington House, Inc., 1989:55)

View Full Album

Daar’s verskeie ander metodes wat die Satan gebruik om die gemoed of verstand uit te skakel. Een van die gevaarlikste hiervan is die sg val-in-die-gees fenomeen (“slain in the spirit). God TV en TBN asook ander bekende Christen TV-netwerke is deesdae deurweek met wonderwerkende genesers wat mense agteroor laat val en hulle met die sg. vuur van God doop. Miskien het u onlangs 50 opeenvolgende dae op Andre en Jenny Roebert se epiese TV-reeks “Days of Glory in Oos-Londen gesien hoedat hulle gasspreker, die sg. “lag-gees ghoeroe en Heilige Gees kroegman,” Rodney Howard-Brown sy lag- en huilgees hier in ons land kom loslaat het. Dit is uiters interessant maar hoegenaamd nie vreemd nie dat Willem Nicol presies dieselfde fisiese ervarings beskrywe wanneer hy sy “Christelike meditasie” tegnieke in sy boek Gebed van die Hart bespreek.

“Daar kan allerhande fisiese ervarings wees, byvoorbeeld ’n gejeuk of tinteling, ’n kriewel in die keel, hoofpyn of ’n vreemde gevoel in die kop, ’n swaar gevoel of selfs ’n gevoel van gewigloosheid. Ander begin sug, lag of huil. Alles is tekens dat daar iets aan die gang is.” (Gebed van die Hart :135‑136).

Daar is beslis iets aan die gang maar dit is nie van God nie (1 Johannes 4:1)

Ek wil nie nou langer oor die gevare van Ron Martoia en andere se sg. achieving the “still point” of resting in God” uitwei nie (ek beoog om later ‘n vollediger artikel te plaas oor die begrip “stil word”), maar dié is seker: Sommige van ons land se bekendste en toonaangewende predikers is besig om derduisende mense, en veral ons jongmense, in ‘n doolhoof (laberint) van kontemplatiewe duisternis en ellende te ly waaruit hulle nie sal kan kom nie, tensy hulle hul heelhartig tot Jesus Christus (van die Bybel) bekeer en Hom smeek om hulle genadiglik daaruit te red. Hy alleen kan dit doen. Intussen woeker hierdie toonaangewende predikers en hulle navolgers teen ‘n dolle vaart voort en bevorder hierdie uiters gevaarlike spiritualiteit in hulle preke, in hulle kerke, op hulle blogs (kyk gerus hierna) en in hulle boeke. Maar nouja, dis nog lank nie die einde nie. Die valse apostels, leermeesters en profete wat die e-kerk en e-church in hulle midde toelaat, lees soos ‘n regte “who’s who.” So gepraat van BBP’s. Stephan Joubert en Nelus Niemandt bied saam met die besoekende spreker Ron Martoia op Vrydag, 28 Augustus ‘n Oggendleierskap Seminaar in die Pierre van Ryneveldt NG Kerk aan.

Ek sluit af om julle te herinner aan die volgende Skrifgedeeltes.

1 Timotheus 4:1 Maar die Gees sê uitdruklik dat in die laaste tye sommige van die geloof afvallig sal word en verleidende geeste en leringe van duiwels sal aanhang.

Openbaring 18:2-5 En hy het met ‘n groot stem kragtig uitgeroep en gesê: Geval, geval het die groot Babilon, en dit het geword ‘n woonplek van duiwels en ‘n versamelplek van allerhande onreine geeste en ‘n versamelplek van allerhande onreine en haatlike voëls, omdat al die nasies gedrink het van die wyn van die grimmigheid van haar hoerery, en die konings van die aarde met haar gehoereer het, en die handelaars van die aarde ryk geword het deur die mag van haar weelderigheid. En ek het ‘n ander stem uit die hemel hoor sê: Gaan uit haar uit, my volk, sodat julle nie gemeenskap met haar sondes mag hê en van haar plae ontvang nie. Want haar sondes reik tot aan die hemel, en God het haar ongeregtighede onthou.

Jer 6:17 Ek het ook wagte oor julle gestel en gesê: Luister na die geluid van die basuin. Maar hulle het geantwoord: Ons wil nie luister nie.

Volgens Stephan Joubert is dit negatiewe mense wat ‘n hele gemeenskap lam kan lê. Ek wonder wie dit werklik is wat besig is om ‘n ganse gemeenskap lam te lê met hulle demonies geïnspireerde kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit.

Belangrike naskrif:

Ons kontemplatiewe vriend Guillaume Smit het intussen ‘n lys op sy blog beskikbaar gestel waarin hy aandui wie van die invloedrykste kontemplatiewe predikers in ons land is.

Some guy on Twitter gave me this idea – he made a list of the top ten pastors in America who’s twitter thoughts you should follow. That got me thinking on the influential Christian leaders of my own country: If I would have to propose blogsites and Tweeters to someone asking me, who would I suggest?
Let’s see …

* Braam Hanekom
* Andries Louw
* Dries Cronje
* Reggie Nel
* Tom Smith
* Cobus van Wyngaard
* Roger Saner
* Dries Lombaard
* Jan van der Watt
* Stephan Joubert
* Hennie Stander
* Theo Geyser
* Francois Mulder
* Frederick Marais

Miskien is Guillaume te nederig om sy eie naam by te voeg, maar ek dink regtig hy verdien ‘n ereplek in die bg. lys van name. Ek wil baie graag Stephan se goeie raad op Twitter navolg en ook vir u sê “Don’t follow them.”

Is “onthoofding” in “Stander-taal” minder belangrik as “tandetrek?”

Hennie Stander

Die Swaard van Islam en Vrinne

‘n Baie hooggeleerde professor verbonde aan UP se Departement van Antieke Tale het die onmenslike onthoofding van Christene in die Suide van Somalië deur die al- Shahaab Islamitiese groep so “effentjies” versag toe hy onlangs op sy immer gewilde blog eerder klem gelê het op hulle gebruik om mense te ontvoer en die silwer en goue stopsels uit hulle tande te haal as op die menigvuldige onthoofdings van Christene. Trouens, hy het die onthoofdings geheel en al geïgnoreer en met mening teen Christene uitgevaar wat kwansuis net so geweldadig kan wees. Ons weet nie of die al-Shahaab moordenaars die silwer en goue tandestopsels net uit hulle mede-Moselms se monde verwyder nie maar dit kan selfs ook wees dat hulle Christene se silwer en goue tandestopsels verwyder voor of selfs na hulle onthoofding, maar dié is seker, Prof. Hennie Stander sal weer ‘n slag moet gaan kyk na sy “vergelykende UP-semantiek.” Hier’s Hennie se weergawe van die geweld in die Suide van Somalië:

Die Islamitiese groep al Shabaab in die suide van Somalië is tans besig om met geweld die silwer en goue stopsels in die tande van mense uit te haal. Hulle gebruik sommer die mees basiese gereedskap om dit te doen. Die Islamitiese groep sê dat silwer en goud vir mode en skoonheid is, en dit is teen die streng wette van Islam. Hulle “ontvoer” die mense teen hulle wil, en haal dan die silwer en goue stopsels uit hulle tande.

Mense is soms baie wreed in die beoefening van hulle godsdiens. Dit gebeur in alle godsdienste – ook in die Christendom. (Klem bygevoeg)

Kom ons laat vir eers ons hooggeleerde professor so ‘n bietjie agterweë om ons deeglik te vergewis van wat die werklike toedrag van sake in die Suide van Somalië is. Somalië word beslis nie net deur wrede “selfaangestelde tandartse” geteister nie. Was dit maar al sou ‘n mens dit glimlaggend met die Middeleesue tandetrek tegnieke kon vergelyk, maar dit is maar ‘n kleinigheidjie in vergelyking met die barbaarse onthoofding van Christene wat gereeld in Somalië  plaasvind.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive het op 11 Augustus 2009 sos volg berig.

1. Vier Christene wat in Somalië gewerk het om weeskindertjies op te pas, is deur al-Qaida belanghebbedes onthoof.

Dis verstommend dat Prof. Hennie Stander slegs sy misnioë te kenne gee oor die silwer en goud wat sonder die basiese gereedskap uit mense se tande gehaal word nadat hulle geweldadig ontvoer is, terwyl die ontvoering en onthoofding van Christene sy geheue skynbaar ontglip het. Die dra van silwer en goud, al is dit ook om die gate in jou slegte tande toe te stop, is skynbaar ‘n baie groot oortreding van die sharia-wette van Islam. Nee professor, jy’t die kat by die stert beet. Die grootste oortrediing van die sharia-wette in Moslemlande is nie die dra van silwer of goud op jou persoon of self in jou tande nie, maar die dra van die Naam van Jesus Christus. Die Christene kom nie met so ‘n  ligte “straf” weg nie. Hulle word summier onthoof en die werklike rede vir hulle onthoofding is omdat hulle weier om hulle Saligmaker en Heer, Jesus Chrristus te verloën, en onder dwang die Islam geloof aan te neem. Die familie mog nie eens die liggame van die onthoofdes ontvang of begrawe nie omdat Somalië geen voorsiening maak vir begraafplase vir Christen-“ongelowiges” nie. Blykbaar word hulle sommer so vir die honde gegooi.

1. Die Islamitiese al-Shahaab groep het verlede maand ses mense onthoof omdat hulle hul tot Jesus Christus bekeer het.

2. WND het ‘n paar weke gelede op Compass Direct News berig dat al-Shahaab twee seuntjies ontvoer en onthoof het omdat hulle geweier het om inligting te verskaf oor die doen en late van ‘n sekere kerkkleier. Let asseblief op, Prof. Stander, die twee seuntjies het met ware heldemoed en mannemoed hulle geliefde pastoor beskerm en nie met hande in diie lug uitgeroep: “O! ons Christene is maar net so wreedaardig soos julle” nie. Dank die Here vir sulke seuntjies wat sonder enige hooggeleerde opleiding in die oorspronklike Hebreeuse en Griekse tale tog weet wat dit beteken om ‘n ware Christen te wees. Vir sulke mense het ek respek — die hoogste respek. “Ek het gekyk hoedat hulle my drie seuns hulpeloos wegsleep terwyl my jongste gehuil het” het hulle moeder gesê. “Ek het geweet hulle gaan geslag word.” ‘n Kort rukkie later het haar sewejarige seuntjie met trane in sy oë sy ma vertel hoedat sy 12-jarige en 11-jarige boeties onthoof is. Die moordenaars was op soek na hulle pa, wat die leier was van die ondergrondse kerk in Yonday in Somalië voordat hy en sy gesin in April na die Keniaanse kamp gevlug het.

Hoe Hennie Stander in die res van sy kommentaar die kloutjie by die oor kry om die misdaad van geweldadigheid ook aan die deur te lê van die Christene en veral dan ook die Christene wat so wreed onthoof is, weet net hy alleen. Om sout in die wonde te smeer, vergelyk hy die wreedheid wat kwansuis ook aan Christene toegedig kan word met die Fariseërs se sonde om allerlei reëls op mense af te dwing sonder dat hulleself die reëls nagekom het. Hy verwys dan spesifiek na Lukas 11:46 waar Jesus die Fariseërs bestraf het oor hulle huigelary.

Julle wetgeleerdes! Ellende wag vir julle ook, want julle laai ondraaglike laste op die mense, en self verroer julle geen vinger om die laste te dra nie (Luk 11:46).

Hennie Stander kom dan tot die gevolgtrekking dat Christene vandag steeds allerlei laste op mense lê. As voorbeeld verwys hy na ‘n predikant wat sy misnoë uitgespreek het omdat een van Hennie se vriende sy kar op ‘n Sondag gewas het terwyl die predikant self later in ‘n buite-egtelike verhoudiing betrap is. Hy roem dan daarop dat hy nog baie sulke voorbeelde kan gee. Dit, moet ek sê, wil darem gedoen wees, hoor. . . . ! Hennie! Leer die Skrif ons nie dat hy wat dink dat hy staan, moet oppas dat hy nie val nie? Dis juis wanneer ons so maklik val, wanneer ons, soos die Fariseërs wat swaar laste op ander geplaas het, dink dat ons nie so sleg is soos ander mense nie en dink dat ons vasstaan. Kom ek herinner jou aan Jesus se woorde in Matteus 5:28!!

Maar Ek sê vir julle dat elkeen wat na ‘n vrou kyk om haar te begeer, reeds in sy hart met haar egbreuk gepleeg het.

As jy net een enkele keer in jou  hele lewe, ek herhaal—net één keer—na ‘n vrou gekyk het om haar in jou hart te begeer, het jy presies dieselfde sonde gedoen as wat daardie predikant gedoen het. Nie jy of ek is enigsins beter as die predikant waarna jy verwys nie, en ook nie die ander voorbeelde wat jy met soveel sorg kan noem nie.

Wat hoor ek jou sê, Hennie? Jy het nog nie ‘n enkele keer in jou hele lewe na ‘n vrou gekyk om haar in jou hart te begeer nie? Sjoe! Halleluja! In daardie geval het jy Jesus Christus nie nodig nie. Jy’s dan volmaak. As jy nog nooit nodig gehad het om die sonde in Matteus 5 by Jesus te bely nie, dan is daar darem ten minste een wat jy wel by Hom kan bely en dit is die sonde om met oop oë en ‘n glimlag op jou gesig te lieg.

As ons in ag neem wat ek so pas gesê het, dan hoef ons nie juis verbaas te wees oor Hennie se UP-belaaide verklaring van Matteus 11:28-30 nie. Hier’s Hennie se siening daaromheen nadat hy verwys het na die owerspelige predikant wat sy (Hennie) se vriend verbied het om sy kar op ‘n Sondag te was:

En ek sal nog baie sulke voorbeelde kan gee. Jesus het egter ’n ander boodskap gehad vir die mense wat so swaar gebuk gegaan het onder reëls. Hy het gesê: “Kom na My toe, almal wat uitgeput en oorlaai is, en Ek sal julle rus gee. Neem my juk op julle en leer van My, want Ek is sagmoedig en nederig van hart, en julle sal rus kry vir julle gemoed. My juk is sag en my las is lig.” (Mt. 11:28-30)

Het u Hennie se dartelende woord-omwentelende betekenis van Matteus 11:28-30 raakgesien? Om dit vir u makliker te maak sal ek herhaal wat hy gesê het:-

Jesus het egter ’n ander boodskap gehad vir die mense wat so swaar gebuk gegaan het onder reëls.

Werklik? Het Jesus werklikwaar mens geword, gely en gesterf, weer opgestaan uit die dood en weer opgevaar na sy Vader sodat ons ‘n stel reëls kan vryspring? Wat sê die Heilige Skrif?

Matteus 5:17 Moenie dink dat Ek gekom het om die wet of die profete te ontbind nie. Ek het nie gekom om te ontbind nie, maar om te vervul.

Johannes 14:15 As julle My liefhet, bewaar my gebooie.

Johannes 14:21 Wie my gebooie het en dié bewaar, dit is hy wat My liefhet; en wie My liefhet, hóm sal my Vader liefhê, en Ek sal hom liefhê en My aan hom openbaar.

Johannes 15:10 As julle my gebooie bewaar, sal julle in my liefde bly, net soos Ek die gebooie van my Vader bewaar en in sy liefde bly.

Matteus 7:24 Elkeen dan wat na hierdie woorde van My luister en dit doen, hom sal Ek vergelyk met ‘n verstandige man wat sy huis op die rots gebou het.
Matteus 7:26 En elkeen wat na hierdie woorde van My luister en dit nie doen nie, sal vergelyk word met ‘n dwase man wat sy huis op die sand gebou het. (Klem deurgaans bygevoeg)

Hoe nou gemaak? Waarom moet die kinders van God sy gebooie (reëls) doen en bewaar as Hy dan self die gebooie volmaak vervul het? Sê Paulus dan nie ook dat God se kinders nie meer onder die Wet is nie maar onder die genade? (Romeine 6:14)

Onthou asseblief dat die essensie en die grondslag van die sonde die oortreding van God se gebooie is. Indien God nie sy Wet aan ons gegee het nie, sou niemand van ons ooit geweet en verstaan het wat sonde is nie. Daarom is God se gebooie, soos Paulus dit in Galasiërs 3:24 beskrywe, die tugmeester (of spieëlbeeld  waarin ons onsself sien) na Christus toe. In die tyd van die Ou Testamentiese Tabernakel en later die tempel is die koperwaskom wat tussen die koperaltaar en die ingang tot die heilige en allerheiligste gestaan het se bodem met spieëls uitgelê. Elke keer wanneer die Hoë Priester en die Priesters hulle in die kopwerwaskom gewas het, het hulle hulself in die spieëls gesien om hulle te herinner hoe oop en bloot hulle sondige lewens voor God was en hoe intens noodsaaklik dit vir hulle was om gereinig te word daarvan. Wanneer Christus (die finale en volmaakte Brandoffer van God) in Matteus 11 roep: “Kom na My toe, almal wat vermoeid en belas is, en Ek sal julle rus gee,” was dit nie om sondaars wat onder reêls gebukkend gegaan het, vry te maak nie. Hy het dit juis gedoen om almal wat in hulle selfgesentreerde, roekelose, reël-lose en rigtinglose (Jesaja 53:6) lewenspatroon van sonde en rebellie vasgevang is en blindelings voortwoeker, aan Hom en sy gebooie te juk-band sodat Hy wat sy Vader se gebooie volbring het dit ook in en deur sy volgelinge kan volbring. Daarom sê die Here Jesus dat sy gebooie nie swaar is nie (1 Johannes 5:3) omdat Hy deur sy Gees sy volgelinge in staat stel om sy gebooie te bewaar. Word die Heilige Gees dan nie pertinent die “Parkletos” (die Trooster) genoem nie? Die “Enhanced Strongs Lexikon” beskryf die woord “Parakletos” as volg:

in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant

of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom.

Waarom sou Hennie Stander dan so graag wil hê dat die laste in Matteus 11:28-30 na “reëls” verwys. Ag nouja! dis tog seker nie te moeilik om ‘n antwoord daarop te vind nie, veral nie as ‘n mens in ag neem dat die brose wesentjies van ons post-moderne eeu se nekhare gewoonlik rys wanneer ‘n mens praat oor sonde en die verskriklike gevolge daarvan as hulle hul nie bekeer nie. “Weg daarmee!” skree hulle. “Ons wil hoor hoe om ons selfbeeld op te kikker en nie hoe sleg ons is nie.”

Weet verseker dat die laste waarna die Here Jesus verwys nie die las van ‘n klomp reëls of regulasies is waaronder die mens kwansuis gebukkend gaan nie, maar die sonde waarin die mens versonke geraak het juis omdat hy God se reëls oortree het en nog steeds oortree. Die vloek van die Wet (Gebooie) is nie die Wet self nie, maar die voortdurende oortreding van die Wet.

Galasiërs 3:10 Vervloek is elkeen wat nie bly in alles wat geskryf is in die boek van die wet om dit te doen nie.

Dink daaraan, die Here Jesus wat die enigste Persoon was om God se Wet volmaak te vervul, het ‘n vloek geword (soos een wat God se Wet oortree het en tot sondaar gemaak is) om ons vanuit die greep van die vloek van die Wet (ons eie oortredinge van sy Wet) te ruk en te red. Dit het Hy vir ons almal (nie net vir die sg. Calvinistiese uitverkorenes nie) aan die kruis van Glogota gedoen. “DIT IS VOLBRING,” het Hy triomfantelik uitgeroep toe Hy sy Gees in die hande van sy Vader oorgegee het en dit  behoort ons almal met so ’n oorweldigende liefde vir Hom te vervul dat ons bereid sal wees om ons eie lewens vir HOM op die altaar af te lê en soos daardie twee jong knapies in die Suide van Somalië te sê: “Kap my kop maar af, maar ek weier volstrek om die lieflike Naam van my persoonlike Saligmaker en Meester, Jesus Christus, te verloën.”

Mag die Here voorsien dat daar, soos in die geval met Paulus wat Stefanus se moord goedgekeur het, onder die al-Shahaab moordenaars ten minste een wees wat vanweë die bloed van God se twee martelaartjies tot bekering kom om hierdie wonderlike Evangelie van Jesus Christus aan hulle eie mense te begin verkondig.

Ons hoor voortdurend uit die monde van super apostels en predikers soos Angus Buchan, Rodney Howard-Browne, Elza Meyer en nog vele ander dat Suid-Afrika reeds ‘n geweldige groot herlewing belewe. Ons is beslis nie nou midde-in ‘n groot herlewing nie. Skryf dit maar gerus op jou magie en vee dit met jou hempie af. Daar is hoegenaamd nie so-iets in ons land aan die gang nie. Wat as herlewings voorgehou word, is  valse sogenaamde herlewings. Wie se herlewing moet ons as ‘n egte herlewing aanvaar? Rodney Howard-Browne s’n waarin almal soos afgekapte boomstoompe agteroor val (val in die gees-fenomeen) en onbedaarlik begin lag of huil omdat hulle kwansuis die vuur van God ontvang het? Of miskien Angus Buchan se herlewing wat deur “God” self bevestig word met wondertekens soos hartvormige wolkies wat oor sy byeenkomste verskyn het? Of miskien Elza Meyer se herlewing wat ook deur hartvormige voorwerpe, maar in haar geval, hartvormige klippies wat oral deur haar volgelinge opgetel word, deur “God” self bevestig word? Of miskien Rick Warren se fenomenale sukesvolle herlewing (Die Doelgerigte Lewe) deurdat byna elke denkbare kerk in Suid-Afrika sy boeke in hulle Bybelstudies, selgroepe en gebedsgroepe lees en bestudeer? Of miskien Stephan Joubert van e-kerk en e-church faam wat glo dat die redding van die anorganiese wêreld netso belangrik is as die redding van verlore siele, of selfs nog belangriker, omdat God net ‘n dag spandeer het om die mens te skape en vyf dae geneem het om die aarde en die uitspansel te skep. Wie s’n is die ware herlewing? Wie s’n word deur God bewerkstellig? Suid-Afrika het gewis nie ‘n gemis aan herlewings nie. Jy’s vry om te kies watter een jy wil navolg.

Ons het nie ‘n herlewing nodig nie, maar vervolging sodat ons soos Christene wat elders in die wêreld ter wille van hulle geloof in Jesus Christus vervolg en geslag word, kan weet wat dit is om waarlik kind van God te wees. Miskien sal ons dan kan onderskei dat onthoofding ‘n groter oortreding is as tandetrekkery.

Hierdie kommentaar word opgedra aan die Christenmartelare wat onlangs in die Suide van Somalië en elders in die wêreld onthoof is. Dit is terselfdertyd my poging om die skandalige minagting wat Hennie Stander op sy blog daarteenoor geopenbaaar het deur slegs te verwys na die verwydering van die silwer en goud uit mense se tande en nie die onmenslike onthoofding van Christene nie, in die reine te probeer bring. Wat my diep grief is dat Hennie Stander die verwydering van die silwer en goud uit mense se tande spesifiek as wegspringplek gebruik het om sy onbewese en onwetenskaplike uitspraak dat Christene netso geweldadig kan wees, te loods. Weet hy en sy bloglesers wat dit beteken om ‘n Christen te wees?

Eternal allegiance to Christ Jesus, the Mighty Victor over sin and death

There are several questions I would like to ask when I get to heaven someday. One of them is: How many of the Jews who stoned Stephen to death eventually repented of their evil ways and received Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and how many of them later became victims of Christ-haters and were martyred and killed themselves? As a reminder that nothing has changed since the beginning of time, I would like to quote to you some verses from Genesis 4 and Acts 7.

Genesis 4:3-10

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Acts 7: 51-60

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53  Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56  And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57  Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58  And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60  And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Please, if you will, take note of the passages I have emphasized and bolded when you read the following excerpts from a report by Robert McCurry in The Wake-Up Herald of 10 August 2009. While reading this shocking news we need to ask ourselves whether we as the Bride of Christ are really and truly obeying our Lord who commanded us to love our enemies and to pray for them (Matthew 5:44). I earnestly ask you to keep in mind when you read this that our warfare is not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6;12). Also keep in mind that Satan and his demons have already been conquered by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary and that he is merely doing what he has been doing since the beginning (John 8:44). Therefore the children of God can rejoice in the knowledge that we ought to have no fear of those who can kill the body and not the soul but rather that we should fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). We should fear God and no man.

Will Christianity become a crime in America?

by Robert McCurry

Are you willing to go to prison for your Christian faith? This would be a bizarre question to ask of any average American who considers themselves to be a Christian, but not so for those living somewhere other than the United States. In a world that cries for tolerance and equality, Christianity is becoming the new minority worldwide. And while we sit comfortably in our easy chair nestled in the safety of a perceived freedom, it is folly to be so naive to think that Christianity can not become a crime in America.

All over the world, Christians are finding themselves face to face with the choice of either their lives or their faith. A 33-year-old mother was executed in North Korea for distributing Bibles. Her husband, children and parents were sent to a political prison the day after her June 16 execution. In Dong Hoi, the capital city of Quang Binh province in Vietnam, nearly 150 worshipers were in their regular church service when police and security officials attacked them with teargas, batons, sticks, and stun guns. What about the recent public displaying of the Bible in a British art gallery? On lookers took the opportunity to deface the Bible by scrawling foul, obscene, and explicative narration across the pages. . . .

The United States?

While addressing leaders of the Middle East, President Obama made his now famous declaration that “America is no longer a Christian nation” while trying to assure the world that America would be tolerant of all faiths. However, he seems to be correct as more and more Americans are saying that they hold no religious affiliation. . . .

Is America becoming intolerant of its Christian heritage? Already legislation has been passed expanding current Hate-Crime Law. Proponents of the bill argue that its expansion is for the inclusion of sexual preference, but opponents see an opportunity for it to be used to silence Christian faith at its very heart, the pulpit.

Meanwhile schools, airports, courts rooms, and any other building accessible to the public are finding that Christian insignias are being removed and banned. With every court battle and every threatened lawsuit, the secular left moves forward driving Christianity out of the public eye. Christianity has become the target and whipping post of most media venues. One important question remains for every American. If Christianity becomes a crime in the United States, what will my response be?

What should our response be?

Should the Bride of Christ be alarmed, dismayed, and bewildered by the worldwide escalation of persecution, killings and martyrdoms many Christians are experiencing? What does the Bible teach us:

1 Peter 4:12-14

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

Philippians 1:27-29

27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Robert McCurry continues his report as follows:

A Headline in the August 3, 3009, World Net Daily:

Muslims torch Christians for alleged ‘blasphemy’ of Quran. More than 100 houses ablaze as women, children face slaughter by mob.

On Saturday, a frenzied mob of three thousand Muslims stormed the tiny Pakistani Christian village of Gojra. Enflamed by (unconfirmed) charges that a Christian had burned pages of the Qur’an, the mob burned down fifty homes, burned eight Christians alive, and wounded twenty others. The death toll included women, children and other burnt victims who were unable to reach hospitals for proper medical care. Thousands of Christians fled the area.

Last Thursday, enraged by the same report of blasphemy, another Muslim mob torched seventy-five Christian homes, along with two churches, in Koriyan, a village near Gojra.

Daily Sun – Thursday, August 6, 2009 –

Three pastors beheaded for refusing to accept Islam.

One of the victims of last week’s attack by the Yusufiya sect in Borno State has given a shocking account of how the Islamic extremists killed three pastors who were captured along with other victims on the second day of the insurgence. The victim was among those held hostage in Yusuf’s enclave.

Speaking exclusively to Daily Sun in Maiduguri, the eye witness who preferred anonymity disclosed that the three pastors were beheaded on the instruction of the sect leader, Mohammed Yusuf shortly after bringing them out of his inner chamber.

“The pastors alongside one Ibo man were asked to change their faith to Islam like they did to other people taken as hostages. I think there was an argument by one of the pastors which gave the others some level of confidence to also resist accepting Islam.”

Corroborating the account of the killing, a Senior pastor with Good News Church, Wulari Maiduguri Rev. Baba Gata Ibrahim told Daily Sun in an interview that a pastor in his church, Pastor George Orjih was beheaded on the instruction of the Boko Haram leader because the clergy man refused to accept Islam.

“An eye witness who was also captured by the Islamic militants gave us details of how the pastor was killed. He told us they were persuading him to accept Islam and he said over his dead body. He was even said to have preached Christ to Mohammed Yusuf and that reportedly angered the sect leader who then as he ordered that the pastor and others be killed immediately,” he disclosed.

Muslims are not persecuting Christians only in Pakistan. On July 18, Muslims in Alexandria, Egypt kidnapped a sixteen-year-old Christian girl, Amira Markos, while she was on her way to work. Shortly thereafter her mother received a phone call: “At 10 o’clock of the same morning someone called me and asked if I was Amira’s mother. He introduced himself as Sheikh Mohammed, and said that my daughter is fine and will convert to Islam. When I cried and begged him to let me have my daughter back, he said he would let me see her again after her conversion to Islam, and ended the call.”

With each instance, the practice of abuse towards Christianity has become normal, if not expected. So much so that the average person in America has become desensitized to the violence.

Like Stephen’s murderers who gnashed their teeth and stopped their ears from hearing his preaching, these Muslims also closed their ears to Pastor George Orjih’s preaching and brutally murdered him. What should our response be? Hatred? A Spirit-filled child of God cannot but feel pity and love for the murderers while they rejoice in the fact that the three beheaded pastors remained faithful to God to the very end of their lives and are now (this very moment) seeing the indescribably beautiful face of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. They, like so many others before them who had been martyred and killed for the sake of Jesus Christ and his Gospel, are going to receive the martyrs crown of victory at the Bema judgement seat of Christ, immediately after the Rapture which is closer than we think. My concern is for those Muslims who think they have done God a favour when they killed the three pastors. They desperately need Jesus Christ to save them because it is not His will that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of His salvation (2 Peter 3:9).

I sincerely hope and pray that the beheaded and martyred pastors as well as I will someday meet up with some of Stephen’s and the three pastors’ martyrs and murderers in heaven. Is that at all possible? Well, Saul of Tarsus who left the dirty work of stoning Stephen to the Jewish rabble and consented to his death is now in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ. If God was able to save a murderer like Saul who later became Paul, He is capable of saving the worst of murderers.

To close my comment I would like to remind you that the persecution Christians are experiencing even in Western countries these days is not against the Christian per se, but against Jesus Christ Himself. Listen to His words in Acts 9:4 when He confronted Saul who was on his way to persecute the Christians in Damascus?

Acts 9:4 And he [Saul] fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Killing Christians is not going to get rid of God because you CANNOT kill Him. Jesus ever lives after He had been killed and risen from the dead and He is eventually going to return to judge the nations and every individual who wilfully and rebelliously refuse to repent of their evil ways and receive Him as their Saviour.

Revelation 22:20

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

E-church heresies or “genuine copies of the original”

I have it on the highest authority that the sowing of doubt is one of the most dangerous forms of telling a lie. Think of it . . . the most idyllically beautiful place on the earth became the backdrop for the downfall of the whole of mankind and it all started with “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” or as the Amplified Bible renders it.”Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?” No wonder the author of Genesis described the serpent as the most subtle and crafty beast of the field and Jesus called him the father of all lies from the beginning whose lies are murderous tools, killing, maiming and destroying everyone who believes his lies. Another equally dangerous way of sowing doubt is to juxtapose the truth with the lie without demarcating the lie from the truth. In layman’s terms it is called NOOMA /015 or “YOU ARE THE GOSPEL.” I’ll explain what I mean in a minute or two. [You can watch the video clip here.]

Genuine copies of the original

As a kid, years ago, I saw a movie that fascinated me. A bunch of criminals hired (by “gentle” persuasion) an amateur painter who had an exceptional talent to reproduce the oil paintings of the old masters. The thieves would then break into art museums, swap some of the original paintings with the reproductions and make a fortune by selling the  stolen paintings on the black market. The reproduced paintings were so perfectly done that even the most educated art dealer was unable to distinguish between the fake and the original paintings. However, there was one man who had studied the original paintings all his life and was able to effortlessly detect a fake painting. Needless to say, the criminals tried to kill the man but he outwitted them again and again.

Reproductions or copies in the spiritual realm are one of Satan’s cleverest methods to steer people away from Jesus Christ and his salvation. In fact, he is a past master at reproducing a “gospel” that comes so close to the original that multitudes of people are led astray on a daily basis. Peter, whose testimony that Jesus is the Son of the living God became the rock on which Christ promised to build his church, had scarcely finished uttering these profound divinely inspired words when Satan viciously and maliciously provoked him to not have the things of God in mind but the things of men (Matthew 16:23). Multitudes of deceived preachers and teachers who believe they have the things of God at heart are being used of Satan in a similar way to promote his counterfeit “gospel.” Rob Bell, one of the more popular young preachers in the emergent church, who has been dubbed the new Billy Graham, is one of the major proponents of the emergent church’s Gospel reproductions. His presentation of these reproductions, particularly in his series of videos called NOOMA, are so convincing that the unsuspecting listener is easily hood-winked into believing that it is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is very alarming to see that the electronic church in South Africa, known as e-church and e-kerk under the  auspices of Stephan Joubert, Dries Lombaard and Dries Cronje are increasingly promoting him on their blogs and websites. In a short article written by Dries Cronje that appeared on e-church (6 June 2008) he sings the praises of Rob Bell that just about tops the praises Jesus received when He entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to present Himself publicly and openly as the Jewish Messiah. In his discussion of Bell’s NOOMA video #15, Dries Cronje makes the following statement:

Rob Bell sketches the background for his important message by sharing the origins of words like evangelical and ecclesia from his vast knowledge of the first century world. He touches issues at the heart of what it means to be a Christian and part of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Then he reaches a stunning conclusion. I don’t want to spoil the NOOMA for you, but he makes the bold claim that… You are the good news. You are the gospel.

Only someone who does not know the original and genuine Gospel is capable of saying something so utterly anti-God and anti-biblical. He may as well have said “You are God” because the Gospel (the Word of God) was made flesh and dwelt among us as Immanuel (God with us). Where did this anti-God and anti-biblical reproduction of the Gospel stem from? It has its roots in the infamous incarnational spirituality that espouses the belief that Christ ought to be incarnated into the world cultures by means of community service and the doing of humanitarian deeds. It was probably Eugene Peterson, the author of a transliteration of the Bible called The Message, that introduced the idea of an incarnational spirituality to an unsuspecting church. His transliteration of 1 Thessalonians 1:7-10 reads as follows:

^7-10Do you know that all over the provinces of both Macedonia and Achaia believers look up to you? The word has gotten around. Your lives are echoing the Master’s Word, not only in the provinces but all over the place. The news of your faith in God is out. We don’t even have to say anything anymore—you’re the message! People come up and tell us how you received us with open arms, how you deserted the dead idols of your old life so you could embrace and serve God, the true God. They marvel at how expectantly you await the arrival of his Son, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescued us from certain doom.

Jim Montgomery from DAWN Ministries, claims that the LORD spoke to him these words.

‘See to it that I, the Lord, truly become incarnate… in every small group of people on earth.”

In an interview with Relevant Magazine Leonard Sweet responded as follows to one of their questions:-

Relevant Magazine: You’ve said a bit in the past about the church needing to use the medium of pop culture as a vehicle for the Gospel. Why is that?

Leonard Sweet: Because it’s the Roman road; it’s the road people are traveling on; it’s the dominant global culture. For the church not to speak to pop culture, not to use images that come from it and sounds that come from it, smells that come from it, well … that’s not being very incarnational … In order to incarnate Christ into the culture that is there, then we have to look to redeem pop culture.

I remember some time ago a dear sister of mine in the Lord, who makes much ado about nothing (Peterson’s The Message), told me that we should stop preaching the Gospel and start living it. Well! that sounds just grand, but is it the Gospel truth? Even Jesus, the only Person who ever lived a perfect sinless life and did more good deeds of love and compassion than anyone else in the entire family of the human race, once said: “ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (Johan 15:3). The preaching of the Gospel, the spoken word of God, is sharper than a two-edged sword that divides asunder soul and spirit and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart and not you or your wonderful life of community service to put a broken world back together again. Saving faith comes by hearing and hearing by the preaching of the unadulterated Gospel of God (Romans 10:17). If I were to sum up the main purpose of those who espouse an incarnational spirituality I would have to say their main aim is to downplay and even openly denigrate the uniqueness of God’s Word. If you can get people to believe that the Bible is just another holy book with no inherent uniqueness of its own, and indeed to sow seeds of doubt as to the distinctive matchlessness of the Bible, you can mesmerize people into believing just about anything you say. This is exactly what Rob Bell sets out to do in his NOOMA video no. 15. Let us now place some of the things he says in his video under the microscopic scrutiny of the Word of God to see whether the things he says are true.

He kicks off by saying “Sometime in the First Century, around the year 30, a movement was started by a group of Jews who insisted that their Rabbi, a man named Jesus from the Galilee region in Israel had risen from the dead after being crucified by the Roman Empire. They claimed that after His resurrection they had seen Him and that they had had conversations with Him and eaten meals with Him. And then they said that He had ascended to heaven and that someday he would return.” I would like you to take special note of two things he says that are completely out of touch with the Word of God.

• A movement was started by a group of Jews. (The Christian faith is not just a movement that was started by a group of Jews. In fact, his disciples were hardly in any position to start anything due to their timidity and fear of being captured and crucified like their Lord subsequent to his crucifixion, resurrection and shortly after his ascension. When Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome went to Jesus’ grave to anoint his body, they found the great and heavy stone that sealed the sepulchre rolled away. Inside they saw a young man clothed in a long white garment who told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. Did they immediately go out to start a new movement proclaiming that He had risen? Hardly! because the Bible says the women who first visited his grave were sorely afraid and did not tell anybody that He had risen, despite the angel’s bidding to tell his disciples that He was going to meet them in Galilee. Only when Jesus  personally appeared to Mary Magdalene did she take courage to tell the disciples that she had met with Him and seen Him. What were the disciples reaction when they heard the awesome news of his resurrection? Did they immediately start a new movement insisting that He had risen from the dead? Hardly! because they did not believe Mary Magdalene. Eventually, when more and more of his followers were informed that He had risen from the dead but failed to believe, He rebuked them sternly for their unbelief and hardness of heart (Mark 16:14). It was only on the Day of Pentecost, when the promise of the Holy Ghost’s indwelling power became a reality, that the disciples and everyone who received the life quickening empowerment of God’s Spirit were able to preach the Gospel with conviction and without fear. Jesus and His Spirit inaugurated the Christian faith. They did not merely start a movement or a club or an institution. They did not even establish a Gospel, but the Gospel and the only Gospel that saves sinners from God’s eternal judgment in hell. None of these facts are even once mentioned by Rob Bell in his NOOMA video. Could it be that he is following a certain agenda and this this agenda is to rethink and re-interpret the Gospel?)

• The Roman Empire crucified Jesus Christ. (The Roman judicial system put Jesus on trial and through a series of illegal processes found him guilty and crucified him. Roman soldiers drove the nails through his hands and feet and it was a Roman soldier who pierced his side with his spear. But, it was the Jewish Sanhedrin, through the heinous betrayal of Judas (a Jew), who delivered him over to the Roman authorities. And yet Jesus declared that no man had the power to take his life unless He willingly and lovingly laid it down Himself [John 10:18]. He expressly told Pilate at his bar that he could have no power at all against him except it were given him by his Father [John 19:11]. Isaiah 53: 10 says that it pleased God to bruise his Son and Peter declared on the Day of Pentecost: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” [Acts 2:23]. The wicked hands that crucified Him were merely the instruments God used to prove his unfathomable love and to accomplish his will in saving the many who would believe. These facts are supremely important and cannot be ignored because they speak of the magnanimity of God’s love for a dying world. Nevertheless, Rob Bell fails to mention these facts even once. The question is: why does he circumvent the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the omission of these facts?)

Although it is evident that Bell has no intention of putting “the movement a group of Jews started,” as he refers to the Christian faith, on par with many other religious movements that existed during the reign of the Roman Empire, the inherent danger of his statements is that they may and actually do sow doubt in the hearts of his listeners. To prove that the Jewish movement was not regarded as that unique in the Roman Empire and that its first century citizens were not particularly impressed by these Jewish Christians’ claim that their God had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, he mentions several idolatrous practices in those days that also believed their gods had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. He proceeds to explain that the gods Mithra and Attis were believed to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. In his short history lesson he also mentions that the Caesars were worshipped as gods and that many of the words the early Christians used to describe their movement were derived from the Caesars vocabulary — words such as euangelion and ekklesia which the Caesars used to propagandize their military conquests and political achievements, and the places of worship they established where their subordinates declared them to be Lord. The new Jewish movement usurped these words and changed them into evangelical and church, according to Bell, and used them to describe their own places of worship where they declared Jesus Christ as their Lord. Bell’s interpretation of the meaning of these words aren’t correct. For one, the word ekklesia or ecclesia means “called out ones” and expresses the essence of the new birth which is to be called out of the corrupt world system and to be grounded in God’s Kingdom where everyone worships and obeys Jesus Christ as their Lord and King. Paul explained this spiritual principle in Colossians 1:12-14.

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Emphasis added)

The alarming thing about Rob Bell’s Nooma video is that, while he downplays the very core of Christianity by juxtaposing Christ’s death and resurrection with those of other Roman gods such as Mithras and Attis, he brings to the fore both the Roman Caesars’ and the early Christians’ efforts to make a better place of this world. Both had the same idea but the only difference is that the Roman Empire with her Caesars pledged to do it through military might, coercion and strict laws while the Christians ventured to do it through love, compassion and service. Here’s what Bell says in his video:

Now, for them [the Christians], this future restoration had nothing to do with leaving this world, it was all about the restoration, the renewing and the reclaiming of this world. And so they saw in Jesus’ resurrection the beginning of this universe-wide movement to put it all back together. Well. This, of course, brought them into direct conflict with the Roman Empire, because remember, for the Caesars, it was all about Caesar’s belief that he was making a better world through his power, through his armies and through his wealth . . . For them, this Gospel was about serving the world, especially those on the underside of the Empire. For them it was about serving, not ruling. And so they took this Empire propaganda term “gospel,” and they used it to describe this new world that Jesus and his followers were making right under the nose of the Empire, because their way, the way of Jesus, was totally opposed to the way of Rome. And so, when we read accounts of how they lived, we read that they shared their possessions, they fed the hungry and that they carried each other’s burdens. Well, it’s because the Gospel for them was a whole way of life, a whole new world, right in the midst of this one.

The Gospel according to Bell which is a very clever counterfeit of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ, revolves around the restoration of the world through acts of love, compassion and selfless sacrificial living amongst the poor, the destitute and especially those on the underside of the world. Although these humanitarian deeds should be part of every Christian’s make-up, Peter and the disciples seem to have been very careful not to place too much emphasis on it for fear that it might deter them in the preaching of the Gospel, something Bell hardly ever does according to Scripture.

Acts 6:1-4 NOW ABOUT this time, when the number of the disciples was greatly increasing, complaint was made by the Hellenists (the Greek-speaking Jews) against the [native] Hebrews because their widows were being overlooked and neglected in the daily ministration (distribution of relief). So the Twelve [apostles] convened the multitude of the disciples and said, It is not seemly or desirable or right that we should have to give up or neglect [preaching] the Word of God in order to attend to serving at tables and superintending the distribution of food. Therefore select out from among yourselves, brethren, seven men of good and attested character and repute, full of the [Holy] Spirit and wisdom, whom we may assign to look after this business and duty. But we will continue to devote ourselves steadfastly to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Negligence of the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of humanitarian deeds of love and compassion is not a service but a gross disservice to the community. In that case you may as well become a second Mother Theresa who abounded in deeds of love and compassion but sent thousands into a Christ-less eternity because she believed it was her duty, not to make the people she cared for disciples of Jesus Christ, but to make of a Hindu a better Hindu, of a Muslim a better Muslim and of a Catholic a better Catholic . . . and in doing so to make a better place of our crooked and corrupt world. Or perhaps, like Rob Bell, you may want to attend one of the Dalai Lama’s Seeds of Compassion Conferences and learn how to join hands with other religions in making a better place of our world. The incarnational spirituality doesn’t seem to care by whom or what the incarnation is done. All that matters is the restoration, the renewing and the reclaiming of this world which is nothing short of a giant resurrection rescue of this world as Rob Bell describes it. Really? Is that what Jesus taught his disciples to do — to restore this world to a new euphoric Garden of Eden where everyone may continue to live as he pleases, worship whom he pleases and to just love, love and compassionately love one another without really caring where people are going to spend eternity?

Did Jesus send his disciples out to restore all things and to renew and reclaim the world?

The word “ecclesia” as I mentioned earlier means “that which is called out,” and conveys the idea that a sent messenger heralds a stern warning to everyone to come out (separate) themselves from the world of the lost and indeed the world of Satan. In the book of Revelation this herald not only sounds a word of warning to come out of the world but also out of the Babylonian religious system (end-time church) which is going to provide a haven for every conceivable religious persuasion (Revelation 18:4). Therefore, the call of God is not to restore, renew and reclaim the world but to separate oneself from it. This of course does not mean that the present-day disciples or followers of Christ should turn a blind eye to the suffering caused by sin and the injustices in the world; it means not to compromise the Gospel of salvation for the sake of an interreligious collaboration to make a better place of our world. It is not of God. In fact, the Spirit of the Lord expressly warns that in the last days when all the religions of the world begin to work together to bring about peace through love, compassion and service, sudden destruction is going to come upon them (11 Thessalonians 5:3).

From whom or what must we reclaim the world? From Satan, the god of this world?

When Satan tried to tempt Jesus into worshipping him by offering Him all the kingdoms of the earth, He did not deny the devil’s claim that all the kingdoms of the earth belonged to him. Indeed, he is presently the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4: 4) and will not capitulate his position until He is forced to do so by Jesus Christ when He returns to set up his Kingdom of Peace for a thousand years. Only then all things will be restored (Isaiah 65; Revelation 20).

Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The Emergent Church may be of the opinion that they are restoring, renewing and reclaiming the world and that they are instrumental in the giant resurrection rescue that is allegedly underway, but they are actually succumbing to Satan’s temptation to worship him in return for the kingdoms of the earth. This is no surprise because God’s Word clearly states that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The most dangerous deceivers are those who claim to be Christians but have no qualms in asserting that there are truths in religions other than the Christian faith. E-church and e-kerk, engineered by Stephan Joubert, Dries Lombaard, Dries Cronjé and others, have openly supported Rob Bell’s claim that there is truth in other religions such as Buddhism. Some of you may query my allegation that they are succumbing to the wiles of the devil and actually bowing to his whims to grant them the kingdoms of the earth if they but worshipped him. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 10:20 “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” The worst form of fellowshipping with idolaters who sacrifice to devils is when you unashamedly allot truth to those religions while Jesus Himself said: “I AM the Truth.” He is the complete embodiment of truth and anything or anyone from whatever religious persuasion that rejects His claim as being the only truth are not in fellowship with the Triune God and neither are those “Christians” who avow that there is truth in other religions.

Are you the Gospel?

No you are NOT the Gospel. If you have the testimony of the Holy Spirit in your heart that you are a child of God, then you are merely a sheep of the Good Shepherd who has sent you out amongst ravenous wolves to preach the unadulterated Gospel of God (Matthew 10:16) so that others may be saved according to Scripture (remember Colossians 11:12-14).

Om uitverkies te wees of nie uitverkies te wees nie

Sodra die uiters moeilike onderwerp van die UITVERKIESINGSLEER ter sprake kom, is dit gebiedend noodsaaklik om dit vanuit twee lewenssfere of bestaanssfere te beskou — die een vanuit die bestaanssfeer waarin God lewe (buite tyd en ruimte) en die ander vanuit die bestaansfeer waarin die mens lewe (binne tyd en ruimte). Omdat die mens op aarde binne tyd en ruimte vasgevang is, moet die Bybel noodwendig terme gebruik wat vir die mens verstaanbaar is. Daarom word begrippe soos “voor die grondlegging van die wêreld” in die Skrif gebruik omdat dit vanuit die mens se perspektief êrens in die verlede plaasgevind het en gevolglik nie in ons onmiddellike gesigsveld sigbaar is en natuurlik ook nooit in ons onmiddellike gesigsveld kan wees nie. Alleenlik die onmiddellike hede binne die onmiddellike omvang van ons individuele lewensruimtes is vir ons sigbaar en tasbaar. Vir God wat buite tyd en ruimte lewe is daar nie so-iets soos verlede, hede en toekoms nie. Om hierdie rede kan Hy en Hy alleen sê “EK IS.” Terwyl ons alleenlik maar kan sê “ek was gister,” “ek is nou” en “ek sal more wees,” sê God deurentyd “EK IS.” Streng gesproke is dit dus verkeerd om te sê: God weet alles omdat Hy in die toekoms kan sien. Nee! God is alwetend omdat Hy ons verlede, hede en toekoms (ja! die ganse geskiedenis en toekoms van die mens) met een oogopslag alles gelyktydig sien en hoor. Daarom kon Dawid met oorweldigende verwondering en bewondering sê: “Want daar is nog geen woord op my tong nie—of U, HERE, U ken dit geheel en al” (Ps 139:4). Dit wat ek gister, verlede week, verlede jaar of miskien selfs tagtig jaar of meer gelede gesê, gedink en gedoen het, en ook in die toekoms mag sê en dink en doen, is oop en bloot voor God en Hy sien en hoor dit alles asof ek besig is om dit nou te doen. Daarom sê Paulus: “En daar is geen skepsel onsigbaar voor Hom nie, maar alles is oop en bloot voor die oë van Hom met wie ons te doen het” (Heb 4:13). Om hierdie rede is dit alleenlik die bloed van Christus wat alle dade wat ons in die verlede gedoen het, in die hede doen en nog in die toekoms sal doen en wat God as “nou-dade” sien en hoor, kan wegwas en versoen (toedek) sodat God nie meer daaraan dink nie.

In die lig van die bogenoemde is die begrip “voor die grondlegging van die wêreld” dus vir God nie iets wat Hy in sy lewenssfeer as die verlede aansien nie. Dit is en bly nog steeds vir Hom ’n “nou-gebeurtenis.” Wanneer die Bybel dus praat van “voor die grondlegging van die wêreld” word dit spesifiek gedoen om ’n moeilik verstaanbare begrip binne ons lewenssfeer van denke te bring en is ons genoop om dit vanuit ons persektief van tyd en ruimte te beskrywe en te verstaan.

Omdat God reeds voor die grondlegging van die aarde geweet het wie almal deur die geloof in sy Seun (Wie natuurlik ook in God se lewenssfeer reeds vóór die grondlegging van die wêreld gekruisig is) op sy Evangelie sou reageer, glo en tot bekering kom, het HY besluit om hulle vóór die grondlegging van die wêreld in sy Seun uit te verkies. God het dus op grond van SY onwankelbare alwetendheid besluit om hulle (almal wie se bekering, hetsy in die verlede, hede of toekoms, Hy as ’n “nou-bekering” sien en hoor) vóór die grondlegging van die wêreld in sy eie lewenssfeer in sy Seun uit te verkies. Dit beteken egter nie dat die mens in sy eie lewenssfeer nie nodig het om deur die geloof op die prediking van die Evangelie te reageer en tot bekering te kom nie. Paulus se bekering kan as voorbeeld gebruik word. Hoewel God hom reeds van die skoot van sy moeder afgesonder het (uitverkies het vir ’n spesifieke doel), moes Paulus nog steeds tot bekering kom. Hy moes nog steeds die Naam van die Here aanroep vir sy redding. Hoe kon God iemand van die skoot van sy moeder afsonder nog voordat hy tot bekering gekom het? Omdat God in sy lewenssfeer reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld geweet het dat Paulus Hom in die gebed sou aanroep om redding en deur sy geloof in die volbragte werk van Christus tot bekering sou kom. In hierdie naratief van Paulus se afsondering van die skoot van sy moeder en sy eie bekering vind ons ’n samevloei van God se lewenssfeer en dié van die mens — nl. God se wete in SY lewenssfeer van wie tot bekering sal kom en wie nie, en Paulus se bekering in DIE MENS se lewenssfeer.

Hierdie uitverkiesing beteken hoegenaamd nie dat God voor die grondlegging van die wêreld besluit het om slegs ’n sekere groepie gekose uitverkorenes soewerein en arbitrêr (monergisties) te red en die res tot die ewige hel te verdoem nie. Dit sou beteken dat die mens — wat geskape is na die beeld van God — nie ’n wil van sy eie het nie en dus nie in staat is om by die aanhoor van die Evangelie in geloof daarop te reageer en tot bekering te kom nie. Om hierdie rede maak die Calvinisme onbybelse uitsprake soos dat die mens totaal verdorwe is en nie in staat is om die Evangelie te verstaan of daarin te glo nie en daarom moet God soewerein en arbitrêr (monergisites) ingryp om slegs die uitverkorenes te wederbaar, waarna geloof dan as ’n geskenk aan hulle gegee word. Ten diepste lê hierdie beskouing ingebed in die Calvinisme se vertolking van God se alwetendheid. Die Calvinisme glo nie dat God alwetend is nie, altans nie soos die Skrif dit vir ons verklaar nie. Calvyn het gesê:

. . . maar aangesien Hy die dinge wat gaan gebeur, vooruitsien, enkel alleen omdat Hy dit vooraf verorden het om so te gebeur, is dit vrugteloos [verwaand] om oor voorafkennis te debateer terwyl dit duidelik is dat alle gebeurtenisse plaasvind op grond van sy soewereine beskikking.[1]

Gover Gunn, ’n geharde Calvinis, stel dit so:

Die idee dat God die toekoms ken sonder dat Hy dit beplan en gekontroleer het, is heeltemal vreemd aan die Skrif.[2]

In kort kom hierdie siening daarop neer dat God reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld geweet het wie gered sou word en wie nie omdat HY toé al besluit het wie HY soewerein en arbitrêr (monergisites) gaan red en wie nie. Sy soewereine beskikking van alle dinge (selfs die sonde, soos die Calviniste glo) maak Hom aldus “alwetend.” Hier sien ons weer eens dat hierdie siening die mens nie net van sy goddelike gawe om keuses te kan maak, ontneem nie maar hom inderdaad reduseer tot ’n willose “zombie” wat nie kan verstaan nie en ook nie kan glo nie.

Calviniste kyk jou maar bra skeef aan wanneer jy vir hulle sê dat God se uitverkiesing (wat Hy binne die terrein van sy lewenssfeer maak/gemaak het) gepaard gaan met die indiwidu se persoonlike verantwoordelikheid om (binne die terrein van sy lewensssfeer) die Evangelie te glo en in gehoorsaamheid aan die eise van dié Evangelie tot bekering te kom. Die rede hiervoor is omdat hulle God se lewenssfeer, en veral ook sy karaktereienskap van alwetendheid, afwentel na die vlak van die mens se lewenssfeer van tyd en ruimte. Indien alle dinge plaasvind op grond van God se soewereine beskikking en dat Hy vooruitsien, enkel alleen omdat Hy dit vooraf verorden het om so te gebeur, plaas dit Hom onmiddellik op die vlak van die mens. Wat verhoed die mens om te sê: “Ek voorspel dat ek volgende week ’n nuwe kar gaan ry” en wanneer die tyd aanbreek die kar te koop net om dan te sê: “Ek het mos vooruit gesê ek gaan ’n nuwe kar ry”? Op die terrein van die okkulte en in die besonder die sg. gawe van heldersiendheid is dit presies wat die duiwel en sy demone doen. Hulle sê byvoorbeeld d.m.v. hulle mediums dat dit of dat met ’n persoon gaan gebeur, net om alles wat hulle “voorspel” het op die bestemde tyd te laat gebeur sodat die persoon wat die mediums geraadpleeg het moet glo dat hulle die vermoë of gawe het om in die toekoms te kan sien en voorspel.

As ons werklik erns wil maak met die feit dat God (binne sy bestaanssfeer) diegene in Christus kon/kan uitverkies wat HY reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld geweet het hulle deur die prediking van die Evangelie (binne ons bestaanssfeer) en in geloofsgehoorsaamheid tot Hom sou bekeer, sal dit nie so moeilik wees om baie van die sg komplekse verse waarin die woord “uitverkiesing” voorkom, te verstaan nie. Kom ons neem as voorbeeld Mattheus 22: 14:

“Want baie is geroep, maar min uitverkies.”

Hier is dit opvallend dat die twee bestaanssfere van God en mens as’t ware harmonieus saamvloei. Die “roeping” vind plaas in ons lewenssfeer van tyd en ruimte terwyl die “uitverkiesing” reeds plaasgevind het in God se lewenssfeer waarin Hy alles as “nou-gebeurtenisse” sien en hoor. ’n Mens sou soos ’n opregte Calvinis kon argumenteer dat die oorgrote meerderheid mense wat genooi word na die huweliksmaal hulle rug daarop keer omdat hulle nie uitverkies is nie . . . of is dit nie miskien net andersom nie? Kan dit nie miskien wees dat God hulle in sy lewenssfeer (waarin Hy alles as “nou-gebeurtenisse” sien en hoor) nie uitverkies het nie omdat Hy reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld geweet het hulle sal sy uitnodiging na die huweliksmaal van die Bruid in ons lewenssfeer onder hulle voete vertrap?

Die beste kommentare verklaar dat die genooides wat na die bruilof geroep is die huis van Israel (Jode) is van wie Jesus gesê het: “Moenie gaan op pad na die heidene nie, en moenie ingaan in ‘n stad van die Samaritane nie; maar gaan liewer na die verlore skape van die huis van Israel. En gaan preek en sê: Die koninkryk van die hemele het naby gekom” (Matteus 10:5 en 6). Die eerste genooides na die bruilofsmaal was die huis van Israel aan wie die Evangelie eerste verkondig is en die mense wat op die lane en kruispaaie gevind is, die heidene. Die vraag is: Het die eerste genooides (huis van Israel) die roep na die bruilof geminag omdat hulle nie uitverkies is nie? Indien dit die waarheid sou wees beteken dit dat die Heilige Gees ’n lelike blaps begaan het in al die ander plekke in die Bybel waar Israel God se uitverkore volk genoem word. Die Here sê byvoorbeeld in Romeine 11:28 dat die Jode ter wille van die heidene nog steeds vyande van die Evanglie is maar volgens die uitverkiesing God se bemindes ter wille van die vaders is. Hoe bring ’n mens die kloutjie by die oor? Die feit dat die meeste gekies het om eerder hulle aandag te wy aan hulle plase en besighede en hulle bevoorregte posisie as eerste genooides versmaai het, toon baie duidelik dat die mens in staat is om ’n berekende wilsbesluit te maak en nie, soos die Calvinisme glo nie, geen wil van sy eie het nie. Die Calvinisme omseil hierdie tameletjie deur te sê dat die mens nie in staat is om die goeie te kies nie maar voortdurend net die slegte kan kies. Was die keuse van die heidene wat uit goeies en slegtes bestaan het en die diensknegte op die lane en kruispaaie moes gaan soek om die bruilofsmaal by te woon, ’n slegte wilsbesluit?

Die gelykenis bereik sy ontknoping wanneer daar ’n persoon (waarkynlik uit die heidendom) onder die gaste gevind word wat nie ’n bruilofskleed aangehad het nie. Hoe het hy ingekom? Skynbaar het die diensknegte hom as iemand met ’n bruilofskleed beskou omdat hy moontlik die gedaante van godsaligheid gehad het maar die krag daarvan verloën het. Niemand is gedwing om ’n bruilofskleed aan te trek nie. Daarvan getuig die persoon wat ingekom het sonder ’n bruilofskleed. Hoe dit ookal sy, dit was na aanleiding van hierdie persoon se wederegtelike toegang tot die bruilofsmaal dat die Koning gesê het: “Want baie is geroep, maar min uitverkies.” Daar sal in vergelyking met die geweldige hoeveelheid mense wat sedert die begin op aarde geleef het plus die hoeveelheid wat nog tot die einde hier op aarde sal lewe, baie min mense gered word. Die oproep of uitnodiging tot bekering word (in die mens se lewenssfeer) aan alle mense gerig maar die uitverkiesing (in God se lewenssfeer waar Hy alles as “nou-gebeurtenisse” sien en hoor) kom die meeste mense nie toe nie omdat hulle (in hulle eie lewenssfeer van tyd en ruimte) weier om hulle tot God te bekeer. In kort: God het hulle reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld nie IN CHRISTUS uitverkies nie omdat Hy toé reeds geweet het dat hulle sy Evangelie nooit sal glo nie en hulle dus nooit tot Hom sal bekeer nie. Moet ons dit toeskryf aan die Calvinistiese leer dat slegs ’n klein hoeveelheid spesiale uitverkorenes uitverkies is of dat die meeste mense nie die nou poort en die smal weg vind nie? (Matteus 7:14)

Hoe moet ons die uitverkiesing in die lig van Matteus 7:14 vertolk? Miskien moet ons eerder vra of die eerste genooides (die huis van Israel) gered kon gewees het as hulle die roeping om die bruilofsmaal by te woon nie versmaai het nie. Of miskien ook vra, as die persoon wat sonder ’n bruilofskleed betrap is tog wel vóór sy toegang tot die bruilofsmaal ’n bruilofskleed aangetrek het, ook gered kon gewees het. Dit is hipotetiese vrae wat deur baie mense gevra word en dus ’n antwoord vereis.

Uit hoofde van die feit dat die eerste genooides geroep is om die bruilofsmaal by te woon en die persoon sonder ’n bruilofskleed ook deur die uitgestuurde diensknegte (binne ons lewenssfeer) genooi is, kan mens met sekerheid aanvaar dat hulle wel almal gered kon gewees het. Ja! Natuurlik het God in sy lewenssfeer buite tyd en ruimte gesien en geweet dat hulle die uitnodiging onder hulle voete sou vertrap, maar dit beteken nie dat hulle binne ons lewenssfeer van tyd en ruimte nie tot bekering kon kom nie. Waarom sou die koning sy diensknegte uitstuur om die eerste genooides en die persoon sonder ’n bruilofskleed te roep as Hy by die ingang na die bruilof moontlik vir hulle sou sê: “Jammer mense, julle kan nie inkom nie want julle is nie uitverkies nie. My Vader het reeds voor die grondlegging van die aarde besluit om julle hel toe te stuur” Veronderstel die inwoners van Jerusalem, van wie Jesus gesê het “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, jy wat die profete doodmaak en stenig dié wat na jou gestuur is, hoe dikwels wou Ek jou kinders bymekaarmaak net soos ‘n hen haar kuikens onder die vlerke bymekaarmaak, en julle wou nie!” het tog besluit om onder SY “vlerke” skuiling te neem, net om dan deur Hom weggewys te word omdat Hy hulle nie uitverkies het nie. Dink daaraan, God het reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld geweet dat die inwoners van Jerusalem hulle nie tot Christus sou bekeer nie — omdat hulle nie wou nie (en nie soos die Calviniste glo omdat hulle nie uitverkies is nie), en tog het Jesus nog steeds die uitnodiging aan die kinders van Jerusalem (binne ons lewesnsfeer) gerig om onder sy vlerke skuiling te neem. Dit dui onomwonde daarop dat hulle almal wel deeglik tot bekering kon kom maar hulle wou nie.

Dit blyk dus baie duidelik dat slegs diegene wat ’n bruilofskleed, God se vereiste vir ’n nuwe gewederbaarde lewe, met ’n berekende wilsbesluit ontvang en aantek (d.w.s. deur die geloof in hierdie lewenssfeer tot bekering kom), in God se bestaanssfeer van tydloosheid (voor die grondlegging van hierdie wêreld) IN CHRISTUS uitverkies is. Dit pas in by wat ek vroeër gesê het, en dit is dat God se uitverkiesing (wat Hy binne SY bestaanssfeer maak/gemaak het, ’n sfeer waar alles en almal gelyktydig oop en bloot voor sy aangesig is) gepaard gaan met die indiwidu se persoonlike verantwoordelikheid om (binne sy eie bestaansfeer) die Evangelie te glo en in gehoorsaamheid aan die eise van dié Evangelie hom tot God te bekeer.

Om op te som: God, in sy bestaanssfeer, sien en hoor eensklaps en gelyktydig almal se dade, woorde en denke en weet dus vooraf wie in ons bestaanssfeer tot bekering kom en Hy kan/kon op grond daarvan elkeen van hulle in Christus uitverkies — selfs, soos ons dit volgens die Bybelse term leer ken, “voor die grondlegging van die wêreld.” Die anderkant van die munt is ewe waar. God, in sy bestaanssfeer, sien en hoor eensklaps en gelyktydig almal se dade, woorde en denke wat nie op sy uitnodiging tot bekering en saligheid reageer nie en kan/kon hulle dus NIE voor die grondllegging in Christus uitverkies nie. Hierdie uitverkiesing is NIE geskoei op die Calvinistiese siiening van die uitverkiesing nie, nl. dat God reeds voor die grondlegging van die wêreld slegs ‘n uitgesoeke klompie uitverkorenes uitverkies het tot saligheid en die res tot die ewige vuurpoel verdoem het omdat dit sy welbehae was en is.

Die onderstaande diagram is ’n poging om die twee bestaanssfere waarin God en die mens lewe te omskrywe

en na aanleiding daarvan ‘n Bybelse verklaring te voorsien van die uitverkiesingsleer

Dit is uiters tragies dat die Calviniste voortdurend sekere tekse voorhou as Skrifgeldige bewysstukke vir hulle uitverkieslingsleer sonder om die betekenis daarvan binne die konteks waarin dit voorkom in oënskou te neem. Die frase “baie is geroep, maar min uitverkies” kom twee keer in die Nuwe Testament voor (Mattheus 20:16 en 22:14). Die uitverkiesing in hoofstuk 20 vers 14 is ‘n uitverkiesing tot spesiale dienswerk en handel spesifiek oor die “Heer van die Wingerd” se prerogatief om die arbeiders te beloon soos Hy wil, ongeag die hoeveelheid ure, dae, weke of jare wat hulle in die wingerd werk. Sy beloning is nie geskoei op arbeidsintensiwiteit nie maar op sy soewereine besluit om elkeen te beloon soos Hy wil. Daarom sal hulle wat eerste was, laaste wees en die laastes sal eerste wees. Hier sien ons baie duidelik weer eens dat daar geen aanneming van die persoon by God is nie. Dit gaan dus oor die GOEDHEID van die Meester en nie om die verdienste van die arbeiders nie. God se ewige GOEDHEID is ewe voldoende en regverdig vir elke arbeider wat Hy roep om in sy wingerd te werk. In  elk geval, die arbeiders is veronderstel om in sy wingerd te werk omdat hulle Hom bo alles liefhet en dankbaar is vir sy geweldige groot verlossing en nie om te kyk wat hulle uit Hom kan kry nie. As hy sou besluit om jou iets te gee, is dit GOED en al sou Hy ook besluit om jou niks te gee nie, is dit ook GOED want HY IS GOED. Alles wat Hy doen is GOED en Hy en is jou beloning (Psalm 73:25). Kom ons keer nou terug na ons twee tekse in Matteus.

Die woord KLĒTOS (κλητός) word in albei die tekse gebruik vir “roep” en het twee betekenisse, afhangende van die konteks waarin dit gebruik word, nl.:

Om geroep of uitgenooi te word (na ‘n banketete).

1a) — uitgenooi (deur God in die verkondiging van die Evangelie) om die ewige lewe deur Christus in die Koninkryk van God te verwerf.

1b) — uitgenooi om een of ander dienswerk te verrig.

Hierdie uitnodiging (roeping) word aan alle mense gerig (Titus 2:11) maar dis nie almal wat volgens die eise van die evangelie daarop reageer nie (Matteus 7: 13, 14). Die evangeliese eise is “geloof,” (in die volmaakte en volbragte werk van Jesus Christus as jou Plaasvervanger aan die kruis) en “bekering” (‘n heelhartige ekenning en belydenis van jou sondige verlorenheid teenoor God en ‘n wegdraai van jou selfgesentreerde lewe na God) SODAT Hy jou kan red. God se uitverkiesing wat Hy voor die grondlegging van die wêreld binne sy lewenssfeer gemaak het, berus op SY vooruitwete of voorafwete van elke indiwidu se persoonlike reaksie op die uitnodiging wat die Here deur die prediking van sy evangelie (binne ons lewenssfeer) maak. HY het nie vooruit of vooraf besluit wie HY wil red en wie HY wil verdoem nie.

---

[1] Johannes Calvyn: Institute van die Christelike Godsdiens, III, 23, 6

[2] Grover E Gunn, The Doctrine of Grace, p. 13

Calvinism according to Ben

Ben wrote an interesting comment in response to my article “Only Calvin’s Elect are Lost? The Reprobates are not . . .? Can You Help Me to Solve This Riddle? that proves beyond any doubt that many people cling to Calvinism without really knowing what its all about. Dave Hunt calls them “Calvinists by default.” I have therefore decided to answer him in this special commentary in stead of just responding to him in the ordinary commentary slot.

BEN: Firstly, as far as I am aware, one of the principal rules of hermeneutics is that, since all Scripture is God-breathed, one is not to interpret any part of Scripture in such a way that it contradicts any other part of Scripture. Consequently, in view of the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that whatever God purposes will most certainly come to pass (Isaiah 46:10-11; Daniel 4:35; Proverbs 19:21; Psalm 115:3), it seems clear to me that Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 should not be interpreted to say that God actually purposed (i.e. ordained) to save ALL the wicked since the plain teaching of Scripture is that NOT ALL the wicked will, in fact, be saved.

Your commentaries, not unlike my own, are a rather protracted and it will take some doing to respond to it fairly and intelligently. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we consistently need to adhere to sound hermeneutics, since all Scripture is God-breathed. We dare not interpret certain passages in a way that may contradict other passages in Scripture. Therefore, the phrase “It is also written” should not be ignored and neither should we fail to take the particular contexts of those passages into account. Unfortunately Calvinists do not seem to hold true to the contextual rule of interpretation and very often read their own theology into the text, something which you accused me of. To begin, we first need to put the Scripture passages you mentioned in their right context.

Isaiah 46:10-11

Nowhere in the entire chapter does Isaiah in the very least suggest that God’s purposes with regard to a predestined salvation of a chosen few will come to pass. Chapters 46 and 47 describe God’s purposes to use Babylon as his instrument of judgement on the idolatrous Judah and to subsequently severely punish Babylon for abusing its power (Habakkuk 1:6-11). Babylon prided herself in her own idolatrous gods, believing that they had given them the victory over Judah, not realizing and acknowledging that they had been able to conquer Judah, God’s inheritance, ONLY because God in his sovereignly decreed purposes allowed it to happen (Isaiah 47:6). God proved his awesome uniqueness compared to the impotence of a bunch of inanimate and lifeless Babylonian gods who were unable to save them from His righteous judgments, that His counsel will stand and that no one, not even their idolatrous gods and sorcerers, would be able to save Babylon from his wrath. What were his counsels? He predicted through his prophet Isaiah Babylon’s fall to the Persians in 539 BC 150 years before the event took place, proving that He declares the end from the beginning, “and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” The crux of the matter is that God in his awesome omniscience foreknew that Judah, His inheritance, would backslide into idolatry and therefore decided (counselled) that He would use Babylon to punish her. Could his judgements have been averted? The following passage from Scripture you mentioned, Daniel 4:35, proves that it could have been averted, on one condition — through faith and repentance.

Daniel 4:35

Once again there is no indication whatsoever in this verse that God’s purpose and counsel is to save only the elect and to condemn the reprobate. It is very interesting to note that after Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which God revealed his purpose and counsel to punish the king for his pride, huge egotism and arrogance, Daniel solemnly exhorted the king to renounce his sins and repent. This undoubtedly proved the godly principle that his announcements of judgements can indeed be averted, provided the offender and sinner repented of his ways. Daniel was obviously familiar with this godly principle and therefore urged the king to bow in submission to God and repent of his sinfulness. Had Nebuchadnezzar done so, he would have averted his seven years of insanity, despite the purposes and counsel of God. Calvinists could probably argue that Nebuchadnezzar was a fine specimen of an elect person and that God had purposed and decreed that he would save him regardless of his waywardness. If man had no will of his own, was completely unable to understand the invitation to repent and the offer of salvation, and unable to believe or practice faith of his own accord, Daniel would never have exhorted the king to repent.

Proverbs 19:21

How you possibly can link this verse to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is a real mystery to me. It simply means that man may and also should plan ahead (Proverbs 16: 1 and 9) but that God may decide to sovereignly overrule his plans to accomplish his own plans. It has nothing to do with salvation or election.

Psalm 115:3

I have become rather weary of people’s audacity to quote single verses because certain words conveniently verify their own pet doctrines. Once again we need to take the whole context of this Psalm into account in order to understand the meaning of verse 21. Here, as in Isaiah 46, the Psalmist demonstrates the futility, wickedness and sinfulness of those who put their trust in idols instead of Almighty God who is sovereign and does whatever He desires. It does not mean that He desires anyone to perish in the eternal lake of fire. There are too many passages in Scripture that testify to this and, as you have already said, the principles and rules of hermeneutics demand that we do not interpret passages in such a way that it contradicts other passages.

It is obvious that you quoted all the above passages to strengthen the Calvinistic interpretation of Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 and conveniently changed the underlying meaning of “no desire or pleasure in the death of . . .” (eternal damnation) to “no desire or pleasure in the life of . . .” (eternal life). These verses distinctly say that God has no pleasure in the fact that some people are going to end up in hell. It does not say that He has no pleasure in saving all people, simply because not all the wicked are going to be saved. The fact that not all the wicked are going to be saved, does not mean that it is God’s pleasure not to save all people. Let’s follow your advice on sound hermeneutics and compare these verses with a similar one in the New Testament.

2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Simple hermeneutics prove that God has no pleasure that anyone should perish and if He desires no one to perish it simply means that He desires all men to be saved. If we were to use your interpretation of the two passages in Ezekiel we would have to render 2 Peter 3: 9 as follows: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that all should be saved, but that some should perish.

Does that hold true to your own law of sound hermeneutics? I really don’t think so. It is an irrefutable fact that most people are going to perish. The question is: Are they going to perish because God purposed (ordained) it so OR because they themselves wilfully and wickedly rejected Jesus and trod under foot His blood? I must say that I’m not impressed with your hermeneutics, but then again one can expect it from Calvinists who believe that God ordained some (the reprobate) to eternal torment in hell.

BEN: How then should these passages be interpreted? It is clear that (1) God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked but would rather that they repent and be saved and yet it is certain that (2) some of the wicked will surely not repent and be destroyed. It seems to me that there are only two ways of explaining why the wicked are not brought to repentance: (1) Either God is willing to bring the wicked to repentance but is unable to do so, or (2) God is able to bring the wicked to repentance but does not will it. Clearly, in the light of the plain testimony of Scripture that God will accomplish all his purposes and that none can stand against him (For who can resist his will? – Rom. 9:19), God is able to bring to repentance whomsoever He purposes to bring to repentance (remember King Nebuchadnezzar and the apostle Paul!). Therefore, it must be true that, (1) even though God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and truly desires that they should repent, (2) God hasn’t purposed (i.e. ordained) to bring all the wicked to repentance.

Your latter argument proves to me once again why Calvinism is a confused and confusing theology. How do you explain to a child the Gospel when circular reasoning befuddles the brain of even an adult? Imagine saying to a child “Jesus wants you to be in heaven with Him but it is not His will that you go to heaven.” You use the phrase “bring to repentance” no less than five times. I’m not too sure that it is biblical terminology. In fact, I’m quite certain it is not biblical terminology. When Jesus started his ministry He did not say “God is going to bring you to repentance because the kingdom of God is at hand.” He said “Repent ye for the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) Neither did He say, “I tell you, Nay: but, except God brings you to repentance, ye shall all likewise perish (Luke 13:3). He said: “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” The onus rests on every individual person to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved (Mark 1:15).

BEN: Does Scripture support this interpretation? I believe so. Let’s look at the Lord Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 11:20-24:

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-24)

I think we can all agree on the basis of Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 that God had no pleasure in the destruction of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom but would rather that they had repented. Yet, it is clear that had Christ done the same mighty works in the cities of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom than He had done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented and would not have been destroyed. It was therefore unmistakably in God’s power to bring these cities to repentance. Why then, if God had no pleasure in their destruction and was able bring them to repentance, didn’t He? The Lord Jesus doesn’t tell us, but whatever the reason may have been, it must have been more pleasing to God than the salvation of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom.

Circular reasoning seems to be your forte. Let me try to simplify what you are saying. Jesus had no desire to destroy the three Gentile cities because He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32; 33: 11) but had no desire to save them and therefore refrained from doing the miracles in them which He had done in the three Galilean cities with the purpose of bringing them to repentance. Therefore, his purpose to “bring the three Galilean cities to repentance” was a dismal failure while his purpose NOT to bring the three Gentile cities to repentance was a roaring success. In the one case He accomplished his purposes but not in the other where He performed his miracles. You seem to be saying that God’s miracles have the power to bring sinners to repentance and therefore deliberately refrained from performing any in certain cities because He had no desire to bring them to repentance; withhold miracles and you withhold salvation, kind of thing. The main purpose for Jesus’ miracles was to prove, particularly to the Jews, that He was their long awaited Messiah and not to save some people by performing them or deliberately keep some from salvation by not performing them. Why do you think Paul once said: “The Jews seek a sign?”

Your argument “Why then, if God had no pleasure in their destruction and was able to bring them to repentance, didn’t He? The Lord Jesus doesn’t tell us, but whatever the reason may have been, it must have been more pleasing to God than the salvation of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom” is a real humdinger. I rarely come across people who admit to the obscurity of some inexplicable things but audaciously present you with an answer they regard as the gospel truth. How on earth can you say “we do not know but we do know there is only one way of explaining what we do not know.” This is becoming ridiculous. You are actually attributing to God what the Bible never once attributes to Him and that is a so-called merciless grace. Your notion that his desire not to save or bring to repentance the three Gentile cities proves that He had a more pleasurable purpose in mind, i.e. to condemn them to eternal damnation, not only maligns God’s character but comes dangerously close to blasphemy.

BEN: With this in mind, let’s look again at what Calvin wrote:

Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children

I don’t believe Calvin meant by the phrase “he is pleased to exclude them”, that God enjoys excluding them anymore than the KJV translators meant that the Father enjoyed bruising his Son when they translated the Isaiah 53:10 to say that “it pleased the LORD to bruise him.” Had Calvin meant that, he would indeed have been contradicting God’s Word. What he meant, though, was simply that it is God’s will to exclude them (possibly a reference to Ephesians 1:9). It seems to me that though God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked per se, He does have pleasure in righteous judgement and desires, to quote the words of apostle Paul, “to show his wrath and to make known his power… in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” (Romans 9:22-23). We must remember that the greatest good is not the salvation of all men, but rather, since God himself is the ultimate good, that God should be known for who He is!

“The greatest good is not the salvation of all men but rather . . . that God should be known for who He is???” Really??? How could or would we ever have known who He really is if He had not sent His Son in the flesh to die on a cross for the entire world? Adam and Eve knew who He was; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the entire nation of Israel knew who He was; even gentiles amongst them Rahab the harlot knew who He was; all the Old Testament prophets knew who He was and yet He needed to send His Son to die on an old rugged cross to prove to us who He really was and still is. You don’t seem to realize this seeing that you do not believe that it pleased the Father to bruise Him. The greatest meeting ever to be convened in the entire cosmos was the one the Father, Son and Holly Spirit held in heaven to decide, even before the foundation of the earth, that Jesus MUST die. (“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” – Acts 2:23). God the Father was pleased to bruise Him because He delighted Himself in the consequences of His vicarious death on the cross (Isaiah 53:10). You should try to read the entire verse some time. It may just inspire you to change your mind for the better.

BEN: Secondly, regarding your comments on Luke 19:13. This passage is evidently a response to those people who grumbled against Jesus that he had gone to be a guest of a man who is a “sinner” (Luke 19:7). It’s important to note that the Lord Jesus is not here making a statement concerning election (see John 6 and 10 where He addresses the topic of election specifically), but is rather rebuking those who are self-righteous for their hypocritical judgement. Jesus also made a similar statement in Luke 05:31-32 when he told the Pharisees that only those who are sick have need of a physician and that He had come to call sinners to repentance and not the righteous. Did He thereby imply that the Pharisees were righteous and didn’t need to repent? No. He meant to show them that by claiming to be righteous they disqualified themselves from being saved. Something similar is happening in Luke 19:13.

I am very pleased to see that you, in complete variance with Calvin’s viewpoint, believe that man is quite capable of qualifying or disqualifying himself for salvation. This, of course, proves that man has a free-will which he can use freely at his own discretion and that God actually honours and respects his free-will. Your use of the word “disqualified” runs against the grain of true Calvinism because it suggests that man is capable of attributing something to his salvation and that per se maligns God’s sovereignty. Had you been a fully-fledged Calvinist (which you have already proven not to be, although some of your thoughts lean heavily toward them) you could never have said the things you have been saying in the above paragraph. Nonetheless, the question we need to ask, is: Did the Pharisees disqualify themselves from salvation because they had not been predestined unto redemption even before the foundation of the earth OR did they disqualify themselves because they refused to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ? According to the “T” in the TULIP acronym man is completely unable to understand the Gospel en therefore wholly incapable of qualifying (through faith) or disqualifying (through unbelief) himself for redemption. Moreover, Calvinists believe that man is so completely dead in sin that he cannot respond to the Gospel and therefore needs to be redeemed unilaterally of God (monergism) (without faith) before the gift of faith can be given to him.

How can you assert that John 6 and 10 address the topic of election when Jesus specifically refers to faith as a prerequisite for salvation while Calvinists’ believe that faith is only given as a gift to the elect after they had been redeemed monergistically? They take verse 29 and say: “See, faith is a work of God and not of man. God must do a work of faith in the elect before they can believe.” Nonsense! This is not what the plain meaning of the text reveals. It simply means that God requires an act of faith on the part of the sinner before He can save him. Barnes states:

This is the thing that will be acceptable to God, or which you are to do in order to be saved. Jesus did not tell them they had nothing to do, or that they were to sit down and wait, but that there was a work to perform, and that was a duty that was imperative. It was to believe on the Messiah. This is the work which sinners are to do; and doing this they will be saved, for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, #Ro 10:4.

BEN Accordingly, taking into account the context of the passage as a whole, it becomes apparent that by the term “the lost” Jesus means those (like Levi) who are aware of their lost condition and desire to come to Him in order to be saved from it and not those, who (like those who grumbled), though they are lost in a very real sense, are unwilling to admit their lost state.

You are merely repeating what I have said in my commentary. The point I was making is that, according to Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity and man’s inability to understand the Gospel, the elect are unable to understand and admit that they are lost. If the Word of God and his Law is the mirror in which a sinner may see and understand his complete lost-ness or lost status, how can the elect admit they are lost when they do not understand the Gospel (the Word of God and his Law)? Indeed, those who grumbled refused to admit that they were lost, and so too the elect cannot admit they are lost, simply because they do not understand the Gospel that tells them they are lost.

BEN: It moreover becomes apparent that indeed ONLY the elect (by virtue of regeneration) are “the lost” in the sense in which I believe the Lord Jesus uses the term in this passage. Jesus Christ will not save those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their lost state and do not desire to come to Him in order to be saved from it (that would be all of us apart from God’s grace), but only those who appreciate their desperate condition and are willing to come to Him for salvation. All those who come to Him in this way, He will most certainly never turn away!

I have noticed that Calvinists love to use the words “in the sense” very often. For instance, John Piper and his pastoral staff wrote in “TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the pastoral Staff,” on pages 16 and 17 wrote:

Christ’s death so clearly demonstrates God’s just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the Saviour of all men. But he is especially the Saviour of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense . . . The death of Christ actually saves from all evil those for whom Christ died “especially” (Emphasis added).

The elect (God’s favourites) are treated in a “special sense” because Christ did not die for all people in the “same sense.” Nonetheless He died for all men in “this sense.” What on earth is “this sense?” It sounds much like the meaningless and nonsensical expression “sort of” many English speaking people in South Africa love to use. In their vocabulary nothing is certain but everything is “sort of.” Please explain to me in what sense Jesus uses “the lost” in the passage? How many kinds of “senses” are there in the correct understanding of “lost?” Should we invent a brand new degrees of comparison for the word “lost” and happily say “lost,” “more lost,” and “most lost” to define the different meanings of “lost?” Your next statement is equally confusing: “Jesus Christ will not save those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their lost state and do not desire to come to Him in order to be saved from it (that would be all of us apart from God’s grace), but only those who appreciate their desperate condition and are willing to come to Him for salvation. All those who come to Him in this way, He will most certainly never turn away!” Of course Jesus will not and cannot save those who refuse to acknowledge their lost status and do not desire to come to Him to be saved, but in the same breath you assert that we all have no desire to come to Him apart from His grace. Here I sense (excuse the pun) something of a mixture of anti-Calvinism and Calvinism. Does that make any sense? Calvinists believe that the human emotion “to desire to seek and to do good” is wholly absent in man’s psyche. Mankind, they say, only desires and is only capable of doing evil. To come to Jesus for salvation is not only a good thing but the best thing anyone can do, BUT man has no desire to take the first step to come to Jesus, simply because He is completely dead in his trespasses and completely unable to do so, according to Calvinist thinking. John MacArthur Jr. wrote:

How can a person who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, unable to understand the things of God, and continuously filled with evil suddenly exercise saving faith> A corpse could no sooner come out of a grave and walk. (John MacArthur Jr., Saved without a doubt –MacArthur Study Series, p. 58).

What MacArthur seems to overlook is that if man is so completely dead in sin, making him completely unable to understand and believe the Gospel of his own accord, why is it necessary for Satan to blind him to the Gospel?

And yet with a slight twist of compromise you suggest that, although no one has any desire to come to Him, some actually do come to Him by an act of his grace. In what sense are you using “grace” in this particular case — the Calvinist sense of the  word or the biblical sense of the word (Titus 2:11)? The Calvinist “sense of salvation” is that no one desires to come to Him for salvation but by means of a monergistic grace He saves only the elect. The others, or reprobates as they are called, also have no desire to come to Him for salvation, but He withholds his grace from them because they are not part of the elect.  John Horsch writes:

Augustine . . . was by theological speculation led to the belief in predestination . . . [that] the whole human family is condemned through the sin of Adam, but God in his mercy selects and predestinates a number of them for eternal life. His grace is for these alone, and it is impossible that they should be lost. From the rest of mankind who are not predestinated for salvation, God withholds his grace, and will condemn them even if they should die in infancy . . . (John Horsch, History of Christianity, p. 104-105) (Emphasis added) (He is obviously a “horsch” of another colour).

What kind of grace is that? . . . and you accuse me of rejecting the doctrines of grace? What I do reject is Calvin’s doctrines of grace which contradicts God’s doctrines of grace.

BEN: Finally, I would like to remind you that even if you reject the doctrines of grace, but agree that God only elected those whom He knew in advance would believe in Him, you nevertheless cannot escape the fact that God brought into existence those whom He knew beforehand would not believe in Jesus Christ and would consequently be damned. If God brought them into existence knowing that they would reject Him, how does that not qualify as God predestining them to eternal damnation (reprobation)?

Here again you say things that are absolutely anti-Calvin that proves to me that you don’t seem to understand Calvinism. This may shock you, unless of course you agree with Calvin’s and other Calvinists’ view of God’s attribute of foreknowledge (pre-knowledge). John MacArthur writes:

God’s foreknowledge, therefore, is not a reference to His omniscient foresight but to His foreordination . . . God does indeed foresee who is going to be a believer, but the faith He foresees is the faith He Himself creates. It’s not that He merely sees what will happen in the future; rather he ordains it. The Bible clearly teaches that God sovereignly chooses people to believe in Him. (John MacArthur Jr., Saved without a doubt –MacArthur Study Series, p. 58).

In keeping with Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Palmer writes:

Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan,whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen . . . He has foreordained everything “after the counsel of His will”  (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of the typist – even sin.” (Edwin H Palmer, Foreword to The Five Points off Calvinism, p. 24-25) (Emphasis added).

RC Sproul wtrote:

“Every Bible-believing Christian must conclude at least that God in some sense desired that man would fall into sin . . . . I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin.” (R. C. Sproul, Almighty in Authority: Understanding the Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 54-55.)

Have you noticed the phrase of convenience “in some sense?” Who is the liar — R. C. Sproul or God who said:

James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

To suggest that God created sin is the worst from of blasphemy. Calvinists don’t seem to heed God’s stern warning in Isaiah 5:

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

BEN: Hope to hear from you.

Ben

S.D.G.

BEN P.S. I think it’s a logical fallacy to conclude that since (1) Jesus came to save the lost (i.e. only those who belong to the lost category) and (2) only the elect are saved that, therefore, (3) ONLY the elect are lost. While it is a valid to conclude that since (1) Jesus came to seek only the lost and (2) only the elect are saved, therefore, (3) ALL the elect are lost (i.e. belong to the lost category), it doesn’t follow that ONLY the elect are lost since it is logically possible that there are others belonging to the lost category whom Jesus did not come to save. The deduction that ONLY the elect are lost would only be valid if Jesus came to save ALL the lost, but this is not stated in the text, nor in any way implied by the context (as explained above). Your deduction that only the elect are lost, if not an error of logic, therefore represents a clear example of eisegesis (i.e. reading your theology into the text).

If your presupposition is correct that others and not ONLY the elect are lost because there are others who are in the lost category for whom Jesus did not die or come to save, then Jesus lied when He said that He came to seek and to save that which is/was lost. If everyone belongs/belonged to the category of lost, then He came with the purpose of saving them ALL and not ONLY the elect. If, as I say, you are correct then Jesus should rather have said:”For the Son of man is come to seek and to save the lost ELECT and to condemn the lost REPROBATES.” and “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world of the ELECT; but that the world OF THE elect through him might be saved and the other world of the REPROBATES through Him might be condemned.

I put it to you that Calvinism, in whatever form, shape or size, is NOT of God. It is another Gospel which preaches another Jesus and espouses another spirit. It is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a gospel that CANNOT save.