Category Archives: Paul

Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless

in-god-we-trust-art-0b6414eb76501dc7

The terms ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ mean different things to different people. In a broad sense, a libertarian is anyone who favours more freedom and less government. In a narrower sense, libertarianism is minarchism.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

The libertarianism on which I cut my teeth is libertarianism in the latter sense. It’s the libertarianism that was espoused by the now deregistered Libertarianz Party and is promoted by Objectivists such as Lindsay Perigo. In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘libertarianism’ in the minarchist sense.

Sadly, in today’s Western world we are very far from a minarchist libertopia. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Our government departments ever increase in both size and number. Our surfeit of statism won’t be gone any time soon, let alone gone by lunchtime.

In a libertarian state, all government departments—save for the military, police and courts—would be gone. There would be no public health system. There would be no state welfare. There would be no state schools. Even the roads would be privatised.

But persuading most people—who are thoroughly inculcated in statism by the very state education system that libertarians seek to dismantle—that we should roll back the state is difficult. How can libertarians possibly justify getting rid of government-run hospitals? How can libertarians possibly justify ending state education? And how can we even envisage life without state highways? Muh roads!

who_will_build_the_roads

How can we justify paring back the state to the barest minarchist minimum?

Actually, it’s the wrong question. The right question to ask is this. How can we justify even the barest minarchist minimum? How can we justify having any state at all?

There are plenty of problems with libertarianism. Underlying philosophical problems. I called attention to a couple of them here, here and here. And I’m about to present another problem. It’s a compelling argument for anarchism and against minarchism. (I’m not going to go into all the reasons why I think anarchism, rather than minarchism, looks set to win the day. For that, I suggest readers follow the arguments of anarchist thinkers such as Stephan Kinsella. See, e.g., his paper What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)

Here’s the problem. Libertarians think that taxation is theft, and that all giving, including the giving of money to the government, should be voluntary. Libertarians (of the minarchist/Randian variety) think that the (only) legitimate functions of government are providing defence and police forces and a judiciary, and that these functions should be funded voluntarily by the citizenry. But what if the citizenry don’t want to fund a minarchist state voluntarily? What then?

Here’s an excerpt from L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department to illustrate the problem.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care …

Elsewhere I presented the case for compulsory taxation. In the comments section to that post, a battle erupted between Damian Grant, a libertarian in the loose “More Freedom, Less Government” sense, and Mark Hubbard, a devout minarchist. Damian didn’t manage to better my case for compulsory taxation, but Mark didn’t score any points either. The whole thing was left hanging.

When Christian libertarians confront statists, statists just love to throw the Good Book at them! There are two Bible passages commonly mentioned.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been confronted with Jesus’s injunction to render unto Caesar. But this objection is easily demolished. To render is to give back. Jesus tells us to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give back to God what is God’s. But what do we have that is Caesar’s? What have the Romans ever done for us?

Elsewhere, of course, the Bible tells us that all things belong to God. So the objection is easily dealt with.

Seemingly more difficult to deal with is the second objection, viz., Romans 13.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)

This objection is taken so seriously by Christian libertarians that the Facebook group of the same name deals with this passage (and only this passage) specifically in its “About” section.

A very common question new members have is, “What do you think about Romans 13?” One member has shared a Facebook doc with links to the various discussions we have had:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/doc/491608790866916/

Here are two additional essays on Romans 13:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/
http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/

But, far from dooming minarchist libertarianism, Romans 13 is its salvation! For, without this crucial passage, there is nothing in the Bible or anywhere else to stop the slide into anarchism.

I’ve been looking for a Biblical justification of libertarianism ever since I heard this speech. Now I think I’ve found it. In the last place I ever thought to look.

Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless.

In the jar

10462753_10152385834254543_1964188277831426513_n

Once upon a time I was a real philosopher. I wasn’t a very good philosopher then, and I’m certainly not now, but here’s an argument for the truth of Christianity. If you fancy yourself as a philosopher, feel free to shoot my argument down in flames. But if you fancy yourself as a real philosopher, do what a real philosopher would do. Improve my argument, so that it’s as good an argument as it can possibly be. And then shoot it down in flames!

Okay, so here goes. Lately, something called the multiverse theory has become popular in atheist circles. It purports to explain why the universe we live in appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, without the universe we live in actually being fine-tuned for the existence of life. Because what best explains the fact that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for the existence of life, if it’s the only universe, is the existence of a creator God. If, however, our universe is only one of trillions upon trillions of other actual parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants, then we can find the explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe we happen to inhabit in the so-called anthropic principle. Basically, we’re here because of sheer, dumb luck and the probabilistic resources of a multiverse.

Atheist Logo

As far as I’m aware, there’s no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory, but it does at least explain why most atheists believe in pink unicorns. So there is that. Now, my argument appeals to the idea of multiple possible universes. The possible worlds heuristic has been a mainstay of academic philosophy for a very long time. Since I’ve been around, anyway. I think my argument only depends on the existence of a finite number of possible universes, and not on the existence of an infinite number of actual universes, but I’m not sure. But the question is, if there are multiple possible universes, but only one actual universe, which of the multiple possible universes is the actual universe we live in?

Well, it could be that the universe we live in is, in actual fact, contained in a tiny glass jar placed neatly on the shelf of an alien child’s room. It’s a logical possibility. The thing to note about this possibility is that it’s a possibility that our universe is contained within another universe. Thus, this possibility is a variant of what I have elsewhere called supernaturalism. Naturalism, as I define it, is the view that the world we know is a stand-alone affair. It’s not contained within anything else, or a product of anything else. It’s self-sufficient from go to whoa. It just is. Whereas, supernaturalism is the view that the world we live in—and all it contains, including us—is an artefact.

Now consider all the logically possible universes. Logically speaking, what is the likelihood that the one-and-only actual universe is a self-contained universe, as opposed to a universe contained within a greater reality? Bear in mind that the the universe inhabited by the alien child, in whose room our universe is contained in a jar on a shelf, could itself be contained in another jar on a shelf in some uber-alien child’s room. That’s right, for every possible self-contained universe, there are an infinite number of possible nested universes containing that universe. So it’s highly likely that we live in a nested universe.

God is eternal. The claim that God is eternal is often taken to mean (as I take it to mean) that God is “outside” time and space. God is outside the time and space fabric of our universe, which means that our universe is “inside” the outside reality in which God dwells. If Christianity is true, we live in a nested universe.

There are two types of possible nested universes. Those in which the creator in the containing universe has communicated with the inhabitants of the contained universe, and those in which the creator hasn’t. What would our world look like if we lived in a universe within a universe? Moreover, one in which the creator outside had communicated with us in the jar? It would look exactly like this one looks if Christianity were true. Therefore, Christianity is true.

Perhaps my argument, such as it is, is a variant of an argument that C. S. Lewis presents in Mere Christianity. According to Lewis, we should expect the unexpected.

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.

So, there it is. It’s not an argument I’m about to write up and submit to a peer-reviewed academic journal any time soon, but hey. I’m only a jar of clay.

Rulers bear the sword for a reason

blind-justice
Roman justice goddess – blindfolded with sword

Romans 13:4
For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Governments that serve God well should be agents of wrath that bring punishment on wrongdoers.

Christians should be supporting/advocating government punishment of wrongdoers. As I write this I think this doctrine is too obvious to mention and uncontentious… but I have seen that some Christians think justice has been replaced with “not judging”, forgiveness and mercy. And many people think the purpose of a justice system should be to rehabilitate and/or protect citizens.

Mercy and forgiveness have their place but these are, I believe, an individual’s prerogative – in the same way that generosity is an individuals prerogative. It is not virtuous when the state gives away people’s money against their wishes and neither is it virtuous when the state gives lenient punishments against a victim’s wishes. (Mercy, forgiveness and generosity by proxy are counterfeit virtues.)

Significant disagreements amongst Christians occur when we consider which wrongdoings should be punished. Wrongdoings can be classified as against God (e.g. worshipping other gods, disobedience), against self (e.g. drunkenness, greed, laziness, pride) or against others (e.g. murder, theft, assault).

Wrongdoings against God or self are nobody else’s business – those wrongdoings are between that person and God – as Paul said “Who am I to judge another man’s servant?”

The reason rulers bear the sword is to punish wrongdoers – specifically those who do wrongs against others.

(I thought I was finished… but I guess I’d better add that all punishments should be just i.e. they must not be disproportionate to the wrongdoing… eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, yadda yadda.)

What is real?

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (NIV)

In what sense is the world “real”? What are we asking, when we ask that question?

Anna Salamon doesn’t know. I don’t know. Perhaps Jordan Peterson knows.

I’m going to talk to you today about a different way of looking at what real is.

It’s not easy to figure out what real is because we don’t really have infinite knowledge and so we’re always making some sets of presuppositions about what’s most real.

It really matters what you assume is most real because you base the decisions that you make, that run the entire course of your life, on those assumptions, whether you recognise it or not. And if you get the assumptions wrong, or even if you leave them incomplete, you’re going to pay a big price for it.

See also The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist.

Never confuse Christ’s ‘Great Commission’ to Peter to preach, with God’s comission to St Paul… they are two separate commissions with two separate gospels.

peters com

This was actually Christ’s commission to Peter and the eleven in respect to the Kingdom gospel…. which never got past stage 1…. Jerusalem, because the great % of the Jews Rejected Peters preaching of Christ as King, just as they had rejected Christ’s own ministry.
Peters commission ended in Failure at the Stoning of Stephen, and Christ was Sanding on the Right hand of the Father ready to return and crush those whom rejected the message… exactly as was warned in all the preaching of the Early book of Acts.
Yet instead Of the second coming… Something very different and unexpected happened.
God showed Absolute Grace towards Saul and appeared unto him, and forgave him, and made him an apostle with a completely new Gospel, and sent him to preach it to the Gentiles…. while the Jews were now set aside for terrible judgement.
And this is when *our Gospel* was first preached on the Earth… God gave St Paul a new Revelation That The Cross was not simply murder… as Peter had preached on the day of Penticost… but actually a secret plan of God to atone for the sins of all humanity, and that whosoever believes in this…. will be saved…. without works… without the Law.

rt div

When you go back and look at when Christ talked about being killed… the bible clearly teaches that the disciples didn’t understand this as it did’nt fit in with their understanding that Christ would redeem Israel from Roman oppression and Rule as King.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Real reason for the Cross was hidden from them.
They did not even understand the resurrection.
This is because they had been preaching to Jews that the Old testament promises of the Messiah were to be fulfilled by Christ… that the Kingdom was at hand…. and that was ‘the good news’ to the Jews living in subjection to Rome…

dispen

Some Differences…

Peter was sent to Baptise… Paul wasn’t

“I thank God I Baptized none of you…” St Paul. 1Cor1vs 14.

…For Christ sent me not to Baptize…. 1 Cor 1 17.

Peter was sent with signs and wonders… because the Jews require a sign, Yet St Paul said that Signs and wonders would cease… because after a remnant of the Jews accepted Paul’s Gospel. God was no longer going to give them special treatment… and they would have to simply believe the Gospel when offered to them …. just the same as the gentiles.

The Jews had a special place under The Kingdom Gospel of Peter “Unto your Fathers were the Promises Given”, yet this Nationalistic Gospel was set aside and the Kingdom postponed due the the rejection of Christ Twice offered…. once before the Cross, and again after by St Peter.
Under St Paul’s New Gosple… it had nothing to do with establishing a National Kingdom, but the focus was upon *Individual Salvation* from Divine Judgement for their sins.
This New Fellowship was not a Reformed Judaism… but a completely new thing…. the fellowship of the Mystery.

to enter Chrit’s kingdom a person had to keep the Law and ‘endure unto the End’, whereas under St Pauls gospel of grace, a person is 100% saved simply by belief alone…. without works…. without the Law, and no condition of having to ‘endure unto the end’.
These and many other things distinguish the vast differences between what St Paul Preached from what Jesus and Peter Preached.

Once a persons eyes have been opened to these important distinctions they will wonder how they ever missed them for years and years of reading the Bible…. it is because Satan has succeeded in hiding the True Gospel and the so-called Orthodox churches have been corrupted and now walk in utter darkness.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
1611 King James Bible believer, Protestant, Dispensationalist, Libertarian.

Read More…. The Irony. Why I follow St Paul… Not Jesus.

Did Paul Re- Invent Jesus?

The Gospel of God’s Grace.

Dispensational Truth. 2Timothy2vs15, Ephesians 3vs1-9

“I thank God I Baptized none of you…” St Paul. 1Cor1vs 14.

The Rock of Divine Revelation.

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.

Let them eat worms

please_do_not_feed_the_birds

Behold the fowls of the air beneficiaries of welfare: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father welfare State feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? (KJV)

Now, if I meant to sound particularly harsh, I’d add that

if any would not work, neither should he eat. (KJV)

But that was the instruction of the Apostle Paul to his brothers and sisters in Christ in the church of the Thessalonians. Whereas, the bread of life himself explicitly instructed us to give food to the hungry and also remarked that the poor we will always have with us. So, no excuses!

What about welfare state? The welfare state is the biggest excuse around for not giving food to the hungry! “It’s not my job, I pay my taxes, no one starves in New Zealand, we have government welfare handouts to which everyone is entitled in times of need …” No doubt, you’ve heard it all before.

Real Christian charitable giving has nothing to do with paying taxes to fund a welfare state. In his post on Real voluntary private Charity vs the evils of welfare and Political force my co-blogger Tim makes this point exceptionally well. I have little to add.

libertarian-jesus

But I will say this much. It seems to me that the Bible implicitly instructs us not to fund the welfare state. Jesus famously told us to “render to Caesar [i.e., unto the government] the things that are Caesar’s.” (KJV) Does that mean that, to follow our Lord’s instruction, we should gladly pay our taxes? No, not at all! ‘Render’ means to give back. Give back to the government that which already belongs to the government. But what is that which already belongs to the government? Your hard-earned dollars? No, I don’t think so. I think your hard-earned dollars belong to you. And you must not give them under compulsion.

The Apostle Paul wrote

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (ESV)

We are to give generously, not grudgingly. Any gift of ours is to be given

as a willing gift, not as an exaction. (ESV)

Furthermore, the Apostle Peter wrote

I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (ESV)

We are to look after the sheeple not under compulsion, but willingly. And we are not to domineer over those in our charge. This brings me to a further and final point.

We are not to exact. Instead, we are to act. As examples.

Do not treat the poor and needy like trained circus seals! Do not seek to make welfare beneficiaries jump through hoops. Freely scatter your gifts to the poor! Dignity for dignity. (NIV)

Don’t be a Carol Gaither!

700

As Biblical as Easter. Russell Crowe’s Noah Movie.

Russell Crowe as Noah

I went to see the Noah movie last night.
I was not expecting it to be an accurate portrayal of the Biblical Noah, and was fully prepared for Hollywood licence…. why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Thus I have been sceptical of the bleating s from Christian commentators…. so I did’t bother to read them… and was determined to make up my own mind…. hoping to find something positive… ie that perhaps it may at least get people thinking about the Book of Genesis.

I like Big Budget movies with Special effects.
I think the real Russell Crowe is a Plonker… yet he’s good at his trade and usually enjoyable to watch… yet his portrayal of Noah was disturbing… unpleasant.

I can appreciate that it was a necessary for the script for Crowe to portray Noah as absolutely single minded in his convictions that God intended to absolutely destroy Humanity… though this was a massive departure from what The Bible says… and as a consequence Crowe’s Noah comes across as absolutely heartless…. a religious Fanatic… and this is a great dis-service to the Biblical Noah whom preached to the world about the coming flood… only to be mocked and jeered at.
The Movie makes out Noah flatly refused anyone’s plea to enter the salvation of the Ark… which is Tantamount to Christ refusing to save sinners…. The Genesis Ark being a Type of God’s mercy and Salvation in Christ.

I will mitigate this criticism in that the Magnitude of the situation did call for Steel resolve and monumental… unwavering Faith in the justness of God’s judgement.
Crow’s Noah was that… and later in the movie Mrs Noah articulates the weight that Noah had Borne …esp being a Caring and Humane Man.

cares

The movie Noah heartlessly leaves Ham’s Girlfriend to be crushed to death, just so they could stitch in another unpleasant and Anti-biblical construct… That in the post Deluvian world Ham and Japheth would take wives of their nieces.
No Doubt the producers relished this ‘innovation’ as it is patently designed to make audiences recoil at the idea that the Bible contains incest… re- procreation from the Children of Adam and Eve.

I will mitigate this critisism only for the shear fact that to believe the Book of Genesis is a literal historical account, it is necessary to accept that Adam and Eve’s children *did* pro-create together.
Yet there was no Law against it in that age, nor was there the same level of De-generation as is the case today… People lived 1000 years back then.

I do think that this part of the plot does evidence the producers desire to use this movie to discredit the Bible… not to enhance Faith… yet would you expect anything less from Hollywood these days?
It would be silly to go to a movie like this and yet feel you had been defrauded of your money.
Rabid Non-Christians like Ricard Dawkins would enjoy seeing Christians squirming in their seats!

Considering myself a more open mined, tolerant, and freer thinker than the average Christian I was hoping to find more virtue in this movie… they really did contrive things to such an extent that regretfully I must say that the bleetings of Evangelicals like Ray Comfort are not without substance.

One virtue which cannot be denied is that this movie is stimulating conversation on a very important subject… and no doubt some people will turn to Christ as a result.

Others may loose their faith…

Half way through the movie now, another interesting yet thoroughly contrary part of the plot was that the Fallen Angels of Genesis 6 had become ‘Watchers’…. Stoney Giants who contrary to the scriptures were benevolent beings who despite having to contend with the violence of humanity, still longed to be restored to communion with the Creator, and decided to help Noah build the Ark and protect it from being over-run by the Evil hordes.
They acted like the 300!
Brave warriors willing to face overwhelming odds to protect Noah’s family and the Ark.
The Highlight of the movie for me was when these Watchers began to be overpowered that they realised that God Almighty was merciful towards them and that upon death they were to be restored to Heaven!
Sitting alone amongst the crowd I was moved to silently shed a tear or two.
Heroic self-sacrifice and the hope of God’s mercy are themes which strike deep in my heart….. even though this part of the movie was an absolute fabrication.

I dont think it is necessary to dwell on the contrived storyline that Crowe’s Noah was determined to kill his own grandchildren…. a truly despicable portrayal… attempting to stitch in events of Abraham and Isaac… That Men of Faith are capable of the most inhumane atrocities.
It matters not that Isaac was spared… as were the grand daughters in this tale…. Hollywood’s purpose was served.
It was portrayed that Noah had to defy God, to save the innocent.
A Test?
Did Noah Fail?
No… not according to Emma Watson who played Shem’s wife.
Noah chose mercy and love… over blind obedience.
Maybe…. Ultimately… in the end Hollywood’s Noah learned the greatest Religious lesson of all.
A Straw man argument as far as the Book of Genesis is concerned.

Noah16

Some positive yet grim aspects of the movie was that the Ark looked believably constructed.
They caused the Animals to drop into a Hibernation via the use of drugs…. a common speculation as to the logistics of how 8 people were able to tend to so many beasts…. not to mention inter-species conflicts.
They attempted to portray the depravity of The Godless… the justification for God’s Judgement.
I do not think the movie overstated the horror of the flood itself… it’s probably not possible to do that!… and so It was good to visualise the sort of terrible fate that consumed the lost… even if it makes some folk question the Love of God.

noah-movie-ray-winstone

Ray Winstone’s portrayal of the Pride of Rebellious Humanity was awesome.
The seed of Cain…. ‘Why wont God commune with me?’
Hell bent, He determined to Dominate the world be shear lawless brutality… to spite God.
To kill was the mark of manhood.

Tubal Cain

Ultimately I think This Movie is what you would expect from people who dont believe the flood ever happened… don’t believe the Book of Genesis is anything more than fables… and so there can be no real harm done by bastardising the story.
Indeed the infidel no doubt considers the fact that this movie will work to discourage faith in the scriptures as it’s greatest virtue.

methusela
Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah.

I will Finnish my commentary simply by saying that I myself believe the Book of Genesis is Literal history… and that the flood did occur.
It is a well establish artefact of historic tradition… almost universally attested to… even if it is unpleasant to consider such all consuming Divine judgement.
Reality and truth are Objective… not determined by our sentiments, and i am appalled by modern liberal Christians whom attempt to sidestep the uncomfortable truths written in the Bible by simply pretending that they are myths… no flood… no massacres… no hell… etc.

ester

The Story of the Flood is absolutely relevant today… and it is Ironic that I am writing these words on Easter Saturday… a festival which has dubiously … via the tides of history come to be associated with the Death Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ… events which St Paul preached were God’s Grace in action.
The sinless Christ… the Scape Goat… took on the sins of Humanity and was Judged by God… the wages of sin being Death…. he was Crucified.
Yet after 3 days in the grave he rose victorious over sin and death… God via St Paul’s preaching the Good news that whosoever believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again the third day… calling upon the Name of the Lord… they shall be Saved from the coming judgement of God!
Christ is our Ark.

God’s judgement is again drawing near upon a corrupt and violent Mankind.
To pretend that God does not judge is a great lie… a terrible delusion.
The Story of Noah is a warning to be heeded…
Ignore it at your peril.
People surrounded by evil are looking for salvation…. they need to hear the Gospel of Gods Grace… Come to the Ark!
There is salvation in Christ!
God is not Heartless… yet he will judge the wickedness of humanity.
He has provided a way of salvation via faith.
He has given you the choice.
The power is in your own hands.

noahsnake

There is a terrible time approaching under the Anti-Christ, and God’s judgement will again be upon Humanity as he pours out his wrath upon a world which has rejected Christ.

So my friends Will you put your trust in the Word of God or in the vain imaginations of the infidel?

Tim Wikiriwhi
Protestant Christian, King James Bible believer, Dispensationalist, Libertarian

See FaceBook Page ‘Noah Movie Australia’ >>>Here<<< Jesus warns.... Matt 24vs21-5, 37-38 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before." "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." 2 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV) 3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. ****************************** Read more.... Noah’s Ark given the seaworthy seal of approval by physicists. NZ Herald

The Gospel of God’s Grace.

Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.

A High Calling.

Christ’s work of Salvation on the Cross… The Great Equaliser.

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

Do you believe you have the Perfect Word of God? Theism vs Humanistic Rationalism. Seeing The Light! My Testimony.

The hope which is In Christ. Terrible grief shall be turned into great joy!

The Rock of Divine Revelation.

Jimi vs Jesus.

Car Crash.

Soulmate Delusion

love quote

Soulmates?

God gave us free will. We’re free to choose right or wrong. Love is a choice! There is no such thing as divine energy holding two people together, that simply is not love. Love would be meaningless if it was not an ACTION of our free will, but pre-programmed to love someone. It just doesn’t make any sense.

We can fall off a bike, fall off a chair, fall in the toilet, but we cannot fall in love. We choose to love. Falling in any context, is not choosing.

This brings me to the purist definition of love you will ever find.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=535774786541473