"We see, in many a land, the proudest dynasties and tyrannies still crushing, with their mountain weight, every free motion of the Consciences and hearts of men. We see, on the other hand, the truest heroism for the right and the greatest devotion to the Truth in hearts that God has touched. We have a work to do, as great as our forefathers and, perhaps, far greater. The enemies of Truth are more numerous and subtle than ever and the needs of the Church are greater than at any preceding time. If we are not debtors to the present, then men were never debtors to their age and their time. Brethren, we are debtors to the hour in which we live. Oh, that we might stamp it with Truth and that God might help us to impress upon its wings some proof that it has not flown by neglected and unheeded." -- C.H. Spurgeon . . . "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31, 32 . . . . .


Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 27, 2013


~ By James Fire

We now pick up where we left off in part Three of this article; as we began to examine the first four ‘harbingers’ and their accompanying ‘seals’ we saw that Jonathan Cahn presented some aspects of truth and true accounts – but then learned the full story from David James on those facts that Cahn left out, which altered the entire picture and leads us to entirely different conclusions than where the author of The Harbinger would have us believe.

The same goes for the rest of these ‘harbingers’ as we will now see as David James offers more details regarding these so-called signs.


~ Fact concerning Israel: Israel would use the quarried and dressed stones to rebuild, rather than clay bricks, which had been used to build the original structures.

~ Claim concerning America: A quarried Adirondack stone would be the cornerstone of the new World Trade Center tower

According to Mr. James, the Freedom Tower’s design never intended on using stone in its construction any more than the original towers were built of bricks. A cornerstone was quarried from the granite of the Adirondack mountains and set in place at Ground Zero (July 4, 2004), a few stories below street level for the foundation of the new WTC building but when the plans changed it was given back, sitting unused. Then in 2009 the Freedom Stone was rededicated and relocated to a memorial garden in Hauppauge, New York (about 50 miles from Ground Zero).

Thus the prophecy of using stone to rebuild the Tower was never even close to being fulfilled in any way, and this invalidates this ‘harbinger’.

Mr. Cahn is undeterred however; speaking through the characters of Kaplan and the Prophet, he claims that the laying down of the Freedom Stone was a fulfillment of a prophetic sign, and that it’s removal was a part of the judgment from God. That just as the stones of ancient Israel were demolished and destroyed as God’s hand moved against that nation in righteous Judgment, so likewise the Freedom Stone.
However, how are we to know this and verify this aside from Mr. Cahn telling us so?

David James also points out validly:

”Another problem is the idea of the Freedom Stone being a ‘Gazit Stone’. Except for its first mention, the ‘Gazit Stone’ is always capitalized in the book” (Mr. James quotes a paragraph in which this phrase is used five times) and because it is always so, the every day reader would assume that this is a special stone that was laid down when Israel began her rebellious building project.

There is no such thing as a “Gazit Stone” in any special sense; “gazit” is a generic Hebrew term that refers to “quarried” or “cut stone” (Strong’s Lexicon of Hebrew words for "gazit").

The Freedom stone on the other hand was a specific construction for the specific foundation of the Freedom Tower. Mr. Cahn attempts to use the general in reference for the specific, which in this case is fallacious.

David James states further: “They didn’t build with the Gazit Stone; they merely built with gazit – it was simply building material.” In all eleven instances in which the word “gazit” appears in the Old Testament it merely refers to cut stone, building material; except in perhaps a couple places, it deals with all of the building stones, collectively – never a single, ceremonial stone of any special significance.

“The supposed parallel” says James, “is a manufactured one. It is simply not a harbinger.”


~ Fact Concerning Israel: Many or most of the fig-mullberry trees (sycamores) were cut down by the Assyrians as part of their assault on Israel.

~ Claim concerning America: A lone American sycamore stood in the courtyard of St. Paul’s Chapel in the shadow of the World Trade Center and was knocked down as a result of the collapse of the buildings and flying debree

“This is yet another forced parallel that does not withstand closer examination.
First, the sycamore (fig-mullberry) of ancient Israel and the American sycamore are two completely different trees that are unrelated in any way. They are not the same species (Ficus syomorus versus Plantanus occidentalis). They are not the same genus (Ficus versus Plantanus) and not even in the same family (Moraceae versus Platanaceae.).

Mr. Cahn attempts to link an association between these two very different species of trees on a linguistic basis; but as the old expression goes “a rose is still a rose by any other name”. One cannot draw association between species, genus or family based on similar linguistic terms; any connection between relations of any life form (certainly including trees) must be according to their biological designation.
The word for ‘sycamore’ in English could be attributed to those trees growing in Israel as well as the United States (though the tree in Israel was fruit bearing, shaqam), but in the Hebrew language these trees had different names because they were different sorts of trees!

David James makes the following comparison:
"The following example from English to Hungarian illustrates the fundamental flaw in the author’s linguistic argument. In Hungarian, the word kocsi can mean either automobile or wagon (horse drawn), but they cannot be used interchangeably in English. Even if one were to install an engine to power a horse drawn wagon in order to make it auto-mobile, it would still not be an automobile.
"Yet this is precisely the type of mistake that Cahn makes in The Harbinger."
Another point that David James makes addresses the intentions of the Assyrians and the attackers of 9-11. In the former instance, the sycamore trees were intentionally cut down (perhaps to make siege engines) or destroyed as specific targets as a means of ruination of the land.
In the latter instance however, the single American sycamore at St. Paul’s church was destroyed but not intentionally so; it was an accident, incidental, collateral damage – and it had no impact on the nation.


~ Fact concerning Israel: Israel declared they would plant with cedars of Lebanon to replace sycamores in defiance of the Assyrians who cut them down and in defiance of God who had sent them to judge the nation.

~ Claim concerning America: A Norway spruce was planted at Ground Zero to replace the sycamore as an act of defiance just as did ancient Israel

In expressing his conviction that the trees that were cut down in ancient Israel strikes a prophetic parallel to the tree that was downed at Ground Zero on 9-11 and utilizes scientific information to confirm that conviction. As David James says, “[His] scientific argument … appears to be straightforward on the surface. However, the complexity has been obscured by a few well placed ‘broad brush strokes’.”

Despite any comparisons and supposed connections between the sycamores of Israel (the fig-mulberry) and the American sycamore, there isn’t any. They aren’t even in the same botanical family, as Mr. James points out.

Even in his use of the Erez tree, his usage and the way that the Bible uses this word are different – and yet, he equates the one with the other, when in fact his evidence contradicts the biblical evidence.
Mr Cahn attempts to persuade the reader that the spruce that replaced the sycamore at Ground Zero exactly matched the cedars in Isaiah 9:10 (“A particular kind of cone-bearing evergreen” says the Prophet in the story), which according to The Harbinger, this match is due to the fact that cedar and spruce trees are both part of the same broad category. He appeals to the Hebrew erez as meaning ‘cedar’ in English versions of the Bible, which according to the commentaries he cites, “is most likely a generic word for pine family”.

His characters in the story relate the information regarding these two types of trees in the following exchange:

[The PROPHET] “The Erez tree would fall under the botanical classification of panacea.”

[KAPLAN] “Pinacea. And what does pinacea refer to specifically?”

[The PROPHET] “The cedars, the spruce, the pine and the fir.”

[KAPLAN] “So the most accurate identification of the Hebrew word erez would be pinacea tree.”

[The PROPHET] “Yes. The most botanically precise translation of the vow would be, ‘But we will plant panacea trees in their place.”

So one is left to wonder – is the spruce equitable to the erez because it’s a specific kind? Or only because it refers to a broad category of tree. The word erez is not used in the Bible in this manner:

The spruce tree at Ground Zero is not parallel to the cedars of ancient Israel:

David James summarizes his findings here:
1. In Isaiah 9:10 “cedars is the translation of the plural of the Hebrew word erez (erezim).
2. Erez is used in sixty nine verses of the Old Testament and is always translated as “cedar”    in twenty different English translations and revisions. Consensus by Hebrew scholars        states that erez is always “cedar”.
“That raises the next question: ‘What type of cedar tree did the biblical writers mean when they used erez?’ Were they just cedars in general or a specific type of cedar?”
1. Twenty three of the sixty nine verses identify erez as the cedar of Lebanon because the word Lebanon is either in the verse or the nearby context.
2. Twenty seven of the remaining forty six verses connect erez to construction and buildings, mostly the temple and royal palaces, where only cedars of Lebanon were used. Three of the uses are figurative but are still part of a building metaphor.
3. Seven of the remaining nineteen verses connect erez with religious activity; five with purification, one with sacrifice, and one with making an idol (Some have suggested that the juniper may be in view in Leviticus, but it is never translated that way).
4. In six of the remaining twelve verses, erez is used figuratively. But in each case, the cedar of Lebanon must be in view. It depicts the glory of Israel’s camp in the wilderness, describes the tail of the behemoth in Job, and refers to the majestic cedars. Only Psalm 148: 9 might refer to cedars in general, but the only cedar found in the region of ancient Israel is the cedar of Lebanon.
5. In the last six verses, the trees are planted erez trees. This includes Isaiah 9:10, where it seems clear that specifically cedars of Lebanon will be planted – but not pine trees in general.
6. The Bible does refer to other conifers but never as erez. Other words are translated as fir, cypress and pine, but never as cedar.
7. Erez occurs in some verses with other Pinacea trees, but each refers to a different type of tree, showing that erez cannot be a generic word for a broad category. 
For example:

ISAIAH 41:19
I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together:

Cedar = erez (a pinacea)
Cypress = berosh (perhaps better: fir – a pinacea)
Pine = tidhar (perhaps Aleppo pine – a pinacea)
Box tree = teashshur (evergreen, but perhaps not a panacea).

The tree mentioned by Mr. Cahn is a specific kind and this erez tree according to biblical evidence (both in linguistics and grammatical application) is exclusively the cedar of Lebanon.

David James comments:

“There is no amazing biblical coincidence between the cedar of Isaiah 9:10 and the Norway spruce at Ground Zero (as the author would have the reader believe). There is no match. There is no parallel. And there is no harbinger.”

The association that Cahn seeks to bring between the biblical sycamore and the Norway spruce is based on what’s known as taxonomic classification (the hierarch of classification based on seven levels of all life forms):

The kingdom > phyla > class > order > family > genus > species.

This system of classification however is based on evolutionary theory and any given specimen in at any of these seven levels can be re-classified over time; it is a highly subjective method of organization and scientists don’t always agree where life forms should and are categorized. David James illustrates this by the following quote –

“The taxonomic tree above tells us that humans and armadillos are related, but not closely. We share the same class, but belong to different orders.”

Yet the Bible states that each creature of God’s making is “after its own kind”. Thus humans are not related to armadillos in any way. See 1 COR 15:39; GEN 1:11.

Therefore we can conclude on biblical grounds that Norway spruce trees produce after their own kind and that kind of tree that is a cedar of Lebanon produces after their own kind.
It is interesting to note however, that even if one adheres to the taxonomic classification system, the cedar of Lebanon belongs to the Pinacea family, in the Cedrus genus, of the Cedrus libani species.
The Norway spruce is of the Pinacea family also, but of the Picea genus and the species of Picea abies. Two totally different kinds of tree that are not at all related on the genus and species level.

“Since The Harbinger purports to convey biblical truth,” David James says, “it seems very misguided to rely on an unbiblical theory of origins and development of life on earth to establish fulfilled prophecy. This is not to suggest that Cahn supports or believes in evolution. And it’s unlikely that he realizes the full implications of his argument. Nonetheless, he should be held accountable for each of the arguments he uses to support his theories.”

Again, if one only examines the biblical text of Isaiah 9:10 and understands the history of the Assyrian attack on Israel, the parallel to the events of 9-11 is non-existent. There was one tree in front of a chapel that was destroyed via collateral damage, a merely incidental occurrence. The event that took place in ancient Israel was a decimation of vast forested areas in which these fig-mulberry trees (sycamores) that was both intentional and broad in its execution.

The replacing of these sycamores with cedars was an act of Israel in defiance to the Assyrian attack, but even more relevantly defiance against God and the judgment He had brought upon His people. However, the Tree of Hope that was planted at Ground Zero was not in defiance at all against God – there is no corroboration in any records any where that can suggest such a thing, other than on Mr. Cahn’s say so:

[KAPLAN] “They replaced the fallen Sycamore with the Erez Tree!”

[The PROPHET] “The sign of a nation’s false hope and defiance before God.”

[KAPLAN] “Who was behind the decision to do that?” I asked.

[The PROPHET] “No one,” he answered, “No one in the sense of any one person making it all happen or trying to fulfill prophecy.”

[KAPLAN] “No one had any idea what they were doing?”

[The PROPHET] “No one.”

Two years after 9-11 the dedication ceremony at St. Paul’s Chapel shared the same attitude at was the original ceremony at the planting of the Norway spruce. In 2002 National Geographic published an article by a minister at the church in which he described his experiences during that year:

“More than 5,000 people used their special gifts to transform St. Paul’s into a place of rest and refuge. Musicians, clergy, podiatrists, lawyers, soccer moms, and folks of every imaginable type poured coffee, swept floors, took out the trash, and served more than half a million meals. Emerging at St. Paul’s was a dynamic I think of as a reciprocity of gratitude, a circle of thanksgiving – in which volunteers and rescue and recovery workers tried to outdo each other with acts of kindness and love, leaving both the giver and receiver changed. This circle of gratitude was infectious and I hope it continues to spread. In fact, I hope it turns into an epidemic.”

While the theological beliefs and statements made at St. Paul’s on a regular basis or even such that were declared revolving around the event of 9-11 may certainly be called into question, the motives and intentions of both the Tree of Hope and prayers and statements made were in no way in defiance of God, but rather an expression of hope towards God.

Mr. Cahn attempts to link prophetic relevance between the Scripture of Isaiah 9:10 with the planting of the Tree of Hope, suggesting (via his characters in the story) that it would be reasonable to plant another sycamore in place of the original, but the fact that it was “replaced with a tree of an entirely different nature” was a required fulfillment of prophecy; there is no such match, nor a harbinger fulfilled.


~ Fact Concerning Israel: Words of defiant pride and arrogance were uttered by Israel after the Assyrian invasion as prophesied in Isaiah 9: 9-10.

~ Claim Concerning America: When America’s leaders in Washington, D.C. repeat the words of Isaiah 9:10, they are proclaiming a vow that officially pronounces God’s judgment against the United States

“This does not appear to be simply part of the fictional storyline, but rather a connection that Cahn affirms time and again throughout the book. The evidence continues to mount that he believes that in some way Isaiah 9:10 was not only to Israel but was also to, about, and for the United States. Cahn uses the idea that ‘Somehow Isaiah 9:10 has to be connected to Washington, D.C. to set up his theory concerning the eighth harbinger.”
~ David James.

John Edwards (vice presidential candidate at the time) at the Congressional Black Caucus Prayer Breakfast said the following words, which according to Cahn, Mr. Edwards was expressing (unknowingly…?) defiant words that paralleled the defiance of Israel in their reaction to the Assyrian invasion (for a complete reading of this speech made by John Edwards, go here).

The following are excerpts from this speech:

“Good morning. Today, on this day of remembrance and mourning, we have the Lord’s word to get us through. ‘The bricks have fallen, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place’.”

“Today, a town gathers in front of their church. It is a town where so many—53—were taken before their time. For a week after that September day, the Lord's doors were open. The Lord's doors were open for that hour of loneliness just before dawn…”

“They will lay a wreath. They will pray onward soldier you answered your calling here but your work is not done in the Lord's house. And they will pray for those whose wounds have not healed—the burns that cause them great pain every time they reach out to hold their wife's hand until the stars rise and the night falls on this day in September.”

“At this hour and all day long, strangers will follow the Lord's wish. In memory and in the hope that goodwill and grace will always triumph out of tragedy, they will give…”

“At this breakfast, our prayers will be heard and answered for those who still need comfort…”
“Thank you and God bless you, the families and friends who mourn, and our great United States of America.”

There is no indication by these or any words spoken in this speech that even hints at defiance towards God for what was done; rather the reverse – it was a message of comfort, reassurance, and hope (even if it was a false hope proclaimed by unbelievers). Yet Jonathan Cahn through the character of Kaplan says this:

“It wasn’t about the motive or the intention of the one doing it, but the fact that it was done . . . that it happened. It happened because it had to happen. It was another replaying of the ancient mystery. What the speaker intended to say was irrelevant. The words came out because those were the words that had to be spoken. The vow had to be proclaimed; the word of the ancient leaders over the ancient calamity had to be proclaimed by an American leader over 9-11. And by doing so, the two nations, the ancient and the modern, were bound together. The utterance would join the Assyrian invasion to 9-11 and America’s post 9-11 defiance to Israel’s defiance in the face of God’s judgment.”

Cahn believes that Jonathan Edwards was openly defying God but at the same time . . . didn’t realize it (?). He makes such an assumption of Tom Daschle and his comments; that their words conveyed a meaning altogether different than the actual words that were spoken, even though the speakers themselves had no idea why they really were saying them (?).

“… in spite of Edward’s clear intentions, God caused [him] to unknowingly pronounce judgment on America,” observed David James of Cahn's assertion.

Not only did God cause these people who quoted Isaiah 9:10 in their speeches to say what they said, but Cahn even goes so far as to say that God caused Tom Daschle to prophesy judgment against America – something not even the leaders of ancient Israel did in their genuine defiance against the LORD.

Further, Cahn asserts that a biblical “vow” – Hebrew: neder [noun form], and nadar [verb form] (the word “vow” is used 100 times, according to David James in The Harbinger) was uttered by the leaders of ancient Israel, and that this same type of vow was likewise proclaimed by leaders here in America; neither happens to be the case because a biblical vow involves the declaration of a promise or an intent either directly to God (GEN 28:20; 31:13), or to another person with God as a (indirect) witness (PSALM 119:105-106).

All such “utterances” therefore are not by any means to be associated with what the leadership of ancient Israel said – neither were vows before God or indirectly to God as a witness to a vow made to another. David James comments:

“Just as before, Cahn reads his theories and conclusions into multiple events in order to connect dots that are not there and then presents them as undeniable facts. Consequently, just as is true of the previous harbingers, the eighth harbinger is only one of the author’s own making. It does not exist…”


~ Fact Concerning Israel: Isaiah 9:10 as a whole was a prophecy; a word from God through the prophet Isaiah, concerning what would befall Israel.

~ Claim Concerning America: By quoting Isaiah’s prophecy against Israel, America’s leaders were likewise prophesying judgment against the United States in the wake of 9-11

This prophecy of Isaiah is claimed by Mr. Cahn to have also been proclaimed by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in his speech made on 9-12-2001 (the day after the attack) as he ended the speech with a quote of Isaiah 9:10, but this is not the case. In the book and also in the dvd production of the book, some editing had been done that left off Tom Daschle’s last statements. By ending the speech with his paraphrase of the prophecy in Isaiah, it would seem more conclusive that his words match those spoken by Israel long ago.

Unlike Israel however, Mr. Daschle’s words were not spoken in defiance but as a means of comfort (as with Jonathan Edwards), because what he said was:

“The people of America will stand together because the people of America have always stood together, and those of us who are privileged to serve this great nation will stand with you. God bless the people of America.”

Mr. Cahn claims through the voice of his characters that Daschle made a vow, and that vow “[became] part of a prophetic revelation given to the nation as a whole, an indictment of its rebellion, a foretelling of its future, a warning of its judgment. The Ninth Harbinger: the Prophecy.”

Cahn asserts that Daschle unwittingly and blindly was pronouncing judgment, upon a nation under judgment – playing his part in a prophetic mystery’ claiming that the words of the ancient vow (ISAIAH 9:10) were “now officially joined to America and 9-11. And just as Isaiah’s recording of the vow transformed it into a matter of national record and a prophetic word for all the people, so now the same words were officially recorded in the Annals of Congress as a matter of national record.”

Cahn claims that not just prophets can prophesy, but that others who were inspired of God to record the Word in Scripture also conveyed God’s message to people. “Others can speak under inspiration,” says Cahn; he cites as an example, the high priest in his discussion with some of the Sanhedrin (JOHN 11:49-51). The one problem with this is that this was in fact the high priest (as corrupt as he was) of Israel, and Daschle is not – he doesn’t even represent his nation as a spiritual leader of any kind: he’s a politician.

Add to this, the proclamation of God’s Word with inspired and revelatory messages is done with; there are no more inspired words of God than what has already been recorded in Scripture and we could not find any even if we scoured the entire world, obviously not at the mouth of a United States Senator on Capital Hill! Daschle is not a prophet, he is not a priest, and he cannot claim to have had a revelation from God in any sense of inspiration as a declarative ‘word of God’.

Assuming for a moment that Daschle’s words were a revelatory message from God, how would Cahn know that they were unless it was revealed to him by God? We know that the words spoken by the high priest Caiaphas were, but only because the Word of God said so! We have no such assurance from the pages of Scripture the same is the case with this American politician – only Cahn’s word for it and that is not nearly enough.

David James lists these six reasons why Cahn’s assertions re: ‘revelatory statements under inspiration’ cannot be applied to any one in America (or anywhere else for that matter):

1) Israel was a theocracy, America is not; Israel was under a covenant relationship with the LORD and America is not.

2) As with any true theocracy, the political and religious realms were inseparably linked; such a linkage is precluded here in America due to the Constitution.

3) God used Caiaphas by virtue of his position as high priest, a representative of the people before God. America’s leaders are not spiritual leaders and represent the people before government, not God.

4) This situation with Caiaphas appears to be unique with no previous incidences or any following. This makes it impossible to be utilized to establish a pattern of the way that God works.

5) The true meaning of Caiaphas’s words did not contradict what he intended to, or actually did say. They simply carried more significance than he or those around him realized. Cahn asserts that Daschle’s words meant the exact opposite of what both he intended and what he actually did say.

6) Allegorical interpretation is a hermeneutical approach that disconnects the real meaning of a passage from what the words of the text actually say. The problem is that there is no objective measure by which we can weigh such words to ascertain how to interpret such words, nor to discern if such an interpretation is correct.

In Cahn’s book, there are two sections and we have completed a review of the first. In the second half of The Harbinger, after having laid a foundation (chapters 1 – 13) of interpretations and arguments to support his assertions involving these nine harbingers of coming judgment, Cahn speaks of something called, “The Second Shaking” – God’s final warning to America before judgment actually falls.

He also speaks of something called “The Isaiah 9:10 Effect” but neither of these are founded on credible exposition and hermeneutical treatment from the Holy Scriptures of truth. To learn about these other aspects, we here at TTUF would strongly urge you to get a copy of The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction by David James.

For a synopsis of each chapter, David James has written the following for The BEREAN CALL. Here is a link to purchase your own copy of The HARBINGER: Fact Or Fiction by David James.


We understand that the LORD GOD of ISRAEL is a HOLY and JUST GOD and because of His holy integrity as the JUDGE of the whole Earth, He cannot refrain from this obligation of judgment upon any and all sin.

As stated previously, a cursory view of the Psalms will reveal that our God is a God of justice (“judgment” in the KJV; see for examples, PSALM 7:8; 9:19; 96:10) and as I am fond of saying, particularly in light of increasing and offensive injustices in this world, “There is no such thing as eternal injustice.”

The LORD Jesus Christ Himself, though He is Savior and the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) has also been committed by the Father to be the Judge of the whole world; when He comes visibly to the world for every eye to see (Rev. 1:7) , He will mete out judgment upon all that have rejected His Gospel.

JOHN 5:22-23
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

We believe that America, like the rest of the world is under judgment by a Holy God that will be measured out at the appointed time (which is in God’s hands alone) but not because we have broken covenant with the LORD (there is no such covenant which the LORD established with any other nation except Israel, a statement replete in this series!) but because we have sinned against the LORD and His Law and rejected the New Covenant according to His Gospel which He has graciously extended to all peoples everywhere for the salvation of their souls. 

I believe that to whom much is given, much is required (LUKE 12:48) and since America has been inundated with the Gospel and the Bible, we have been given much in the way of spiritual opportunity – and will receive the greater judgment therefore, having rejected (even mocked and derided!) such preciously Divine treasures!

This is why it is imperative that we bring the Gospel to the lost on an individual basis for the salvation of each and every soul that will place their faith in the LORD Jesus Christ; we are not about ‘the salvation of cultures’ – they have no souls nor were they intended to be redeemed by the Person of Christ; these are only sanctified when a number of people have come to salvation and function properly as salt and light in any such culture.

We may not be able to stay the hand of God in His righteous judgment, nor would we want to – but we can bring souls to the foot of the Cross and there proclaim their sins may be forgiven them by the shed blood of the Lamb, and at that Cross, they may see their own sin judged by God – and forgiven and washed away!

We must also be aware of the growing movements towards Christian Nationalism, a sort of spin-off of Dominion Theology, where the church supposedly is commanded to “take back” our nation and restore it to its biblical roots (i.e., our supposed covenant with God as established by our Founding Fathers or Pilgrims of Plymouth?). Any movement that suggests anything other than simply preaching the Gospel for the salvation of souls and discipleship of the saints, who are saved by the blood of the Lamb, in the Word of God, must be scrutinized for such unbiblical ideas as “restoring America to her biblical covenant with God”.

One last thought on the heart of God that I’ve always thought upon:

God drags His feet when it comes to judgment; but sprints to deliver His grace and mercy.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think that what you posted was very logical.
However, consider this, suppose you composed a catchier post title?
I ain't suggesting your information isn't solid, however suppose you added something that grabbed a person's attention?

I mean "The HARBINGER - HOAX or HISTORY? Part Four" is kinda vanilla.

You could glance at Yahoo's home page and see how they create article headlines to get people interested.

You might try adding a video or a picture or two to grab people
interested about what you've got to say. Just my opinion, it could make your website a little bit more interesting.

Look into my site :: google ads plus advertising