The Chronicles of Narnia vs. The Lord of the Rings

Do you know what the difference between C. S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Naria and J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is?

The difference between The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia is this:

In The Lord of the Rings, there are many heroes. In The Chronicles of Narnia, everyone fails, consistently, and then Aslan shows up.

That is what biblical Christianity is: We are justified and saved from our sins, regenerated and born again from above, growing in grace and sanctification to become holy and more like Christ Jesus, yet we will fail again and again UNTIL Jesus returns.

If Jesus Walked the Streets of America

by Unknown

"The one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked." (1 John 2:6)

Today's professing church has strayed so far from the Jesus of the Bible that they wouldn't even recognize Him if He walked the streets of America today. Worse, most of them don't really care how Jesus walked; they want to live like unbelievers yet make claims to heaven, too.

If Jesus walked the streets of America today, He wouldn’t qualify for a job interview as a "Pastor" because He wouldn’t have a college degree. If He opened His mouth to speak the Word of God to the pastors of the churches, He would be considered arrogant for having the audacity to think He knows better than the college graduates who lead the church.

As in biblical times, He would be dressed according to the standards of the culture in which He lives, so he would be dressed like an ordinary poor American church-goer—nothing special about Him. If He wore a long white robe, He would be considered a freak, a Muslim, or another religious cult leader. He would be poor because He would be fed by God and the few people who would invite Him to dine with them. He wouldn’t have any money or own any possessions so He would be considered an unemployed transient.

His miracles would be considered demonic magic tricks like the Pharisees thought when He walked the Earth, since an unschooled, unemployed, poverty-stricken transient is not considered knowledgeable or an upstanding citizen by the American church. So He would be labeled an impostor and possibly arrested for fraud. If He rebuked the churches who claim that He supports homosexuality, He would be labeled a judgmental bigot filled with hatred and anger.

He wouldn’t be a home-owner because His home is in heaven, not on Earth. He wouldn’t be interested in sports either, since living for fun and pleasure would not be His mission. Neither would He be a cheerleader and hire a rock band to attract followers who need to be entertained, nor would He sing songs or “cut an album” to gain followers. In fact, if He tried to speak during a church service, He would be escorted out by security for interrupting the sermon, since today’s churches don’t follow the instructions on worship in 1 Corinthians 14:26-34.

If He used a whip to scatter people at the back of the church for selling CD’s, books, and other items for profit, He would be arrested for assault and given a psychiatric evaluation. He would be diagnosed as clinically depressed with delusions of grandeur, since He would be “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53), which is considered a mental illness in today’s world and in the church.

He wouldn’t climb the corporate ladder like many American church-goers, so He wouldn’t be elected to an elder board because He wouldn’t be rich, athletic, employed, an entertainer, a college graduate or live like the American church or the people of the world. He couldn’t be a church leader because He would be considered an unschooled, unemployed, poor, mentally ill, non-athletic, non-conformist with no resume.

He and His followers wouldn’t celebrate the 4th of July or any other patriotic holiday either, nor would they run for political office or join the U.S. Military because their citizenship is in Heaven, not on Earth (Phil. 3:20). Their weapons are spiritual, not worldly (2 Cor. 10:3-4; Eph. 6:12), so they wouldn’t be loyal to any one country on Earth. In fact, He and His followers would be locked up in prison or a psychiatric ward because people would be terrified of their power, not knowing where it came from.

In essence, Jesus and His followers would be just as rejected and hated by Americans who profess faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as they were when they walked the Earth.

That’s how far the American church has strayed from the Jesus of the Bible. So the OT is just as relevant today as it has always been. The OT prophets were describing the apostate church today just as they described apostate Israel in the OT.

But Jesus would be much more easily recognized and accepted in third world countries who haven’t conformed to the greed and patterns of the world like the American church has. So it isn’t the people overseas who need missionaries the most — it’s America!

"The prophet is a fool, the inspired man is demented, because of the grossness of your iniquity, and because your hostility is so great." (Hosea 9:7)

Congregation Closest to the Bible

"Don't look for the [congregation] nearest to your house. Look for the [congregation] closest to the Bible." —Paul Washer

That is correct. A congregation alive is worth the drive. Look for the congregation that is closest to what is taught in the pages of God's holy Word. In other words, look for a congregation that meets these non-negotiable, irreducible, bare minimum requirements that determine whether a congregation is biblical or not:

• New Testament congregations met once a week on the first day of the week (Sunday; which for Jews began immediately after sundown on Saturday evening) to partake of the Lord's Supper.

• New Testament congregations assembled in houses (Acts 2:2, 46; 5:42; 16:40; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 1:2 [and if you would like to eisegete it, you can include Matt. 18:20 here]). Temple courts, such as Solomon's Porch, as public gathering spaces, were used for mass gatherings for teaching, evangelism, prayer, etc. They were used for multi-congregational gatherings.

"The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament." Dr. Colin J. Hemer, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.58.

• New Testament congregations were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory in their corporate worship and sharing for the spiritual well-being of everyone present. No one was to control the proceedings and lead from the front. The format for how they were to function is outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31. The key to a healthy Body is that each part function properly according to its design.

"Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part... [this] changed from being 'a corporate action of the whole church' into 'a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.'" Dr. Henry R. Sefton, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.151.

"In the earliest days... their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all... There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.402.

"The very essence of church organization and Christian life and worship... was simplicity... Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion." A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.22-23.

• New Testament congregations ate the Lord's Supper as a full meal as part of their proceedings, which was commonly referred to as a "love feast" (Acts 2:46-47; 1 Cor. 11:17-24; Jude 1:12 [possibly even 2 Pet. 2:13]).
  

"In the early day the Lord's Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.594.

"Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death... the Lord's Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord's Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord's Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony." Dr. John Drane, The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p.173.

"[1 Corinthians 11]... reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food." Canon Leon Morris, Commentary on 1 Corinthians for the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p.158.

"[The Lord's Supper]... was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday." I. Howard Marshall, Christian Beliefs, p.80.

• New Testament congregations were extended family units; living organisms—not institutions/organizations/corporations, and they practiced non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous male leadership (not controlling, subjugating, dominating) that had arisen from within the congregation they would subsequently shepherd. Eldership was understood to be purely functional and not positional (as a title or an office). Decision making was consensual and collective, made by the whole company of believers and not simply the “officials.”

"It was Paul's practice to appoint several elders (the same thing as bishops) to take charge of each church." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.620.

"The churches were living organisms rather than organizations... When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simply the officials." Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p.741.

"When we come to consider the permanent officers of the Church we find that in the days of the Apostles elders and deacons were appointed and their duties defined. The office of elder is variously described in the New Testament as bishop, pastor, teacher, preacher, minister and steward. The various terms mentioned referred to the same officer, but each presented a different aspect of their work. Thus 'pastor' indicated their duty to 'shepherd the flock' of Christ. Bishop, a word used to translate the Greek 'episkopos,' indicated that was 'overseers' they had to 'feed the Church of God' (Acts 20). That the 'presbuteros' and 'episkopos' (elder and bishop) were the same is shown by many facts... Furthermore, the qualifications for bishop and elder were the same. Scarcely any scholar today would dispute the words of the late Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and an undoubted authority: 'It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same Officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop, and elder or presbyter.'"" A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.20-21.

"Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit's direct guidance it was controlled by an hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church 'membership' at all... But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different. Now the key to membership of the Church was not found in inspiration by the Spirit, but in acceptance of ecclesiastical dogma and discipline. And to make sure that all new members had a good grasp of what that meant, baptism itself was no longer the spontaneous expression of faith in Jesus as it had originally been. Now it was the culmination of a more or less extended period of formal instruction and teaching about the Christian faith. And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organized ecclesiastical machinery." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.397.

"It is important to realize that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit it was important for the mainstream church to have it's own clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church's leaders to claim -- even if it may have been true -- that they, rather than their opponents, were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that, and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period, supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognized authority in the church must be succeeding to the position held by the apostles. They were the Apostle's successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an apostolic succession." Ibid, 403.

The Damnable Heresy of David J. Stewart

According to David J. Stewart, of the heretical www.jesus-is-savior.com fame, all you need in order to be saved is faith in Jesus. You do not need to repent, or to cease from your sinful lifestyle, or to give up worldly living. David believes that ceasing from your sins is "works salvation." Clearly David has not paid very close attention to the words of Jesus or that of His apostles. He erroneously thinks and believes that all you have to do is have faith in Jesus and you will be saved, even if you continue living like the Devil for the rest of your life. Sorry, David, but that is a false gospel. Maybe you should try reading 1 John 3:4-10.

David protests too much, which reveals that he has personal sin in his life that he has not yet dealt with. Rather than deal with it, as Romans 8:13 commands him, he is attempting to make excuses for it and justify it with false teachings by twisting the Scriptures. How many times did Jesus tell people to, "Go, and sin no more"? Perhaps David would like to read James 2:14-26. Faith in and of itself, by itself, all alone, is useless, worthless, in vain, and dead. What kind of "works" is James talking about here, David? What kind of "work" did Abraham perform when he offered Isaac up as a sacrifice? It is clearly not the Law, because the Law would not exist for about another 400 years. It is clearly not talking about good deeds, which we were created for and are a result of salvation. How would offering your own son as a sacrifice be a "good deed"? These kinds of works go hand-in-hand with faith in order to perfect and complete it. They are inseparable from faith.

David says, "Carefully notice in Mark 1:15 that Jesus didn't say 'repent and turn from your sins.' No, Jesus clearly stated, 'repent and believe in the Gospel.'" David, you are aware that the word "repent" means to turn from your sins and turn to God, right? It requires doing an about-face, a 180° turn. Even the Merriam-Webster definition states, "to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life." Your argument is ridiculous and nonsensical. How do you not know what the word "repent" means after all these years?

Furthermore, if Jesus is not Lord of your life, then He is not Saviour of your life. It is that simple. He cannot be one without being the other. The two concepts are interrelated. Hence why He is called the "Lord Jesus." Jesus will not save those whom He cannot control; whom He is not Lord over. You cannot accept Him as your Saviour but reject Him as your Lord. That is complete and utter nonsense. Only someone in rebellion would attempt such a ridiculous argument.

David suffers from a lot of anger and hatred, and mountains-full of false teachings and heretical beliefs. He has unrepented sin in his life that is affecting his judgment and clouding his discernment and understanding. So many of his writings are laughable, like that of his KJV-Onlyism. David has no godly discernment. Whatever he reads, regardless who claims it, he believes.

David believes that Demas and Simon the magician were born-again believers. Sorry, David, but you might want to try reading God's Word a little more carefully. Demas forsook Paul because he was in love with this world. What does 1 John 2:15 say? "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." How about 1 John 2:19? "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Clearly David's beliefs contradict that of the Bible.

David J. Stewart's damnable heresy says that you can be saved without ever changing anything about your life. He does not understand the Gospel. As John Owen has said, "Obedient faith is that which saves." If you do not believe me, simply read John 3:36: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him." David's writings are extremely dangerous.

The Debate That Will Never Take Place

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xoP236TuvVev/

Such a debate will never take place because they are not interested in the actual science. I will reiterate Richard Feynman's quote:

SCIENCE:
If you're not making mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you're not correcting those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong.
If you can't accept that you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.

Public Health Reports - CDC Document from January 10, 1919

Can A Virus Cause Disease? - 6 minute video

You Can't Catch A Virus - 11 minute video (Tom Barnett)

Virology Debunks Corona - 2 minute video; Excellent Presentation

ZERO Evidence That COVID Fulfills Koch's 4 Germ Theory Postulates - 1 minute video (Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Sayer Ji)

The Deception of Virology & Vaccines | Why Coronavirus Is Not Contagious - Article 

About Viruses and It's Not What You Think It Is - 7 minute video (Amanda Vollmer)

Debunking the Germ Theory - 11 minute video

Quotes Refuting Germ Theory - 10 minute video

The Only Way To Get A Virus Is To Be Injected With It - 34 minute video (Aajonus Vonderplanitz)

The Infectious Myth - 58 minute video (Andrew Kaufman w/ host David Crowe)

Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The "Viral Fraud" - Article 

The Measles Myth - 14 minute video (Dr. Sam Bailey)