Arnold Kennedy

WHEN, AS A NEW CHRISTIAN, I heard a Pastor praying that a person might be given wisdom and balance, I had no real understanding he might have meant by “balance”. At that time I thought he was talking only in terms of human behaviour. I had some understanding about physical balance, balanced states of physical equilibrium, about gymnasts needing good balance, of what happens when credits and debits get out of balance, of balance in equations, and even of idioms such as “plans hanging in the balance”, but any thought about balance referring to doctrine escaped me completely. It was a long time before any application of balance to doctrine came to me. This was because I had not been taught about it.

To explain what I mean by “balance”, I will jump ahead to a popular church position held today, and that is to the idea that common experience is more important than doctrine. This may be within a singular church, or between different groups. This position has been strengthened in the popular search for church unity, and also in the inter-faith movement, where the idea is presented that people who have similar experiences of “God” are one in their worship, regardless of doctrinal position. In short, experience and unity are understood to be more important than doctrine. For instance, Protestants and Roman Catholics who experience similar charismatic “second blessings” are supposed to have some mystical unity, (which incidentally, is promoted as being a tool for ecumenism with Rome). Likewise, the New Age, together with most evangelicals, claim a mystical experience of “new birth’ whereby entrance is made by means of a heightened state or stage of consciousness, encouraged by some emotional message.

INTRODUCTION

IT SEEMS THAT the entire Israel-Identity movement is corrupted in the UK, the traditional identity view held by most British Israelites being supplemented by the following beliefs:–

(a) That the Bible had a definite plan for the “restoration of all earthly things to the perfections of the Garden of Eden”.

(b) That all mankind came from Adam.

(c) That the blessing God made by covenant to Abraham, is also available to believers in Jesus Christ from all other races.

(d) That Israel’s purpose is “to save the world”.

These views can be seen to be contradictory because the all over effect is that ultimately there is no difference between Abraham’s seed and the seed of all other peoples, in regard to God’s blessing. It is not proposed to consider points (a) and (b) here in any detail, or to discuss the universal reconciliation that belief (a) infers. We are not considering any doctrines such as the USA-Zion concept, and that is a separate issue. The latter two points are what we will look at in more detail.

IF EVER THERE WAS A NEED to put aside pre-conceived ideas and teachings, there is great need to do so in the present use of the expression “born again”. There is a common conception and presentation throughout the Christian world is an absolutely false and misleading error. The basis of the expression is found in the book of John.

John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto ye except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IS BORROWING MONEY AT INTEREST-(Heb. Daneizo), not other forms of ‘borrowing’, i.e. Heb Sha’al. Lending without interest is commended, but usury is denied.

Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

The principle against borrowing at interest is established under the law, and is expressed clearly in the following two verses.

Deuteronomy 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but THOU SHALT NOT BORROW; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

Deuteronomy 28:12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and THOU SHALT NOT BORROW.

BELOW IS AN EXCERPT ON THIS SUBJECT, FROM A BIBLE COMMENTARY, which excerpt is typical of most other commentaries. It embodies the traditional doctrine that most churches teach about the Commandments of God as being now set aside. . A typical commentary comment is, “In the NT, however, such provisions for identifying ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals were understood to have been set aside with the coming of Jesus (Mark 7:19; see also Acts 10:10-16)”. At least they are honest enough to say, “were understood” which shows they are not sure. If the argument was sure as is taught, it contains basic flaws, even if at first glance it appears to be reasonable, or even appears to be right.

WHEN WE EXAMINE verses such as, “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut. 7:6), they establish the exclusive nature of Israel as being a holy (set apart) race among all the other races of this globe. Because these verses are so precise, we can see that there is a racial message that conflicts with the common belief about “Jews and Gentiles”.

The common teaching is that “The Jews” are Israel and the “Gentiles” are everyone else. The two views are against each other; one cannot be held together with the other. This is being examined and it will be seen that “The Jews” cannot equate to all Israel and that some “Gentiles” may be Israelites in Scripture. That is, the all-inclusive all-race message is not that of the Potter in Romans 9 who says in verse 18, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth”. In the next verse Paul says, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest [contradicts] against God?” On this basis those who hold the “Jews and Gentiles” doctrine are contradicting God Himself.

WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING IS WHETHER OR NOT MOST SO-CALLED “CHRISTIAN” CHURCHES ARE DAUGHTERS OF THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (ROME). This concept is not new, but we will take a different approach.

Our approach is from that of Matt 13:33, “Another parable spake he unto them; “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took. If this leavened doctrine has now spread through all denominational churches, is any action demanded from those who are members of any of these churches?

“Meal” is a symbol of God’s provision of His Word as something that cannot be used up if a prophet of God is involved. We see this in 1 Kings 17:14, “For thus saith the Lord, the barrel of meal shall not waste”, where a widow was fed “according to the word of the Lord by Elijah”. The meal was continually being renewed. In 2 Kings 4:40, meal was used by Elijah to destroy deadly poison in a pot of food. We find more about three measures of barley meal in Genesis 18:6 and Rev. 6:6.

WITHOUT REALIZING IT, MOST CHURCHES TODAY HAVE FALLEN TO THE WAYS OF HUMANISM, and biblically the humanistic mind is in a sharp adversary state against the ways of God. There can be no excuse for the modern position of the churches because we are told, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things. And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things” -(Romans 2:1-2).

Churches may speak against humanism when they are actually practicing humanism themselves. One of the prime features of humanism is universalism, and universalism in one form or another is the popular church teaching today. This is not at all new and we have to be aware that we can easily become adversaries to God by going along with the humanist position. The Bible does not teach universalism, even if the churches try justify themselves by misusing verses to promote their position, they are wrong in doing so.

IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE DEMOLITION, THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING. The most common question is, “Why did God allow it”? Very few are acknowledging any possibility that God did it, because if they did, they would be going against the popular flow. We will make some examination into the verse below that literally says, “God did it”.

Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these”.

In this short verse, there are several different verbs translated as, “form”, “create”, “make” and “do”. These are all in what language experts call the “participle active mood”. A definition of this mood is as follows, “The participle represents an action or condition in its unbroken continuity, and corresponds to the English verb, “to be” with the present participle. It may be used of present, past or future time”. From the use of these verbs, together with the associated nouns, we can see that these facts never change. What God does in a given situation never changes.

WHEN TALKING TO A LOCAL WAIHEKE IDENTITY IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, I was asked, “Arnold, I hope those articles you write in ‘The Waihekean’ are tongue and cheek”. “Well”, I replied, “they are designed to make people think but they are not all tongue in cheek”. This produced a reply on the value of racial mixing and the equality of all races together with an alleged lack of meaningful genetic differences between them. In reply I pointed out two things. Firstly a November article in the N.Z. Herald “Genes Carry Indelible Imprint Of Social Rank” where research showed there are distinctive genetic profiles between the Hindu castes in India.

Secondly I pointed out the matter of race-specific diseases and how racial intermarriage could cause offspring to be liable to a greater range of diseases. This was not received; it seemed as if he was saying that science offended his religion, although I do not think he would class himself as being a religious person. Perhaps he was confusing values with facts, values being a religious non-scientific activity. But what he probably had in mind were matters of worth in the good sense that people in one restricted gene pool should not be treated differently than another, and this made him blind to biological differences, even if everyone who thinks about it knows visible features such as eye shape are because of biological differences.

What bothers me is the attitude of some people who will not believe something regardless of the evidence, and this is what I want to talk about. In the Western world values are considered matters of personal choice and things we should keep an open mind about. But values cannot rightly over-ride facts, and those who promote the idea that values should over-ride facts arrogantly seek to impose their beliefs upon others in a religious manner. People today tend to place facts within the scope of science whereas they say beliefs belong to the realm of religion. A person who will not accept scientific fact is essentially religious.

IS TRUTH JUST A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION? Isn’t one person’s view of ethics just as valid as another person’s? Are not all views, in essence, the same? And does the whole issue of truth and ethics really matter? Does it make any difference? Can the honest seeker of truth decide without accurate data? In our consideration of ethics — the moral evaluation of what is right and what is wrong — we will need to overcome some common misconceptions people hold in this arena of ethical determination.

1) Misconception: ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE

Personal opinion doesn’t determine reality. For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it’s flat, but I’m still wrong! Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet in response to this claim I must ask, “Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?” It is humorous to note that the rejection statement — “There are no absolutes.” — is, in fact, an absolute!

Is the statement “All truth is relative,” true? No, it’s impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!

Some examples of self-refuting propositions would include, “I’m a truthful liar”; “I’m an honest thief”; “I’m a compassionate killer”. All of these statements are false since they are internally contradictory and therefore self-defeating!

THE MEANING OF THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ HAS BECOME SO DISTORTED IN TODAY’S SOCIETY that it is difficult to comprehend what liberty actually means. Everyone wants his ‘rights’ but few seem to realise that rights [i.e. liberties] are defined by God’s law. Consider the sign displayed outside a pornography shop in the U.S.A. “Please do not harass the picketers. It is their Constitutional right to picket, just as it is our right to do business”.

The pornographers are hiding behind a man-made law while loudly proclaiming that what they’re doing is perfectly legal. It’s a sad fact to note that most of the modem church agrees with them! As long as these public sinners stay ‘out there,’ outside the four walls of the church, it is supposedly their right to do whatever they please, and we who publicly oppose them are infringing upon their rights.

But, why are we opposed to pornography? Why cannot we live side by side with the pornographers in peace? Because there will be no peace where there is pornography! Pornography is a proven prelude to rape, murder, and child abuse; more importantly, it is a sin forbidden by God. Because it is sin, if society continues to tolerate – and encourage – this abhorrence, society will be judged, resulting in a restriction on liberties for all. Any attempt to achieve freedom apart from God’s Law will result in loss of true freedom, bondage to sin, and consequent judgement from Heaven.

Great stress is placed by preachers upon the words, “all”, “every” and “whosoever” in verses such as, “Go ye into all the world”, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” and so on. These present a false application of Scripture simply because such words and phrases are wrongly used. This misuse of these words has to be considered.

This false application contradicts Jesus’ statement and instruction to His disciples:

Matt. 15:24, “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, and

Matt. 10:6 “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”

Because of this contradiction we need to find out why this appears to be so, and why the popular interpretation about going to all races contradicts this statement and this command of Jesus

ALTHOUGH THE BIBLE IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN THIS PAPER, there are quotations given in support from various Jewish Encyclopaedia as well as from the Roman historian Josephus. Modern Jewry should find no offence at direct quotations from their own written encyclopaedia.

Modern Jewry is able to talk about being the singular ancient people chosen by God, about being Edom and also about being multi-racial at the same time. Christians and non-Christians have been mislead into thinking that the word “Jews” refers to a singular race of people being God’s chosen people, but in fact, this is not so.

The “Jews” returning to the State of Israel today are multi-racial and we could hardly admit that a Chinese Jew and a Negro Jew are of the same race, in the historic meaning of the word ‘race’.

As Pastor Larry so aptly put it, Does it matter more WHAT we believe or WHY we believe it? I believe a true virtue of a modern Christian would be to first Tolerate and then evaluate someone else’s belief system before passing judgement if you pass judgement at all. For as I found out in my first exposure to this message, I was the one in error.

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

For about forty years I went faithfully to church and tried to regularly read the Word of God every day. My beliefs were rather orthodox, that is, they were based upon the notes in the Schoefield Bible. What I did not then realise was that everything I read in the Bible was conditioned by these notes, and I now see how these have come to be traditional but wrong beliefs. Today I feel ashamed at the quality of my reading in that period, but that was largely due to how the notes had pre-conditioned me to believe something that was not valid.

To many people, Paul seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth, especially in relation to “law and “grace”. The two verses immediately below appear to be totally contradictory, at first glance, and from each view flows two different streams of doctrine.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

But then Paul also says:

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are justified before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

In both verses “justified” is the same Greek word dikaioo which means, “to show, “to exhibit”. In the first verse we have the active present tense “are justified” whereas in the second verse we have the passive future tense, “shall be justified”. In all the “grace” and “faith” verses, tense cannot be overlooked if we want understanding. Also, we need to understand what “Law” means.

Acts, 17:26 is a verse which some people like to use to support the idea that there is no difference between races. KJV: “And hath made of one blood al nations of men to dwell on al the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.

Three immediate points need to be made:—

ONE In the majority of Bible manuscript texts, the word “blood” is not there. A look at most parallel Bibles, will give some confirmation of this.

TWO. his verse is an excellent demonstration of how people can try to use one part of a verse to prove their point, but at the same time ignore the rest of the verse which flatly contradicts what they are trying to say. The second part of the verse is stating that God made “boundaries” where differing peoples/races were ordained of God to live separated from one another. People cannot have it both ways.

THREE: The strange and very unusual thing about this verse is that it contains four words in Greek forms [not English words] that do not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, and this gives rise to doubts about the whole verse. Some say that the verse does not seem to be original because of this these words are:–

The traditional view held that the parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven are about the Kingdom of Heaven coming to progressively fill the whole earth is herein contested.

Matt. 13:31-33 “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Another parable spake he unto them; the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened”.

In the parable of the Mustard Seed, it is a “field” in which a man “took and sowed” the mustard seed, it is NOT the whole earth. In the Parable of the Leaven, the leaven is taken and hidden likewise only in the three measures of meal, it is NOT hidden in everything else. The “field” is that of the Israelites, and the meal is what they are given for food.

IN GENESIS CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO WE HAVE ‘ADAM MENTIONED IN THE MASORETIC TEXT, BUT NOT IN THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT OF GENESIS ONE. Scholars may not agree but early translators, including the KJV, indicate plural in Genesis chapter one and chapter 5:2, but singular in chapter two. Even ignoring this, we have a man and a woman (‘them”) being created (bara ‘) in Gen.1 before the ‘Adam (singular) who was formed (yatsar) in Gen.2. “Created” and “formed” have differing meanings. We cannot remain honest if we try to say that “created’ = bara ‘ is the same as “formed” = yatsar. (The same goes for plasso and ktizo in the New Testament).

From the sequence alone there is no way Genesis 2 could be a re-run of Genesis 1. On a weight of evidence basis, there is more to say that Adam (as we use the word) was the first spiritual man, but not the first biological man. In other words, God took one man from Genesis 1 and breathed into him the breath of life. “And man became a living soul”-(Genesis 2:7). The word “became” is consistently used in a manner showing the subject became something that it had not been before. Eve was the “mother of al living” with God’s breath, not of the others. This indicates that there are those with the Spirit, and those “having not the Spirit”-(Jude v19). The latter is the “natural man” who “cannot receive the things of God”-(1 Cor.2:14), but he may become very religious.

THE TERRITORY OF THE MOABITES WAS ORIGINALLY East and Northeast of the Dead Sea, extending from the River Arnon on the South to the River Jabbok on the North, and from the Dead Sea and Jordan River on the West across the plains and foothills into the mountains to the East. Also included were the “plains of Moab” which were across the Jordan River on the West Bank “towards Jericho”. Deut. 32:49, 34:1 and Josh.3:16 all say part of Moab was “against Jericho”, and this is confirmed by:

Num. 26:63 “These are they that were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho”.

Now what is important here is that Jericho is on the West bank of Jordan, and thus this part of “the plains of Moab” are also West of Jordan, according to the verses given above. The story of Ruth does not involve anything about the extermination of Moabites (by race) in certain areas East of Jordan, such as is found during Israel’s advance towards their Jordan crossing.

The story of Ruth is placed at about 1322 BC. Before this in about 1406 BC we read:

Judges 3:28 And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man. So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years”.

.

EARLY IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, THE CONVERT IS TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT “The Church”. The word ekklesia may be used, and it may be correctly spoken of as that which is called out. So far, so good, but then the problem begins. Called out of what? The usual explanation given is called out of the world. Fair enough, but what is the meaning of the world? The chapter entitled, Which World Did God “So Love”? was written to show that there are different “worlds” in Scripture, not just the one world supposedly consisting of everyone of every race who is not converted.

Then we looked at “adoption” to show who was adopted from where, concluding that the Sons of God were placed as sons (not adopted) out of the genetic seed of Abraham, through Isaac. We also looked at “strangers”, considering whether or not genetic stock other than Abraham’s seed could join themselves to Israel, and become as Israel by keeping the Law, Circumcision and the Passover. We found that there were different words for “strangers” and showed that this proposition was basically invalid. Consideration of the matter of “seeds” showed that there is no such thing as a spiritual seed, as is commonly presented, and that the genetic seed of Abraham cannot be spiritualised away. We will now see that “the Church” is called out from amongst Israel. In this chapter, “The Church” is placed in quotation marks, because it is commonly used in a way that is un-Biblical. The Greek word translated “church” means a called – out assembly. It is sometimes translated as assembly.

Thayer A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, as assembly.

(THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL TREATS
EVERY PART OF THE PLANET’S SURFACE IN THE SAME WAY).

INTRODUCTION

THAT GOD IS NOT A UNIVERSALIST RACIALLY, that is, Scripture does not show that God treats all races equally, has been expounded in the author’s book, “The Exclusiveness of Israel”.

In this paper we will look at the question of land, to see if God treats all parts of the surface of the planet equally. This will lead us on to the Millennial Kingdom. It will be “news” to most Church people that, in the Bible, some parts of the globe’s surface are, or are to be, considered as God’s special property, whilst some are not.

“EARTH” – “LAND” – “GROUND,” ETC.

We will make a start by considering some verses containing some of the words, such as “earth”,”land”, “ground”, “field”, “dust”, “world”, and “people”, which unfortunately have been very well mixed up by translators. Seldom do any of these words mean the whole globe, and the latter two do not normally refer to humanity in general. Let us consider two verses to start with:

Psalm 24:1-6 The earth is the LORD’S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

WHEN I HEAR OR READ THE WORD “CLEARLY” OR THE PHRASE, “The Bible clearly says”, alarm bells start to ring. My immediate thoughts are something like, “The guy must be out of context”, or “He has got something wrong”. My experience tells me this. Usually many problems in understanding the Bible stem from taking something out of context. It is so easy for any of us to get something wrong, and yet to think we are right when we ourselves are actually taking a matter out of context.

Few people really understand what context is and what the consequences are of misapplying or changing contexts in the Bible. From my observations, misuse of context happens both within Identity and outside of Identity. It happens often! The consequences are either wrong doctrine or wrong practice. Many people completely misunderstand the application of “context”. Where their mistake occurs is thinking that what applies to one context applies to a differing context as well. Doing this is a major cause of doctrinal conflict, and thus projects into our actions.

Most of us will have heard about a person who is supposed to have stuck a pin in a Bible and is supposed to have read, “Judas went and hanged himself”, and then stuck in the pin again and read, “Go thou and do likewise”. This might sound a bit corny, but in sermons and in writings this activity is an ongoing reality. Yes, it does happen; and of course, the consequences may be just as unreasonable and wrong.

This matter of context can be best be illustrated by means of examples. In this paper, we can look three context areas in a general sense and then at one in detail:

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE THE NEW AGE with its theosophy uses the words, Father, Mother, Spirit, Lord, Satan, Jesus, and particularly the word “christ”.

In popular Christian preaching, writing and radio, the word “christ’ is used more and more in the New Age fashion as a name in the place “Jesus”. Often teachers and writers make direct transposition of “Jesus” to “Christ” when scripture verses are quoted. The word “christ” is popularly being used in preaching, books and on radio as a name in a way that is often scripturally invalid. This is partly due to newer translations. “Christ” in scripture may or may not relate to a person, but it is not a name.

In order to bring the Biblical position out it is necessary to be a little technical and say that there are four main forms of the Greek word that is commonly presented as “Christ”. These four forms are “christos”, “christo”, christon” and “christou” being the nominative, dative, accusative and genitive cases in Greek. There are also other grammatical forms which modify these. These forms and modifications have not been translated; rather they have just been transliterated, and thus create a problem..

To illustrate the misuse, we might say, “A tin whistle is made of tin and therefore a fog horn must be made of fog”. The false assumption is obvious. If “tin” and “fog” were the different forms of the word “christ” we can then see that we must wrest scripture if we were to use them either as being both nouns or both adjectives.

In many of the about 217 out of 555 times where “christ” is found without a “Jesus” or a “Lord” the word is a verbal adjective. When used as a adjective “christ” is a characteristic of the associated noun, [e.g. as “canned” in “canned carrots”, carrots being the noun]. Also, it also necessary to consider whether the associated verbs are active or passive. To place a capital “C” in “christ” in some places is deceptive mis-translating and the use of the word deceptively changes the meaning of scripture.

IS TRUTH JUST A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION? Isn’t one person’s view of ethics just as valid as another person’s? Are not all views, in essence, the same? And does the whole issue of truth and ethics really matter? Does it make any difference? Can the honest seeker of truth decide without accurate data? In our consideration of ethics — the moral evaluation of what is right and what is wrong — we will need to overcome some common misconceptions people hold in this arena of ethical determination.

Misconception 1: ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE

Personal opinion doesn’t determine reality. For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it’s flat, but I’m still wrong! Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet in response to this claim I must ask, “Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?” It is humorous to note that the rejection statement — “There are no absolutes.” — is, in fact, an absolute!

Is the statement “All truth is relative,” true? No, it’s impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!

Some examples of self-refuting propositions would include, “I’m a truthful liar”; “I’m an honest thief”; “I’m a compassionate killer”. All of these statements are false since they are internally contradictory and therefore self-defeating!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 16:15 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
.
The exclusive nature of Israel is no new doctrine. It is ancient, and is supported through the Church of England Prayer Book. From the first century, many Kings of England have considered that they are Kings of Israel.

It can be found through many years of history in the songs of the redeemed from among people of one origin!

Ye chosen seed of Israel’s race,
A remnant weak and small,
Hail Him who saves you by His grace,
And crown Him Lord of all.

One Scripture is said to be THE MOST LOVED Scripture in the Bible. The other is said to be THE MOST MOTIVATING Scripture in the Bible.

These are the two verses:

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might he saved”.

REV 2:14 BUT I HAVE A FEW THINGS AGAINST THEE, because thou hast there them which hold the doctrine of Balaam.

We find first mention of this doctrine in the book of Numbers, chapter 22, and involved in this doctrine is advocacy for race mixing. Balaam’s doctrine is a subject that is seldom mentioned in the teaching of the denominational churches. But it must be very important if Jesus says He holds it against any church. When Balaam’s doctrine is mentioned, generally it is suggested that holding the doctrine was a matter for that day and age because the pagan morality of that day would have corrupted the church. The subject is avoided because racial intermarriage is now thought to be a good thing, which fulfils the churches’ wrong idea of what the “that they might be one” of John 17: 11+21+22 means. In this chapter, Jesus does not extend His words about oneness to include other than His disciples, and subsequent Israelite disciples, in this oneness.

In His messages to the “churches” in the Revelation, Jesus makes scathing remarks about Balaam, the Nicolaitanes and Jezebel, all of which are symbols of beliefs. We will see that Jesus holds something against every modern Judeo-Christian Church, as well as all cults that hold the doctrine of Balaam.

Jesus immediately carries on referring this matter back to the Old Testament and He goes on to tell us simply just what the doctrine is that Balaam taught:

Rev 2:14 Who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

THE BIBLE ALWAYS MAKES IT CLEAR that we are all responsible for our actions; that we must reap what we sow, and that in the end we have to give account to God for those things “done in the body”.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

But the churches commonly present a conflicting message about this:

A) That what we do “in the body” is what they call “works”, and is somehow irrelevant after being “justified by faith”.

B) That what they call “Satan”[an un-translated word meaning

“adversary”]- is to be blamed for everything bad in this world. This view is not valid! To show this we shall firstly consider the word “Satan”.