ROBERT SPENCER ON WHY THE BLOCKS ON TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BAN ARE ILLEGITIMATE

ROBERT SPENCER ON WHY THE BLOCKS ON TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BAN ARE ILLEGITIMATE 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 This morning I spoke at the Young America’s Foundation conference at the
 Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California on Trump’s immigration
 ban and why the judicial blocks on it are illegitimate.
 

GORSUCH NOT A SURE VOTE IN TRUMP IMMIGRATION BAN

GORSUCH NOT A SURE VOTE IN TRUMP 
IMMIGRATION BAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
By
Kelleigh Nelson

March 19, 2017
NewsWithViews.com
Shortly
after Donald Trump announced the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme
Court, it was revealed that Gorsuch had picked a Henry Kissinger quotation
to caption his 1988 Columbia yearbook photograph: “The illegal we
do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

-Henry Kissinger, August 29, 1967

It’s
an odd remark for someone whose primary credential is his supposed textual
fidelity to the Constitution, but then people often change from their
college days. Yet many questions remain about our President’s first
nominee for the Supreme Court.

In nominating
Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch, a Harvard Law School graduate who was
unanimously confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 by
George W. Bush, President Trump believes he has effectively chosen to
restore the Court to the status quo. Unfortunately, a number of strong
Constitutional conservatives are not so sure.
In my
February article, The Pros and
Cons of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch
, I stated the facts as we knew them,
hoping my readers would come to their own decision on the man, but now
even more about this judge has come to light. There are some good things,
and there are some very disturbing things that we need to immediately
consider.
A very
troubling factor to me was the fact that Neil Gorsuch was a term member
of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed in the 2008 CFR Annual Report
Membership Roster.
He is not listed in the 2017 Annual Report, but is
listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush.
(See
part 8
)
Gorsuch
on Executive Privilege
Judge
Gorsuch’s record indicates that he is neither a staunch defender
nor a harsh critic of immigrants’ rights. (We’re talking about
illegal immigrants here.) In his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has
dealt with only a handful of prominent immigration law cases. Of those,
he has ruled in favor of the immigrant slightly less than half of the
time.
However,
while Judge Gorsuch and Justice Scalia are similar in many ways, many
have noted
that they disagreed sharply on how much deference to give
to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law.
Under
what’s known as “Chevron
deference
,” courts play only a limited role in reviewing an
agency’s interpretation of a law within its area of expertise. Although
Justice Scalia was a staunch supporter of this principle, Judge Gorsuch
has openly criticized Chevron deference, asserting instead that only
judges should get to decide what the law is.
Do
you see the danger here?
This would lead anyone to understand
that Judge Gorsuch could side with the tyrannical judges who have stopped
the Constitutionally legal executive orders of our President, Donald J.
Trump, who wishes to limit the influx of Islamic foreigners immigrating
to the United States, (foreigners who may well be a danger to American
citizens that our President has sworn to protect), to oppose our President’s
Constitutional duty and legality.
To top
it off, our globalist Vice
President is taking the exact opposite opinion of his boss
and saying,
“A judge ‘certainly’ has the right to stop Trump’s
travel ban.” I’m sorry, VP Pence, but the Constitution allows
the Executive branch to deny entry into the United States. [Link]

It has been done in the past by Democrats
Jimmy Carter, and Barack Hussein Obama
. The President has sworn to
protect American citizens!
Remember
VP Pence’s pledge of commitment to the unelected councils (read
Soviet) of the dictatorial European Union! [Link]
And, God forbid anything happens to our President because with globalist
Pence, you can forget the wall, forget repealing Obamacare, forget stopping
the trade deals, and everything else that encouraged us all to vote for
the man who spoke our language.
Gorsuch
on Travel Ban
The
Drudge Report
revealed a Bloomberg
article
where some experts and academics say Gorsuch’s criticism
of executive overreach
in the Gutierrez-Brizuela
case
and others could lead him to reach decisions at odds with the
45th president’s policies. The judge’s thinking in those cases
is likely to be a subject of intense interest in confirmation hearings
next week.
Here’s
the Bloomberg Story:
A
Mexican immigrant who twice entered the U.S. illegally has one man in
particular to thank for being able to live and work in Oklahoma City
with his family — Judge Neil M. Gorsuch.
Gorsuch,
the nominee President Donald Trump is betting on to be his Supreme Court
tie-breaker, wrote a 2016 ruling permitting Hugo Rosario Gutierrez-Brizuela
to stay in the U.S. and, his lawyer hopes, within a few years become
a citizen.
“Without
it we were done,” said Timothy Cook, the attorney. Had the decision
gone the other way, Gutierrez-Brizuela would have been promptly deported,
he said.
As
Trump vows to fight all the way to the nation’s top court to preserve
his temporary ban on travel from six mostly Muslim nations and immigration
agents turn to more aggressive tactics on city streets, Gorsuch’s
conservative credentials have been hailed as likely to swing the divided
court in the president’s favor.
But
as lawmakers scrutinize Gorsuch’s decade-long tenure on a federal
appeals court for clues about how he might rule on hot-button issues
such as abortion and gun control, his record shows that on immigration
rights, he can’t be easily categorized.
Moreover,
some experts and academics say Gorsuch’s criticism of executive
overreach in the Gutierrez-Brizuela case and others could lead him to
reach decisions at odds with the Republican president’s policies.
The judge’s thinking in those cases is likely to be a subject
of intense interest in confirmation hearings next week.
Conclusion
I am
not at all convinced that this choice coming from the left leaning Federalist
Society is one that will resonate with the Trump supporting American electorate. 
Gorsuch
belongs to an extremely liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage church,
and he and his wife and daughters are very involved in this church.


Secondly,
Gorsuch’s stance in this Gutierrez-Brizuela case would worry anyone
about American citizens’ safety with this judge on the Supreme Court.
Please
pray for our President, and pray for our nation. And above all, get off
your couch and get involved. Run for a county commissioner seat, city
council, school board, whatever. Trump is giving us an opportunity of
a lifetime to take America back, if not for yourself do it for your grandchildren.
The corrupt swamp is not just in Washington DC, it’s also in your state,
county and city government as well.
Our
country needs citizens who will stand up for her and for her Constitution.
This is the call of the publisher of NewsWithViews. He has put his reputation
and finances on the line for our country. Please help him keep the truth
arriving daily in your mailbox. You
can donate here
, even if it’s just a small amount every month,
it will definitely help. Thank you, and keep reading. New NewsWithViews
website
will be launching soon. Its a sneak peak of where your donations go.

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR WADE BURLESON ENDORSES HERETICAL THEOLOGY OF THE “SHACK”, COMPARES IT TO CALVINISM

 
 “PASTOR” WADE BURLESON’S HERESY
 http://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/r960-5038707f532296505168354cea73ce48.jpg
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR ENDORSES HERETICAL THEOLOGY OF THE “SHACK”, COMPARES IT TO CALVINISM
BY BUD AHLHEIM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The SBC pastor closes his blog entry endorsement with this statement:

“Both Al Mohler and Paul Young believe the same thing
about God’s unconditional love and Christ’s effectual death. They just
disagree for whom it was intended. So go and enjoy the Shack. It is not
heresy.”

Consider now a distinctly different comment from another pastor.

“If the leadership of your church does not vocally,
openly, and staunchly oppose the theology presented by “The Shack,” you
need to find a new church. It is really that simple. If they cannot spot
the heresy in this book, they are not qualified to protect the flock
from false doctrine – not in the least. They are not shepherds; they are
hirelings who are more than willing to open the gate and let the wolves
come in and ravage the flock.   Don’t walk, RUN from that place!”

In light of these two opposing pastoral recommendations, if you were
to find yourself standing at the proverbial fork in the road of faith,
with each pastor standing on his own path, beckoning you to follow,
which would you choose? If you are a Bible-centered, Bible-informed,
genuinely regenerate believer, to err on the side of orthodox caution
and Berean discernment seems not only the proper thing to do, but also
the one most likely to keep you on the tough-to-trod, narrow path. To
take the more heavily trod path – in this case, meaning to follow the
multitudes who extol the power, grandeur, and emotions-evoking power of The Shack
– would necessarily imply taking the wider, easier path, skipping
gleefully along with the glowing, celebrity-laden endorsements that make
it just sooo appealing.   (Deception, mind you, just like sin, is always appealing.)

SBC Pastor Wade Burleson

The opening, encouraging quote comes from Wade Burleson, lead pastor of Emmanuel Enid, a Southern Baptist church located in Enid, Oklahoma. Burleson, a former IMB trustee (he
resigned in 2009 over Board charges that he violated non-disclosure,
code of conduct protocols by publishing on his blog some details of the
non-transparent proceedings of the Board, according to Baptist Press)
, penned his endorsement of The Shack (multiple entries, actually, laud the work of author William Paul Young) on Istoria Ministries Blog.  (Burleson’s endorsement of

(Burleson’s endorsement of The Shack should, perhaps, be considered in light of his Feb. 16, 2017 entry in which he also promotes a Jesus Culture video.  Jesus Culture is the flagship music group from the thoroughly heretical Bethel Church, FYI.  This speaks volumes, of course, to this pastor’s woeful capacity for exercising Biblical discernment.)

Source: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/03/warning-read-this-post-with-
discernment.html

In a 2009 blog post defending the book The Shack,
Burleson made jest of LifeWay’s then response to concerns about the
book by marking it with a “Read With Discernment” label.  He emphasized
that “the book is a work of fiction.”  (Emphasis
original)  What may have been the case in 2009 would be today, after the
release of the movie, a difficult claim to defend.  The Shack Small
Group Study Kit and Study Guide are being marketed by one of the movies
“partners,” Outreach, Inc.
 Why, one wonders, would a work of “fiction” need a church or small
group study guide if it were being proffered for merely allegorical,
entertainment purposes?

Burleson’s blog entry from February 2, 2017, serves up a response of sorts to Albert Mohler’s article that soundly denounced the theology of The Shack
as “sub-biblical and dangerous” and called the evangelical embrace of
it a “tragedy.” Mohler emphasized that “evangelicals have lost the art
of biblical discernment,” a lamentable reality that “must be traced to a
disastrous loss of biblical knowledge.”

But Burleson’s response, in his blog entry entitled “The Shack and Universal Reconciliation: Answers to The Charge of Heresy By Evangelical Christians,
does not address the continuing downgrade of biblical knowledge within
the evangelical church, nor the glaring absence of any attempt at
discernment which Mohler rightfully bemoaned.   Burleson’s response was
an attempt to favorably close the gap between Young’s theology in The Shack
and Mohler’s as a “five-point Calvinist.” Burleson points out that “I
understand Dr. Mohler’s theology and happen to agree with it, though I
prefer to call it ‘the doctrines of grace’ because I see these doctrines
taught in Scripture.”

So Burleson, a confessed Calvinist, attempts to reconcile the glaring universalism of Young in The Shack
with his own and Mohler’s theology. His intent is to dispute the charge
of heresy brought against the fictitious work and paint it in an
evangelically-favorable light.  It is worth noting that to buttress his
defense of Young’s theology, Burleson turns to the likes of C.S. Lewis,
George Macdonald, G.K. Chesterton, and the “Christian” Mark Twain.

(Lewis, you might note, drew the criticism of Reformed stalwart
Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said, “C.S. Lewis had a defective view of
salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of
the atonement.”  For more on Lewis, go HERE.
 So “C.S.” obviously doesn’t stand for  “Credible Source” drawn from
the mainstream of orthodoxy.  As to Chesterton, his pithy witticisms do
not negate his praise for Catholicism, writing that “The difficulty of
explaining “why I am a Catholic” is that there are ten thousand reasons
all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.”  Another
non-credible witness for Burleson’s defense of Young’s heresy.
 MacDonald, a prolific author and poet, influenced Lewis, Chesterton,
and Twain.  But MacDonald was, as Burleson notes, an avowed
universalist.  As for Twain, who some would like to tout as a Christian –
though he has long been a poster-boy for atheism – two quips of his
seem to make him an equally undesirable defendant in Burleson’s
apologetic for The Shack. See below.)

“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.”  Mark Twain

“I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written
by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less
inspired by Him.”  Mark Twain

Effectively dismissing Young’s universalism as seriously problematic,
Burleson’s argument is to minimize the charge of heresy down to the
single issue of the extent of the atonement.  “For whom did Christ die?”
 But the reduction of the theological problems with The Shack to this single point is deceptive.  There is more to The Shack‘s problems than Burleson addresses.
(A resource from Justin Peters is provided below that addresses many of these issues.)  But, you can read his argument and determine for yourself whether Burleson’s attempt to evangelically anoint The Shack
with the mantle of authentic, Biblical Christianity is valid. Perhaps,
though, you’ll find his argument (not to mention his cadre of unorthodox
co-defendants)  not merely ineffective in achieving this purpose, but
serving as further evidence that validates Mohler’s claim of an
increasingly discernment-free church suffering from a severe dearth of
Biblical apprehension.

Burleson seems far more interested in extending an olive branch of
culturally-approved tolerance to a work that is decidedly heretical-
though heavily Christianized and emotions-generating – than he is to
defending Christ’s sheep from Word-twisting wolves, regardless of how
impressively, sheepishly dressed those wolves appear. And make no
mistake, Young is a wolf.  And The Shack is not Christian.

The fundamental measure of whether something is authentically
Christian is not the frequency of Bible verses that it cites. It is not
the prevalence of Christian words and phrases that might permeate it.  
Neither is sincerity of message a measure of Biblical authenticity, just
as the exhibition of powerful emotions is no evidence for the activity
of the Holy Spirit.  False teaching – heresy – does not come with a
demonic warning label announcing itself. Rather, it comes elegantly
attired as Christian, incorporating selectively chosen tidbits of truth
and the vernacular of faith that are woven together into its overall
deception. A measure of truth always accompanies the error, a condition
which is fatal to truth itself. As Christ warned, “beware the leaven.”

A thing – like The Shack
-may look Christian, sound Christian, and smell Christian, but a
Christianized facade, even one that powerfully evokes emotive responses,
does not make something Christian. The fundamental measure by which
something is rightfully gauged “Christian” – be it a book, a movie, and
perhaps especially, a church – is the crucial element that has
become increasingly absent in the evangelical church – the authentic,
Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Shack is devoid of the Gospel.  It is not Christian.

But not only is The Shack
not Christian, it is not helpful to the Christian faith. We can be
reminded by what may seem a silly point, but John, the apostle and
gospel writer and Revelation writer, wrote these inspired Words as the
opening to his Gospel, “In the beginning was the word.”   He did not
write, “in the beginning was the movie, or the shack, or the whatever.”
The Word is what was in the beginning, and it is the Word which He has
progressively, and specially, revealed to humanity. That Word, of
course, is Jesus, the Christ of the Gospel.   And that Gospel is the
power of God to save (Romans 1:16) because that Gospel is the zenith of his redemptive revelation.

For a thing to be Christian and to start at some point other than the
Gospel, to only continually avoid that Gospel, means that thing is not
authentically Christian, nor is that thing capable of bringing
Spirit-regeneration to a dead soul.  It is completely incapable of
edifying Christ’s sheep in whom the Holy Spirit resides. Error does not
come with God’s “look the other way” endorsement just because it
contains a modicum of truth.  And, be sure of this …. God does not need a
work of heresy, regardless of how seemingly “God-friendly” it may be,
to generate conversational buzz about Him.  He will do his redemptive
work as He always has, through the Gospel.

No doubt to capitalize on the current Shack craze, Young has recently released his newest work, Lies We Believe About God.
(A review of this book is forthcoming.) The 28 chapters presume to
refute erroneous evangelical beliefs about God, as well as to defend the
theology he presented in The Shack.   But at the close of Lies, Young offers “A Catena” (“Catena”
is Latin for “chain.”) intended to substantiate his unorthodox and,
according to Mohler (and multitudes of others), heretical universalistic
view:

“A catena,
in this case, a chain of Scriptures (various translations based on the
Greek New Testament) strung together as commentary on the theme of God’s
saving work for all – the grand arc of God’s drama of redemption. When
read aloud with a touch of gravitas, the momentum is powerful:” (Source:
Lies We Believe About God, pg. 241)

A “touch of gravitas” or not (that suggestion alone expressly
indicates that the evocation of positive emotional responses is more
desirable than the apprehension of inherent truth), the 34
bullet-pointed Scriptural “commentary” references that Young weaves
together represents the classic example of Scripturally caustic
hermeneutics. No contextual consideration is given, but great emphasis
is impressed upon the reader by each selection in which Young’s notion
of universalism seems Scripturally supported.   His citations italicize
words such as any, all, every, and world
to imply that the verses demand, defend, and substantiate God’s
salvation of every sinner.  He weaves these 34 plucked verses to produce
a narrative that is pure universalism.

A few examples of Young’s italicized, non-contextual “thread” …

“This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, than through him all would believe.  (John 1:7)”
“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  (John 1:29)”
“We labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)”

But the error of The Shack
does not come only with an endorsement from SBC pastor Burleson. Other
SBC’ers endorsed it, too. Their comments, coming from a pre-screening of
the fictitious flick, are being used as endorsements on TheShackResources.com.

We reported that 1000 Faith Leaders Endorsed The Shack.
One of the many SBC churches and agencies represented was The Greater
Orlando Baptist Association. A representative of this Florida Baptist
group of over 250 SBC churches is named among the 1000 “faith leaders”
who lauded the film.

Source: http://theshackresources.com/endorsements-full

According to the association’s website, Mark Weible is its Church Planting Director.  While The Shack
clearly promotes universalism, this endorser seems particularly
impressed by a presentation of what amounts to little more than a
“therapeutic gospel,” not altogether unlike the word-faith, prosperity
gospel.  Want to get rid of pain?  Get God.  It’s an equally invalid, unscriptural, and heretical presentation of God.

Another such endorsement comes from a Texas Southern Baptist.

Source: http://theshackresources.com/endorsements-full

Smith happens to be the Executive Director of the Austin Baptist Association.
His comment – again, used as an endorsement – doesn’t denote the error
with the film’s blasphemous depiction of the Trinity; he merely lauds it
as “very creative.” Creativity, however, is neither a spiritual gift,
nor a fruit of the Spirit, leaving his endorsing comment suggestive of
the importance of something that is fundamentally unimportant when
compared, say, to the “very” glaring lack of the Gospel in the film.

It is unclear whether Weible or Smith offered their laudatory
comments with the approval of their respective organizations.  Burleson
clearly promoted his on a website independent of his church’s site.  But
what motivates Burleson that doesn’t apparently motivate the other two
SBC’ers is his close friendship with Young.  In fact, back in 2009, so enthralled was Burleson with the book The Shack,
it having been recommended to him by his mother, his sister, and his
wife, that he invited Young to preach at his church, a move that
evidently did not sit well with some (as it rightly should not have).

Source: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/04/wm-paul-young-and-shack-review_
08.html

Burleson’s love of sinners argument is intoxicatingly unscriptural,
though, when it comes to opening up the pulpit of Christ’s church to a
pagan. While we all are born depraved sinners, the church is not a
showcase for pagan philosophy, trotted out though Young’s is as
Christian theology.  Though tares exist among the wheat, the pastor is,
first and foremost, to feed the sheep, a task that cannot be done by
fertilizing them with error.

Which takes us to the second quote at the beginning of this article,
the one which warns authentic sheep to flee from any “church” and any
“shepherd” that does not vigorously, “staunchly oppose the theology of The Shack.”  That comes from pastor and author Jim Osman.  He and Justin Peters viewed the movie and came away aghast that such a thing could remotely be considered Christian.

(Peters and Osman have produced 5 radio episodes about their visit to The Shack, exposing its heresies, for The Justin Peters Program.
 I heartily encourage you to tune in.  If you are inclined, by the
endorsements of pastors like Burleson or others, to see no problems with
The Shack, please, “examine yourself to see if you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5) because the Holy Spirit always, always, ALWAYS leads TO the TRUTH (John 16:13) and AWAY from error.)

The beginning of the Christian life for every believer necessarily
begins with the Gospel.  Nowhere else.  Despite the multitude of Jesuses
proclaimed by the evangelical church today and portrayed in culture by
some Hollywood flick or a publisher’s paperback novel, unless He is the
Jesus of the Gospel of Scripture, it is the wrong – and unsaving –
Jesus.  The universalism of The Shack intentionally demeans the real atoning work of the real Jesus on the Cross.

Know, embrace, and follow the genuine Jesus of the Biblical Gospel.  “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

But just know this … given the rapidly quickening pace of its
downgrade, to find that saving Gospel and that Biblical Jesus, you might
just need to start somewhere other than a Southern Baptist church …

Because, sadly enough, it’s remotely plausible to say that “you can’t get there from here.”

 

SHO BARAKA: SOUTHERN BAPTIST ALBERT MOHLER SLUMS UP THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY WITH DOPE SMOKING, PROFANE RAPPER

 http://www.zambianmusicblog.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sho-baraka.jpg

Albert Mohler Slums Up SBTS with Dope-Smoking, Profane Rapper

BY GIDEON KNOX

SEE: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/03/17/albert-mohler-slums-up-sbts-with-dope-smoking-profane-rapper/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“It is with a single man that error usually commences;
and when such a man has influence or position, it is impossible to
estimate the evil that will attend it.” James P. Boyce

 “What are you thinking” doesn’t begin to
sum up the concern. Is this a practical joke? Is the most respected man
in all of Baptistdom (if not evangelicalism) really standing there with a
recreationally pot-smoking, foul-mouthed, gutter-talking Sho Baraka?
Really?

Sure enough.

Put on by Albert Mohler, Dan Dumas (Sr. Vice President at Southern Seminary) and Eric Geiger (Vice President of Lifeway), the Renown Conference is designed for Middle School an High School students and is hosted at SBTS, and it started today.

The Renown website posted Sho Baraka as the musical talent invited to
entertain the students, and says in his bio, “[Baraka] desires to blend
his artistic platform with his academic leanings to contribute a unique
perspective in both arenas in hopes of raising the standard, thereby
raising the culture.”

While that may sound ambitious, Baraka is best known as the
filthy-mouthed performer who blends talks about Jesus with vulgarity.
He
has been making the news for his lewd speech (spoken and sung) since
2013 . You might give him a pass for singing the “N-Word” because of the color of his skin (if you’re an ethnic gnostic), but referring to his mother as the B-Word might
be tougher to stomach. And it’s not just lyrics to his profane songs,
but he regularly uses profanity on podcast interviews and in other
venues. Most recently Lifeway (of which Eric Geiger, above, is Vice
President) pulled his album to much protest among the “black community” (with tacit accusations of racial insensitivity, of course) because – according to Lifeway – profanity, as illustrated in the following lyrics:

The disco-rave type stage design of the SBTS youth conference, designed by Mohler, Dumas and Geiger.

The stately chapel building at SBTS was transformed into what appeared like a rock concert, complete with a dancing light show.
I was an insecure boy who just thought he was a genius
But always pissed off, that’s because I thought with my penis
It’s all strategic, I’m just asking us the reason
Share my faith on the track, I’m just exorcising demons

This is the very same Sho Baraka who endorsed the use of recreational marijuana, saying “there are some laws that are unjust, and almost need to be broken” (source link). The same link, should you care to click on it to research it yourself, will provide the audio of that conversation.

One also has to wonder why on Earth a respected seminary would invite
someone like Baraka to influence children and youth. To add insult to
injury, the theme of the Renown Conference was “Salt and Light,” and
claims that the conference exists to “help middle school and high school
students understand their purpose as Christians in serving as useful
elements in the service of God.”

Being a profane pot-smoking pseudo-celebrity is hardly being salt and
light. Adopting the culture’s vulgarities rather than shining forth the
Gospel isn’t being light. There is a difference between winning the
culture and being won by the culture. Sho Baraka is not the former.

At worst, Dr. Albert Mohler is seriously sliding into Downgrade and
bringing the SBTS with him. At best, he’s guilty of the soft-bigotry of
lowered expectations in order to achieve some semblance of cultural
unity.
_______________________________________________________

THE LUDICROUS “RENOWN” CONFERENCE
“SALT & LIGHT” RAPPER-STYLE?
EXCERPT:

“Have you ever asked the
question: What is the purpose of the Christian life? Jesus described
this life in Matthew 5:13-16 as represented by two elements: Salt &
Light.

Salt represents usefulness, healing,
and the ability to change things for the better, while light speaks to
prevailing over darkness as a shining beacon of truth for the gospel.
But in the same passage Jesus warns that salt can become tasteless and
light can be hidden. When these things happen, both elements are
useless.

How can a Christian remain useful to Jesus Christ the king? Renown: Salt & Light
is a conference designed to help middle school and high school students
understand their purpose as Christians in serving as useful elements in
the service of God. Join us as our speakers Albert Mohler, Dan Dumas
and Eric Geiger help guide students toward the Scriptures in order to
gain an understanding for their life’s highest calling; Bringing the
light and changing power of the gospel to men and women in need of
reconciliation to God.”

SPEAKERS: 
ALBERT MOHLER
 R. Albert Mohler Jr.
 ERIC GEIGER
 
 DAN DUMAS
  
RAP SINGER, SHO BARAKA


 

Sho Baraka

“Educated at Tuskegee University and the University of
North Texas, Sho studied Television/Film, Anthropology, and Public
Administration. He has become an artist, philosopher, and social-thought
leader in contemporary culture. He has spent nine years traveling the
world as a recording artist and public speaker. He has done numerous
overseas activist work, ranging from race relations in South Africa to
establishing musical cohorts in Indonesia. He is a founding member of
nationally known Christian hip hop group 116 Clique. Sho Baraka is also
the founder of Forth District.

He now desires to blend his artistic platform with his academic
leanings to contribute a unique perspective in both arenas in hopes of
raising the standard, thereby raising the culture. Sho currently lives
in Atlanta, GA and co-leads a consulting network that is active in
cultural renewal.”
_________________________________________________________

 Sho Baraka Responds To The Lifeway Decision 
WARNING: FOUL LANGUAGE 
MAKING HIS TRASHY MUSIC “PALATABLE TO SOCCER MOMS” & THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
 

IF A FREEMASON DIED TODAY?~SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCHES ARE FILLED WITH FREEMASONS, TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNBIBLICAL WORKS GOSPEL

SOUTHERN BAPTISTS TOLERATE FREEMASONS IN THEIR CHURCHES; TURN A BLIND EYE 
TO UNBIBLICAL WORKS GOSPEL
IF A FREEMASON DIED TODAY?
BY SETH DUNN
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
“Freemasonry teaches that salvation may be attained by ‘good works’ and not through faith in Christ alone.”  The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention

If you are a Christian you have probably asked this question to someone at least once in your life:

“If you died today, do you know if God would accept you into Heaven?”

Every Sunday, in churches all across the world, this is a question
that preachers ask as they prepare to give a gospel invitation to their
audience.  This same question is asked during the rest of the week as
God’s people go throughout their cities to evangelize lost.  Faithful
Christian evangelists communicate the answer to this question clearly
– those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and
Savior will perish in Hell.  The correct answer to this question is
easily supported by the Bible:

“Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them,
‘Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit
done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be
known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of
Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the
dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief cornerstone. And
there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under
heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.’” Acts 4:8-12
“Thomas said to Him, ‘Lord, we do not know where You are going, how
do we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth,
and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had
known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him,
and have seen Him.’” John 14:5-7
“Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is
the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found
written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:14-15

This question is one of eternal consequence.  It is perhaps the most
important question that can be asked.  The Christian answer to it is
clear, but how do Freemasons answer this pivotal question?  The Masonic
answer to this question is apparent from their official policies and
funeral rights.
When any Master Mason dies, he is entitled to a Masonic burial.
 Funeral rites are prescribed by Masonic handbooks and include
readings, responses, and prayers.  Clearly, Masonic funeral rites (which
are led by the “Worshipful Master” of an individual lodge) are
religious services.  Yet, these services are not particular to any one
religion.  A specific religious affiliation is not required to be a
Freemason.  According to Cartersville Masonic Lodge 63 F&M[1] an absolute requirement for becoming a mason is to “have belief in a Supreme Being (of any faith. No particular religion or faith is required or excluded. All are welcome.)”  The Cartersville lodge claims that “Masonry is universal in its ideals.”
Any Master Mason is entitled to a Masonic funeral and Christian belief is not
required to be a Freemason.  Thus, deceased non-Christian Freemasons
can (and do) receive Masonic funeral services.  According to God’s word,
non-Christians suffer for an eternity in Hell.  Yet, Masonic funeral
rites do not indicate such, in fact, they indicate the opposite.
The funeral ceremony of the Mount Scopus Lodge A.F & A.M. includes the following language:

“My Brethren, the roll of the workmen has been called,
and one Master Mason has not answered to his name. He has laid down the
working tools of the Craft and with them he has left that mortal part
for which he no longer has use. His labors here below have taught him to
divest his heart and conscience of the vices and superfluities of life,
thereby fitting his mind as a living stone for that spiritual building —
that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Strengthened in
his labors here by faith in God, and confident of expectation of
immortality, he has sought admission to the Celestial Lodge above.”

Clearly, there is an expectation that the dead Freemason (whether or
not he accepted the Lord Jesus as his Savior) will reach Heaven, or what
the Freemasons call the “Celestial Lodge” of the “Great Architect of
the Universe”.
 Akin’s Lodge Manual, which was published by John W. Akin
of Cartersville, GA, includes the following funerary language:

“Most glorious God, Author of all good and Giver of all
mercy pour down thy blessings upon us…may we be induced so to regulate
our conduct here that when the awful moment shall arrive that we are
about to quit this transitory scene, the enlivening prospect of thy
mercy may dispel the gloom of death; and after our departure hence in
peace and in thy favor, may we be received into thine everlasting
kingdom, and there enjoy, in union with the soul of our departed
friends, the just rewards of a pious and virtuous life.  Amen!”

From a Christian worldview, this language is profoundly disturbing.
 A dead non-Christian has no hope of receiving mercy from God.  He has
no hope of being received into God’s kingdom.  His Christian friends
will never again unite with him.  He is forever under the curse of sin,
destined for Hell.  To make matters worse, the language of the funeral
rite implies that getting to Heaven is the result of living a “pious and
virtuous life.”  In other words, getting to Heaven is the result of
living a good life and doing good works.  Scripture clearly and
absolutely teaches that good works do not and cannot save.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

The language of the Masonic funeral rite cannot be said or believed
by a Christian in good conscience.  It is a lie.  It contradicts God’s
word.  This lie is more insidious than the Christian friends of Masons
might know.  Akin’s manual actually includes alternate funeral language
which is to be read when a Masonic funeral service is held at a church.[2]
 The language designed for readings in front of a body of Christians
does not include the language which indicates that works save.  Thus,
Christians may be unaware of the unbiblical practices of their fellow
church members who participate in Freemasonry…because they have been
hidden from them.

Freemasons have one answer to the question “If you died today, do you
know if God would accept you into Heaven?” at church and another at
their lodge.  They are double-minded men.  Scripture teaches
that a “double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, like the surf of
the sea and driven and tossed by the wind.”  Unchecked, such men are
dangerous to the health of a church.  If there are Freemasons at your
church, scripture makes your duty clear.  Members of this secret society
must be dealt with according to biblical standards:

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of
these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of
disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were
formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children
of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness
and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the
Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but
instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the
things which are done by them in secret.” Ephesians 5:6-12
“Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians 6:1-2

As a Christian, it is your moral responsibility to call Freemasons to
reject freemasonry in repentance.  If a Freemason refuses, thereby
proving that his loyalty to his lodge is greater than his loyalty to
Christ’s church, then he must be treated according to the prescription
of 1 Corinthians 6:


“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean
with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and
swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the
world.
11 But
actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if
he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

This will not be easy…but then again taking up cross and following
Jesus is not supposed to be.  The most loving thing to do is call
sinners to repentance.  The most Holy thing to do is to remove the
wicked from the body.  Like the Israelites who suffered from the secret sin of Achan,
the work of the local church will be hindered by the secret sins of its
Masonic members.  The more Freemasons that infiltrate a church, the
greater influence they have.  Freemasonry is not harmless.  It has
temporal and eternal consequences.  It literally teaches a different,
works-based gospel than the faith-based gospel taught in the Bible.

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be
accursed!” Galatians 1:8

Because church membership is so prevalent among Freemasons, potential
pastors should inform church pulpit committees that they will not
countenance Freemasonry under their shepherding.  Church members should
support their pastors and fellow church members who insist on exercising
Biblical fidelity and church discipline in regards to Freemasonry.

After reading this you may be saying to yourself, “There have been
Freemasons in my church for years.  They seem like good men.  I’ve never
heard any of this before.  I didn’t know any of this.”
Well…you know it now.  Faithfulness to Christ is paramount.

“Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” James 4:17
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.  Let all that you do be done in love.” 1 Corinthians 16:13-14

For an additional, first-hand resource on Masonic funeral rites, see
the video below from Chrisitan Apologist John Ankerberg of Chattanooga,
TN:

*I have resided in Cartersville, Georgia since 1996.  I write to
you from the very town where Akin’s manual was written and is practiced.
 This is a small town.  Pray for me that the Lord will protect me from
any persecution that comes as a result of my taking of this biblical
stand against an influential group.  If you need any help with this
issue, please don’t hesitate to contact me.  If you are a Freemason, I
adjure you to abandon the craft.

**Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion.
It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed,
any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the
educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material
displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

[1]
“F&M” refers to “Free and Accepted” masonry.  It is the mainstream
form of masonry.  Free and Accepted lodges operate under the
jurisdiction of Grand Lodges.  Cartersville #63 operates under the
jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Georgia.
[2]
Many pastors do not allow Masonic funeral rites to be held in their
church buildings.  Many of these same pastors, however, do not initiate
church discipline on Masons.  This action is contradictory.  If a Mason
can be a member in good standing, why can he not have a Masonic funeral
in a church?
_________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://watch.pair.com/sbc.html


http://jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Freemasonry/famous_baptists.htm


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Freemasonry/sbc-masons.htm


http://www.ericbarger.com/articles/fmasonry-sbc.2.htm


http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/holly.html