Sunday, August 30, 2015



 In the past couple of months, investigative journalists have released video evidence of Planned Parenthood's illegal sales of the body parts of aborted babies.  Planned Parenthood and it's supporters have been crying foul and claiming that the videos are "heavily edited" and "inaccurate."  The fact is, the group that has released the edited versions to the internet have made the full videos available to media outlets and no evidence of deception has been discovered in the edited versions.  What kind of an organization is Planned Parenthood?  Planned Parenthood(PP) describes itself this way on it's website: "For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women's health and well being, based on respect for each individual's right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning."  This statement is a blatant lie and easily exposed as such.  The fact is that PP is an evil organization founded by an evil woman whose express and stated purpose was to eradicate the less desirable of society which included controlling the population of blacks to the point of bringing them to extinction.  Today, PP is a used body parts mill making millions from the slaughter of innocents.  


     PP condemns itself by it's own statement.  "...100 years... promoted... women's health... based on respect for each individual's rights..."  To see if this is true or not, one only needs to look to the founder of PP and her original intent.  In 1916, Eugenics proponent, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood.  Her goal was not based on respect for individual rights, but the polar opposite of this idea.  Sanger was a racist and a white supremacist whose ideas were in line with Adolph Hitler and his desire to create a master race.  Today, Sanger is heralded as a great pioneer of women's rights, but in reality, she was a hate filled bigot obsessed with eradicating the black population from the United States.  These seem like bold and inflammatory statements, but are easily verified by Sanger's own statements. 


     In 1926, Sanger spoke to a female auxiliary of the KU Klux Klan. In The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger the author brags  about the reception she received at the event and how it garnered her a dozen more invitations to speak at other such events.  Her remarks are not known today, but it would not take a great imagination to figure out what her topic must have been at a KKK rally, especially with the reception she received. We do know, however, what she said in 1932: "Birth control must lead to a better race."  Sanger was a blatant eugenicist and in case there is any doubt about which race Ms. Sanger was referencing here, we have her comments made in 1939: "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."  It is more than apparent that PP's origins had nothing to do with "respect for individual rights..."


     It would seem reasonable for any person who is considering a medical procedure to be given as much information about that procedure to make as informed a choice as possible.  Laws have been legislated forcing abortion providers to provide information to potential patients, information that would be routine in any other medical environment.  Informed Consent laws generally require an abortion provider to explain the procedure that is about to be performed and the risks involved.  Also, part of most informed consent laws is making a sonogram of the unborn child available to the patient.  Not requiring the sonogram, but making it available.  PP opposes such laws to the point of having, in the case of Planned Parenthood vs Casey, gone all the way to the Supreme Court, in 1992. It would appear that PP does not want anything to get in the way of maximizing the amount of abortions it performs.  Any attempt that may persuade a potential client against having an abortion is ardently opposed by PP and it's minions of lawyers. What possible benefit could PP have in encouraging abortion rather than attempting to spare women the trauma of such an invasive procedure?


     If a stated purpose of PP is to provide "informed... decisions" while spending millions of dollars attempting to prohibit informed decisions in the case of abortion, what could PP's true motivations be?  This is a terribly over used cliche, but follow the money. Abortion is big business.  Until recently, the public had no idea how much money was generated by PP through abortion, but thanks to recently released videos, we can get a pretty good idea how profitable the harvesting of body parts of dead babies is.  A group called The Center for Medical Progress has released a series of videos documenting PP's baby parts for profits program.  PP's harvesting and sales of baby parts is so sophisticated that they take orders and perform abortion procedures that are most conducive to harvesting requested parts without damaging said parts.  click here to access website for CMP


   If you want to view the videos exposing PP, you can click on the link above.  I was going to post the 8th video that has been released but the content was so graphic, I became physically sick and did not feel comfortable posting the video in this forum.  The video showed footage of an abortion provider picking through the remains of an hours old abortion in which distinct limbs with hands and feet are clearly visible.  I was horrified.  It is one thing to know this goes on, but to actually see this is a bit traumatic.  I cannot fathom how these clinic workers can become so desensitized to such horror.    

  The videos mostly show PP representatives discussing the different parts they make available and the costs of harvesting these parts.  The representatives graphically describe the procedures used to acquire certain parts without damage.  Some of the videos also reveal that PP is performing partial birth abortions in order to preserve harvested parts.  This horrific procedure is nothing short of murder.  In the partial birth procedure, a baby is pulled through the birth canal feet first, leaving only the head inside the mother.  A sharp device is inserted into the base of the baby's skull and the brain is sucked out, collapsing the skull, at which point the baby is pulled the rest of the way out of the mother.  If you support this procedure, I defy you to view a video of it on YouTube, and let me know what you think.  

 I have decided to link to the third video that was released but with a warning, this video is far less disturbing than the 8th video but still is horrific as it shows a baby that has supposedly been aborted,but is obviously still alive because it is still moving : 
This video contains graphic content after 5:56 mark - not for children 



     In the book of Ezekiel, we find the nation of Israel in it's final stages before being devastated by Babylon.  God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, warns Israel that impending disaster is coming due to national sin.  One of the sins Israel was committing was child sacrifice.  Is abortion a sacrifice to the god of Convenience or, in the case of PP, the god of Mammon?  Ezekiel 22:12-14 could easily be an indictment of PP -   In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take interest and profit and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; but me you have forgotten, declares the Lord GOD. 
  "Behold, I strike my hand at the dishonest gain that you have made, and at the blood that has been in your midst. 
 Can your courage endure, or can your hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with you? I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it. 

     Is this verse only applicable to PP?  I do not believe this passage pertains to PP at all, but the nation that is most complicit in PP's fiendish activities.  The United States of America, one nation under God, in Whom we supposedly trust(according to our currency) is using tax dollars to fund, not only PP, but United Nations abortion projects, as well.  Are we responsible for the actions of our government?  Can we expect judgment because of the sinful actions and policies of our elected officials?   As a Representative Republic, we elect official to represent us in the running of the country.  These officials are acting on our behalf, as a nation, we are complicit in PP's actions and are in danger of falling under the judgment of God Almighty.  click here to read Is America Heading For Destruction By Representation?

America is on the front lines of the abortion battle, unfortunately, our nation is fighting for the wrong team...


     In 2010, President Obama gave a speech in which he repeated the same lie Bill Clinton told in 1996, "abortion should be safe, legal and rare."(emphasis added)  President Obama supports funding PP and, as a U.S. senator got a 100% rating from PP on his voting record concerning abortion rights.  This president has signed more legislation and made more executive orders for funding abortion and giving unfettered access to late term abortion than any president in history.  click here to access Obama's record on abortion

     Leading Democratic presidential contender, Hilary Clinton, declared her support for PP, even after the videos exposing PP as a clearinghouse for baby body parts became public.  Democrats in congress filibustered attempts to defund PP, after the videos were made public!  Our elected officials support PP and thus support the ordering, harvesting and selling of body parts of aborted babies.  Abortion clinics run by PP are slaughterhouses for research labs and are run by human monsters who are enriching themselves by encouraging abortions for profit.  Our government officials are obviously on board and America is defying the author of life. 


     First of all, I want to be clear, if you have had an abortion, God loves you and desires a relationship with you.  The church needs to make this message clear.  Abortion is considered a sin, but all sins are forgiven at the cross.  Romans  8:1-2  There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.   For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.  The church cannot just sit in judgment of abortion and those who choose abortion without offering an alternative.  We, as believers need to be at the forefront of education and provision for those in need.  Many good organizations already exist, but these organizations need our support through giving and volunteering.  In Florida, our family was involved with the Hope Pregnancy Center(now Hope Women's Center) click here to access website by hosting a table at their annual fund raising banquette.  In Knoxville, where I currently live, The Hope Resource Center is at the forefront of pro-life support.  click here for Hope Resource Center website  These places are looking for men and women of Christ to step up and assist in offering hurting women alternatives to abortion.  We can also support legislation that restricts abortion in our states and legislation that makes adoption by quality families easier and more affordable.  

    Tennessee recently passed a law that allows future laws to be passed governing abortion and truly protecting the health and well being of women who choose abortion. This was a positive step.  

     Educating women about what they are carrying in their womb is the greatest deterrent to abortion and the quickest way to destroy the evil influence Planned Parenthood has on society.  This is why PP is so opposed to informed consent laws, these laws reduce abortion by giving women a "truly commonsense approach to women's health and well being, based on respect for each individual's right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning."  PP counsels that a fetus is nothing more than an nonviable tissue mass.  Education reveals that a fetus is a baby with hands, feet and a face, a beating heart and the ability to suck it's thumb.  This information is often a game changer for a woman who is considering an abortion as a form of birth control.  

    Planned Parenthood was started with evil intent, to eradicate Black people and others that Margaret Sanger and her ilk determined to be society's undesirables.  Margaret Sanger was a monster, pure and simple.  Today, PP is in the baby parts business and will do all it can to keep the money train rolling. 
 The church's response must go beyond outrage, we have to let our voices be heard, we have to let or elected representatives know we are opposed to government funding of baby harvesting, we must support those who are on the front lines such as the organizations I have linked above.  We must also be ready to provide for babies who are born that would have been otherwise killed in the womb.  We have to be willing to adopt, to help single mom's and to promote abstinence in our churches.  

   Our greatest weapon is prayer, "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but powers and principalities..."  Violence against those whom we oppose on this issue is never an option for those who follow Christ.  We are called to love. 

Please pray and see what God would have you do in regards to this issue, it really is a matter of life and death.  If nothing else, pray that Planned Parenthood is defunded and those who flout the law for profit are brought to justice.   

Saturday, August 22, 2015


      No true believer would argue the fact that "it is by grace we are saved through faith... not of works, lest any man should boast."  This is a clear, simple truth, taken right out of the Bible.  Beyond this, there is very little that the most Christians agree on. There is little wonder that the Christian community is divided into hundreds of denominations and sects, each calling the majority of the others heretics at worst or aberrant at best.  There are numerous reasons that cause churches to stray from Biblical truth and divide into new groups or denominations.  Very few of those reasons have anything to do with honoring God, sadly, most are due to people with strong personalities imposing their views on others or convincing others who are not Biblically literate enough to know the truth. While no one group is all wrong, all groups cannot be right.  Often, the tenets of faith and practice of one church contradict the tenets of faith and practice of another, leaving only faith in Christ as the common factor.  This can all be very confusing, especially to the unbeliever who is trying to understand why they may need a savior and how to come to that savior.  The Bible has the answer to every question of import that we may encounter, this becomes a matter of looking diligently for the truth rather than trying to find passages that agree with our point of view.

     One doctrine of the church that causes confusion across denominational lines is baptism.  Specifically, the role baptism plays in salvation.  On one side of the argument are those who claim that baptism is an act of obedience to be performed by a believer after having come to faith, often referred to as believers baptism.  On the other side of the argument are those who believe that baptism is the point of salvation and that baptism is a necessary part of the faith formula that brings us to new life, often referred to as baptismal regeneration.  It would be impossible to reconcile these two viewpoints on baptism as they are diametrically opposed to one another, so, the only logical conclusion we can make is that either one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong.  Since we are making an argument from the Bible, and there are passages that both sides use to make their argument, the Bible has to be the final authority, and since the Bible teaches baptism, as a matter of practice, we can safely declare that one side has to be right. 


     The camp that believes in baptismal regeneration believes that baptism is a sacrament that infers grace to the recipient.  This camp is divided into two groups, one that practices infant baptism and one that only baptizes professing believers.  Not all who practice infant baptism hold to the traditional idea of baptismal regeneration.  The Roman Catholic Church does practice infant baptism for spiritual regeneration.  Augustine, arguably the father of much RCC doctrine stated, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism..."  Pope John Paul II spoke on infant baptism and salvation, leaving open the question of whether or not babies who die without baptism go to heaven.  In contrast is the Methodist church, which, who also practices infant baptism, recognizes that the baptized infant must also make a profession of faith as an adult, in order to be saved, while also believing that grace is inferred to the baptized infant, removing the stain of original sin and affecting a regeneration of sorts, but not sufficient unto salvation.   The account of the salvation of the Philippian jailer and his family is often cited as a defense for infant baptism: Acts 15:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 

   Among those who practice baptismal regeneration, are Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ(DOC), Christian Church and Oneness Pentecostal.  These churches do not teach that baptism alone affects regeneration, but that baptism is a necessary component to the salvation process. All profess faith in Christ as the main factor of salvation, but all require baptism and deem it a necessary and efficacious act of obedience.  In other words, according to those holding to this practice, grace is given through the sacrament of baptism, and without that grace, one cannot be saved.  

     The main verse used to defend this position is Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Also, Mathew 28:19 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  And the verse above, Acts 15:33 is also cited.  


    The camp that holds to believer's baptism believes that baptism is an ordinance of the church to be practiced by believers who have been born again and already regenerated by the blood of Christ through faith.  This group believes adding baptism to the formula of salvation is a heresy that adds a works component to the salvation experience.  

     The verses that are used to defend this position are numerous, such as, Ephesians 2:8 - For it is by graced you are saved through faith, and this, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Also, John 3:16 - For God so loved the world He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.  And also, Romans 10:9 -because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  There are numerous other passages that call for salvation by belief and faith, and none of these verses mention baptism. 


  Each side of the argument rebuts the other and there seems to be no definitive answer.  The baptismal regeneration group claim that that baptism is inferred in the passages that do not mention it because Acts 2:38 so clearly adds baptism to the formula of salvation and because Jesus commanded it in Mathew 28:19.  

The believer's baptism group rebut Acts 2:38 by noting that the vast majority of passages dealing with salvation omit any mention of baptism, therefore, baptism cannot be a component of salvation. They also rebut Acts 15:33 by noting that there is no mention of anyone in the household being too young to make a profession of faith, and to suggest that infant baptism is defended by this passage is a misnomer, inferring something that cannot be conveyed with the information given.  

Both sides have convincing arguments and obviously are able to win new converts to their points of view, but both sides cannot be right.  Either baptism is essential to salvation or it is a work to be done after salvation.  Arguing semantics and parsing verses obviously cannot settle the argument so further investigation must be done to determine the truth.  God would not have us ignorant to the truth and He takes no pleasure in His children dividing over an issue such as this.


     I believe the Apostle Paul settles this argument once and for all, almost inadvertently, in I Corinthians.  The church in Corinth was experiencing problems of division, some claiming to be followers of Paul, some claiming to be followers of Apollos, and so on.  Basically, denominationalism had crept into the church, and Paul needed to deal with it.  In dealing with it, Paul mentions baptism and his role of baptizing others. I Corinthians 1:10-17 10I appeal to you, brothers,a by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.  

Paul is not dealing with the doctrine of Baptism or salvation in this passage, but he tells us a great deal about the role of baptism when it comes to salvation, we just have to follow the logic.  Paul was an evangelist, his primary role was to establish churches by sharing the Gospel and seeing people come to Christ in faith, yet he was not sent to baptize.  So we have to ask ourselves, did Paul lead people to salvation or did he just tell them about Christ without actually bringing them to saving faith?  I Corinthians 3:4-5 says that he was a servant through whom some of the people of Corinth believed - For when one says, "I follow Paul" and another, "I follow Apollos", are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos?  What then is Paul?  Servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each. If Paul is a servant through whom these believed, how can he have accomplished this without baptizing if baptism is an essential component?  Some may argue that Paul did baptize some, whom he, himself, mentioned, and this passage could refer to these.  Is there more evidence that Paul does not consider baptism essential to salvation? 

In I Corinthian 4:17 - Paul mentions Timothy - That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.  Two notable things stand out in this passage.  First, we see that Paul's ways are the same in every church everywhere, thus he can see that he is not in the habit of baptizing, though he claims to be leading people to salvation. Secondly, and most important, Timothy is there among the people of Corinth and Paul names the very few people who are there that he baptized and Timothy is not named, yet, Paul specifically names Timothy as his child in the Lord.  If Timothy is, indeed Paul's child in the Lord, that means that Paul must have led Timothy to Christ, yet he did not baptize him.  If Baptism is a necessary part of salvation and Paul did not baptize Timothy, then Timothy could not possibly be Paul's child in the Lord.  

Paul was not teaching a lesson on baptism or the process of salvation.  In stating facts, Paul reveals that he does not equate baptism with the process of salvation, because if he did, he would have placed baptism on equal ground to preaching the Gospel, which he most obviously did not: 7For Christ did not send me to baptize.  


Part of discipleship is learning from the lives of others.  As we get a glimpse into the life of the Apostle Paul, we cannot deny that he was a church planter who led many to Christ.  What we also learn by watching him is that he did not consider baptism essential to salvation, nullifying the idea of baptismal regeneration. Paul was actually rejoicing that he had only baptized a few people.  We are saved by placing our faith in Christ and in that alone.  Baptism is a work that does not save.  Believers who have been regenerated are commanded to be baptized.  Paul led Timothy to Christ, yet he did not baptize him.  By handling scripture properly, we can learn a great deal about topics that divide the church.  We can see what God's intent is and we can lay arguments to rest.  It is up to us to come to the Word as a blank slate, not looking to find things that agree with our theology, but crafting our theology by learning what God's word is saying in context.