My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://www.enns.net/blog/
and update your bookmarks.




Site Network: Home | enns.net | Dimensity.net |


In my personal devotions today I was reading Mark 11:27-33. In this passage Jesus is in the temple in Jerusalem and the religious leaders approach him and ask him by whose authority he performs these things (miracles, teaching, etc..). Jesus replies in verse 29 saying that he will tell them if they answer one question:

- Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? (see Mark 1:4-5)

The leaders begin to reason with themselves on whether they should say from heaven or from men. If they said it was from heaven then they would be guilty of not believing John, if they said it was from men then the people of Israel would have been angered as they believed John to be a prophet.

Instead they replied "We do not know" and officially took no stand.

Does this look like many churches today? Officially not taking a stand on something scripture is clear about because it will make them unpopular, or perhaps it will offend members, or other believers. I am not just talking about doctrines essential to Salvation, but doctrines which are very important to the spiritual growth of a believer, and important in regards to following God's Word.

If I can quote from James Gibbons' post at Theologica: "21st Century Church—committed to doctrine-free living. I would rather know what we believe and agree to disagree than happily go along agreeing not to know what we believe."

Psalm 119:160 says "the sum of Thy Word is truth, and every one of Thy ordinances is everlasting."

Let us take a stand for the truth in love.

I was just talking to a friend of mine who renewed her Brazilian Passport...and she received a "South American Passport".

Reading the news I hear:
"Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently revealed that the South American countries are planning for a common currency as part of the integration of the individual countries into the Union of South American Nations. This integration is patterned after the formation of the European Union, and parallels the plan for the North American Union.

The union plan also calls for a regional defense council, apparently the beginning of the imposition of a regional government. This council would resolve regional conflicts, promote military cooperation and allow for the regional coordination of weapons production, much as the military integration of Canada and the U.S. initiates the unification of governments in the North American Countries.

They see the move toward the South American Union with its single currency as easily fitting with the European Union and current efforts to establish the North American Union. Once the formation of these major trading blocks is completed, the next step would be the unification of the blocks into a one world government.

This one world government is sometimes referred to as the New World Order. The Council on Foreign Relations has openly stated that its intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the U.S. with the aim of creating a one world government. The Council, referred to as CFR, has influence in all vital areas of American life and around the world. Members have run or are running the major media outlets including NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other publications.
Source:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023480.html

With our world economy in financial shambles everyone seems to be talking about globalization:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86308/benn-steil/the-end-of-national-currency.html

As long as we can find a leader who can make it all work, and get Israel & Palestine to be friends it should be good.

As long as he is republican.
Will you be around to vote?
I won't

Why do the rich get the big tax breaks and the poor get nothing? It's logical and suprisingly simple...I am no economist and this funny article from made it quite easy to understand: Bar Stool Economics (by Michael Patton, Parchment & Pen Theology Blog).

Two days ago I made a post about Gospel For Asia's missionaries in Orissa being persecuted by Hindu Exremists.

Today I just read another article about the terrible persecution "Christians" are getting there. Not just evangelical Christians, but Catholics as well.

Nun Raped in India.


The church in India is daily persecuted. Christians are killed every week. Currently there is alot of conflict going on in the Orissa area. Take a couple of minutes and check out the video, photo, and story updates sent by believers in the area as to the situation.

Gospel For Asia is raising up thousands of native missionaries who truly are unashamed of the Gospel. Hearing their stories and testimonies is very humbling. Please consider supporting one of their missionaries.

I spent the last week out on the streets of Toronto & Hamilton shooting video and getting some stock photography for Word of Life Bible Institute while the students were doing Open Air Evangelism. I also had quite a few good conversations with people on the streets, and was able to do some video interviews which we hope to put up on the web soon.

One idea is very prevalent on the streets here in Canada: What is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me. There is no standard of absolute truth. This idea is known as postmodernism. You could talk to the postmodernist all you want about the Gospel and they would smile and be very happy that you found the truth! But they would be just as happy that Joe Athiest has found his truth as well

How do we evangelize in this PostModern World? Michael Patton writes an interesting article on four approaches used to engage postmodernists. I generally use a mixture of option 2 and option 4. Now before you tie me to a stake and light a flame for saying I use option 4, read the whole article. I believe the Gospel has been discolored and masked by many "Christian" churches, proclaiming they have the truth, but preaching confusion.

A great book I am reading right now about postmodernism is called "The New Tolerance" by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler (I know dad, you lent this book to me almost 5 years ago, I will get it back to you!). It is scary to see how our culture & church is embracing this idea as right. You can read some exerpts of it from our friends over at Google Books.

Is it biblical to be a stay at home dad? Is it biblically acceptable to be a mom that brings in the income and have the father stay home and raise the kids?

Mark Driscoll has what I think are some good biblical points on the issue. Mark, pastor of a very large church (Mars Hill) used to be involved in the emerging trend of the church today, but has since realized the faults in the emergent mindset. Since then his church did a 180 in the way they look at scripture, and have really gotten back into The Book. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I have found some good stuff from him more recently.

See His Video: Should I be a stay at home dad?