The Twitter Files Reveal An Existential Threat - Hillsdale College Imprimis

Over the years I have occasionally shared an Imprimis newsletter, or excerpts from one, with my Friends.  But yesterday when I received this Imprimis newsletter in my snail mail - I knew that I have to share it with all my FRANS (Friends, Relatives, Associates, Neighbors) and ask you to share it with all your FRANs. 

This newsletter, adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on February 7, 2023, by John Daniel Davidson, Senior Editor for The Federalist, an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.  Davidson was a former Lincoln Fellow at Claremont Institute, and a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.  That which he shares, he knows.

Since the 2020 Election debacle, most Americans have wondered about issues such as (1) the Hunter Biden connection with Russia, China, and the Ukraine - (2) was President Trump really involved in the Capital Building riot on January 6, 2020  - and (3) how out of control have the Big Tech companies, in their alliance with Democratic controlled FBI, CIA, and other agencies - been in abusing and weakening OUR American government and our American freedom?

This Imprimis newsletter which I am sharing with you answers all those questions - and shows how, under Democratic Party control, OUR government agencies have become major players in the evil Deep State cancer which has steadily metastasized into an almost terminal government sickness which is threatening all Americans and all American families. 

This e-mail message may be a bit long, but it is so important that I did not want to include just excerpts.  The message contained is too important for We The People to not share and reshare it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

THE TWITTER FILES REVEAL AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT
Imprimis Publication, 2023 | Volume 52, Issue 1
By John Daniel Davidson, Senior Editor, The Federalist
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-twitter-files-reveal-an-existential-threat/

The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on February 7, 2023.

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter last October and the subsequent reporting on the Twitter Files by journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and a handful of others beginning in early December is one of the most important news stories of our time.  The Twitter Files story encompasses, and to a large extent connects, every major political scandal of the Trump-Biden era.

Put simply, the Twitter Files reveal an unholy alliance between Big Tech and the deep state designed to throttle free speech and maintain an official narrative through censorship and propaganda.  This should not just disturb us, it should also prod us to action in defense of the First Amendment, free and fair elections, and indeed our country.

After Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter, he fired a slew of useless or insubordinate employees, instituted new content moderation policies, and tried to reform a woke corporate culture that bordered (and still borders) on parody.  In the process, Musk coordinated with Taibbi and Weiss on the publication of a series of stories based on internal Twitter documents related to an array of major political events going back years:

(1) the Hunter Biden laptop scandal - (2) Twitter’s secret policy of shadow banning - (3) President Trump’s suspension from Twitter after the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot - (4) the co-opting of Twitter by the FBI to suppress “election disinformation” ahead of the 2020 election - (5) Twitter’s involvement in a Pentagon overseas psy-op campaign - (6) its silencing of dissent from the official Covid narrative - (7) its complicity in the Russiagate hoax - and (8) its gradual capitulation to the direct involvement of the U.S. intelligence community - with the FBI as a go-between - in content moderation.

As Taibbi has written, the Twitter Files “show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government - from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”

The Twitter Files contain multitudes, but for the sake of brevity let us consider just three installments and their related implications: (1) the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story - (2) the suspension of Trump - and (3) the deputization of Twitter by the FBI.  Together, these stories reveal not just a social media company willing to do the bidding of an out-of-control federal bureaucracy, but a federal bureaucracy openly hostile to the First Amendment.

Hunter Biden’s Laptop:

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published its first major exposé based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which had been dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019 and never picked up.  It was the first of several stories detailing Biden family corruption and revealing the close involvement of Joe Biden in his son’s foreign business ventures in the years during and after Biden’s vice presidency.  Hunter, although doing no real work, was making tens of millions of dollars from foreign companies in places like Ukraine and China. The Post’s bombshell reporting shined a bright light on what was happening.

According to the emails on the laptop, Hunter introduced then-Vice President Biden to a top executive at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter (who had no credentials or experience in the energy business) up to $50,000 a month to sit on its board.

(BG note: that Hunter essentially gave his laptop to a repair shop by never reclaiming it)

Soon after this meeting, Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor investigating the (Burisma) company.  In an earlier email, a top Burisma executive asked Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” to benefit the company.  The Post’s ensuing stories revealed more of the same: a shocking level of corruption and influence-peddling by Hunter Biden, whose emails suggest his father was closely connected to his overseas business ventures.  Indeed, those ventures appear to consist entirely of Hunter providing access to Joe Biden.

Twitter did everything in its power to suppress the Biden story.  It removed links to the Post’s reporting, appended warnings that they might be “unsafe,” and prevented users from sharing them via direct message - a restriction previously reserved for child pornography and other extreme cases.  In an extraordinary step, Twitter also locked the Post’s account and the accounts of anyone who shared links to its reporting, including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.  These actions were justified under the pretext that the stories violated Twitter’s hacked-materials policy, even though there was no evidence, then or now, that anything on the laptop was hacked.

Twitter executives at the highest levels were directly involved in these decisions.  Former head of Legal, Policy, and Trust, Vijaya Gadde, the company’s chief censor, played a key role, as did former head of Trust and Safety, Yoel Roth.  Oddly, all this seems to have been done without the knowledge of Twitter’s then-CEO, Jack Dorsey.  And it was done despite internal pushback from other departments.

“I’m struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe,” wrote a Twitter communications executive in an email to Gadde and Roth.  “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” asked former VP of Global Communications, Brandon Borman.  His question was answered by Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker - a former top lawyer for the FBI and the most powerful member of a growing cadre of former FBI employees working at Twitter - who said that “caution is warranted” and that some facts “indicate the materials may have been hacked.”

(BG note: Jim Baker was the Chief of Staff for President George Bush, Sr - known along with George W. to be Globalist, i.e., "one world government proponents")

But there were no such facts, as Baker and other top Twitter executives knew at the time.  The laptop was exactly what the Post said it was, and every fact the Post reported was accurate.  Other major media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post would begrudgingly admit as much 18 months later, after Joe Biden was ensconced in the White House.

If there were no hacked materials in the Post’s reporting, why did Twitter immediately react as if there were?  Because long before the Post published its first laptop story, there had been an organized effort by the intelligence community to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden.

The laptop, after all, had been in federal custody since the previous December, when the FBI seized it from the computer repair shop.  So the FBI knew very well that it contained evidence of straightforward criminal activity (such as illicit drug use) as well as of corruption and influence-peddling.

(BG note: the FBI knew this long before the 2020 Election, but suppressed it until after the election was in the books)

The evening before the Post ran its first story on the laptop, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sent ten documents to Roth at Twitter through a special one-way communications channel the FBI had established with the company.  For months, the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies had been priming Roth to dismiss news reports about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election as “hack-and-leak” operations by state actors.

They had done the same thing with Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much to Joe Rogan in an August 2022 podcast.  As Michael Shellenberger reported in the seventh installment of the Twitter Files, the FBI repeatedly asked Roth and others at Twitter about foreign influence operations on the platform and were repeatedly told there were none of any significance.  The FBI also routinely pressured Twitter to hand over data outside the normal search warrant process, which Twitter at first resisted.

(BG note:  under FBI direction/orders these Twitter executives lied to a Congressional hearing, normally a felony crime)

In July 2020, Chan arranged for Twitter executives to get top secret security clearances so the FBI could share intelligence about possible threats to the upcoming presidential election.  The next month, Chan sent Roth information about a Russian hacking group called APT28.  Roth later said that when the Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop broke, “It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leak campaign alarm bells.” 

Even though there was never any evidence that anything on the laptop was hacked, Roth reacted to it just as the FBI had conditioned him to do, using the company’s hacked-materials policy to suppress the story as soon as it appeared, just as the agency suggested it would, less than a month before the election.

Suspending the President:

The erosion of Twitter’s content moderation standards would continue after the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, reaching its apogee on January 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol riot.  That is when Twitter made the extraordinary decision to suspend President Trump, even though he had not violated any Twitter policies. 

As the Twitter Files show, the suspension came amid ongoing interactions with federal agencies - interactions that were increasing in frequency in the months leading up to the 2020 election, during which Roth was meeting weekly with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  As the election neared, Twitter’s unevenly applied, rules-based content moderation policies would steadily deteriorate.

Content moderation on Twitter had always been an unstable mix of automatic enforcement of rules and subjective interventions by top executives, most of whom used Twitter’s censorship tools to diminish the reach of Trump and others on the right through shadow banning and other means. But that was changing. As Taibbi wrote in the third installment of the Twitter Files: “As the election approached, senior executives - perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed - increasingly struggled with rules, and began to speak of ‘vios’ [violations] as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.”

(BG note: Shadow-Banning:  blocking (a user) from a social media site or online forum without their knowledge, typically by making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users. Wikipedia)

After January 6, Twitter jettisoned even the appearance of a rules-based moderation policy, suspending Trump for a pair of tweets that top executives falsely claimed were violations of Twitter’s terms of service. 

The first, sent early in the morning on January 8, stated: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future.  They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

The second, sent about an hour later, simply stated that Trump would not be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

That same day, key Twitter staffers correctly determined that Trump’s tweets did not constitute incitement of violence or violate any other Twitter policies.  But pressure kept building from people like Gadde, who wanted to know whether the tweets amounted to “coded incitement to further violence.”  Some suggested that Trump’s first tweet might have violated the company’s policy on the glorification of violence.

Internal discussions then took an even more bizarre turn.  Members of Twitter’s “scaled enforcement team” reportedly viewed Trump “as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.”

Later on the afternoon of January 8, Twitter announced Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” - a nonsense phrase that corresponded to no written Twitter policy.  The suspension of a sitting head of state was unprecedented.  Twitter had never taken such a step, even with heads of state in Nigeria and Ethiopia who actually had incited violence. 

Internal deliberations unveiled by the Twitter Files show that Trump’s suspension was partly justified based on the “overall context and narrative” of Trump’s words and actions - as one executive put it - “over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.”

That is, it was not anything Trump said or did; it was that Twitter’s censors wanted to blame the President for everything that happened on January 6 and remove him from the platform.  To do that, they were willing to shift the entire intellectual framework of content moderation from the enforcement of objective rules to the consideration of “context and narrative,” - thereby allowing executives to engage in what amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

Private companies, of course, for the most part have the right to engage in viewpoint discrimination - something the government is prohibited from doing by the First Amendment.  The problem is that when Twitter suspended Trump, it was operating less like a private company - than like an extension of the federal government.

* * *

Among the most shocking revelations of the Twitter Files is the extent to which federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies came to view Twitter as a tool for censorship and narrative control.  In part six of the Twitter Files, Taibbi chronicles the “constant and pervasive” contact between the FBI and Twitter after January 2020, “as if [Twitter] were a subsidiary.” 

In particular, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security wanted Twitter to censor tweets and lock accounts it believed were engaged in “election misinformation,” and would regularly send the company content it had pre-flagged for moderation, essentially dragooning Twitter into what would otherwise be illegal government censorship.  Taibbi calls it a “master-canine” relationship.  When requests for censorship came in from the feds, Twitter obediently complied - even when the tweets in question were clearly jokes or posted on accounts with few followers.

Some Twitter executives were unsure what to make of this relationship.  Policy Director Nick Pickles at one point asked how he should refer to the company’s cooperation with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, suggesting it be described in terms of “partnerships.”  Time and again, federal agencies stressed the need for close collaboration with their “private sector partners,” using the alleged interference by Russia in the 2016 election as the pretext for a massive government surveillance and censorship regime operating from inside Twitter.

Requests for content moderation, which increasingly resembled demands, came not only from the FBI and DHS, but also from a tangled web of other federal agencies, contractors, and government-affiliated think tanks such as the "Election Integrity Project" at Stanford University.  As Taibbi writes, the lines between government and its “partners” in this effort were “so blurred as to be meaningless.”

The Deputization of Twitter:

After the 2016 election, both Twitter and Facebook faced pressure from Democrats and their media allies to root out Russian “election meddling” under the thoroughly debunked theory that a Moscow-based social media influence operation was responsible for Trump’s election victory.  In reality, Russia’s supposed meddling amounted to a minuscule ad buy on Facebook and a handful of Twitter bots.  But the truth was not acceptable to Democrats, the media, or the anti-Trump federal bureaucracy.

In 2017, Twitter came under tremendous pressure to “keep producing material” on Russian interference, and in response it created a Russia Task Force to hunt for accounts tied to Moscow’s Internet Research Agency.  The task force did not find much.  Out of some 2,700 accounts reviewed, only two came back as significant, and one of those was Russia Today, a state-backed news outlet. 

But in the face of bad press and threats from Democrats in Congress, Twitter executives decided to go along with the official narrative and pretend they had a Russia problem.  To placate Washington and avoid costly new regulations, they pledged to “work with [members of Congress] on their desire to legislate.”  When someone in Congress leaked the list of the 2,700 accounts Twitter’s task force had reviewed, the media exploded with stories suggesting that Twitter was swarming with Russian bots - and Twitter continued to go along.

After that, as described by Taibbi, “This cycle - threatened legislation wedded to scare headlines pushed by congressional/intel sources, followed by Twitter caving to [content] moderation asks - [came to] be formalized in partnerships with federal law enforcement.”

Late in 2017, Twitter quietly adopted a new policy.  In public, it would say that all content moderation took place “at [Twitter’s] sole discretion.”  But its internal guidance would stipulate censorship of anything “identified by the U.S. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.”  Thus Twitter increasingly allowed the intelligence community, the State Department, and a dizzying array of federal and state agencies to submit content moderation requests through the FBI, which Chan suggested could function as “the belly button of the [U.S. government].”  These requests would grow and intensify during the Covid pandemic and in the run-up to the 2020 election.

By 2020, there was a torrent of demands for censorship, sometimes with no explanation - just an Excel spreadsheet with a list of accounts to be banned.  These demands poured in from FBI offices all over the country, overwhelming Twitter staff.  Eventually the government would pay Twitter $3.4 million in compensation.  It was a pittance considering the work Twitter did at the government’s behest, but the payment illustrated a stark reality: Twitter, a leading gatekeeper of the digital public square and arguably the most powerful social media platform in the world, had become a subcontractor for the U.S. intelligence community.

* * *

The Twitter Files have revealed or confirmed three important truths about social media and the deep state.

First, the entire concept of “content moderation” is a euphemism for censorship by social media companies that falsely claim to be neutral and unbiased.  To the extent they exercise a virtual monopoly on public discourse in the digital era, we should stop thinking of them as private companies that can “do whatever they want,” as Libertarians are fond of saying.  The companies’ content moderation policies are at best a flimsy justification for banning or blocking whatever their executives do not like.  At worst, they provide cover for a policy of pervasive government censorship.

Second, Twitter was taking marching orders from a deep state security apparatus that was created to fight terrorists, not to censor or manipulate public discourse.  To the extent that the Deep State is using social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to subvert the First Amendment and run information psy-ops on the American public, these companies have become malevolent government actors.  As a policy matter, the hands-off, laissez-faire regulatory approach we have taken to them should come to an immediate end.

Third, the administrative state has metastasized into a destructive Deep State that threatens to bring about the collapse of America’s Constitutional system within our lifetimes.  Emblematic of the threat is the fact that “the intelligence community” has proven itself incapable of not interfering in American elections.  The FBI in particular has directly meddled in the last two presidential elections to a degree that should call into question its continued existence. 

Indeed, the FBI’s post-9/11 transformation from a law enforcement agency to a counter-terrorism and intelligence-gathering agency with seemingly limitless remit has been a disaster for civil liberties and the First Amendment.  We need either to impose radical reforms or scrap it entirely and start over. 

(BG note:  this "signed blank check" which freed the FBI to take any actions they wanted, first against terrorist, then against American citizens for political reasons - was set in place by George W. Bush, Globalist)

The late great political scientist, Angelo Codevilla, argued that our response to 9/11 was completely wrong.  Instead of erecting a sprawling security and surveillance apparatus to detect and disrupt potential terrorist plots, we should have issued an ultimatum to the regimes that were harboring Al Qaeda: "you make war on these terrorists and bring them to justice or we will make war on you." 

The reason not to do what we did, Codevilla argued, is that a security and surveillance apparatus powerful and pervasive enough to do what we wanted it to do - was incompatible with a free society.   It might defeat the terrorists, but it would eventually be turned on the American people. 

(BG note:  and from the information given us in this newsletter, we can see that has indeed happened under the Democratic Party administration)

The Twitter Files leave little doubt that Angelo Codevilla’s prediction has come to pass.  The question we face now is whether the American people and their elected representatives will fight back.  The fate of the republic rests on the answer.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Parenthetical emphasis in the newsletter above which begin with (BG note: .  .  .) are my additions and not in the original newsletter.

I am sharing this newsletter to those in my Friends Ministry eNewsletter, on our Bill & Dory Gray Christian Ministries blog site, and on Facebook - so that you may choose whichever is the easiest for you to share.  Yes, it is that important.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray

Click on the image to enlarge: 

Happy New Year 2023, Y'all!

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2023, Y'ALL!  ~  As y'all can see in my New Years Day 2017 post below, America knew we were looking forward to better times, for on January 20, 2017, President Trump was taking the helm of America and would guide our Ship of State toward prosperity and better times.

But as in Biblical days, when God's people made bad choices, they paid the consequences.  America has been paying a heavy price since Joe Biden walked into the Oval Office in January 2021 - and we will continue to suffer for the bad choice of electing Democrats in 2020. 

However, a bit of light at that end of the tunnel begins in 2023 when Conservatives take control of the House of Representatives - and will come to full fruition in January 2025 when both the White House and Congress once again don their Robes of Conservative Red.

That said, let me share a wee bit of Southern Tradition which stems from bad choices Americans made which led to a bloody 4-year Civil War between 1861 and 1865.  Then on April 15, 1865, crazed Democratic sympathizers assassinated President Lincoln - making repatriation of Southern states back into the Union a nightmare for all the South. 

Upon Lincoln's death, Vice President Johnson, a very weak and wimpy Democrat, became president.  Sound familiar?  Does that remind anyone of another vice president who became president in 2021?

And because of the hardships brought on by the horrible 4-year Civil War, life in the South was very hard.  In their own way, they celebrated the prosperity Southerners knew would return - and did get better after Republican President Grant took office.

So to continue our history lesson born from those hard times, I invite y'all to join us in a Southern Style New Years Day Meal, all y'all!

Here is the menu and the reason behind this Southern New Years celebration:

BLACK-EYED PEAS:  The tradition of eating black-eyed peas dates back to the Civil War.  When General William T. Sherman led his Union troops on a destructive march through the South, the fields of black-eyed peas were left untouched because they were deemed fit only for animals. 

As a result, the humble yet nourishing black-eyed pea crops saved surviving Confederates from starvation.  The peas are said to represent coins.

GREENS:  Greens represent wealth and paper money, as they are flat and green like U.S. currency.  Any greens will do, but in the South the most popular are collards, mustard greens, turnip greens, and cabbage.

PORK:  Throughout history, owning pigs and livestock was a symbol of prosperity.  So today pork is eaten in the hopes of prosperity and a bountiful harvest in the coming year. 

CORNBREAD:  Cornbread symbolizes gold and is used for soaking up the pot likker from the greens.  After the Civil War, when wheat was a rarity in the region, Southerners made cornbread a regular meal staple.  Note:  Pot likker is the aftermath of long simmered greens, used in the South to dunk cornbread.

And the whole world knows that "Y'all" is the proper way to address any individual - not "You guys" or even worse "Youse guys."  And the simple expansion of "Y'all" when addressing a group of people is - "All y'all."  

See how simple it is to learn to speak Southern?  So on your next visit to the South and your hostess summons, "All y'all come on to eat" - that means "all y'all" are included.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bill Gray shared on January 1, 2017:

HAPPY NEW YEAR, Y'ALL! ~ Down South we have two religions: God and BAMA Football, in that order - at least, for most folks.  Both are very special to us - and both have been very good to us.

So, let's thank God for this blessed New Year - and for the promise of new prosperity, peace, and unity for all Americans, starting on January 20, 2017.

And, on January 9, 2017, we will cheer BAMA on to victory.

God bless and Happy New Year,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge: 

 

The Lordship vs Free Grace Spitting Contest

The ongoing debate between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Free Grace, predominantly - with a few other theologies which have crept in - has been wearing on my theological nerves!  I have long known and understood what Calvinism and Arminianism teach and have disagreements with both. 

But in the past ten years or so, Free Grace theologian, Bob Wilkin, and his group have jumped into the controversy with both feet.  And I guess what has been most aggravating about the Wilkin, et al, entry into the theology wars - is their constant cannon fire at John MacArthur. 

In those three leading theologies I see at least one doctrine in each which, from a biblical view, I cannot accept.  Yet each theology camp has a lot of doctrinal teachings which are solid and biblical.  With Calvinism I cannot find biblical support for their "Elect / Reprobate based Predestination." 

With Arminianism it is their teaching that a true believer can "Lose His/Her Salvation" over a sin which they are not even aware of committing.  And with Free Grace, it is their "Saving Faith Without Repentance" - while still possibly living a sin-based lifestyle, which I find hard to swallow.

Today if we mention Calvinism one thinks of John MacArthur.  In the Reform branch of Calvinism we find the late R.C.Sproul, John Piper, Ron Rhodes, and Wayne Grudem, among others - but primarily John MacArthur under the Calvinism umbrella.

In the Free Grace camp, the first name in my mind would be Bob Wilkin.  Also a number of others, but for me, primarily Bob Wilkin.

Yet the Arminian camp, for me, is virtually faceless.  Yes there are denominational branches, many Pentecostals, some Methodists, etc. - but overall, virtually faceless.  No one person championing this theology jumps out for me at the mention of Arminianism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are easy to tag:  the Calvinist will be marching with a flag boldly proclaiming "Predestination of Elect / Reprobate" - while the Arminians, when you can spot them, are waving a flag which declares, "Watch out!  That little sin may send you to hell!"   And those in the Free Grace camp wave a big flag which declares, "Lordship Theology will sink your ship!"   But what exactly is Lordship Theology?

What has been most aggravating to me about the Free Grace Movement is that, at first I did not understand what they were arguing about - and I truly wanted to get a better understanding of what Free Grace theology teaches.  I sent e-mails and other inquiries asking for a good definition of the Free Grace Movement and what, in their view, is found in Lordship Theology. 

Not once did I ever get a response from those folks who were so loud and vocal in their disagreements with John MacArthur.  I suppose I was thinking: "If they can spend that much effort disagreeing with John MacArthur - why can't they take just a moment and share some insight with Bill Gray?"

In muddling through their mortar fire into the Calvinist camp, I think I have discovered their main sticking point:  While most of the Christian world views "repentance" as an integral component of believing - the Free Grace Movement folks want to stand it alone as a separate action and label it a "work" and in so doing, say that it goes against the teaching found most specifically in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast."  

They are trying to build a wall around "REPENTANCE" and declare it to be a work.  I can see how Baptism is viewed as a work, for it is a physical thing a new believer does to acknowledge his/her new relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  But Repenting - spiritually believing that the sin nature which Christ died to "pay in full" for us - is not a physical action on our part, not a physical work. 

It is an integral, spiritual component of believing why Christ had to die on the cross - it is as integral to believing, as getting wet is when one jumps into the lake to swim.  One cannot swim without getting wet.  And one cannot believe without acknowledging the sin nature which Christ died on the cross to atone for in our stead.

In defense of my sanity, my theological sanity, I resorted to subscribing to the Free Grace Movement magazine "Grace in Focus."  And I will admit that it has become one of my favorite magazines.  In each issue I just skip over all articles with "John MacArthur" in the title and read the rest of that issue.  That magazine has great articles and shares a lot of solid theological information, insight, and knowledge.  I highly recommend it to all my Friends.  But you might want to follow my lead and stay out of the "What is a John MacArthur" arena.

Thus began my journey through the Free Grace Theology briar patch:

Wikipedia:  Free Grace Theology is a Christian view of salvation (soteriology) that says anyone can, and does, receive eternal life the moment they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31).  

Bill Gray Note:  So far, so good.

Wikipedia:  Free Grace advocates believe that good works are not the condition to merit (as with Catholics) - maintain (as with Arminians) - or to prove (as with Calvinists) eternal life.  But rather are part of discipleship and the basis for receiving eternal rewards.

Bill Gray Note:  First I have to agree with my Free Grace Friends, Eternal Rewards and Salvation are absolutely two different goals.  A person can receive Salvation while still losing Eternal Rewards in heaven.  But a person CANNOT gain Eternal Rewards in heaven, without first gaining Salvation - the reason a person is promoted to heaven.  In other words, a Saved person can lose Eternal Rewards, but not Salvation.  But for a person to gain Eternal Rewards, that person must first be Saved.

And here I am going to have to assume that, in the Free Grace Movement "Discipleship" is what most theologians refer to as "Sanctification."  In other words, a believer is saved the moment we believe, which we call Justification.  That begins the Sanctification (Discipleship) part of our Christian life where we, hopefully, on a daily basis, become more mature in our knowledge of God's Word and in our daily walk with Him.  When we die or are Raptured, that kicks in the Glorification part of our Christian faith - where we are made to be like Him, Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him (in our glorified bodies), because we will see Him just as He is (in His glorified body)."

Wikipedia:  (In the Free Grace Movement) The Grace (gift) of eternal life is said to be free - as the only condition for receiving it (Him) is initial faith.  This view distinguishes between salvation and discipleship – the call to believe in Christ as Savior and to receive the gift of eternal life (is Justification) - and the call to follow Christ and become an obedient disciple, respectively (is Sanctification). 

Bill Gray Note:   For me, the Free Grace folks are playing the name game, i.e., Salvation vs Justification - Discipleship vs Sanctification.  For me this is playing the old "Apples and Oranges" game.

Wikipedia:   The Lordship Salvation controversy (also called Lordship controversy) is a theological dispute regarding a soteriological question (the study of salvation) within Christianity on the relationship between Faith and Works.  This debate has been notably present among some non-denominational and Evangelical churches in North America at least since the 1980s.

The dispute opposes (presents) two soteriological visions: (1) "whether it is necessary to accept Christ as Lord in order to have Him as one's Savior.  The question then becomes: 'If someone accepts Christ as Savior without also explicitly accepting Him as Lord, is such a person truly saved?'." 

That is, whether accepting Jesus Christ as Savior necessarily implies one must make a concrete commitment in life toward Christ such as following a certain behaviour or moral system. 

The first opinion, that of the Lordship Salvation supporters, is, as Arthur W. Pink summarizes:  "No one can receive Christ as His Savior while he rejects Him as Lord. Therefore, those who have not bowed to Christ’s scepter and enthroned Him in their hearts and lives, and yet imagine that they are trusting Him as Savior, are deceived." 

The second opinion (2) is that of those opposing Lordship Salvation:  "That one can accept Jesus Christ as Savior - but does not need to accept Christ's Lordship^."

Bill Gray Note:    What is the difference between saying that Jesus is my "Savior" - and saying that Jesus is my "Lord"?    Jesus is my "Savior" means that MY sins are forgiven.   Jesus is my "Lord" means a change in my lifestyle - which impacts both me and everyone around me, especially my family.

Example 1:  At age 85, I spent a major part of the first half of my life partying, drinking, and satisfying my fleshly, earthly, carnal desires.  But once I became a believer at age 50 - could I still have lived that same lifestyle and truly believed I would enjoy eternal life in Jesus Christ? 

Could I truly have continued to immerse myself in that carnal, secular lifestyle - and still have been a born-again believer?  Think about it!  Could you continue to wallow in mud - and consider yourself clean?  Really?

Example 2:  I have long believed that a gay or lesbian person can be a born-again believer.  BUT, can a person who continues to live in and practice a lifestyle which God Himself has declared to be: an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) -  a detestable act (Leviticus 20:13) - a degrading passion (Romans 1:26) - an unnatural act (Romans 1:26) - an indecent act (Romans 1:27) - contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:10), unrighteous, those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) - really be a born-again believer? 

My question:  "Can a person continue to LIVE a gay lifestyle and be a born again believer?"  And the answer has to be:  NO.  Such a person may, and most likely will, still have those desires - but feeling the desires and LIVING that lifestyle are not the same.

So, to summarize:  Jesus is my "Savior" impacts me alone  -  Jesus is my "Lord’ impacts me and everyone around me.  Can He be my Savior without being my Lord? Both the Bible and I say, emphatically, NO!

Therefore I must side with John MacArthur and the Calvinist, and the faceless Arminians on this issue:  I was saved the moment I received Jesus Christ as both my Lord and my Savior.  And, to the best of my current knowledge, only on this issue do I disagree with my Free Grace brethren. 

I do agree with my Calvinist, Arminian, and Free Grace brethren that we cannot WORK our way into heaven, that we cannot and are not saved by WORKS, but by Faith Alone.  The big question becomes:  "What is a work - and what is an internal spiritual change - and how do we define each?"

Otherwise, I do highly recommend both the "Grace in Focus" magazine - and - also John MacArthur's writings, on all issues except Calvinist Predestination, to all my FRANs (Friends, Relatives, Associates, Neighbors), for I know that both will continue to help both you and me grow more mature in our knowledge of God's Word and in our daily walk with Him.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

I Have A Dilemma, A Twilight Zone Dilemma ~ Where Was I In 1962?

WHERE WAS I IN 1962?

This is a dilemma I have pondered for a few years, and recently as Dory and I were walking I shared it with her for the first time.  Sounds spooky, doesn't it?  And in a way, it is - for I have never been able to figure it out.

Let me briefly share the dilemma with you - and then I will flesh it out in more detail.  In April 1962 I attended the 20th Reunion of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders at the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica, California. 

Yet in October 1962 I was in Washington DC/Virginia and deeply affected by the Cuban Missile Crisis.  But I did not move back to or travel to California until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

However, I recall both events in great detail and have no doubt in my mind that I did attend both events - one in California, the other in Washington DC, in the same year - but at impossible times.

Now for the promised detailed accounts of both events - and then see if you can explain how this happened.

DILEMMA PART 1:

In April 1962 I lived at in an apartment at 15425 Vanowen Blvd, Van Nuys, California, corner unit 3rd floor, and totally by chance I had the honor of attending the 20th Reunion of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders at the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica. 

I was a young, single, Computer Field Engineer living in Southern California, working for Ramo Wooldridge (later TRW), and making good money.  And what is a young man earning good money, living in Southern California in the early 1960s - the decadent decade - to do but party every night? 

After a while I realized that I could not continue to party and drink seven night a week.  I had to find another outlet for my energy.

I had always thought it would be cool to an actor, and I lived in Southern California - so why not go to acting school?  I found an ad in the newspaper for the Theatre of Arts which was located in the Del Mar Beach Club in Santa Monica.  I called and was told to come to their facility on the second floor of the beach club next Wednesday. 

So on that fateful Wednesday night, April 18, 1962, I went to the Theatre of Arts acting school where I met another young man, Jim Anthony.  Jim was 19 and I was 25 years old.  We met in the lobby and by the time we had walked up the stairs to the second floor, we realized we were there for the same reason and became instant friends. 

But that night there was a note on the door of the acting school telling us, "School closed.  Come down the hall to the right, to the Blue Room."  When we found the Blue Room, we realized that we were not only joining the acting school - but that was the first night of the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion being held at the Del Mar Beach Club - and we, the acting school, were their guests. 

They had invited the acting school to attend, I suppose to add some color to their celebration.  So the acting school I joined to stop partying and drinking seven nights a week - led me into a four day Tokyo Raiders Reunion party with a free open bar.  Oh well, I decided I could postpone my partying slowdown for one more week. 

At that time, most of Doolittle's Raiders were still alive.  It was exciting to be able to mix with those heroes and hear their personal stories.  Did you realize that all of the planes crashed except one?  The B-25s on this mission had a strict weight limit to enable them to take off from an aircraft carrier, the USS Hornet. They were stripped down and had the gallons of fuel on-board fuel calculated carefully.  One crew chief snuck an extra can of fuel on his plane, which could have killed his crew - but did not. 

They were able to take off, finish the mission, and while all the other planes crashed in China and were saved by the Chinese, a couple of crews were captured by the Japanese - his plane and crew were able to make it back to what they thought was an allied air base, a Russian air base.  The Russians held them as "house guests," i.e., captives for one year - and we never got the plane back.  The crew chief told me this story himself and I have later verified that it is true.
 
That was four nights of partying, great stories, and celebration.  And on Saturday night, at the closing dinner, Bob Hope was the guest speaker and then General Doolittle spoke. 

Bob Hope was a sight for he got caught in the Los Angeles traffic trying to get to Santa Monica that Saturday evening and evidently did not have time to change.  When he was standing on stage at eye level, his pants were inches too short (high water pants) and he had on white socks.   Yet, he was still funny.  And he was doing what he did so well, entertaining our troops.

The man in charge of the reunion that year was a suave, handsome, peppered-haired Colonel from the Pentagon - and the lady who owned the acting school, Madame Valmar Oleska, chased that poor Colonel every night of the reunion.

While I returned to my true vocation, the computer industry - Jim Anthony, who had became my friend during our acting school days, went on to have a successful career as an actor.  To join SAG (Screen Actor's Guild) he later changed his name to Anthony James and appeared as a character actor in just about every western and detective television series that aired in the 1970s and 80s. 

I was living in Huntsville briefly when I first saw Jim in a 1968 episode of the new, to me, western TV show "The Big Valley" where he was a nutty mountain man and killer.  When we turned on the TV that Wednesday evening, the first image I saw was Jim's face - and I thought, "Wow, he made it in television."  Yes, I will admit to a wee vicarious thrill.

The next Saturday evening my girl friend and I went to the movie with bowling friends and, surprise, surprise - there was Jim in the 1967 movie "In The Heat Of The Night" where he was the killer Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier were chasing.  He retired a few years back and was living in the Boston area doing his thing as an artist, creating art through his paintings.  He died from cancer on May 26, 2020.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I attended the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion the week of April 18-22, 1962.  And that week in 1962 I met my friend, Jim Anthony, and together we became students at the Theatre of Arts acting school.

DILEMMA PART 2:

Fresh out of the Air Force, in August 1958, I joined Burroughs Corporation as a Computer Systems Technician at their plant in Pasadena (Sierra Madre), California.  A year later, in 1959, I transferred into the company's Field Engineering department and was assigned to help maintain the Burroughs B220 computer system at the Naval Supply Depot in Norfolk, Virginia. 

Later I was transferred to the Burroughs district office in Washington DC - where I became lead Field Engineer on their system at Atlantic Research Corporation in Tysons Corner, Virginia. 

In October 1962, I was the lead Field Engineer on the Burroughs computer system at Atlantic Research Corporation.  In the Air Force I had been an electronic technician maintaining the F-86 jet fighter Weapons Fire Control/Radar Systems.  A friend and fellow Field Engineer, Paul, was my co-worker at Atlantic Research.  He had also been in the Air Force, and together we decided to join the Air Force Reserves just to stay abreast of military electronics.

Paul and I planned to go on Saturday, October 20, 1962, to join the Air Force Reserves.  However the computer system at Atlantic Research developed a problem so we had to work that Saturday.  We agreed that the following Saturday, October 27th, we would visit the Air Force Reserve unit and join.

But Fidel Castro, Cuba's Communist dictator, stepped into our plans.  On Sunday, October 14, the Cuban Missile Crisis burst upon us.  Russia had installed missile sites in Cuba - within easy target range of America.  That led to a 13-day (October 16-28, 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over the apparently offensive missile sites in Cuba.
 
On Monday, October 22, 1962, President Kennedy, because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, announced that the U.S. military forces would go to DEFCON 3 and the Air Force Reserve unit that Paul and I would have joined that previous Saturday - was activated that Monday.  That close call of being reactivated into active military duty convinced me of an old military maxim, "Never volunteer for anything!"
 
DILEMMA CONCLUSION:  Where was I in 1962 - California or Washington DC/Virginia?  And how do I explain that both events are very vivid in my memory, down to minute details?   I had to have been in Southern California, at the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders 20th Reunion, April 18-22, 1962 - and I had to have been at Atlantic Research Corporation in Tysons Corner, Virginia, on Saturday, October 20, 1962.  BUT, HOW? 

I have literally replayed these events over and over in my mind for years - and cannot find an answer.  Did I confuse the year?  Was the Reunion in 1963 instead of 1962?  Was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961 instead of 1962?-

As my photo collage below shows, the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders' Reunion was held April 1962 as shown in the Del Mar Beach Club May 1962 issue - with William Bower's Reunion badge also showing April 1962.

And the whole world knows when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, October 16-28, 1962 - for the whole world was holding their collective breaths for that 13 days.  If you can explain this dilemma, other than saying I was on a Timothy Leary High in 1962 - PLEASE DO!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

Have You Shared A Maranatha Greeting Today?

This morning I was reading the book "The Beginning Of The End" by Dr. Tim LaHaye.  On pages 12 and 13, he tells the story of an old Scottish minister and a local farmer neighbor.  And that brought back a wonderful deja vu memory, a story told to me when I was a new believer many years ago.  That memory emphasized two truths I believe: 

(1) All my life I have loved to walk and on my walks when I pass someone on the street, I smile and say, "Hello, how are you today?"  Two things usually happen, first I almost always get a response and most often a smile in return.  And in all my years of walking, I can count on one hand the times my greeting has been ignored.

And (2), we never know when someone just needs a smile and a hello.  And we never know when a simple, "God bless you" may change that person's life. 

This is Dr. Tim LaHaye's story:

"Maranatha" means "The Lord is coming."  That expression gained popularity in the first century and became a common mode of greeting and parting.  Christians often included it in letters, and in some cases even soldiers used it as a slogan when they went off to war.

The story is told of an old Scottish minister who passed the home of a parishioner on his way to church on Sunday morning.   Obviously the man chopping wood by the side of the house was not going to church.  Their eyes met and the pastor felt he should say something, so he called out, "The Lord is coming" and went on to church. 

About five minutes after he started his message the farmer entered.  After the service he admitted, "Pastor, the more I thought about the Lord is coming, the more I realized I didn't want Him to find me cutting wood during church time."  No wonder John said, "And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure."  (1 John 3:3)    ("The Beginning Of The End," Tim LaHaye, Tyndale House Publishers 1972 - pages 12-13)

Take the story shared by the man God used to bring me into His family.  In 1987 God introduced me to a pastoral couple named Pastor Sam and Ida Lacanienta.  Their Godly love brought me into the church he pastored - and through his teachings in worship services, Sunday School, and Bible study, I became a believer.  It took me six months of good Bible study, but at the age of 50, I became a child of God. 

One story which Pastor Sam shared with our Bible study group was about his early ministry in America.  I believe Pastor Sam and Ida came to America from the Philippines in the early 1970s and his first ministry was as an associate pastor in a small church in Santa Ana, California. 

That church did not have sufficient parking and on Sundays most folks parked in the street.  Just down the block from the church an elderly neighbor did not like cars parked in front of his home and his aggravation often became angry yelling at the people parking for church.

Rather that get angry or bothered by the elderly man's temper, Pastor Sam went to visit him one day during the week.  Pastor Sam is the kind of man who always exudes warmth, friendliness, and love - and that led the elderly man into a friendly neighbor to neighbor chat with Pastor Sam.  I can relate, for that same warmth and love, obviously from God, is what led me to visit the church he was pastoring in 1987 - where I was loved to the cross.

Pastor Sam became friends with the neighbor, they would wave and greet one another during the weeks that followed.  And even though the man did not start attending church services - after a while Pastor Sam did lead him to the Lord. 

A few weeks later, when he did not see the elderly neighbor in his yard as he normally did, Pastor Sam went to visit his home.  At the man's home Pastor Sam was told that about a week ago the man had passed away.  But we know that the moment he breathed his last mortal breath - that neighbor was in the presence of God.

That happened because Pastor Sam Lacanienta took the time to greet a disgruntled neighbor, share God's love with him, and tell him how much God loves him.  In other words, Pastor Sam told him, "Maranatha, the Lord is coming!" 

That is the deja vu story I relived this morning reading about Tim LaHaye's old Scottish minister's Maranatha greeting to his neighbor. 

Have YOU shared a Maranatha greeting with anyone today? 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed Marantha day,

Bill

Click on the image to enlarge:

 

Who Is The Great Shepherd, Who Are The Sheep, And Why KJV Bible Only?

While I realize that some will view posts such as this as being argumentative.  I view it as a learning exercise, much like Discussion/Conversational Bible Studies.  We learn very little when we just sit and listen.  We learn when we participate in discussions, allowing different participants to offer their thoughts and then discussing those thoughts to see if they are valid, based upon Scripture.   

That is why I will never call myself a Bible study "teacher."    My goal is always to be a Bible study "leader" - one who opens the discussion, hears, considers, and discusses thoughts from others, eventually leading the group discussion back to our only true authority, the Bible.

With that in mind, this is one of my recent discussions on Facebook:

A FRIEND AND CHRISTIAN BROTHER IN AFRICA POSTED:   "We are not the Sheep ~ Jesus Christ is not our shepherd  ~  Our blessings are spiritual in Christ Jesus  ~ We are not looking forward to the Messianic Kingdom."

I RESPOND: My brother, you tell us, "We are not the Sheep. Jesus Christ is not our shepherd."  The Bible clearly tells us that the metaphor "sheep" refers to all believers worldwide, Jews and Gentiles.  At the time of His earthly teaching, He came to those who should have been His "sheep" - Israel - and to seek and heal His "other sheep" - we Gentiles.  We Gentiles are the branches grafted into the True Vine, Jesus Christ (John 15:1ff).  In John 10:24-29 Jesus is clearly referring to all believers, i.e., His sheep. 

And in Matthew 25:31-46 we see the post-Tribulation Sheep & Goat Judgment of the mortal survivors of the 7-year Tribulation.  The Sheep are the believers who survive the Tribulation, the Goats are the non-believers who survive.  The Sheep go into His 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, i.e., the Messianic Kingdom, in their mortal bodies.  The Goats, i.e., non-believers, go into Hades/Torment (Luke 16:19-31) to await the Great White Judgment of all non-believers.

HE TELLS ME:  "As a Dispensationalist, King James Bible believer (KJV Only), and Pauline rightly dividing the Word of Truth (believer) - I don't believe that salvation has been by Grace through faith in Christ."

I RESPOND:  On Dispensationalism we agree.  Although I have to ask, "How can you be a Dispensationalist believer, i.e., PreTrib Rapture, PreMillennial Second Coming of Christ, and not believe in His 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, aka, His Messianic Kingdom?"

On your KJV Only position, I have one question: WHY? 

There are two editions of the King James Bible - the King James 1611 and the King James 1769.  Which one do the KJV ONLY folks call the only Bible, the 1611 or the 1769?   There were a number of English language Bible translations before the King James 1611 (see chart below) - and there are good English translations since 1611.  So why do you feel that that King James is the only Bible translations we should be reading?  The graphic posted below shows the English Bible Timeline.

Do you really believe that God looked down, chose ONLY the King James Bible to be His Holy Word - and wants us to trash all the other translations?  Really?  In your view, is God really that limited?

My Friend, our God is big enough to have chosen 40 men, over a period of 1600 year, in various locations - to write His Bible.  And they had a unified message - offering salvation to mankind.  Our God was big enough to assure that scribes and copyists over the millennia were copying His Word accurately - and our God is still big enough today to assure that our NASB, NKJV,  and other English language translations properly reflect His Word and His message of salvation.  You should not limit God to only one translation.

In your vision of God, after the inspired Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops translations, all English translations, did God suddenly decide that all those English translations before 1611 were invalid and only the King James English translation is valid?  Where do you find that in Scripture?  If the Christian church should be using ONLY the King James Bible, who made that decision?  Was it man or God?  If God, where is it written?

God inspired those 40 men, over a period of 1600 years, living in various geographical locations - to write His unified message of salvation for mankind.  Did the same God who guided the hands of those 40 writers, then the Scribes and Copyists over the millennia, to copy His literal, inspired, inerrant Written Word - suddenly stop inspiring man to translate His message of salvation to mankind?  Starting with Wycliffe Bible, did God invalidate them all, declare them all uninspired, and bless only the King James Bible?  Really?

HE TELLS ME:  I am a, "Pauline rightly dividing the Word of Truth" believer." 

I RESPOND:  I am not quite sure I understand your position on the apostle Paul's writings.  I know there are people who feel that we should discard the Gospel books and the writings of other apostles and use only Paul's writings as our New Testament.  To them the message to the church, i.e., Christian believers, begins in Acts 9 when Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and believed.  To them Acts 1-8 is written to the Jews only and still falls under the Law.  Paul's conversion in Acts 9 began His message to the church.

My Friend, knowing that you are a sincere Christian brother, I am assuming that is not your position, and that you are referring to Paul's writing in 2 Timothy 2:15 (nkjv), "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."    And I would agree that is very good advise. 

The book 2 Timothy was the last of Paul's prison epistles and was written to Timothy, whom Paul had left in Ephesus to minister to and teach the church in that city.  Paul was encouraging Timothy to be a diligent worker in the ministry, teaching the Word of God as Paul had taught him.  This teaching, like most in the Bible, even though written to encourage a specific person, in this case Timothy, also is a teaching of encouragement to all believers.

But it leads me back to my previous paragraphs discussing your KJV ONLY position on the Bible.  And I have to ask, "Are you rightly dividing the Word of God when you declare that the King James Bible is the ONLY valid English language Word of God?"  Once again, I must ask, "On whose authority are you making that declaration - man's or God's?  If by God's authority, where do you find it in the Bible?"

HE TELLS ME:  "I don't believe that salvation has been by Grace through faith in Christ." 

I RESPOND:  Yet in Ephesians 2:8-9 (nasb) we read, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And in Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 (nasb) we read, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise,  .  . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."   Our "day of redemption" is the day we die in this mortal body, or when we are raptured from this mortal body.

How do your reconcile your statement above based upon those Scripture passages?

At this point in our discussion, looking back at his statement above, "We are not the Sheep ~ Jesus Christ is not our shepherd" -  I suggested a blog from the Got Questions web site titled:  "Who Are The 'Other Sheep' Mentioned In John 10:16?"

HE TELLS ME:  "Bill Gray, Got Questions is not a Dispensational Biblical teaching perspective website.  The founder is not a Pauline Dispensational right divider and King James Bible believer.  He is one of the Replacement Theologians.  Kindly follow apostle Paul and embrace right division of the Word of Truth using Dispensational Biblical teaching perspective.  Stay here and learn."

I RESPOND:  Not sure where you got your information regarding the Got Questions web site or its founder.  You say that Got Questions is not Dispensational and teaches Replacement Theology.

In researching the Got Questions web site I found the information below.  I see absolutely nothing which would indicate that Michael Houdmann, founder of the Got Questions web site, is not Dispensational - nor that he believes or teaches Replacement Theology, that the church has replaced Israel as the chosen people of God.

Another key and very important thought:  Michael Houdmann is not the sole writer on the Got Questions web site.  That site has hundreds of contributors who answer questions and give insight.  I understand that Michael Houdmann does favor Reform/Calvinist theology - but that does not mean that this sways or drives what is written in Got Questions - for, as I mentioned, there are many contributors to that site.

Personally I do not believe in Calvinist Predestination, in Arminian Loss of Salvation, nor in Free Grace Rejection of Repentance.  But we must keep in mind that folks in those camps who believe and truly teach the Essential Christian Doctrines - are just as saved as you and me.  We will all be in heaven together.  Then we will all know the full Truth. 

I do not believe in Calvinism, Arminianism, nor Free Grace - but I have many brethren in those camps who otherwise offer solid teachings.  You and I can learn much from them - as long as we stay away from Predestination, Loss of Salvation, and Salvation without Repentance.  I would be interested in knowing where you got your information about the Got Questions web site and its founder, so that I can study it.

The information below is what I have found which answer your questions and objections to that web site.  These excerpts come directly from the God Questions web site.  I pray you find this information helpful.  God bless, Bill

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church.  Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone - in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament.  Dispensationalists hold that the Church has NOT replaced Israel in God’s program - and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have NOT been transferred to the Church.

What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?
https://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

You might want to also read the Got Questions Statement of Faith.

Got Questions Ministries Statement of Faith
https://www.gotquestions.org/faith.html

WHO IS S. MICHAEL HOUDMANN:  He is the Founder, President, and CEO of Got Questions Ministries, the parent ministry for the Got Questions web site.  We rarely receive questions about S. Michael Houdmann, and that is a good thing.  He does not want Got Questions to be about him.  He does not want people to accept or reject the answers given at Got Questions because of name recognition.  Rather, his hope is that people will accept or reject Got Questions answers because they have read them, compared them with the Word of God, and prayed about them – and determined them to be true and biblical.

Prior to launching Got Questions, Michael Houdmann earned a Bachelors of Arts in Biblical Studies from Calvary University and a Masters of Arts in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary.  He later earned a Master of Theology with an emphasis in Christian Apologetics from Dallas Theological Seminary.

https://www.gotquestions.org/S-Michael-Houdmann.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~

FROM THE GOT QUESTIONS WEB SITE:  "What Is Going to Happen According to End Times Prophecy?"

Bill Gray Note:  The following blog excerpt is a perfect description of the PreTrib Rapture and the PreMillennial Second Coming of Christ, which is where I also stand.  This is from the Got Questions web site.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bible has a lot to say about the end times.  Nearly every book of the Bible contains prophecy regarding the end times.  Taking all of these prophecies and organizing them can be difficult.  Following is a very brief summary of what the Bible declares will happen in the end times.

Christ will remove all born-again believers from the earth in an event known as the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:51-54).  At the judgment seat of Christ, these believers will be rewarded for good works and faithful service during their time on earth or will lose rewards, but not eternal life, for lack of service and obedience (1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10).

The Antichrist (the beast) will come into power and will sign a covenant with Israel for seven years (Daniel 9:27).  This seven-year period of time is known as the “tribulation.”  During the tribulation, there will be terrible wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters.  God will be pouring out His wrath against sin, evil, and wickedness.  The tribulation will include the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, and the seven seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments.

About halfway through the seven years, the Antichrist will break the peace covenant with Israel and make war against it.  The Antichrist will commit “the abomination of desolation” and set up an image of himself to be worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Daniel 9:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10), which will have been rebuilt.  The second half of the tribulation is known as “the great tribulation” (Revelation 7:14) and “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7).

At the end of the seven-year tribulation, the Antichrist will launch a final attack on Jerusalem, culminating in the battle of Armageddon.  Jesus Christ will return, destroy the Antichrist and his armies, and cast them into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:11-21).  Christ will then bind Satan in the Abyss for 1,000 years and He will rule His earthly kingdom for this thousand-year period (Revelation 20:1-6).

At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released, defeated again, and then cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-10) for eternity.  Christ then judges all unbelievers (Revelation 20:10-15) at the great white throne judgment, casting them all into the lake of fire.  Christ will then usher in a new heaven and new earth and the New Jerusalem - the eternal dwelling place of believers.  There will be no more sin, sorrow, or death (Revelation 21–22).

What Is Going to Happen According to End Times Prophecy?
https://www.gotquestions.org/end-times.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I pray you have found this discussion helpful, either in full or in "golden nuggets" mined while scanning this blog.  We do not want to appear argumentative when sharing the Gospel with others - and I have found that the best way to avoid that is to well equipped with answers to the many tough questions the world will throw at us. 

During my 35 years in computer sales and marketing, I won a number of major contracts by being armed with knowledge of my products and what the market was offering - so that a prospective client did not get hung up on one question causing my presentations to come to a screeching halt. 

In the same way, when we share the Word of God, the Gospel, with the world - the more knowledge we have of our product, eternal life in Christ taught in the Bible, the more effective we will be in bringing that person or those persons to faith in Christ. 

As my Friend and Christian brother in Africa tells us, reminding us of Paul's admonition to Timothy, "Let us rightly divide the Word of God - and be armed through daily study of His Word" - so that when the world raises objections, we have the Truth to counter those objections.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Click on the image to enlarge: