David H.

You are right, I forgot all about the Pentecostals. Charismatics are growing. However, by and large they are growing at the expense of other evangelical churches, not so much actually converting non-believers in the U.S. For example, evangelicals have been about 7% of the population since such studies have been conducted. Obviously, if Pentecostals were adding significant numbers of non-evangelicals or non-believers, this number would be growing as a percentage of the population. The number of protestants in general is in decline and will soon for the first time in our nation's history drop below 50% of the population. From 1990 to 2001, the number of Americans who identified themselves as Christian declined from 86% to 77%. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm Other than that, good posts, Forrest. Hold their feet to the fire. The roasting corns are good for them. The leaders of non-profit charities that are Christian have just as much need to be held accountable as the leaders of any other charity. Money is not ever given to charities to make their leaders rich, and percentages have nothing to do with it. Obviously, the smaller the organization, the greater the impact of the leader's salary. If you're too small you cannot even afford a leader with 100% of your donations and must operate only with volunteers. That doesn't have anything to do with the right of the public to hold non-profit organizations to high standards, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR LEADERSHIP, be they Christian organizations or not.

This is the excuse Christians commonly use when they engender hatred because of their own bad behavior, rather than because of Christ. Billy shows wisdom and humility; his son Franklin shows arrogance. Jesus never judged other religions. He never once criticized Rome for its idols. Neither did Paul, though the idols bothered him. In the end, all idols and false beliefs will be torn down; but you didn't see Paul tearing any other religions down. He tears down false ideas that are growing WITHIN the Church, but never outside of the Church. When God asks his OWN people to tear down idols, that is entirely different. The Father disciplines the son he delights in. He is working with his own. If Franklin had the guts you say he has, he would be tearing down the idols of greed among television evangelists, rather than raling against other religions. That would cost him something because many of his own people would turn against him. It's easy to stand inside the camp and yell "dirty dogs" at the people on the other side of the wall. Let's see him stand in the middle of Saudi Arabia and proclaim the same message. Hats off to Billy for keeping himself from overindulging in the wanton corruption of televangelists with their extravogant wealth, their frequently false prophecies IN GOD'S NAME, and their self-righteous grandstanding against the morals of people who are not even inside the fold. (You don't see Jesus or Paul doing that either, and there was plenty of wanton immorality in Rome, enough to make your ear hairs curl, worse than in the U.S.) They kept their message on curbing the immorality OF THEIR OWN FOLLOWERS. As hr. jr. has said, We are not to judge people outside of the fold. Paul, on the other hand, had no problem holding people accountable for the blatant evils inside the fold. The members of the church do have a responsibility to make sure that things like the sexual sins of the Catholic priests don't happen -- the the extent that they are aware of them. Had those who knew what was happening been stronger in standing against it, it may never have gotten to the extremely damaging level it did. There is nothing wrong with holding very public people accountable to practising what they preach. We cannot judge the heart or guess at someone's deeper motives, but there are some evils that are blatant -- that require no judgment of the heart, for they are overtly wrong and done in people's faces in the name of God. We're not asked to tolerate that. Those same leaders in the Church have no problem standing inside the fold and preaching against the immorality of the masses outside of the fold, so they should have no problem with their own immorality being attacked. If they're throwing stones at other people's glass houses, I'm not going to feel too sorry for them if someone throws a stone at theirs. That, of course, is exactly the thinking that got the Catholic Church into its jam in America. The only ones with power to correct the wrongs were those inside the power circle that needed correction. External criticism is perfectly appropriate and beneficial. There you go. So long as you're leading souls to God, your sins should be ignored by anyone who is aware of them. A stupid response. Burning in hell is exactly what might happen to them if no one holds them accountable and they keep spinning further and further into their own corruption. The idea of accountability can be abused and ferquently is by those who want to control others, but that doesn't mean it has no right place. The people who give to a charity (INCLUDING A MINISTRY) have every right to hold that charity accountable and its leadership accountable for their behavior. The ministry gets no special indulgences that would not be allowed to the Red Cross. When charities misbehave badly enough, they get publicly THUMPED. Those who give money are the stockholders, and they should hold their boards and presidents of those organizations accountable. The people you are talking about are the leaders of charitable non-profit organizations and they have no special dispensation for their behavior over the leaders of for-profit corporations. The stockholdhers must hold them to a standard of respectable behavior. If the board president of General Motors started doing a lot of public horing around and engaging in behavior that was bringing ridicule to GM, he'd be canned by his own board, and if that didn't happen, he'd get canned at the next shareholder's meeting. (With a non-profit the donors are the shareholders who have a right to safeguard their investment in the cause.) --David

It is people like that in Ghandi's life that kept him from becoming a Christian. He liked the truth he heard in Jesus, hated the way he saw it play out in supposedly Christian cultures. I think that would be hard to prove or justify as a statement, since their own churches are anything but stagnant, but I know what you are getting at, even if overreaching. They cause a backlash by their absurd behavior that definitely and needlessly stiffens the spine of many against Christianity. So, while they are bringing many into the faith by their strong evangelistic efforts, they are also turning many away from the faith by their needless and senseless bad behavior. The bad side of their behavior is very damaging to the faith. So, the church isn't stagnant in its growth, especially around them because of their very strong evangelistic effort, yet countless others come to DESPISE Christianity precisely because of these evangelist's greed for money, phoniness of predictions, etc. You don't help your cause by making statements that are untrue. The fastest growing churches in America are the Pentecostal churches, particulary Assemblies of God. They far outstrip the growth of Catholics. That doesn't make them right. Many things grow in America that are not right. Popularity is not a reliable gauge of truth. After all, Mormonism has probably grown faster than the AG church. The point is that the notoriously bad behavior of these T.V. evangelists puts many people off, and the bad behavior will continue so long as it is rewarded, justified or excused. And it's not a little-bit bad. It's glaringly bad, turning off as many thousands as they bring in. The bringing in is good. The turning off is completely unnecessary. "Men of corrupt FLESH who preach godliness as a means to financial gain." For some that means preaching it for their own financial gain. For others it means preaching that, if you are godly, God will bless you financially. Both are equally "CORRUPT." The worldly smart ones combine both messages, flashing their Rolex watches so you can see how God has blessed them and will want to be blessed like that, too, by giving some of your money to their glorious work. Very, very, very sick. We are warned against it, not asked to MAKE EXCUSES for it or to JUSTIFY it on the grounds that they are bringing lots of people to God. Nor are we EVER asked to make excuses for their false prophecies. --David

If you don't know as an absolute fact that it is from the Lord, then you shouldn't puff yourself up and say that it is. You should merely say this thought or flash came to you and do what you feel is best regarding it. Let others decide if it was from the Lord. As for the story about Abraham pleading with God to change the destruction of Soddom, my point was that it didn't change the destruction of Soddom at all. The only thing in the Bible that has ever changed the outcome of God's predicted destruction or calamity is when the people who were going to be affected repented. Soddom didn't repent, so God saved the one righteous man (and his family) out of it and then destroyed it. He probably did it more as an act of Grace to Abraham than because of Lot's righteousness, but the point stands that there is not a single incident in the Bible where the destruction God predicted was turned away by someone praying against it -- only by those who were going to be affected repenting. --David

And God didn't buy it.

And what Bible did you read that in? God decided, did he, tthat the gold standard was just too tough and was keeping a lot of mediocre prophets from their opportunity to confuse? So, someplace in the fourth Book of Hesitation, he said that he was going to lower the bar so more people could practise until they get good at it? And this is a break-through from what the Old Testament prophets did? Actually, I think strongholds are forged because a lot of pure baloney had entered the church through this basement door. Ah, the ol' familiar safety valve of modern false prophets. It's a very handy one because it guarantees they are ALWAYS correct. Because any time something doesn't happen it was because people were forewarned and prayed about it. The only problem with that is there is no biblical example of that EVER happening. Whoa! You scream, what about Jonah and Ninevah. Oh, Ninevah. Let's see, Ninevah and city whose ungodly ways made the Unites States look like a candidate for canonization as a saint, ALL repented. It would be like the 300,000,000 people of the United States all hearing one prophet and ALL repenting. Or let's just keep it to city size: It would be like New Orleans ALL repenting. They didn't merely "pray the event away." Rubbish. They repented. That's what prophecy is for. God states that ANY time a people repents of the evil he said he would destroy them for, he will relent. Repentance is one thing. Praying things away has no biblical precedence at all. The only way a prophet can predict something will happen to the U.S. and be wrong and still be a true prophet is if he predicts the coming thing is God's judgment for U.S. sin and the whole U.S. (or controlling majority, at least) repents, and the nation stops that sin. You cannot ever "pray it away." Find me a single bible example, New Testament or Old, where people prayed something away, other than by repentance? And it has to be the people who are doing the sins who repent, because "repentance" doesn't mean "saying your sorry," it means turning away from your sins. So, you cannot repent for someone else's sins and save the U.S. --Knave Dave

Who did he appoint? I thought he appointed everyone to be vigilant to that task. That's what I recall. You, see, there you go doing exactly what I said. Yeah, that was what I said??? Your argument runs like this: Joe leads a lot of souls to heaven, so why are you being so critical just because he commits adultery three times a week with three different women? What was the punishment for adultery? What was the punishment for false prophecy in God's name? Only because the public held them accountable, and by then they had brought disgrace to the church. Now, I was saying they should have been held accountable for other glaring problems long before that but the church by and in large did not do that. So, things built up to a catastrophic disgrace that fronted the newspapers for months. And he used people who care about accountability to do it. But because no one acted sooner, the damage was much greater. And just think of how many more he would have led to the Lord if he had been held seriously accountable for his rather blatant flaws many years sooner. --Knave Dave

The only problem with your argument there Butero, is that you are assuming everyone else is operating off the same knowledge you are. Is it not possible that they have heard him say things in the past years, just as you have today, and done the same thing you are about to do, and they are simply a few years ahead of you? I'm glad you're doing it, though. I will, too. I've listened to his broadcast now and written down what he said. --DH

Indeed, I think some of you guys should stop making such a fuss over a little thing like false prophets? Who did they ever hurt? Especially if they're nice.

So, in other words, he said, "It's going to rain" and didn't happen to mention when or where. Mind if I make a prediction? I say that coasts are going to get hit this year, too. Then's let's all promise to hold him accountable for that. I would like to make another prediction, myself. I say there will be a great move of God among his people in the first six months. I feel pretty comfortable with that position. I will match it with the statement that there is going to be a great rain in the first six months, too. Somewhere among the 6 billion people and billions of square miles on this globe, those two things will happen. O.K. I'm ready to make my third prediction, but I will be more specific, speaking only by my own power: Al Qaeda will do evil things to us in the second half of this year. Now I haven't said where or to how many of us; so, I feel pretty confident that in the second half of this year Al Qaeda will do evil things to us. Oh.oh. You see, that's where he went to far. He was batting a 1,000 until he got carried away and said something where there is fair chance it won't happen. O.K., Guys, it's time to pick up the rocks and wait. You see, there he really overstepped. He not only went out on a limb on a prediction that probably only has about 20% chance (base on the last five years) of coming true, but he said God revealed it to him. Fortunately, he left a little caveat. He said God told him things on a prayer retreat and that he could have been wrong in thinking this was one of those things God said. Good job, Butero. (Seriously. I'm mocking Robertson, not you.) We'll know what to keep an eye on this year; but what do you want to bet that it makes no more difference to Robertsons followers if he happens to miss a few of the wilder ones than it ever did to Edgar Cayce's or Jean Dixon's followers. I think it won't even chip their paint. As for "Roberson and his ministry," didn't you leave out a "b"? --Knave Dave

Ah, but you see, AK, it makes no difference how many times they are wrong. What matters is that he has a nice smile, he's smart, he's politically savy, he makes a LOT of money (so we know he's blessed by God) and he does good things for the Lord's kingdom. With all of that to his credit, merely claiming to talk for God about global matters and being wrong hardly matters. Well, I would take it that he needs to clean out his ears. I mean the Creator of the entire Universe is speaking to him about massive world issues in which thousands will die, and Pat can't be sure he heard it right. Now, if God wanted to talk to me, I think he could get the message through loud and clear, especially if he wanted me to convey it to the entire planet at the start of the new year. I know this for sure, I wouldn't go scaring the entire world with what I heard if I wasn't quite sure I had heard it correctly. I would say, "What was that, Lord? Your servant has bad ears." --Knave Dave

Indeed. How nebulous of you.

Well, he could. He just wouln't like to because Pat steps in lot of ... well, you know ... his own mouth. Sad commentary on many Christians, indeed. I think Christ would love the guy. They could talk for hours, and I think that if they ever met in person, the Dalai Lama just might come around because he would have a lot less distance to come in terms of his LIFE than many Christians. He also said -- I am told -- when asked why he didn't become a Christian, "Because I never met one." We can recoil and lash back against those statement; but, in doing so, we only prove how very like the statements we are. --Knave Dave

A good man, eh? There is no one good--no not one. Psalm 53:3 Every one of them has turned aside;They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. I wasn't speaking in such an absolute sense. In that sense, Pet Robertson is a no-good man either.

Well, with just the one little caviat that I've heard him say on his show that the Lord tells him these errant predictions. Not all of them, must some of the ones that are wrong. The rest of the time, he lets people believe by implication that the Lord is telling him, such as when he says here that the "Lord did not say it would be nuclear," the obvious implication is that God gave him the prediction, but didn't say this bit about it being nuclear. Pat is not so stupid as to be unaware of how his statements lead people to believe God is telling him these things. Unfortunately, I do not keep transcripts of his show on those rare occasions when I have watched him.

Too many people believing they have the right to speak for God by claiming the meaning of natural events in his name without his authorization to do so. No big deal.

A rose by any other name smells just the same. Whether you call it "a word of knowledge" or "a prophecy," if you are saying God told you it would happen, it had better come true. One who professes what God says by direct revelation is prophesying, whether he chooses to call it that or not. He is wrong as often as he is right. What does that tell any of us? My weatherman does better than that; but my weatherman, at least, doesn't claim his knowledge about the weather comes from God. Far too many. It is a terrible problem in the church today that people put God's divine stamp of authority on what they say when God has not authorized them to do that. We know they do it wrongly when they start predicting things as something the Lord told them would happen this year, and the year goes by without it happening. I guess that having the supreme arrogance to claim you speak as the mouthpiece of the Creator of the universe is no big deal to a lot of people, even if you turn out to be wrong much of the time and, thereby, make the Creator look like he doesn't know what he's talking about. It would be wrong of us to beat up on someone for that or to even be critical of him. I believe the Dali Lama to be geniune, too, and a good man with good intentions. In the very least, Pat Robertson is a faulty circuit that can burn a lot of people along with the good he is doing.

He says that the Lord didn't tell him the terrorist event would be a nuclear blast. That pretty clearly implies that what he is saying is from the Lord. He's not saying, "The Lord didn't tell me any of this." He's saying only that the Lord didn't tell him it would be nuclear, though Pat has a hunch it will be. The implication is that the Lord DID tell him the rest. --DH

Thank you for affirming that. Was it "Fleeting Axe"? Anyway, I was glad to see the words repeated. (Even with the question marks.) Who cannot see in the general vaguery of that a prophet of the caliber of Jean Dixon? I wonder if he would be willing to host a seance? Well, I mean, when you stop to think about it some of those seance guys are right 75% of the time, so that would be an improvement for the church. Wouldn't it? You see, he's practically as accurate as a weatherman. --DH

I love that. It's sort of like "theology lite."

Very few people in the church today mind if anyone is a false prophet. It is good enough for most if he's right some of the time. God's old standard of 100% accuracy was for the good ol' day when there was still such a thing as quality. Today we don't need prophets of such high quality. The reason the church doesn't mind dropping the gold standard is that a 50% standard allows more people to make it over the bar. That way everybody can be a prophet because most of us can hit 50% just by making an educated guess. In the opinion of many churches today, it's better to have lots of prophets who are right once in awhile than to have a few who are right all the time. If they're right all the time, then you have to pay attention to them. --DH

Amen! Dgolvach

Two possibilities: 1) You hate rats. And nothing more than that. 2) Christmas trees are where the presents go. All the stuff around the house that needed to be picked up are where the presents go after Christmas. All the rats are where the presents go after that. What do you want so much STUFF for at Christmas? It all goes to the junkyard rats in the end anyway. That would be a message your own spirit is struggling with and bringing to your conscious awareness. --David

And in that remnant of Jews -- Jesus and his Apostles -- the full covenant is conveyed into the church they founded (as the twelve foundations in Revelation). So, the people of the twelve Patriarchs enter a city through twelve gates named after those Patriarchs, which is established on the foundation laid by the Apostle. Thus the covenant is fulfilled entirely. Jews, of course, are as free to enter as Gentiles. After all, it should be easier for them to enter the Holy City, which is the Bride of the Lamb, because the gates have the names of their Patriarchs on them, and because the city New Jerusalem (which replaces the Old Jerusalem) was built on the foundations laid by twelve Jewish Apostles. But this same Abrahamic Covenant stated from the beginning that it was conditional. Everlasting, yes; but it's condition is also everlasting. God told Abraham that every member of his household, whether a member by blood or by purchase, must be circumcised. He said that anyone who is not circumcised shall be "cut off" from God's people because "he has broken my covenant." Obviously, you cannot break any covenant that has no conditions. So, while the covenant is available eternally to those who are circumcised, any member of Abraham's household can be cut off from it for refusal to be circumcised. The Apostle Paul, then, pointed out that circumcision never meant anything if it was not circumcision of the heart -- just as baptism means nothing if it does not come from the heart. Circumcision was a way to sign on to the covenant -- to pledge one's faith to the God of Abraham. But God will not be duped by outward signs. That is what Paul is saying. He will not be duped by baptism if a person doesn't mean it; and he will not be duped by circumcision if it is not a pledge to God. That's because the Covenant with Abraham came only because of faith in the first place -- Abraham's faith -- and those who join his household by circumcision were pledging their faith to Abraham's God. So, any one and any number can be cut off permanently from the covenant for failure to live faithfully to God. Next, Paul pointed out the stumbling block for Jews. When the covenant was implemented under Moses, it came with a whole set of rules. Most Jews, like the Pharisees, thought that they would enter the Kingdom of God if they lived perfectly by those laws. Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, and Paul, throughout his letters, taught that the law was not given to bring perfection and could not bring it even if you lived perfectly by it. Why? Jesus and Paul point out the purpose of the law was to reveal the imperfections of our hearts by giving us something to sin against. The entire theme of Jesus' sermon on the mount was that you would have to be more perfec than the Pharisee who perfectly upheld the law to get into heaven because the faulty condition of the heart still remained. Sure, the Pharisee didn't commit adultery, but his heart desired (lusted) to commit adultery. His actions arranged divorces as a loophole for dumping a wife one was tired of in order to marry a prettier chick. So, the Pharisees heart was still imperfect. He stumbled over the stumbling block of the Law by failing to recognize the imperfections of his heart. So, where does it all end. It ends with a new Kingdom under a new and superior covenant that is in Jesus' blood only. God's old marriage with Israel passed away completely upon Jesus death because marriage was "till death due us part." God has already divorced the House of Israel, and now Judah had killed her husband (in the form of God's son) and was a widow. Jesus, free of the Mosaic Covenant (marriage contract) with Israel was free to marry a new bride -- the Church. "Church" means "assembly." It is the "assembly of nations" or "community of nations" that was promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All rights of the old covenant are brought into the new marriage because Jesus wrote a new will and testament before he died. It was recorded by the prophets. So, the Old Covenant dies in his blood and a New Covenant is born in his resurrection. The disciples are first to join. Shortly thereafter thousands stream in. Forty years later, God's old widow dies, literally dies as that last generation dies out completely and so does its religion and homeland in the conquest by Rome of A.D. 70. Forty years after Jesus' death the old widow is taken apart and dispersed to the nations; but the New Covenant is thriving. No Jew could enter that covenant by birthright. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus, a Pharisee and leader of the Jews, he would have to be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. Being born a Jew was not enough to make him chosen for the Kingdom that was under the New Covenant. We have sapped the meaning out of the phrase "born again" by taking it out of the context in which it was spoken. Even Jesus' own mother and brothers could not enter his Kingdom by birthright. He said his only mother and brothers were those who obeyed the will of God. The will of God is his last will and testament, known as the New Covenant or New Testament, but recorded in its legal particulars by the prophets. So, a Jew can enter the Kingdom but it has to be by faith, as with all others. All must be spiritually born into the Kingdom by faith in Jesus Christ. Jews were, indeed, the first to enter. Quite possibly all the tribes of Israel are represented in the blood lines of the 13 Apostles and Jesus. Note that just as one tribe in the days of Israel (Joseph) split into two half tribes (Ephraim and Menasseh), so Judas position among the twelve split into Matthias (chosen by man) and Paul (chosen by Christ). Is it any coincidence that Ephraim recieved the blessings of Abraham, even though he was the second son because he was chosen by God. As we see in the Book of Acts, Paul who was second to be chosen to replace Judas is chosen by God, and only his ministry appears to be blessed, for Matthias practically drops off the face of the earth. So, in the Apostles is that remnant of all Israel, and they bring the inheritance of each tribe into the church and confer it upon Jesus. This is symbolized in Revelation by 24 elders casting their crowns at Jesus' feet. Who are these 24? They represent the 12 patriarchs and the 12 apostles. The inheritance of the 12 patriarchs is carried in the bloodlines of the 12 apostles, and they cast their own right to administer over their inheritance at the feet of Jesus. Thereby, he becomes all in all. All the inheritance of Abraham is given to Christ to administer and becomes the inheritance of his Church, where you or anyone can become joint heirs by joining the commonwealth of the church. That is why it is called a common wealth. Jews are not exactly replaced. They are cut off in terms of any right of birth (blood rights) because Jesus brought through the purchase of his blood slaves into the House of Abraham and circumcised them so they are properly Abraham's seed by adoption. He has this right as the descendant of David's throne, which ruled ALL ISRAEL. Thus, Gentiles were grafted into a tree that represents Abraham's inheritance, and Jewish branches were cut off but can be grafted back in again, just as the disciples were grafted in by faith. The Old Covenant was really always by faith in God, not law. The law was only intended to reveal our need for faithful dependance on God's grace. The New Covenant, too, is by faith. That way, in Jesus, there is no longer Jew nor Greek, for old bloodlines do not matter. The two people have been made one. There is one kingdom, one bride, one New Jerusalem, on holy priesthood, one new man -- because all, Jew or Gentile, enter by being grafted in -- including Jesus' own mother and brothers. Old Israel bore little fruit; so, like the fig tree in Jesus' example, it was cursed and withered by A.D. 70, and the Kingdom was given to another people -- an assembly of nations, which can be called a "church of nations" because "church" means "assembly." The Kingdom was given to another people that has born much fruit as Jesus said in his parables that it would. History testifies to the fruitfulness of the church compared to that group that chose not to be part of the church and was cut off and cast out of the land. Now, they, too, can be grafted back in, and Paul indicates they will at the end of the age. That is probably why God brought them to Israel now -- to teach them they cannot have the Promise just because they are Jews. He put the Promise right in their hand, wrapped their fingers around it, but they did not HAVE it. That is why, their residence there is called an "occupation" by ALL the world. They do not HAVE the land; they merely occupy it. They want to have the land, but they cannot hold onto it. It is slipping from their fingers. They thought they could have it simply as a birthright. They thought they could have it by their own strength and cunning, apart from God; but they have done nothing but lose it, and will lose more still. Why? Isn't that part of God's plan just as surely as his bringing them there? Of course it is. It is the only way they can learn that their zionist dream can never be fulfilled as a birthright, FOR THEY, TOO, MUST BE BORN AGAIN IN ORDER TO INHERIT THE PROMISE. That, I believe, is why we are watching them lose it, painfully lose it. What could be a more stark lesson than to have it right in their hand with their fingers wrapped around it and STILL lose it? They lost the Sinai. They lost what they tried to take in Lebanon. They lost Gaza. They will likely lose the Golan, and are talking about losing parts of the west bank. And if they lose all of that, will they, then, have the rest in peace. Of course not. Because you cannot have the Promised Land in peace unless you accept the Prince of Peace because he is the sole and rightful ruler of the land. All crowns are already laid at his feet by the Apostles, and all the inheritance belongs to him, who is all in all. That is WHY he is called the Prince of Peace. So, when their situation is hopeless. When they have lost all of the land they acquired since 1967, FORTY YEARS AGO, then they will see him coming in the clouds and will say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," the proper greeting for the Messiah. And they will enter his covenant. Thus the first people of God will be the last people of God to come into the Kingdom. The first shall be last. Just as the last people to be chosen (the elect Gentiles) were the first group to come in in great numbers. The last shall be first, and the first shall be last, and Christ shall be all in all. Blessings, David Haggith

Useless addition on your part, Arthur. You might as well ask why anyone should reveal their testimony from life when awake because any truth found in their testimony is revealed in scripture. Of course it is. Our lives are meant to bear testimony to others of the truth found in scripture. --DH