Islam a Religion of Tolerance: Get a Grip on Reality

The post 9-11 world saw the United States and Canada launch a war against terror. The first theater of operation of this war took place and continues to unfold in the nation of Afghanistan. The international coalition overthrew the ruling Taliban party replacing it with a supposedly democratic government. Part of the war on terror is to destroy terrorism by liberating oppressed people and allowing them to exercise their new found freedom with the installation of democracy. The theory is a good one. Unfortunately, in the example of Afghanistan, I fear that we have replaced one terror group with another.

In Afghanistan, there are two governing orders. First, the country is regulated by specific ordinances that are enshrined in formal statutes. The second, is Sharia law. Whatever is not covered by specific ordinance is covered under the religious tenets of Islam. This has been placed in stark relief this week in an article found in USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060320/a_wobs20.art.htm

The text of the article is below:

Afghan may face death for alleged conversion

A man in Afghanistan is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death after being charged with converting from Islam to Christianity, a crime under the country's Islamic sharia laws, a judge said Sunday.

The trial highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam will take here four years after the ouster of the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian, according to Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada. Rahman was charged with rejecting Islam. His trial started Thursday.

Below is another article posted by Michelle Malkin for the Jewish World Review that deals with the same topic.


http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=571

Who will save Abdul Rahman?
Filed under: Front Page, Opinion, News, Islam

By Michelle Malkin, Jewish World Review



Abdul Rahman is a man of faith. “I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian,” he declared this week.

See a video of Abdul Rahman on Michelle Malkin’s website

Unfortunately for Rahman, he was originally born a Muslim in Afghanistan — and he has been forced to defend his religious conversion in his home country’s court, where he now faces the death penalty for turning to Jesus. Despite the defeat of the totalitarian Taliban and the existence of a U.S.-backed “moderate” democratic government, it is a capital crime for Afghanis to openly embrace any religion other than Islam. Sharia law, embedded in the Afghan constitution, overrides its human rights provisions.

Rahman’s family has denounced him as mentally ill. Afghan officials are thirsting for his blood. “We will cut him into little pieces,” jail employee Hosnia Wafayosofi told the Chicago Tribune as she “made a cutting motion with her hands.

The Tribune reported that p rosecutor Abdul Wasi demanded Rahman’s repentance and called him a traitor: “He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed.” The country’s attorney general says Rahman should be hung. The judge handling the case, who has been photographed wielding Rahman’s Bible as evidence against him, threatens: “If he doesn’t regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him. And the punishment is death.”

This is a watershed moment in the post-Sept. 11 world. The Taliban are out of power. And yet today, an innocent man sits in the jail of a “moderate” Muslim nation praying for his life because he owned a Bible and refuses to renounce his Christian faith. Rahman, who converted many years ago while working for a Christian aid agency in Germany, “is standing by his words,” fellow jail inmate Saya Miakel told Canada’s Globe and Mail. Another cellmate, Khalylullah Safi, reported: “He keeps looking up to the sky, to G-d.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, left-wing Amnesty International had nothing to say about the case. But neither did President Bush, a man of faith and a Christian brother. During his extensive White House press conference on the War on Terror and the defense of freedom overseas, Bush spent plenty of time describing what life was like for Afghanis before Operation Enduring Freedom:

“There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this. They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be — I’m referring to the Taliban, of course. And that’s how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and destruction. And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not — must never forget the natural rights that formed our country.”

President Bush, who will defend Abdul Rahman’s natural rights from being usurped and terminated by Afghanistan’s Islamic executioners?

Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council raises the unpleasant question Bush evaded and no one in the White House press corps bothered to ask:

“How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians?…President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read Hamid Kharzai’s government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs.”

Embarrassingly, the governments of Italy and Germany have already stepped forward to make direct appeals to Karzai to save Rahman’s life.

Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, has ducked the issue so far. Our feckless State Department is “monitoring” the situation.

If we sit on the sidelines and watch this man “cut into little pieces” for his love of Christ, we do not deserve the legacy of liberty our Founding Fathers left us. How about offering Rahman asylum in the United States? Perhaps Yale University, proud sponsor of former Taliban official Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, can offer Rahman a scholarship. Where’s the Catholic church, so quick to offer sanctuary to every last illegal alien streaming across the borders? And how about Hollywood, so quick to take up the cause of every last Death Row inmate?

Several things come to my mind. First,Why did we bother to lose American and Canadian soldiers in a war on terrorism that deposed a criminal organization only to empower a religious organization that would seek to enforce Islamic rule with the sword? Second, I am frustrated with the West's depiction of Islam as a benign and peaceful with the soul of toleration as its core value. Third, there are forces of evil in this world that will not yield to persuasion as many on the left would have us believe. Fourth, the warfare we fight is a spiritual one. Yes, I agree with Pat Robertson and others, that anything that would hide the truth of Jesus and deny the spread of the Gospel is empowered by the demonic.

We have here the tale of a man, whose only crime was to receive Jesus Christ as his personal saviour and for that he is to forfeit his life. Make no mistake, this is Islam unmasked at its core. It never has never and will never brook any competing ideaology. The trial and the likely execution of this man is not being carried out by fanatical homocide bombers bent upon destroying the West. His accusers are everyday run of the mill conservative, and dare I say fundamentalist, practitioners of Islam. This is their mainstream belief on full exhibit for the world to see and yet we walk with the delusion that it is only a few radicals that would do such things.

I am fully aware that Christians need to die for their faith rather than capitulate their trust in Jesus. I know that as a Christian, true life is to be found in the presence of God. We are not to become overly enthralled with the things of this life because there is more to life than this earthly plain. I am fully conscious that Jesus specifically warned His followers that opposition and even persecution could await anyone that claims to be a Christian.

I am also aware that the State has been given the sword as an instrument of preserving order and righteousness. I am also aware that as a Christian, I have an obligation to speak the truth in love. Sometimes hard and difficult things need to be said in the name of love, but the truth is the truth. I am also aware that we need to stand up and protect the weak, the powerless and the marginalized. This means being involved in correcting injustice and speaking out against any atrocity that would seek to mar God's image bearers.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that the cure to the worlds problems with terror is to replace a violent form of Islam with a benevolent form of Islam. It simply does not exist.

Soli Deo Gloria

Thoughts on Rejoicing in the Lord

"Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice."

The New Testament commands Christians everywhere to rejoice in God. This is a troubling command for many because it is not always clear just what a joyful person is supposed to look like. Certainly, there is an aspect to joy that contains an emotional component. But does this mean, that Christians are to go through life with plastic smiles and cheery expressions even when confronted with the inevitable consequences of living in a fallen world? Not that there is anything wrong in facing life with a positive outlook. Of all people who live on this planet, Christians have every reason to look to the future with an unbridled optimism. It strikes me though, that there is a difference in living with the knowledge that when we die, we will be in the presence of Jesus for all eternity and going through life with an almost bubble headed attitude that the problems we face do not exist. Worse still, is the mindset that says, your life should be free from struggle and if you are facing turmoil, there is something inherently wrong with your spiritual walk. How then are we to reconcile the biblical tension between rejoicing always and facing jobloss, terminal illness, false accusation, death of a loved one in a way that is consistent with the historic Christian Faith?

The Psalms are quite clear that all of us will face times of life that seem at the time unbearable. We will question our faith; call out to God and receive silence; fall into depression and even believe the lie that death would be preferable than continued existence. The Psalms are also quite clear that our ultimate hope resides in God and He will redeem those that are His. When a glimpse of His holiness and majesty recaptivates our hearts and minds, then we can truthfully sing praises to His glory. He reorients our thinking in order that can live life in a manner that is consistent with the biblical witness. The Psalms are brutally honest. Anyone who has lived a number of years can readily identify with the heartcry of the writers. There are episodes in life that are horrific. It is our response during these times of horror that I think defines the nature of biblical joy.

We cannot allow outward circumstances to determine how we are to relate to God. Our relationship with God must come prior to anything that happens to us whether good or evil. Nasty circumstances will occur. The solutions to these nasty circumstances will determine whether or not we are actually rejoicing in the Lord. For example, in our quest for the elusive dream of happiness, an expression that is often heard is "just one more." If only I had one more................. then I would be really happy. The missing blank determines our mental state and all too often our spiritual relationship with God.

The error here, is that we are empowering something other than God to take the place of God. We may find ourselves in some sort of material hot water or feel very strongly that there is something missing in life that is depriving us of any sense of joy. We should not minimize these thoughts or feelings. They are real and do cause all sorts of problems. Neither should we allow these thoughts and feelings to determine the nature of our relationship with God, for when we do, we will seek relief from these thoughts and feelings in ways that usurp the preeminence of God in our lives. All too often, many of us fall into the trap of thinking, if only I had the right car, job, wife, income, clothes, lifestyle, education, family, friends etc. as a response to the turmoil that is plaguing us, then and only then could we be happy. There is nothing inherently evil in any of the items listed above. Most are very good. But they can become evil when we seek to find our ultimate joy on things temporal and not in the person of God.

Pain in life is a reality. Struggle will happen to all of us. We will all lose loved ones at some point. True joy comes in the freedom and knowledge that our eternal and sovereign God knows this, understands this and best of all has provided a sympathetic high priest, Jesus Christ, who in all points identifies with the human condition and yet never yielded Himself to temptation like the rest of us. Our joy comes in knowing that God is in control and that in spite of our outward circumstances, nothing will separate us from the love of God which is in found in Christ Jesus. Given this, why would we even attempt to find joy in things that will ultimately perish? Why would we empower something or someone other than God to determine how we are live?

Soli Deo Gloria

The Limits of Conscience and the Authority of the Word of God

Ordinarily, I like to compose my own analysis of events impacting the Church of Jesus Christ. I came across an article by Dr. Albert Mohler that chronicles recent troubling developments with the Presbyterian Church, USA. I have reproduced the article in its entirety below.

I fear this trend is not exclusive to the PC alone. Given our Postmodern, anti-authoritarian, emergant church culture, the rallying cry of the next generation will be SOLA CONSCIENCE.

Martin Luther and the other Reformers were very clear that the conscience could only be held captive by the Word of God. Within the boundaries of Scripture, individual Christians can and do have the right exercise freedom of conscience. When one steps beyond the bounds the Scriptures refer to this sort of behaviour as rebellion. We are seeing the demonstrable outworking of Romans 1:18-36 where supposed ministers of the Gospel are exchanging truth for a lie and justifying their rebellion on the basis of the primacy of the conscience while rejecting the primacy of Scripture.

This is an insepid cancer that we need to guard against if we are to maintain any semblance of confessional fidelity.

Soli Deo Gloria




Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Last week Rev. Jane Adams Spahr was found not-guilty of ministerial misconduct, even after the openly lesbian Presbyterian minister had defied the teachings of her church by performing "marriages" for two lesbian couples. Given the current state of mainline Protestantism, the actions by the trial court were not completely unexpected. Nevertheless, this act of rebellion against the church's law and the clear teachings of Scripture sets the stage for an even larger conflict when the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) holds its General Assembly in June.

Rev. Jane Adams Spahr is no stranger to controversy. In 1991, the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York called her as co-pastor. That call was subsequently invalidated by the denomination's General Assembly and its Permanent Judicial Commission. Nevertheless, the church then called her to serve as a "lesbian evangelist" and she established her ministry as the organization called "That All May Freely Serve." That ministry was formed in partnership with Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tiburon, California. As the denomination's news service, PCUSA News explained, "Since then, Spahr has traveled the country mustering support for the ordination of gay and lesbian Presbyterians and building a network of regional groups to help in the effort."

The current controversy emerged as Spahr was charged with breaking church law by marrying two homosexual men in Canada. Since her ordination was not recognized in that country, and therefore her name did not appear on the marriage certificate, a church court ruled that it could not prove that she had actually officiated at the wedding.

In short order, she eliminated that defense by openly officiating at the "weddings" of two lesbian couples. She officiated at ceremonies for Annie Senechal and Sherrill Figuera in 2005, and the previous year had officiated at a ceremony for Barbara Jean Douglass and Connie Valois.

Her current trial took place before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Redwoods Presbytery in California. The trial took place at the Church of the Roses in Santa Rosa, located about 65 miles north of San Francisco.

As media reports indicated, the church was often packed with Spahr's supporters and those who were openly advocating for a rebellion against the church's rules.

Stephen L. Taber, the attorney prosecuting Spahr on behalf of the Redwoods Presbytery, had argued that the trial was not over gay rights, but the right of the denomination to establish its own rules and structure for church discipline. "The burden on this commission is not to decide whether same-sex marriage is or is not appropriate for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)," he argued. "The only question here is whether Rev. Spahr committed certain acts, and whether those acts are in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church."

Taber was standing on firm constitutional ground as he made his case. After all, the denomination's Book of Order defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, excluding all alternatives. Furthermore, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly ruled in 2000 that ministers may bless same sex "unions," but may not call such unions marriage.

In presenting her defense, Spahr claimed a right to individual conscience. As PCUSA News reported: "Spahr, as the first witness called before the seven-member commission, was far from repentant for presiding over the nuptials of the lesbian couples. She said she was following her conscience, a call from God and the wishes of the 'brides' when she officiated at their weddings."

In pressing her case, Spahr argued that the church's rules that disallow same-sex marriage are unfair and unjust. "I can't begin to tell you what it is to say to [same-sex couples] that they were married by the church, by the authority of someone representing the church of Jesus Christ," Spahr told the court. "What it means for lesbian and gay people who are told for so long that they're no good, that our relationships are no good. That has a profound effect on them." She also claimed that the denomination's rules limiting marriage to heterosexuals violates the church's commitment to "love and hospitality."

Spahr's attorney, Sara Taylor, argued that the church had no right to judge Spahr's actions. "The reformers were clear in their assertions that the authority of the church to discipline belongs not to the church but to Christ."

Of course, this is hardly fair to the reformers and their witness. Nevertheless, the trial ended with the court acquitting Spahr by a six-to-one ruling that determined that Spahr was acting within her ministerial "right of conscience" in performing the same-sex marriages.

Beyond this, the court's majority went on in a "concluding affirmation" to offer a direct challenge to the denomination's rules. "We affirm that the fundamental message of the Scriptures and Confessions is the proclamation of the Good News of God's love for all people. It is a message of inclusiveness, reconciliation, and the breaking down of barriers that separate humans from each other, and that this proclamation has primacy in the conduct of the Church." In other words, the court turned its back on the Bible's clear teachings that condemn homosexual activity as sin and on the church's explicit rules that prohibit ministers from officiating at same-sex marriages--all in the name of "the fundamental message of the Scriptures and Confessions."

The Spahr trial and the larger controversy point to the most basic issues that have created such an explosive crisis within liberal Protestantism and the denominations commonly known as "mainline" Protestantism. For years, the mainline Presbyterians have been debating issues of scriptural authority.

The foundation for theological revolution was set in 1967, when the denomination replaced the historic Westminster Confession with a book of confessions that replaced one common doctrinal standard with several--insuring a process of theological compromise and accomodationism.

In June, the 217th General Assembly of the denomination is to receive the final report of the "Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church." This task force was established in 2001 and was charged with developing "a process and instrument by which congregations and governing bodies throughout our church may reflect on and discern the matters that unite and divide us, praying that the Holy Spirit will promote the purity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)."

The group's report, entitled Peace Unity Purity [or PUP], is, in effect, nothing more than a call for continuing conversation and the embrace of even greater diversity within the denomination.

Of course, Scripture stands at the very center of this controversy. The PUP report cites The Second Helvetic Confession and asserts: "we believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and have sufficient authority of themselves, not of [human beings]." Responding to this confessional statement, the group asserted: "We acknowledge that there is heated debate over biblical interpretation among Presbyterians who honor the authority of Scripture. In the midst of these debates it is important to remember that the consciences of us all are bound by the witness of Scripture to Jesus Christ. Even as it is important to preserve freedom of conscience and the interpretation of Scripture, such freedom is subject to standards . . . and must be exercised within constitutional bounds . . . ."

As should be obvious by now, the acquittal of Rev. Jane Adams Spahr should demonstrate conclusively the failure of this proposal.

In the first place, one must question the group's decision to suggest that the heated debate over the interpretation of Scripture on issues of sexuality is found "among Presbyterians who honor the authority of Scripture." Such a statement effectively implies that persons may deny clear teachings of Scripture, while still claiming to honor its authority.

By any measure, the acquittal of Rev. Spahr should demonstrate that a call for all ministers to bind their consciences "by the witness of Scripture," does not avail. The presbytery of the Redwoods did nothing to require Rev. Spahr to subject her conscience to the constitutional bounds of the church or to the clear teachings of the Bible.

Rev. Spahr's attorney cited the reformers of the sixteenth century as suggesting that the church must leave matters of ministerial discipline to God. This flies in the face of the actual writings and actions of the reformers. John Calvin, whose legacy stands as the very fountain of the stream that eventually produced the Presbyterian denomination, insisted that "we must be ruled by the Word of God." Furthermore, "Seeing God will be served with obedience, let us beware and keep ourselves within those bounds which God hath set," Calvin insisted. Martin Luther, famously standing at his own church trial at the Diet of Worms, famously told his judges that his conscience was "bound by the Word of God."

The Presbyterian Lay Committee, a group of concerned Presbyterians who have been seeking to pull their church back to biblical and theological accountability, has referred to the PUP document as "a political solution to a theological problem."

"Some persons who call themselves Christians, including ordained leaders of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), struggle with claims of the authority of Scripture," the group argued. "They affirm Scripture as a guide and source of wisdom, but regard it as culturally conditioned and of human origin. Thus they place it alongside, and even, at times, under the judgment of other human authorities. They prefer to say, 'Listen for the Word of God,' rather than 'Listen to the Word of God' when reading the Bible in the context of worship. Persons who hold such beliefs clearly are not talking about the Scriptures that Jesus upheld and fulfilled and that his church has affirmed for more than 2000 years."

As the Presbyterian Lay Committee's argument concludes, "Making the denomination's implicit pluralism explicit, by whatever inclusivist scheme, would admit but not solve our current disorder. Elijah's counsel to Israel is precisely the word that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) must hear. We must cease limping between two opinions. We must answer Christ's compelling question: 'Who do you say that I am?' We must make a choice."

The Presbyterian Lay Committee has it right--the denomination must make a clear choice. The acquittal of Rev. Jane Adams Spahr sets the stage for the denomination's General Assembly to face the question squarely when it meets in June. Nothing less than the denomination's witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake. If individual conscience is allowed to invalidate the clear teachings of Scripture, the denomination faces an unavoidable disaster.

Exodus 6:3-4 What's in a Name?

Exodus 6:3-4

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name LORD (YHWH) I was not known to them. I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. NKJV

Moses has just completed his first interview with Pharoah, King of Egypt, upon Moses' return from a self imposed 40 year exile. The interview did not go according to plan, at least as far as Moses was concerned. Fully expecting that Pharoah would capitulate under the decree to "let my people go", Moses and Aaron would not have been prepared for what followed next. Instead of recognizing the divine message, Pharoah instead increased the burden of Israel by no longer providing straw for the Jewish workmen to create bricks. The Jews were to divert manpower from brick production in order to acquire the needed raw material without diminishing the daily quota of bricks. The net effect was demoralizing both to Moses and to the nation he sought to deliver. Fortunately, Pharoah's brilliant polictical manuever, while initially disheartening for Israel, did not achieve its desired end which was to stifle any notion of national liberation.

God then encourages Moses and reminds him that deliverance is at hand. Not only will Israel be delivered, but it will be done with a spectaculare penache and display of miracles, signs and wonders. In the midst of this forecast, God recalls the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The promise made is about to become the promise fufilled. What is striking is the words God uses to comfort and strengthen Moses' resolve.

During the Patriarchal period God revealed Himself as God Almighty (El Shaddai). This term indicates God's sovereignty, power and complete dominion over creation. There are no competing powers or persons that can unseat God from His total rule. In Exodus 6, the same God of the Patriarchs, who is still the absolute monarch reveals another dimension to His person and character. Not only is God the Sovereign Ruler, He is a Sovereign Ruler who is not undetached from His subjects. God is an intensely personal being and He reveals this through a small expression in verse 3 but by name (YHWH) I was not known to them.

In the ancient Near East, affixing names to persons was not merely a mechanism to distinguish one human being from another. Naming someone or something always conveyed either theological or political importance. The one doing the naming, or in some cases renaming, was exercising his power, control, dominance or ownership over the individual who received the new label. This is demonstrated in a number of examples in both Testaments.

At creation, corgenency is conferred to the primal pair, Adam and Eve. They are commanded to name the assorted animals as they paraded before our first parents. In Genesis, Avram and Sarai are renamed Abraham and Sarah by God as God establishes His covenant. In the New Testament, Jesus renames Simon to Peter (Petros the rock) theologically symbolizing the (Petra) the bedrock confession that Jesus is the Son of God. There are numerous other examples that could be cited, but they demonstrate the truth that naming a person was more than just placing a catchy label on a person.

Earlier in Exodus, Moses first encounters God on Mt. Sinai. Moses is to convey to Israel that the El Shaddai of Genesis, is about to fufill His promise to their Patriarchal ancestors. The question is posed, if they should ask what is His name? What shall I say to them? The answer comes in the form of the 4 letter tetragrammaton YHWH. In Hebrew, this is literally the verb to be. God's personal name is the verb that indicates existence. Down through the centuries, theologians have rightly taught that this somewhat cryptic response indicates not only God's holy name, but within the holy name, an essential attribute of God is delineated. He is the God that is; the self existent one.

More importantly, this name sets YHWH apart from the pantheon in Egypt and the larger pagan world in which Israel lives. The names of pagan Gods indicated something of their character, nature, limitations and tribal affiliation. YHWH alone not only declares that He is God Almighty but also that He is self existent and defines existence without having beginning or end. None of the competing idealogies could make such a statement about their gods. Because YHWH is self existent He is beyond human control, dominion or cohersion. He will not be manipulated or manouevered to do anyone's bidding save His own. As an aside, part of how we are to understand that we are not to take the Lord's name in vain is that God's name is not to be used as a talisman or lucky charm to bring our own desires into fruition.

Most importantly, Moses records that it is by the name YHWH that He is to be known now. This indicates that there is more here than theological posturing taking place. To know, in the Old Testament is not simply the acquisition of knowledge. To know someone can also convey the idea of intimacy as in the intimacy shared by husband and wife in sexual union. It is intensely personal. There is a foreshadow taking place here of the husband and wife symbolism that so marked the writings of the New Testament. It also indicates that God is not merely an all powerful ogre that demands obligatory allegiance from His subjects. He is one who is intimately involved with His people. He is interested in worshippers, but more than worshippers, He desires personal fellowship from those who are devoted to Him. Isaiah, the great prophet whose ministry coincided with the fall of Jerusalem, predicted that Messiah (Jesus) would be known by that great name Emmanuel (God with Us). This has been fufilled in part with the coming of Pentecost. Everyone who is a born again believer, has the Holy Spirit of God dwelling within. The ultimate Emmanuel will take place at the close of Revelation when the earth is consumed, the church (bride) is united with Christ (bridegroom) and the heavenly Jerusalem is revealed from heaven.

Soli Deo Gloria