The Vine: Network Test Mjs:Tblr:FB

Network Test



Got Questions: Who’s fault is it? If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?

Who’s fault is it?

If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?


  1. Comment by Leah

    Both. She set up the temptation and he chose to allow himself to think about her inappropriately.

  2. Comment by Anonymous

    The answer to this is like saying that’s the world’s fault that i fell into porn, conformity, adultery, etc. You have got to be on guard. Yes, the woman has played a part in the man’s lusting, but the man is accountable.

  3. Comment by Joselyn Rushton

    The answer to this is like saying that’s the world’s fault that i fell into porn, conformity, adultery, etc. You have got to be on guard. Yes, the woman has played a part in the man’s lusting, but the man is accountable.

  4. Comment by Marcus

    If a lady wears immodest clothing, she has the Lord to answer to for that. However, if it results in a man lusting after her, the man has the Lord to answer to for lusting.

    If a man was to walk down the red-light district in town, there will be plenty of prostitutes seducing him with their eyes, bodies and clothes. But just because the man is in a situation that will naturally allow him to lust in his fleshy nature, DOES NOT MEAN that the man has no choice but to lust. Following that, the man actually has a choice of whether he wants to sin or not.

    So it is the man’s fault for lusting.

  5. Comment by Chris

    They are both at fault. The man is at fault for lusting and the woman is at fault for causing a stumbling block in front of the man. Sin is sin

  6. Comment by Mr. H

    I won’t quote Bible Verses because everyone should already be well known to which ones “fall” under this category. I have had many discussions with people (especially females) who profess the name of the Lord Jesus, but just don’t care how they dress, about this subject.
    They don’t care if they show the shape of their body, how much skin they show, nor what other people think about that. It’s all about what makes them feel good, what makes them look better than the other person. I always wonder if they feel that the world would value them more as a person depending on how much skin (or body parts) are shown.
    If you bring it to their attention, they get defensive and they stick to the “their Perverts and they shouldn’t look at me in that way” line. And also, “The Lord sees our heart, not our appearance”, “I need to look cute for my husband and not cover myself up from head to toe or else he is going to leave me for another attractive woman”.
    They always, and I mean always, justify their clothing style no matter how revealing their clothes is or what the Bible says about it.
    We as men, and some more than others, struggle with our eyes just wandering all over the place, especially when a female is involved. By nature, that’s who we are! Women sometimes don’t understand that and that’s why they don’t care and call men perverts. But they just don’t see the damage they are causing for all men out there.
    I’m also not saying that you women need to wear a super long blanket over you and only have your eyes showing… so don’t get it all twisted. Their is ALWAYS a modest and decent way to dress “Cute” and “Stay in Style” without being revealing or inappropriate.
    Just think of it this way, “will I be okay standing right in front of our Lord dressed this way?”
    Because of today’s Fashion and Hollywood Entertainment world, women want to dress with the latest fashions and it don’t matter how much of their body shows. Which is wrong.
    So to answer the question without anymore of my two cents, it’s the women’s fault IF they dress with immodest clothing!

  7. Comment by Ethan

    Both are accountable!

    The girl is accountable for making Him stumble by casting a stumbling block.

    1 Corinthians 8:9-10 “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?”

    And the Guy is accountable for what He thought, breaking the 7th Commandment.
    Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

  8. Comment by curtis

    Maybe both…To me you should only worry about your sin unless ,the woman causing people lust is your daughter or wife. In my opinion it is not lust to look at beauty but it is when your mind goes to far with that beauty, just simply enjoying beautiful women is natural and God intended for us to…just be careful

  9. Comment by Dave

    As I read these posts, so many verses come to mind.

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    “Do not attempt to remove the splinter from your Brother’s eye until you have removed the log from yours”.

    “Judge not, Lest ye be judged”.

    As Christians, we should not be determining who is at fault.

  10. Comment by Mimi

    I truly feel that the woman is at fault. I believe that she is dressing in an immodest manner, so that men will lust over her. I believe she is looking to gratify herself through the attention of men. BUT it is up to the man to look away (realize that this is a temptation, through no fault of theirs) and pray himself out of what he may be feeling.

    Psalm 119:9-10 ESV

    How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments!

  11. Comment by Edith Jane

    I’d say both… when Jesus was being tempted by satan, He was still strong enough to say NO even when He was 40 days hungry and was teased with bread. A woman dressed in such a way is being the tempter and the man was weak enough to fall for it.

    Everyday we’re faced with the Adam and Eve temptation, and everyday we fail… Thank God He died and saved us!!! JESUS IS LORD

  12. Comment by Michael James Stone

    Who’s fault is it?

    If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?

    (interesting this isn’t asked in the Normal Format)

    This is a Fallacy question:
    1) A woman dresses immodestly
    >Fallacy is there is no criteria stated for modesty.
    2) Man lusting after her
    >Fallacies are “implied” by the dress
    >It actually can be a Man who lusts after her no matter what she wears.
    Whose fault is it?
    >Fallacy is there is only ONE action stated, the man and lust.

    It’s what we call a logic bomb. There is no actual fact based answer because it a Vagary disguised as a specific.


    For an exact definition.
    But lets play with the scriptures the premise is trying to create the scenario the person wants.

    Are you accountable to the actions of another’s reactions?

    The “dress” of the person is not a scriptural issue, or, it is a relationship development aspect that a person who has issue with the persons dress is required to seek “settlement” for peace sake if both parties are in the same faith etc.

    A man lusting after a woman is not “invoked” by dress. It is a process development of Thought, Consideration, Decision making, and Participation All on the mans “actions” and “intentions”.

    If a man is tempted, then he knows it is not the source that is the issue, but the response to temptation in which he decides to “reject” the initial “contact” of the temptation in thought by sight or external stimulus.

    If he chooses to “participate” in the temptation, he creates in himself the opportunity for sin. He “indulges” in the process of development of self-discipline by either responding in a scriptural/spiritual/godly manner, or “heeding” and yielding his member (his mind) to the provocation.

    If he did not, it would be a growth process.

    Since the person who is viewing the “immodesty” is determining the modesty or immodesty and response, it isn’t the clothes that make a circumstance one way or the other.

    The same scenario would be less dramatic if you said: A Doctor noticed a woman who was dressed immodestly came to him for a Full Pelvic exam. The fact I didn’t say Gynecologist would also make what looks like “sin of the womans choice of clothes” above proof that this is a Bad question and used in logic classes as a Prime example of fallacy because Scripture is absolute, so your answers have to include any exceptions……

  13. Comment by Marcus

    In your post Mr H., you mentioned that ‘By nature, that’s who we are!’

    God did not call upon us to lust. That is an excuse which will by every means give guys the chance to say “Oh well, it’s not my fault that I’m lusting (sinning)”

  14. Comment by Kuya

    I’m a girl, and I agree with “Mr. H”

  15. Comment by Dave

    Luke 17:1 Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
    Doesn’t get to the matter of the question but sheds new light on it.
    I agree w/Michael James Stone, too many variables to be answered directly.

  16. Comment by R

    Christian women(and young teenage girls) should not wear immodest attire (this includes bikinis and too revealing one piece swimsuits), in the first place, no matter what the world is telling them. The man see it look away, like what Joesph did when Potiphar wife tried to seduce him , RUN from it.
    If does happen they fall both are at fault.

  17. Comment by ceseeley


    Some people scientist say that women are relationship oriented and romantically stimulated; while men are goal oriented and visually stimulated!!! If this is true, who is taking advantage of who; who is the weaker one in this situation; who is more vulnerable???

    If this is all that one has to live by, they could both be targets and/or predators of each other.

    Thank God for the liberating Power of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit and Thy Holy Word … Praise God!!!

  18. Comment by Scott

    Mr H, Mimi, and Kuya are the only correct answerers. Michael James Stone has serious issues with his convictions and Dave, you just avoided the question altogether. It all comes down to what the first sin was. Just like in the case of Adam and Eve and the old joke of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Eve is deceived by the serpent and gives to her husband. If Eve is not deceived, neither would have been Adam. From creation, we know that God created man first so it was also the chicken that came before the egg.

    And in this example of the modesty of dress, if the woman dresses modestly, she does not give her unspoken permission to be lusted after. Once the woman sinned, the man sinned.

    So, as for who is the one who caused the lusting…it was the woman. God called women the weaker sex and called for them to dress modestly knowing that the weakness of men would be tempted. Why would any good Christian woman want to cause another to stumble. Vanity and selfishness. Solomon warned us about vanity as it is like chasing after the wind and selfishness is the basis for all sin. Take the first letter of each syllable of the word self-ish-ness and what to you get…..SIN!

    Why did God warn us about spouses withholding sex so as to possibly cause the other to stray. The blame was put on the one withholding, not the one that strayed, although the straying would also be a sin.

    God speaks often about not doing things that would cause another to stumble. You would not take an alcoholic friend to a bar or enjoy a drink at home in his presence. You should not be glutenous in front of someone struggling with issues of weight. You should not gossip with someone who struggles with gossip, just as you should not eat meat offered to idols so that someone who struggles with that in your presence would be tempted by their weakness. That example cover most of these real world examples.

    Sorry, ladies, if you dress like a harlot, you cause men who are weak to struggle and you are the first sinner. Of course there are men who will lust no matter what you are wearing and they just could be the husband for you who sees beauty and desire in a smile and in your grace. Or they are just a sinner.

  19. Comment by jeremy

    Just a quick comment. IF a dollar is sitting on a counter and you take it is it the dollars fault? A sin is a sin no mattere if it be lust or stealing. That being said I believe its the mans fault. May GOD bless you all.

  20. Comment by Mimi

    Scott & All,
    I love it when people say it the way it is. Your comments were dead on. Especially “if the woman dresses modestly, she does not give her unspoken permission to be lusted after.” Woman who dress immodestly are giving their permission to have a man lust for them, in fact that is exactly what they are trying to encourage. I dress modestly, but I dress feminine, I want to feel like a woman, I want to be appreciated and treated like a lady, not as an object. I dress for myself, I like to match my accessories with my outfit and my lipstick with what I am wearing, I feel good being a lady. I don’t want men seeing me as a boy toy. I want to be seen as valuable and as a person with a mind as a Woman of God. So I dress accordingly. (Hahaha, I am laughing to myself, I use to go to a Woman’s Bible Study and there were such beautiful Christian ladies there…they all looked lovely and many wore necklaces, earrings and lipstick, just what I love to wear so, I would find myself looking around at the other ladies and thinking “Oh doesn’t she look nice”…when I should of been listening to the Lecture, whew I feel better with that confession off my chest, lol.) But truthfully woman who wear immodest clothing, are doing so on purpose, they know exactly the reaction they will get from a man. I use to be a cashier and I dealt with hundreds of people. Let me say that I had more than a few woman come through my line that were dressed so immodestly that I was staring at them and had to pull my eyes away from the. Part of it is a shock factor, you don’t expect to see a black bra under a sheer pink top, or a woman’s breasts literally pushed up out of her top, I could go on but I will stop. . The surprise of the unexpected, what isn’t the norm will almost shock you in a way, I know it did me and as a woman I had to force myself to look the other way. I can’t imagine how a man would feel. So it does fall on the woman and it is up to the man to look away and not be tempted any further by what he has already seen.

    Amen amen amen to this statement!!!”Why did God warn us about spouses withholding sex so as to possibly cause the other to stray. The blame was put on the one withholding, not the one that strayed, although the straying would also be a sin.” There are many good Christian articles that can help couples address their sex life. I think it is a shame that the Church isn’t teaching us about sex. Couples would benefit much more if it did. here is a good article….
    There are a lot of good websites if you google Sex & Christian Marriage.

  21. Comment by Richard Broch

    Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

    Scriptures pertaining to this matter:

    1 Timothy 2:9,”Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, with MODESTY and DISCREETLY,……….”
    Now, I don`t need to disect those words, or throw any kind of “logic bomb” into the game to understand what the Word of God is saying here.

    1 Corinthians 5:12-13,”For what do I have to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? (13)But, those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.”
    Here we are reminded to judge other Christians`behavior. And God will judge the rest of the world.

    John7:24,(in red letters),”Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.”
    Jesus is telling us it`s o.k. to judge daily routine matters in our lives, but do it according to His precepts. Plus we are not to make eternal condemnations on anyone.

    I think the woman and man are both guilty.
    If they would use the useless excuse – “The devil made me do it”, it would`nt stand in God`s court for a minute.

    Grace and Peace.

  22. Comment by alvin

    Matthew 5:28 if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart….the greek word for woman is gune- specifically a married woman. the emphasis of the verse is that once you know she is not available for marriage, put a big ‘not for me’ sign in the brain.
    -i am acqainted with females so beautiful that there is no way they could be any less beautiful no matter how conservative they dress.
    -would someone like to point out the difference between attraction and lust?
    -why do many of these posts assume that lust is only a male attribute? that definitely does not fit the facts! and provocative does not apply only to clothing, but to every other purposeful look or action that one person can aim at another.
    -if a female dresses to ‘tease the animals’ that is premeditated.
    -if a female dresses like hollywood or tv in innocence, there is an IQ level problem.
    -if a christian female fits in the above two categories, there is a sin problem (might as well aplly this to men as well).
    -the social scientists who say women are not visually stimulated are wrong, though that effect is stronger in the average male. there are male dancers…..
    -if a man looks and recognizes lust in his heart, he needs to follow Gods’ advice to Cain, “if you do not well, sin crouches at the door”(genesis 4)
    -enticement may be purposeful and sinful, but is no excuse for the recipient of the suggestion to fall for it.

  23. Comment by Mimi

    Ceseeley & All,
    I disagree with your statement. The woman in this situation is not the weaker one, she knows exactly what she is doing. The weaker one is the man, who she knows is stimulated visually & so she is purposely trying to make him stumble. He can’t help what may cross his eyes, but he can turn and look away. If I caused you to stumble would you say that it is your fault when it is really mine???

  24. Comment by Malik

    I honestly am torn on this issue and it makes me feel bad for women. Heres my opinion. If seeing someones calfs or their arms makes you lust after them, then its just that persons fault for being a pervert.

  25. Comment by Debbie

    What did God create first, the chicken or the egg? Correct Answer: Chicken.

  26. Comment by windyblue

    Always the woman’s fault. She shows cleavage and gets called a ****
    Now, the man needs to put his eye’s back in his head. And learn to control themselves. And they cannot. Woman get blamed for it all.
    Lets look at a man, who walks around in a public place with no shirt on, or muscle shirts, I was at a picnic once, it was a church members home, and a few of the men where walking around with there shirts off, I wanted to vomit. I just prayed to the Lord about them.
    I did not stay long either. Men need to put there eyes back in there heads. Yes I call them perverts too.
    WE do not live in Biblical times anymore, where woman and even in Iran, Iraq, and more places over sea’s woman have to cover every part of there bodies, nothing can show. Not even there faces.
    And they get beat, killed, sold, the man can do what ever he wants to her and get away with it.
    Just like in biblical times. it makes me vomit.
    I live in the USA, and thank God for that everyday I was born here.
    I can dress the way I want. NO I am not dressing like a lady of the evening.

  27. Comment by Mimi

    Malik and All,
    Woman who dress provocatively are doing it for the attention, nothing to feel sorry about, they are getting what they are after, men’s attention. Feel bad for the men that the woman helps to stumble.

    I got a kick out of the rest of your comment “If seeing someones calfs or their arms makes you lust after them, then its just that persons fault for being a pervert.” Hahaha! :)

  28. Comment by Michael James Stone

    Hmm Scott,

    Hope you aren’t getting personal.

    Let see, if a Man goes to the beach is he responsible for ALL the WOMEN who dressed immodestly.

    Errr lers see if a woman wear a swimsuit is she immodest?

    The variables Scott are called Situational Ethics and while I appreciate your assessment (grin) unless the circumstances are defined your exceptions will negate your absolutes.

    THAT is why we have a Holy Spirit and a personal relationship because one mans Orthodoxy is another mans liberality.

    While I appreciate Scott for perspective and his ability to exercise it, I must say, I am glad that the Body of Christ is diverse with many members and God alone can sort that one out.

    Me? I am going to the beach……….

Annoucement: MJS on WordPress



Billy: "Billy Who?" (A Personal Look at Billy Graham, the World's Best-loved Evangelist) Chp 4

A Personal Look at Billy Graham, the World's Best-loved Evangelist


Billy Who?




Let us pay a quick visit to that borrowed tent on the vacant lot at Washington Boulevard and Hill Street in the city Los Angeles in the year 1949. Inside are the folding seats, two of which are reserved for us. This eloquent young man from North Carolina has opened his Bible and is preparing to step to the podium when George Beverly Shea stops singing. Thousands of listeners have filled the tent. In an adjoining tent other thousands are on their knees praying fervently for the speaker and his listeners.1

    Now, I invite you to allow your imagination to roam. Let's assume that in the vaults of heaven a vast choir of angels is also listening to the music of Tedd Smiths's piano. A faint sound emanates from Earth, known widely in celestial circles as the Planet of Discord. Heavenly applause breaks out as singing now rises from the tent and blends harmoniously with the eternal music of the spheres: "To God be the glory, great things He has done!"

    Does all this sound a bit euphoric? Not to a believer. Try to understand. Music is the first thing a new believer hears when he or she enters the everlasting doors of the kingdom of God. As for Billy Graham, he is an ordinary man except for this one thing. He is a citizen of the heavenly kingdom as well as of the United States o America. He lives with his God as well as with his wife and family. God makes him extraordinary. Thus my writing about Billy Graham is not like other biographical works on the man. My intent is not to evaluate, but to render a tribute if I can, and to say what millions of Billy's friends around the world would like to say if they could. I can't explain it further except to say that I sense angels are listening.

    When the Greater Los Angeles Crusade for Christ was coming to a close, I was 7,000 miles away, sitting down to a sparse Thanksgiving dinner in a north Morningside flat in Edinburgh, Scotland. My hosts were Helen Forde, a charming widow visiting from Santa Monica, California, and her son-in-law and daughter, the Reverend and Mrs. Frederick Woodward of Virginia.

    Our American Thanksgiving Day is not, of course, observed in Scotland, and in that postwar period we were still restricted by British "austerity" (too often without meat, without milk, without eggs, without petrol). Still the table was bountiful in its Scottish way, and we had so much for which to render thanks to our God. Frederick and I were graduate students in the New College at that athenaeum of learning and wisdom, the world famous University of Edinburgh.

    While we worked our way through the sausage skins stuffed with meal, Mrs. Forde said to me as a fellow California, "Isn't it wonderful how God has been using Billy Graham back home?"

    I expressed a polite interest. "Billy who?"

    "Billy Graham. You know, the young evangelist from North Carolina."

    I didn't know. I was currently trying to improve my German by reading Rudolf Bultmann's ponderous treatise on demythologizing the New Testament. "Tell me about him."

    "He has been preaching the Gospel in a tent, and thousands are coming forward to be saved. They say he's a Baptist. I'm not sure, but I went there and watched. It was like a revival. Beautiful!"

    "You mean in L.A.?" I asked, reaching for a cluster of Algerian grapes. "Who is he?"

    Five years passed. By 1954 I had returned to California and was pastoring a rather miniscule congregation in south Berkeley across the bay from San Francisco when I received an invitation to watch a film at a nearby church. The film was a ten-minute newsreel depicting Billy Graham's arrival in London, England, to open his twelve-week evangelistic crusade in Harringay Arena on March 1, 1954.

    I had been reading in Christian publications about those packed-out meetings in the arena, and particularly about the hostile London press that greeted him with, "Who invited you over here anyway? Do you think you can save Britain?"

    One unusually harsh critic, William Conner, wrote two attacks in the Daily Mirror under the name of "Cassandra." Billy in turn wrote him a complimentary letter, asking for an interview.

    "Will you," Cassandra responded, "meet someone fairly hellbent and not averse to a little quiet wickedness? Why should we not meet in a pub called The Baptist's Head? You could drink what you choose while I sin quietly with a little beer."

    It seems they met, and afterward  Cassandra wrote:

He came into the Baptist's Head absolutely at home — a teetotaler and an abstainer able to make himself completely at ease in the spit and sawdust department, a difficulty thing to do. He has a kind of ferocious cordiality that scares ordinary sinners stone-cold. I never thought that friendliness had such a sharp cutting edge. I never thought that simplicity could cudgel us sinners so... hard. We live and learn. The bloke means everything he says. And in this country he has been welcomed with an exuberance that makes us blush behind our precious Anglo-Saxon reserve.

At the final overflowing Friday night service in Harringay Arena, Cassandra was there.

    All of this publicity made me, as an old reporter, extremely impatient to see that film. But as I sat there for those ten or twelve minutes, what inspired me during the film showing, and still inspires me, was not so much the huge welcoming crowd that greeted Billy and his team in the Waterloo railway station. Nor was it the jubilant, receptive audience that packed the Harringay Arena "Full and running over" night after night. Rather it was a simple statement Billy made to a congregation in one of the London churches on his arrival.

    Obviously responding to the vitriolic criticism in the metropolitan London press, Billy told the assembled people, "We have not come here to save you. We have not come to reform you. We have come at the invitation of the churches of London to preach the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ to the people of Britain."

    Billy then quoted two verses that put a brand on my soul. The first was from Psalm 27:8: "When You said, 'Seek My face,' My heart said to you, 'Your face, Lord, I will seek.' " The other was taken from Jeremiah 29:13: "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for me with all your heart."

    Those words forced me into what the sports writers call an "agonizing reappraisal." Things were not going well in my life, either domestically or vocationally, and I knew it. Small as my church was, it was wearing me out. The youth work was faltering. The organist was deaf. People liked me all right, but they gently resisted my ideas some of which should have been resisted. The neighborhood was changing. People were moving away. The harder I tried to resist the tide, the more I suffered from battle fatigue. Yet I was aware in my heart that if I could find God, if I could earnestly seek God's face and be found by Him, nothing else mattered.

    It was obvious that I was not having a very effective ministry among my congregation. Such gifts as I had were limited, and questions about the Bible continued to harass me. But beyond all personal matters, I possessed a vast impatience with the ministry itself. With all its interminable duties, it seemed I just wasn't doing anything. But in that film I had watched people singing joyful Christian songs with tremendous zeal as they rode the London underground to Harringay. (The London Daily Telegraph reported: "The tube trains are packed with these singing multitudes."2) I couldn't even get my people to sing in church!

    Jealousy was not my problem; I bore no ill will whatever toward Billy Graham or any other preacher of the Gospel. What I felt was entirely personal, and it went deep. Jesus said He came to set us free, but I seemed to be locked into an ecclesiastical establishment that made me feel that I was outside the stream of life, answering questions no one was asking, performing traditional religious duties of insignificance to God or humanity. I was like a windup toy that needed winding. While I loved the church of God and wanted to see it prosper, I despaired of my place in it.

    Now the amazing scenes in that ten-minute film brought me up short. It appeared that the church's message about Jesus Christ really was relevant to lots of people, even to those who didn't go to church. The London Daily Mail was saying about Billy, "He has no magic, no magnetism; he makes no appeal to the emotions. His power — and power he has — is in his indivisible conviction that he knows the right way of life."3 Perhaps, I thought, if I couldn't reach anybody for God myself, I might get behind somebody who could. But first I had better unkink my theology, quit reading Reinhold Niebuhr, and start praying for Billy Graham.

    Later that year Billy Graham, now clearly a mature evangelist with an international reputation, paid a brief visit to major cities along the Pacific coast. He conferred with committees of ministers and laymen about future crusades and spoke at evening rallies. When he came to the Bay Area, he was invited to preach at a one-night rally in San Francisco's Civic Auditorium.

    During the five years that had elapsed since I first heard Mrs. Forde speak of Billy, my enthusiasm had been mounting about what he was doing. I had followed reports of his ministry in New England, in Portland, Oregon, in Seattle, in Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and some of the southern cities.

    In the summer of 1954, while I was on a solo hike in the high Sierras, God had convinced me that His Bible is infallible. As a colleague of mine liked to put it, I "strangled my intellect." Whatever it was God did or I did, my ministry took off in a new direction. I altered my pulpit message and joined a group of praying pastors. So when I read about the coming rally in San Francisco, I gladly filled my car with parishioners on a November evening and took them across the bay to hear the evangelist.

    Knowing that San Francisco at night in November could be cold, damp, and windy, I wore a thick Harris tweed suit I had purchased in Edinburgh. Sure enough, at the entrance to the Civic Auditorium a waiting line extended for two long blocks. We stood shivering until some ushers came along to cheer us. When they learned that I was a minister, they invited me inside to sit with a hundred other pastors on the platform behind the podium. During the service Cliff Barrows called on us to stand and sing together, "Standing on the Promises of Christ My King." I sang my heart out.

    What amazed me that night was the lighthearted spirit of the audience. It was exactly like what I had witnessed in that London film — a kind of Christian party. Expressions of joy were everywhere. Cliff Barrows seemed full of contagious good cheer as he led the singing. How different it was from the dignified religious solemnity I was used to — which meant, I was taught, doing things correctly, i.e., "decently and in order."4

    When Billy came to the platform, he too seemed to convey a light spirit. He was the essence of cordiality until he began to preach. His text as the story of the rich young ruler and Jesus, as found in Luke 18:18-24. In sharp, rapid, effective sentences he presented the Bible scene. This young man, he said, was searching for answers at the right time (in his youth). He came with the right attitude (running) to the right person (Jesus). He asked Jesus the right question (about gaining eternal life) and received the answer (sell what you have; give to the poor; take up your cross and follow Me.) Then, said Billy, he did the wrong thing.

    It was a well-constructed message, and I found it vivid and electrifying. The preacher was tall, lean, vigorous, impressive. He modulated his voice well; he pointed a long finger, swung his body, flexed his arms, and held up his Bible. His blue eyes were piercing, and his words were sharp, rapid, and effective. His southern accent sounded a bit odd to us Californians when he pronounced "can't" as "cain't," but nobody seemed to mind. The response was impressive as hundreds of people came to the front at his invitation.

    At the close of the service, I left the platform to collect my carload of passengers for the trip across the Bay Bridge. They were missing. All had gone forward to give their lives to Jesus Christ.

Chapter 5  ||  Table of Contents

1. Cf. John Pollock, Billy Graham (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1966), 84-91.

2. Ibid., 165.

3. Ibid., 168

4. 1 Corinthians 14:40 (KJV).

Prophecy Q&A with Gary Fisher: (Does the Mayan Calendar Predict 2012 Apocalypse?; Will the Antichrist be a Muslim?)



Does the Mayan Calendar Predict 
2012 Apocalypse?




USA Today - With humanity coming up fast on 2012, publishers are helping readers gear up and count down to this mysterious — some even call it apocalyptic — date that ancient Mayan societies were anticipating thousands of years ago.A fourth is due this fall. Each arrives in the wake of the 2006 success of 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, which has been selling thousands of copies a month since its release in May and counts more than 40,000 in print. The books also build on popular interest in the Maya, fueled in part by Mel Gibson's December 2006 film about Mayan civilization, Apocalpyto. Authors disagree about what humankind should expect on Dec. 21, 2012, when the Maya's "Long Count" calendar marks the end of a 5,126-year era.



   Comment: There is a lot of buzz about this subject on the Internet and there have been a good number of people asking me about it at conferences and through email. My response is always the same. Why would anyone interested in the subject of end times be more concerned with whatever the Mayans believed than the proven prophets of God? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and others wrote extensively about the end times. They have spelled out fairly clearly how the end times would play out. None of God's prophets have ever been discredited because they prophesied falsely. Their credibility is "over the top" on the issue. Yet, many people prefer to pay attention to other sources. In this case, the Mayan calendar.
    What is significant here is the fact that the Mayan calendar simply ends at 2012. The subject is left hopelessly to speculation from that point. Unlike hopeless speculations, God's prophets gave us the full picture. Thanks to them, the future is very clear:
    1.) Israel would be scattered from their land.
    2.) The Church would be founded and operate in the interim.
    2.) After many years, the Jewish people would return.
    3.) Israel would be reestablished and rebuilt as a nation
    4.) Israel would have to fight for their lives.
    5.) All nations would eventually come against Israel.
    6.) The Lord would fight against those nations at His return.
    7.) The Lord would set up His Kingdom in Israel for 1,000 years.
    8.) God would then bring New Jerusalem down and dwell among man forever. 
(See Ezekiel 33-48 and Revelation 19-22


Question: Will the Antichrist be a Muslim?

Answer: I do not believe so. The following are the reasons why.

    1). He (the Antichrist) shows no regard for the God of his fathers - he magnifies himself above them all (Dan. 11:37). This would be against the first pillar of Islam. All followers must state that there is no God but Allah. No Muslim can declare himself to be god, especially in a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem as the Antichrist will in II Thess. 2. If one did, the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world would have him beheaded before the sun sets.

    2.) It appears that the world is about to witness the collapse of Islam. Inside the Muslim world there is desperation. This Allah is supposed to be greater, but 1.2 billion Muslims are witnessing that Allah cannot expel six million Jews from Israel for the last 60 years. He is not greater and history is proving it. Jehovah is greater!

    3.) Daniel declares that the Antichrist will come from the people who destroyed the city (Jerusalem) and the Sanctuary (Temple) in Daniel 9:26. We know that Titus and the Roman 5th Legion who were in charge of the operation against the Jews and the Temple in 70A.D., were Italian Roman. The orders came from Rome, Italy. Those who destroyed the Temple were loyal to Caesar and Rome, Italy.

    4.) A strong point: All this is interesting to ponder, but in the end, if one believes in a Rapture before the Tribulation, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE HERE!!! The Antichrist cannot be revealed until He that now restrains him is taken out of the way and that will be during the coming Tribulation.


Daily Comic: Going Down?

English - Going Down?




Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Prophecy Q&A with Jack Kelley: (Acts Of Nature Or Judgments From God?; How Can I Forgive If They Won’t Ask?; Egypt’s 40 Year Judgment)

Acts Of Nature Or Judgments From God?

Q. I know that God has used nature in the past to bring his judgments upon man.  Do you believe that the judgments in Revelation (seal, trumpet, and bowl) will be “natural enough” or “logical enough” that they can be explained away by man as just acts of nature? Or, do you believe they will be so supernatural that they can only be explained as acts of God?


A. The end times judgments, at least at the beginning, will appear to be acts of nature although they’ll get more and more extreme as they progress.  Unbelievers might be able to write them off as bad weather at first, but it will soon become clear that it’s the worst “weather” the world has ever experienced.  And right from the beginning some will know what’s going on.  Some world leaders will be announcing that the wrath of God has begun by the end of the Seal judgments (Rev. 6:15-17) and according to Rev. 15:11and Rev. 16:21 men on Earth will be cursing God for causing so much pain and destruction during the Great Tribulation.

The problem is that most people will believe Satan is the good guy (Rev. 13:4) and that God is the enemy who is trying to destroy them.  In spite of everything, they’ll cling to their irrational belief that Satan will eventually win and then everything will be OK.


Related Posts:


How Can I Forgive If They Won’t Ask?

Q. I got married last May, and to my dismay, some of our friends started spreading rumors that the reason we were getting married was that  my wife was pregnant. This hurt my wife and myself dearly. We were all part of Bible studies, group outings, and camping trips through a Christian organization.  The question I have is this, out of the four friends that did this only one friend came to us and asked us to forgive him. We did.  The others openly lied to us and only made excuses as to why they spread the rumors. What are we to do? I want there to be forgiveness here but unless there is some kind of want of forgiveness on their side how can I?


A. Your decision to extend forgiveness is not dependent upon anything the other person does.  In Ephesians 4:26-27 Paul said we should not let the Sun go down on our anger.  This means we can choose to forgive and forget no matter what the other person does or doesn’t do.

Your desire to rebuild the relationships is admirable, and since you know that’s what the Lord wants, asking for His help in making this happen is praying in His will.  Assuming you’ve already asked Him to forgive you for your anger, you can start by asking Him to forgive the other people involved for their actions, and to provide the circumstances which would allow reconciliation to take place. You can’t force someone else to ask for your forgiveness, but the Holy Spirit can create situations that will allow you to demonstrate that you’ve forgiven them.

But whether they eventually ask for your forgiveness or not is between them and the Lord.  You are only responsible for your own actions.


Related Posts:


Egypt’s 40 Year Judgment

Q.  Regarding a recent post about Egypt and Ez. 29, I’ve wondered if it may be fulfilled during the period of rebellion towards the end of the thousand year reign of Christ…what are your thoughts on this?


A. In Ezekiel 29:13-16 it says that at the end of the 40 year desolation, the Lord will bring the Egyptians back to their homeland. After that they will always be a lowly kingdom and will never again try to exalt themselves over other kingdoms. When I compare this with Zechariah 14:16-19 I’m more inclined to place Egypt’s judgment nearer the beginning of the Millennium. But there doesn’t appear to be any clear indication of timing, meaning it could theoretically happen any time during the Millennium that would allow for a re-gathering and a period of peace afterward. We’ll just have to wait and see.


Related Posts:



Prophecy Q&A with John MacArthur: Can Christians Participate in Civil Disobedience?

Can Christians Participate in Civil Disobedience?

Can Christians Participate in Civil Disobedience?

John MacArthur

Civil Disobedience

We believe the Scripture teaches that we are to submit to government even if that government does not function entirely (or even primarily) by biblical principles (Romans 13:1-7). That principle is explicit in Peter's message to servants (1 Peter 2:18-19), which directly follows his more general comments regarding government (vv. 13-17).  And that epistle teaches the same thing over and over again in varied ways:  Submit even if you suffer, because in doing so you identify with Christ and are blessed (cf. 2:21-24; 3:1-2; 4:12-14; 5:9-10). There are times when we must obey God rather than men, but we believe that we should disobey the authorities only if they command us to do something directly against God's law (e.g. Acts 5:29 and its surrounding context). 

That is a fine distinction, but it is precisely where the issue lies. If we say that Christians are only required to obey their government when it is functioning by scriptural principles, we then nullify the teaching of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 in just about any age of history-especially the time during which those passages were written! The Roman government was as corrupt and godless as any in history, and yet Paul and Peter told Christians to "live in subjection," "submit to every ordinance," and "honor the king."

So we believe that civil disobedience is justified only when government compels us to sin, or when there is no legal recourse for fighting injustice. The reason we draw the line there is simply because all the scriptural examples of civil disobedience fall squarely into those two situations. Any other kind of activism has no precedent in the Word of God and violates the spirit of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.



We are almost a week into March and not one penny in tithes and offerings have come in. We depend on your support to make this work happen.
  • This "Ministry" has gone bankrupt before and has been investigated several times for fraud so be on the watch for any or all requests for Funds on Facebook and immediately report any to FACEBOOK Administrators.
  • Cult watchers have identified Trimm and His Sacred Name group as non-christian.


Search This Blog