“MIRACLES OF GREAT DELIVERANCE”

"MIRACLES OF GREAT DELIVERANCE"

President Donald J. Trump: When I actually CONSIDER "the News", and all the ranging prognostications, theories, and "tell-tale" signs of what it means (in the "natural") to TURN THE TIDE of this nation; it seems ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH to take up the charge, when the DARK ACTORS seem as committed to their cause as WE ARE to ours!!

BUT, as I MEDITATE on "seeing things" through the lens of THE GOD FACTOR — alongside our active "motus operandi" — the 4–P's APPROACH — our PRAYERS, our PLANNING, our PREPARATIONS, and our PERFORMANCE in total reliance and dependence upon EL ELYON, who is OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, and OMNIPRESENT, gurantees HIS PARTICIPATION, HIS WATCHFULNESS, and HIS MUSCLE to do what we can't do..

President Trump: THIS BLOG and Apostle Tim Sheets message from September of 2023, are VERY IMPORTANT for separating and delineating the NATURAL and SPIRITUAL postures of our COMMANDING OCCUPANCY that God is calling this incoming administration too..

APOSTOLIC COMMISSIONING and PROPHETIC RELEASE of Apostle Tim Sheets..

>"Miracles of Great Deliverance (https://youtu.be/hwBkdkVc0c8?si=)

EXPOSING DARKNESS BY THE SPIRIT

Ephesians 5:11 delivers a clear directive: "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." The first part of this command urges Christians to avoid sinful deeds, that is, everything contrary to God's commands. This includes sexual immorality, greed, and foul language (Ephesians 5:3–4). However, adhering to Christian conduct extends beyond mere avoidance of sin; we are also called to expose sin where it is hidden in the darkness. Understanding what it means to expose the works of darkness becomes our responsibility.

In the preceding verse, Paul urged his readers to "find out what pleases the Lord" (Ephesians 5:10), which serves as an initial step. To expose the works of darkness, we must discern the difference between what pleases the Lord and what doesn't. God defines what's right and wrong, not we, and not societal norms. Once we've established the parameters of right and wrong from God's perspective, we take a public stand for righteousness and denounce evil deeds. In contemporary culture, defining right and wrong can be perceived as judgmental, particularly when God's standards clash with worldly values. Nevertheless, God commands us not to ignore evil but rather to unveil its dangers and encourage others to steer clear of it.

In a post-Christian culture, Christians live like Israelites in Babylon. Much of what is celebrated in our world is abhorrent by biblical standards. That is why we must be aligned with Scripture; to lose sight of Scripture is to risk operating out of a faulty view of morality influenced by the media and the world system. To expose the works of darkness, we must avoid falling in love with those works or the system that produces them. As the apostle John wrote, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever" (1 John 2:15–17).

Exposing the works of darkness also entails radiating the light of Christ through our words and actions. Merely labelling an act as wrong is insufficient; a diagnosis is incomplete without solution. The act of exposing darkness must always be coupled with a call to repentance—a change of mind about Christ, sin, and salvation—and faith in Christ's offer of perfect forgiveness. Only the light can dispel the darkness.

The principle of exposing the works of darkness can likewise be applied in our interactions with our Christian brothers and sisters. We should hold ourselves accountable (Luke 17:3; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14), which includes the compassionate confrontation of a fellow believer who may be straying. James goes a step further, encouraging us to strive for the restoration of those who have wandered from the truth, saying that "whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins" (James 5:19–20).

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SIN" vs "CRIME"..

• Crime is a legal concept.
• Sin is a moral concept.
• Crime is defined, therefore, by civil codes.
• Sin is defined by God and His Holy Word.

> Not all sins are crimes (e.g., adultery).

In general, every justly-defined crime is a sin, if for no other reason, that it is a sin to break a just law (although typically crimes are sins in their own right).

— For example, not getting a permit to build a shed on your property is not inherently sinful, but if it is required by law, then it becomes sinful to do it by virtue of disobeying just authority.

CRIME vs SIN

1.     Crime is an action that is against the law. In general, this means the civil law of the society. Sin is a Abrahamic concept that is a violation of God's will.

2.     Crime is identified by the govt; but sin is identified by God.

3.     Crime is happened in this world; but sin is happened for the after death life.

4.     The punishment of crime is given in this world; but the punishment of sin is given in life — and before and after death.

5.     Every crime is a sin; but every sin is not a crime.

6.     Sin is a subjective term and has no parameters to base exactly, what it is. It is believed by religious people, and ignored by others as a delusion. Crime is something that is set by social codes of the country we live in; and, if broken, a penalty is to be paid.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT

As the election cycle ends for the next two years, we will hear some of the reports from priestly acts of refusing Communion to Democratic politicians (specifically), who won't vote to make "abortion a crime"; etc

And we could (but won't) hear of priests refusing Communion to Republicans, who won't vote to make it a crime, to own handguns or sell genetically-altered food (GMO's).

The plain truth is, it is the right and duty of the Church to determine what is a sin. It is the right and duty of the government to determine what is a crime.

The government cannot tell anybody what is a sin. And the Church has no authority to tell anybody what sins should be punished as crimes. If we allow the Church that right, we are back to the Spanish Inquisition, in some people's opinions..

A DIFFICULT TRUTH for MANY — There are all sorts of sins that are not punished as crimes in our country, from adultery to exploitation of the poor. And the Church has no right to rule that they should be. Nor has the Church any right to rule that the sin of abortion—or any other sin—should be punished as a crime.

THE SAME WAY THAT — Catholic legislators should not be denied Communion, because they make laws to promote the common good—as best they can; under actual circumstances, instead of Christian morality.

The religious affirmation that something is a sin should be guided by a judgment of conscience about right and wrong. It is a moral decision through the LENS OF SCRIPTURE!

The political decision to make something a crime should be guided by a practical judgment about what is for the common good. It is a pragmatic decision.

HISTORY HAS PROVEN — While we might argue that all sins are detrimental to the common good, punishing them all as crimes might not be. The founding fathers decided not to make slavery a crime, because it would have kept some colonies from voting for independence.

AS A CONSEQUENCE — Later, when the Protestant conscience brought about Prohibition, the lawlessness that followed convinced the country that making what some believed was the "sin" of drinking a crime, was not for the common good.

CERTAIN LGBTQIA+ ISSUES AS AN EXAMPLE — And, it is quite likely that to make anything a crime that a large segment of the population does not see as wrong, is going to do more harm than good.

For that reason, a politician who deeply believes that abortion is a sin might nevertheless be convinced that in today's society, it would be a mistake to make it a crime.

IT HAS BEEN SAID — Sometimes the only good choice is the lesser of two evils..

OUR RECENT ELECTION PROVES — On the other hand, it might really be more for the common good to support legalized abortion, "in order to get elected" — and, be able to vote for other issues that could actually pass into law, than to pointlessly proclaim the immorality of abortion and cancel oneself out as a legislator; in my partisan philosophical foundations..

FOR MANY LEGISLATORS — A vote in Congress is not a profession of faith or of religious values, but an effort to do the most good one can do in the actual circumstances that exist here and now.

THE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE ALWAYS SPEAKS — Politics has been defined as "the art of compromise." It is also the art of what is possible. What won't work, cannot contribute to the common good.

THIS KEEPS COMING UP — Sometimes the only good choice is the lesser of two evils. And on that point a politician may be a better judge than a priest? So, laying aside your convictions is "the answer"?

LET's DO A HISTORICAL REVIEW…Example#1 — Suppose you were a voter just before the Civil War, when Lincoln and Douglas were running against each other for president. And let us suppose, taking some liberties with actual history, that you knew Lincoln would abolish slavery, and Douglas would not. Suppose you were morally opposed to slavery as a sin. But suppose you were also convinced that to abolish slavery at that time would bring on a disastrous civil war.

Example#2 — Suppose you believed that in a few years slavery would die a natural death anyway, as it already had in most countries of the world..Could you not in good conscience — vote for Douglas in order to avoid civil war; because you saw that as more for the common good at that moment? And if you did, would your pastor be justified in refusing you Communion?

To kill a fetus in the womb is like firing blindly at a moving target in the bush during deer season. It "is" a human being; and, if so; one would be guilty of murder.

Nor did Roe vs. Wade presume to declare when a fetus becomes a human being. The Supreme Court's decision was based on what the people in the country believed, and therefore would have intended, at the time the Constitution was written. BUT, "thank God" that CONSCIENCE and SCIENCE finally caught up — in Roe v Wade being RECENTLY OVERTURNED!!

This means the Church should CONTINUE to do "her own job", which is not to make the practical judgment — about what should or should not be made a crime in light of our spirit's being informed by God's Word; while also enlightening people's conscience about what is and is not a sin.

The common good

> There are cases, of course, when a law itself can be positively sinful.

Examples are Hitler's persecution of Jews (about which the German bishops were significantly silent), England's law requiring people to renounce the Catholic faith by taking the Oath of Supremacy (by virtue of which St. Thomas More was martyred), or the American law against selective conscientious objection (conscientious objection to particular wars; or, as it is sometimes called, discretionary armed service), which would force individuals to engage in a particular war they personally believe to be unjust.

But these laws do not just permit sin, they explicitly mandate concrete actions that are immoral, which is a different issue.

It is within the Church's competence to denounce them as sinful.

But the Church cannot denounce as sinful a law that requires no one to do an immoral act, but simply refuses to punish those who do. One must argue for or against civil laws on grounds of what is conducive to the common good.

If something can be proven with certitude to be against the common good (by reasonable arguments, not arguments appealing to the authority of Church doctrine), then ecclesiastics might refuse Communion to a politician for sinning against what is a political, not a specifically "religious", obligation..

But certitude in such cases is very hard to establish.

This said, we have to maintain that every clergyman, like every citizen, has the right and duty to speak out and even lobby for whatever laws appear most conducive to the common good.

But they do this as citizens, and sometimes as spokesmen for a significant segment of the population; but not as ecclesiastics.

MANY OPINIONS and PREFERENCES ARE MOVING THIS WAY — Some people believe that both abortion is a sin, and that it should be declared a crime. It is many people's opinions that legalized abortion is detrimental to the common good.

The Church has authority to tell us what is a sin; but no authority whatsoever to declare what should be a crime—understanding, as explained above, that she has the right to denounce laws that do not just permit, but positively require people to do what is evil.

The Church cannot condemn laws that allow doctors to perform abortions, but she can and must condemn laws that require them to.

NO EASY ISSUE TO RESOLVE — To decide what sins should be punished by law is the function of government; and, it is ruled, not by morality, but by a practical, pragmatic concern for the common good —which, in turn, is determined as much by circumstances, and by what is possible, as it is by abstract morality.

Whatever is legal, is not necessarily moral

The general public of many states that although they claim not to learn their morality from the government — nevertheless, yet they tend to assume in practice; that whatever is legal is moral.

That is one reason why many believe that legalized abortion is against the common good. And, it is because, in actual fact, regardless of what should be, if the government declares abortion legal — it influences the thinking and the conscience of a huge percentage of our citizens..

Consciously or not, deliberately or not, intentionally or not, but inevitably, the government is doing the work of the Church. The government is influencing the conscience, about what is and is not a sin.

The solution is for the Church to do her own job and teach so convincingly the evils of abortion, that no one who believes in reason and in God would ever want to have one..

AS AN EXAMPLE — When Ireland, on May 25, 2018, voted two to one to open the door to legalized abortion, the comments and public rejoicing showed pretty clearly that they were voting, not for the common good, but in favor of abortion as such.

In other words, the Church had failed to keep the Irish "Catholic"..

In this country, the Church should focus more on persuading the people not to commit the sin of abortion, rather than on pressuring politicians to put them in jail; if they do..>END. WS-3

Sent from my iPhone