from Now the End Begins:


“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Vice President Joe Biden say today that the rights of the LGBT people are violated by “religious condemnation”. He is directly referring to Bible verses like the one posted at the top of this article. The Progressive Liberals are well aware that it is God, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, that condemns homosexuality in all it’s many forms. According to Joe Biden, the American Bible believing Christian who takes the Bible literally, is violating the “rights” of the LGBT by trusting in God’s word. And this is why old-fashioned preaching will soon be classified as a “hate crime”. Because Liberals can’t stand it. Biden is also saying that the rights of the Christian are inferior to the rights of the LGBT individual.

Here is the full transcript of his remarks:

My father taught me the simple notion that everyone, everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the right direction.

Progress has also been made in many places around the world. But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, orreligious condemnation and social isolation.

The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve. source

Instead of “respecting universal human rights”, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination that needs to be repented of. Jesus Christ went to the cross to redeem the homosexual, that’s true. But He did not go to the cross to preserve homosexuality. He came to abolish that, and all sin.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, anymore than say a man marrying his dog would constitute a wedding. Sleeping in your garage does not make you a car. There is not one example in the Bible of God supporting, at any time, anything having to do with homosexuality. Churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies do it completely outside the blessing of God, and indeed bring down the wrath of God. The mark of Ichabod gets carved into the doorposts of every church that supports the LGBT movement.

Obama’s America, with it’s sky-high abortion rates, free-flowing 24 x 7 gambling, legalized pot, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and now as the champion of the LGBT Movement, is rapidly becoming everything that the Bible says God hates.

Just the other day I was verbally assaulted and attacked by a vicious lesbian who said that “had no right” to my beliefs, and that this website was “hate speech”. Kinda funny, though, that she said this while all the while demanding that I respect her “right” to be gay. What about my right to believe and follow the Bible? Apparently, I am not entitled to my rights. And this is exactly why Biden’s remarks today should be taken very seriously. As we have always told you and will continue to tell you, the LGBT is not interested in “tolerance”. They don’t want “acceptance”. What they want is complete and total domination, which is exactly what Obama and his minions are giving them.

“Woe unto them that call evil good…”

The posting of this article is in no way an endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church as a valid Christian Organization. It is an apostate man created organization, rather the posting is to show what is coming down the road in the United States for those who identify as Christians.

from Beliefnet:

Crosses in every room at Washingon D.C.’s Catholic University of America are a human rights violation that prevent Muslim students from praying.

That’s the complaint to the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights filed by a professor from rival George Washington University across town.

GWU Law School Professor John Banzhaf takes the Catholic institution to task for acting “probably with malice” against Muslim students in a 60-page complaint that cites “offensive” Catholic imagery all over the Catholic school, which he says hinder Muslims from praying.

Baffled Catholic University officials say they have never received a complaint from any of the schools Muslim students.

Banzhaf, who already has a pending lawsuit against the university over ending its policy of allowing mixed-gender dormitories and has a history of filing civil rights suits on such topics as childhood obesity and smoking, filed the complaint alleging that Muslim students are not given their own prayer rooms.

He alleges that the university, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion,” according to the Tower, Catholic University’s student newspaper.

The complaint further objects that Muslims must pray at the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

A spokesperson for the human rights office said they are investigating Banzhaf’s complaint — and the inquiry could take as long as six months.

“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” observed Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Socity. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”

The complaint is absurd, writes Thomas Peters on the website CatholicVote.

“Can you imagine a law professor helping Catholic students to sue a Jewish or Muslim school to demand that the schools install crosses, remove their religious symbols, and allow the Catholics to construct a chapel on their property?” wrote Peters. “Can you imagine the argument being that Jewish and Muslims schools using their religious symbols and following their faith traditions would be described in the legal brief as “offensive”?!

“Normally I would have confidence that this lawsuit will be deemed without merit, but the way things are going these days, I just can’t be sure anymore. Simply incredible.”

from MSN News:

The number of Americans who don’t affiliate with a particular religion has grown to 56 million in recent years, making the faith group researchers call “nones” the second-largest in total numbers behind evangelicals, according to a Pew Research Center study released Tuesday.

Christianity is still the dominant faith by far in the U.S.; 7 in 10 Americans identify with the tradition. However, the ranks of Christians have declined as the segment of people with no religion has grown, the survey says.

Between 2007 and 2014, when Pew conducted two major surveys of U.S. religious life, Americans who described themselves as atheist, agnostic or of no particular faith grew from 16 percent to nearly 23 percent. At the same time, Christians dropped from about 78 percent to just under 71 percent of the population. Protestants now comprise 46.5 percent of what was once a predominantly Protestant country.

Researchers have long debated whether people with no religion should be defined as secular since the category includes those who believe in God or consider themselves “spiritual.” But the new Pew study found increasing signs of secularism.

Last year, 31 percent of “nones” said they were atheist or agnostic, compared to 25 percent in 2007, and the percentage who said religion was important to them dropped.

Greg Smith, Pew’s associate research director, said the findings “point to substantive changes” among the religiously unaffiliated, not just a shift in how people describe themselves. Secular groups have become increasingly organized to counter bias against them and keep religion out of public life through lawsuits and lobbying lawmakers.

The growth of “nones” has political significance as well. People with no religion tend to vote Democratic, just as white evangelicals tend to vote Republican. The Pew study found a slight drop — about 1 percent — in the evangelical share of the population, which now comprises a quarter of Americans. But the overall number of evangelicals rose to about 62 million people.

Pew researchers said Christian losses were driven by decreases among mainline, or liberal, Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Mainline Protestants declined by about 5 million to 36 million between 2007 and 2014. Pew found 13 percent of U.S. adults are former Catholics. The study put the number of Catholic adults at 51 million, or just over one-fifth of the U.S. population, a drop of about 3 percent over seven years. In 2007, Catholics made up about one-quarter of Americans.

However, Pew researchers acknowledge those conclusions differ from those of some other major studies that found only slight declines or even a slight uptick in the numbers of Catholics in the last couple of years. Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which tracks American Catholicism, puts the U.S. adult Catholic population at 61 million.

Regarding other religions, Pew found an increase in membership of non-Christian faiths, driven mainly by growing numbers of Muslims and Hindus. Despite the increase, their numbers remain small. Muslims and Hindus each comprise less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. The number of Jews rose slightly over the period, from 1.7 percent to 1.9 percent of Americans.

Overall, religious groups have become more ethnically diverse along with the broader population. Latinos now comprise one-third of U.S. Roman Catholics, although fewer U.S. Latinos identify as Catholic overall. One-quarter of evangelicals and 14 percent of mainline Protestants are racial minorities. Membership in historically black churches has remained relatively stable over the period.

The survey of 35,000 people, titled “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” was conducted in English and Spanish from June 4 through Sept. 30 of last year and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points.

from Got Questions:

The emperor of Rome from AD 54 to 68 was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also known simply as Nero. The emperor was not known for being a godly person and engaged in a variety of illicit acts, homosexual marriage being among them. In AD 64 the great Roman fire occurred, with Nero himself being suspected of arson. In his writings, the Roman senator and historian Tacitus recorded, “To get rid of the report [that he had started the fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace” (Annals, XV).

It was during the reign of Nero that the apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. While one might expect him to encourage the Christians in Rome to rise up against their oppressive ruler, in the chapter 13, we find this instead:

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1–7).

Even under the reign of a ruthless and godless emperor, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells his readers to be in subjection to the government. Moreover, he states that no authority exists other than that established by God, and that rulers are serving God in their political office.

Peter writes nearly the same thing in one of this two New Testament letters:

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13–17).

Both Paul’s and Peter’s teachings have led to quite a few questions from Christians where civil disobedience is concerned. Do Paul and Peter mean that Christians are always to submit to whatever the government commands, no matter what is asked of them?

A Brief Look at the Various Views of Civil Disobedience

There are at least three general positions on the matter of civil disobedience. The anarchist view says that a person can choose to disobey the government whenever he likes and whenever he feels he is personally justified in doing so. Such a stance has no biblical support whatsoever, as evidenced in the writings of Paul in Romans 13.

The extremist patriot says that a person should always follow and obey his country, no matter what the command. As will be shown in a moment, this view also does not have biblical support. Moreover, it is not supported in the history of nations. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, the attorneys for the Nazi war criminals attempted to use the defense that their clients were only following the direct orders of the government and therefore could not be held responsible for their actions. However, one of the judges dismissed their argument with the simple question: “But gentlemen, is there not a law above our laws?”

The position the Scriptures uphold is one of biblical submission, with a Christian being allowed to act in civil disobedience to the government if it commands evil, such that it requires a Christian to act in a manner that is contrary to the clear teachings and requirements of God’s Word.

Civil Disobedience—Examples in Scripture

In Exodus 1, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave the clear command to two Hebrew midwives that they were to kill all male Jewish babies. An extreme patriot would have carried out the government’s order, yet the Bible says the midwives disobeyed Pharaoh and “feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live” (Exodus 1:17). The Bible goes on to say the midwives lied to Pharaoh about why they were letting the children live; yet even though they lied and disobeyed their government, “God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He established households for them” (Exodus 1:20–21).

In Joshua 2, Rahab directly disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho to produce the Israelite spies who had entered the city to gain intelligence for battle. Instead, she let them down via a rope so they could escape. Even though Rahab had received a clear order from the top government official, she resisted the command and was redeemed from the city’s destruction when Joshua and the Israeli army destroyed it.

The book of 1 Samuel records a command given by King Saul during a military campaign that no one could eat until Saul had won his battle with the Philistines. However, Saul’s son Jonathan, who had not heard the order, ate honey to refresh himself from the hard battle the army had waged. When Saul found out about it, he ordered his son to die. However, the people resisted Saul and his command and saved Jonathan from being put to death (1 Samuel 14:45).

Another example of civil disobedience in keeping with biblical submission is found in 1 Kings 18. That chapter briefly introduces a man named Obadiah who “feared the Lord greatly.” When the queen Jezebel was killing God’s prophets, Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them from her so they could live. Such an act was in clear defiance of the ruling authority’s wishes.

In 2 Kings, the only apparently approved revolt against a reigning government official is recorded. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, began to destroy the royal offspring of the house of Judah. However, Joash the son of Ahaziah was taken by the king’s daughter and hidden from Athaliah so that the bloodline would be preserved. Six years later, Jehoiada gathered men around him, declared Joash to be king, and put Athaliah to death.

Daniel records a number of civil disobedience examples. The first is found in chapter 3 where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to the golden idol in disobedience to King Nebuchadnezzar’s command. The second is in chapter 6 where Daniel defies King Darius’ decree to not pray to anyone other than the king. In both cases, God rescued His people from the death penalty that was imposed, signaling His approval of their actions.

In the New Testament, the book of Acts records the civil disobedience of Peter and John towards the authorities that were in power at the time. After Peter healed a man born lame, Peter and John were arrested for preaching about Jesus and put in jail. The religious authorities were determined to stop them from teaching about Jesus; however, Peter said, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). Later, the rulers confronted the apostles again and reminded them of their command to not teach about Jesus, but Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

One last example of civil disobedience is found in the book of Revelation where the Antichrist commands all those who are alive during the end times to worship an image of himself. But the apostle John, who wrote Revelation, states that those who become Christians at the time will disobey the Antichrist and his government and refuse to worship the image (Revelation 13:15) just as Daniel’s companions violated Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship his idol.

Civil Disobedience—Conclusion

What conclusions can be drawn from the above biblical examples? The guidelines for a Christian’s civil disobedience can be summed as follows:

• Christians should resist a government that commands or compels evil and should work nonviolently within the laws of the land to change a government that permits evil.
• Civil disobedience is permitted when the government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws and commands.
• If a Christian disobeys an evil government, unless he can flee from the government, he should accept that government’s punishment for his actions.
• Christians are certainly permitted to work to install new government leaders within the laws that have been established.

Lastly, Christians are commanded to pray for their leaders and for God to intervene in His time to change any ungodly path that they are pursuing: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1–2).

from The Oregonian:

Late Friday night, anyone looking for the GoFundMe page set up to help the Gresham bakers facing a large unlawful discrimination award would have hit a dead end.

More precisely, they would get a “Campaign Not Found” message on the Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa web page.

A supporter of Aaron and Melissa Klein set up the campaign to help raise money for the couple after an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries issued a proposed order recommending they pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple from Portland.

The BOLI judge said the Kleins illegally discriminated against Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer when they refused the women’s attempt to order a wedding cake, instead citing their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.

By 5 p.m. Friday, more than $66,000 had been raised toward a goal of $150,000. A lawyer for the Kleins said the GoFundMe.com web page had been authorized by her clients, owners of the bakery bearing Melissa’s name.

By 9 p.m., it became apparent there were problems. Visitors to the web page encountered a terse note: “We’re sorry, but the campaign URL you entered cannot be found.”

from Jihad Watch:

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.” The problem is that Islamic supremacists, apparently deliberately, conflate “Islamophobia” meaning attacks on innocent Muslims, which are never justified, with “Islamophobia” meaning honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and resistance to Sharia oppression. Miliband’s new law making “Islamophobia” an “aggravated crime” would criminalize and silence all opposition to Islamization, would effectively destroy what remains of the freedom of speech in Britain, and spell the end of Britain as a free society.

And in Shattered Dhimmi Britannia, he is leading the pack to be the next Prime Minister.

“Labour would outlaw Islamophobia, says Miliband in an exclusive interview,” by Hamed Chapman,Muslim News, April 24, 2015 (thanks to Roger Kimball):

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.

“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.

Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.

Despite voting for the new Counter Terrorism Act last month, Labour was also critical of the way the Government has cut funding and narrowed the focus of the controversial Prevent extremism programme, saying that much of the work to “engage Muslim communities has been lost.”

“I want to overhaul Prevent programme,” Miliband told The Muslim News. The Muslim community is as an “incredibly important, incredibly rich, incredible asset to our country” and so it was really important to put on record.

“The reality is that the people I talk to in the Muslim community are absolutely full square with the idea that we’ve got to make sure that we work with our young people to stop them being dragged into this perverted (terrorist) ideology.”

“The way to do it is the Prevent programme working with communities. You got to do the things that once this ideology takes hold you try to disrupt it. For me that is the answer. We want to see how the Prevent programme is community focused.”

Challenged about the way particularly Muslim charities have been targeted by banks and discredited by the media, Miliband said in his wide ranging interview that he was “not in favour of demonising anyone (and) that is the wrong thing to do.”

“What I am in favour is the Charity Commission working without fear or favour. We got to build right across the Muslim community. There is absolutely shared purpose and shared desire to deal with a small minority in our country who get tempted to violent extremism. That is what we got to build on and it is about working with them.”

On the so-called Trojan Horse scandal that failed to find virtually any evidence of extremism or radicalisation, the Labour leader said the reality is that the “root of this problem lies in proper accountability in our schools.”

“We are going to have high standards locally. That will make sure that every school has proper oversight. When there is no proper oversight things can go wrong in schools. The best way to stop that happening is proper oversight in our schools.

“You need proper accountability. The answer to this is not to run thousands of schools from the centre of the Government but to have local accountability in schools.”

With regard to foreign policy, Miliband confirmed that Labour would have supported the recognition of a Palestinian State in last year’s UN vote. His Party’s support was why Parliament backed the principle, he said.

“We would do everything we can to work for a two state solution which is a viable Palestinian state alongside security for Israel,” he added but also pointed out that he personally was “not in favour of sanctions” against Israel.

To find a solution, he argued engagement was needed with both sides but the “reality is that we had a British Government for the last five years who had disengaged from this issue, had washed its hands off this issue.”

“I’m not going to wash my hands off this issue. I will speak out about the settlements. I spoke out about Israel’s incursion into Gaza. Some people didn’t like that I spoke out. I did speak out and I will continue to speak out and engaging with the issue. We have the American Administration who also wants to engage and wants to push forward two-state solution. We are going to partner with them to do that.”

He was dismissive that Labour’s manifesto commitment to arrest and act against those returning from fighting in Syria would be hypocritical by targeting only Muslims as it is happening now. “When I am Prime Minister there will be one law for everybody. Full treatment for everybody,” he insisted.

Likewise Miliband was adamant that Muslims should not face racial and religious discrimination when it comes to employment or suffer the most because of the austerity cuts “It is part of the law that that is prohibited. We are going to have racial equality across the Government. We will enforce it.”

“We will tackle deprivation. We will build homes, get rid of bedroom tax, raise minimum wages, build better jobs for people, have a fairer social security system,” he also insisted….

Sins of the Parents

A major flaw in some modern Pentecostal circles is the belief in generational curses on born again believers that need to be exorcised, this is nothing but superstition and a misunderstanding of scripture.

from Worldview Weekend:

Scripture (NASB)

Exodus 20:4-7

20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

20:5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

20:6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

20:7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Exodus 34:6-7

34:6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The   Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;

34:7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations. ”

Numbers 14:17-19

14:17 “But now, I pray, let the power of the Lord be great, just as Thou hast declared,

14:18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.’

14:19 “Pardon, I pray, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Thy lovingkindness, just as Thou also hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”

Deuteronomy 5:7-10

5:7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.

5:8 ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

5:9 ‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

5:10 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Issue—Principle of Ancestral Transferal of Occult Bondage to Children

C. Fred Dickason, a proponent of the ancestral inheritance principle, states the view as follows:

By ancestral involvement we refer to occult or demonic practices of the client’s ancestors.  This has been found to be one of the most common reasons for demonic affliction or demonization.  This follows the principle enunciated in the second commandment forbidding idolatry:

You shall not make for yourself an idol. . . .  You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me. (Ex. 20:4-5)

It is quite clear that the worship of idols is fostered and compelled by demons (Ps. 106:36-38; 1 Cor. 10:20).  It actually involves the worship of demons.  Demons, therefore, assume the rule of a god over their devotees and may invade them.  This is in keeping with the principle presented in Romans 1:21-28 that God recompenses sin with the evil it involves; that is, God gave idolaters over to their sin.  Their sin was the worship of and submission to demons.  They reaped what they sowed; they became dominated by demons.  This domination may involve demonization, as attested in the past and current times.  The second commandment shows that God considers idolatry to be hatred of the true and living God.  He judges it in a fashion commensurate with its abominable character.  Both the idolaters and their descendants to the third and fourth generations are judged for this heinous crime, and this judgment may include actual demonization.  [Demon Possession and the Christian:  A New Perspective (Moody Press, 1987):162-3]

I might add that this “principle” is also popular within the so-called “Christian Psychology” movement, usually put forth from within a Freudian framework of the past impacting behavior in the present.  I first recall hearing this “principle” by Bill Gothard in 1972 when I first attended his Basic Institute Training.


Ancestral involvement may be a principle, but it is not one that can be applied to the New Testament Believers.  Instead it should be seen as a principle of blessing and cursing which was related to the Mosaic economy which has now passed away (Rom. 7:1-6; 10:4; Gal. 3:19; 3:24-4:7; Heb. 7:11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 3:2-11; Eph. 2:11-16, etc.).  New “principles,” or better a new theology that is consistent with New Testament Christianity explains a Believer’s behavior.

Dickason’s suggestion that Romans 1:21-28 is parallel to the ancestral principle of Exodus does not fit for the following reasons.  Those being described in Romans are unbelievers, while in Exodus the believing community is in mind.  Also, Paul is arguing in Romans 1 that God is justified in condemning those who have not heard the gospel because of their personal sins, not because of ancestral sins.  Also, Romans indicates that once one becomes a Believer, then they are in a position to escape the wrath of God (Rom. 5:8), both present wrath (Rom. 1) and future or eschatological wrath.

Jack Deere says of Deuteronomy 5:9 that children enter into the sins their parents and thus evoke God’s punishment.

At first glance 5:9b may seem to contradict Ezekiel 18:20.  However, the phrase those who hate Me must certainly refer to the children, not to the fathers.  Children who hate the Lord will be punished.  Rebellious God-hating parents often produce children to the third and fourth generation who also hate God (cf. Ex 20:5; 34:6-7).  [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament (1985):272]

Deere’s interpretation denies that “principle” that someone is punished because of the sin of someone else (the fathers), without their participation in that sin (the children).

Walter Kaiser concurs with Deere’s interpretation:

Children who repeat the sins of their fathers evidence it in personally hating God; hence they too are punished like their fathers.  Moses made it plain in Deuteronomy 24:16:  “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”  The effects of disobedience last for some time, but the effects of loving God are far more extensive:  “to a thousand [generations]” (v.6). [The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2 (1990):423]

Earl Kalland, in a similar but fuller vein, echoes the comments of those above in commenting on Deuteronomy 5:9.

The people either hate the Lord or love and obey him, and they receive form him punishment or love commensurate with their hate or love and obedience.  Those who adhere to the covenant-treaty stipulations get its promised benefits; those who do not adhere to them get its punishments.  The effect of one generation on succeeding generations is noted often in the OT.  Here, however, the children are not punished for the sins that their father committed; the children who sin as their fathers sinned are punished for their own sins (cf. 24:16). The punishment goes on “to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” just as his love continues toward “a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.”  The distinction between punishment unto the third and fourth generation of those who hate the Lord and love extended to thousands who love him and keep his commandments suggests that God’s love far surpasses his retribution. [The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 3 (1992):54]

Jewish expositor, Umberto Cassuto, speaks strongly against the possibility of the “ancestral principle” interpretation.

In regard to the fearful threat of punishment that will be inflicted upon the children and children’s children, various apologetic interpretations have been advanced, which it is not possible to accept.  It has been suggested, for example, that we should see here an allusion to the transmission of parental qualities to the character of the children and children’s children, but this is merely a modernization of the verse; . . . The difficulty exists, however, only for those who overlook the fact that the verse, in its simple signification, is directed to the entire nation as a single entity in time throughout its generations.  Since a man, and particularly an Israelite, grieves over the tribulation of his children and grandchildren not less–nay, even more–than over his own affliction, the Bible issues a warning, so as to keep man far from sin, that in the course of the nation’s life it is possible that the children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of the iniquities of their father and grandfather. (emphasis added) [A Commentary on the Book of Exodus(1967):243]

The Keil-Delitzsch Commentary joins the chorus in showing that sin is the responsibility of each individual who commits it.

In this instance l] signifies “at” or “in relation to;” from its very position, cannot refer to the fathers alone, but to the fathers and children to the third and fourth generation.  If it referred to the fathers alone, it would necessarily stand after the children is to be taken in the same way.  God punishes the sin of the fathers in the children to the third and fourth generation in relation to those who hate Him, and shows mercy to the thousandth generation in relation to those who love Him. . . . The words neither affirm that sinning fathers remain unpunished, nor that the sins of fathers are punished in the children and grandchildren without any fault of their own. [Vol. II (1875):116-7]

I could go on and on quoting the leading commentaries and how they deny the “ancestral principle” interpretation.  But let me conclude with John J. Davis, who says,

This verse does not teach that sinning fathers are not punished, nor does it state that the sins of the father are punished in the children and grandchildren without any fault of their own.  It is hardly possible that the children of wicked men could become innocent, therefore, “the children fill up the sins of their fathers” so that the sinner then suffers punishment for both his own and the sins of his forefathers (cf. Lev. 26:39; Amos 7:17; Jer. 16:11ff.; Dan. 9:16). [Moses and the Gods of Egypt:  Studies in Exodus (1986):213]

George Bush, in his commentary, says that the “sense of the passage is distinctly recognized in the Chal. version.”  That version says,

I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the transgressing children, unto the third and fourth generation, of those who hate me, when the children follow the iniquities of the fathers.  [Notes on Exodus (1852):264-5]

The statement of Exodus 20:5-6 (see also Deut. 5:9-10) is within the context of the Lord’s treaty-covenant with Israel which promised specific blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience.  Therefore, the scope of this passage is limited to Israel and cannot be applied in a universal sense to humanity in general as a timeless principle.  Were it to be a universal principle, then it would have been stated in Genesis and given to mankind in general.  Also, if this were universal, then it would probably be repeated throughout Scripture.  Since, it is restricted to Israel, it only occurs in relation to them.

The specific blessings and curses to which this passage speaks are found in Deuteronomy 28.  In this chapter, Israel is promised specific blessings if they obey the commandments of their covenant with the Lord.  Israel is promised specific curses if they disobey.  That these specific blessings and curses were for Israel is further seen by tracing the development of this theme throughout Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 7:9-11 notes that those Israelites who “keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness” (7:9) the Lord will bless them, but those who disobey God will repay them “to their faces, to destroy them” (7:10).  Thus, the Israelites were admonished to “keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them” (7:11).

Deuteronomy 29:22-28 explains to those Gentiles who would ask why the Lord has cursed Israel and cast her out of her land, that it is because of disobedience to the commandments given by Him earlier in the treaty.  So we see that Exodus 20:5-6 and Deuteronomy 5:9-10 tell the Israelites that God would hold them responsible to obey His law and that there would be consequences to their actions.

A further evidence that passages like Exodus 20:5-6 are simply stating the sanctions accompanying the responsibilities of service to the Lord for the people of Israel can be seen in the similar pattern found in Exodus 20:7.  “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.”  As in 20:5-6, when compared with 20:7, we observe the commandment as follows:

20:4  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness . . .

20:5  You shall not worship them or serve them . . .

20:7  You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain . . .

Then each commandment is followed by the stipulations or what God will do, by way of blessing and cursing, if they obey/disobey.

20:5-6  . . . visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

20:7  . . . for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Thus it is clear that the phrase “. . . visiting the iniquity of the fathers . . .” is a specific example of one of the many ways within the Covenant/Treaty language of the Mosaic Law that God expresses the consequences of obeying or disobeying His Law.


Those who teach the ancestral inheritance principle quite naturally and logically also teach that a post-salvation deliverance is necessary in order for the Believer to really be free from the impact of one’s ancestral past.  Fred Dickason declares in his exorcism approach that “[a]ny possible ancestral involvement must be renounced” (336).  However, the idea that a Christian might have to be delivered specifically from a curse or occult power which salvation in Christ would not have taken care of is not found or implied in Scripture.  This is even more far-fetched when one considers the fact that the individual did not even commit the sin.  In fact, there is not one example in the entire Bible of a saved person being under a satanic curse, which had to be “broken” by Christian exorcism or distinct confession.  On the other hand, one example of demonic deliverance by Christ in the New Testament seems to imply that the ancestral inheritance principle is totally off base.

John 9 records the incident of Jesus healing a man born blind from birth.  Apparently Christ’s disciples believed falsely that this was a result of the sin of his parents, just as many falsely do today.  Perhaps these Jews 2,000 years ago misinterpreted the same passages being cited in our own day to come to their false conclusion.  Notice the dialogue in John 9:2-3:

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”  Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.

I hope that this paper has stimulated your study to search the Scriptures creating a greater realization of the greatness of the work of Christ on behalf of His children and the sufficiency of His Holy Scriptures.  It is so easy to adopt various superstitions that circulate within the evangelical community without first checking them out through the light of Scripture.  Inherited curses is an example of just such an evangelical superstition that does not hold up under the light of scripture.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 233 other followers

%d bloggers like this: