Twitter Ignoring Death Threats About Donald Trump

Dr. James A., PhD

It is amazing how much leftist liberals scream out for gun control, unless of course, those guns could be used to assassinate presidential candidate, Donald Trump:

 

 

 

 

 

 

(There are DOZENS, if not HUNDREDS, of these captured by Mark Dice)

One of the Twitter users making the death threats belongs to the U.S. Army (last name, Lara)

A n a  ✨‏@anamistic

Oss my Houston people better kill Trump while he’s there and I’m over here

The liberals have gained a lot of momentum in the last few years under the Obama administration. They don’t want to run the risk of any kind of conservative-even if you don’t believe that Trump is the most conservative-getting into the presidency, and it appears people are willing to threaten to kill Donald Trump to minimize any potential risk that Trump may impede their progress.

And, it seems that Twitter is just fine with that.

Most of these tweets, captured by Mark Dice, are still posted. Despite the tweets being several hours old, and being linked to Secret Service, FBI, and Twitter, the accounts have not yet been terminated. Yet, if a conservative posts something negative about the LGBT community, their accounts are quickly banned. Twitter has recently been exposed by Breitbart News, and Now the End Begins for “shadow banning” Christians and conservatives*, but this is a new level of un-censorship.

It seems globalist controlled media are allowing this kind of chaos to provoke a shooting so they can stoke the fires of race wars, and stir the ire of conservative gun owners to shoot back in the event such a shooting takes place at a Trump rally. Then of course, they will blame the conservative’s response in the same way they blame police every time a cop pulls the trigger and such an incident will then be used as additional fodder for gun control and perhaps even martial law if the incident is volatile enough. That’s the grand Illuminati motto, “Order out of chaos”.

I have never seen this level of insanity during an election. This generation isn’t merely stuck on stupid, they are Super Glued to it, not to mention the abject level of hypocrisy from the “tolerance”, “love wins”, and “no hate” crowd.

___________________________________________

* I have personally been shadow banned by Twitter. I have taken screenshots of Twitter completely removing my posts from hashtags, and preventing a retweet from Donald Trump from gaining any impressions.

Christina Grimmie and LGBT Murders: Leftists and Hillary Ignoring Motives

Dr. James A., PhD

On June 10, 2016, celebrity singer, Christian Victoria Grimmie, was gunned down by a ghost “named” Kevin James Loibl *. Grimmie was a professing Christian that grew up in church, went to a Baptist school,  and was very vocal about her beliefs. As a fundamental Baptist, I have an enormous difference with her regarding her lifestyle choices and influences as a musician. But that isn’t the point. Orlando police reported that they believed the motive behind her killing was her Christian beliefs.

Within this same window, a Muslim terrorist and registered Democrat linked to ISIS opened fire at a gay night club, killing 20-50 people (reports on how many victims there were are all over the place). Not less than 24 hours, liberals started calling for gun control, and blaming Christians. A lawyer for the LGBT causes said, “The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people blaming Islam for this. No”. Scott Wiener, who is running for a state senate position, ranted, “Let’s be clear: Radical Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on anti-#LGBT violence. Radical Christianity more than holds its own.”

Let’s repeat. A MUSLIM (and there was more than one shooter) kills LBGTs and the first people to be blamed are Christians. Not a single one of them remembered that just prior to the shooting of their club, that a Christian singer was shot for being a Christian. The left even complained that it merely was a disgruntled Muslim mad about seeing two gays kissing and that doesn’t represent all of Islam (but somehow he represented all gun owners), despite the fact that his mosque was praising the killings (of which an attempt to investigate the mosque was blocked by Hillary’s state department). Of course, that theory falls apart completely with the existence of multiple shooters.

Hillary Clinton has issued about 26 tweets since the Orlando massacre, and not a single one of them mention that Christina Grimmie was shot because of her Christian beliefs. However, she didn’t miss a beat in calling for tolerance, diversity acceptance, and gun control in the effort to give the LGBT community martyrdom status.

The liberals want the guns. The globalists have an agenda to get rid of patriotism and nationalism, and  merge us into a New World Order. Americans are not willing to give up their freedoms and national sovereignty and so it’s not going to be easy to force compliance when several hundred million Americans own a lot of guns. So these communist liberals who accept terrorist contributions use incidents like Orlando as platforms for gun grabs. Some of it is even planned. The greater the carnage, the easier it is to provoke emotional knee-jerk reactions to a crisis. It’s a lot easier for liberals to use emotionalism to convince the masses to swallow their manufactured crisis rhetoric than to encourage them to actually use logic and common sense to identify the real culprits and the real problems. But one thing is clear, Christians are always to blame for everything, and are ignored when they are the victims.

For more on why the LGBT and Gun Control debate matters to your freedoms, see our article on The LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap

__________________________________

• A ghost I say because the man has no public records and no social media presence. He is said to have lived with his parents in St. Petersburg, Florida, but reports from Intellus, Spokeo, Instant Checkmate, Dirt Search, Been Verified, etc., show no such relatives living with any Loibl’s in that area.

 

James White’s Inconsistent View of Free Will With Biblical Inerrancy

Dr. James A., PhD

It is well known that James White is a Calvinist. As a Calvinist, he has rejected compatibilism on numerous occasions, and affirmed it in others, which leaves really only a hard determinist view which is what compatibilism ultimately boils down to anyway. When White had a conversation with George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaf*, he admitted that rape of children occurs because God ordains it and has a purpose for it. That’s not soft determinism (compatibilism). Calvinists often vacillate between compatibilism and hard determinism, but both sides are normally quick to affirm that man has no free will. His only “freedom” is determined by the nature in which he has, and since God determined that very nature in the first place….well, you get the point. All of your actions are determined whether you are a hard or soft determinist, and only the Calvinist’s conflicting view of “permission” and “secondary causation” attempts to make a distinction.**

According to White, all of our human actions are not free. Following in the footsteps of Pink, Clark, and many other Calvinists who bite the bullet on free will, White concedes that man’s every thought and action is determined. To consider otherwise, in White’s opinion, makes you either a Molinist or an Open Theist.

However, White isn’t so consistent in this view when it comes to the transmission of the Bible. In White’s book, Scripture Alone, he dedicates a chapter discussion on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and on Article VIII writes,

Without going into great detail on the intricacies of the dictation theory of transmission, in a nutshell, it is the view that God controlled everything that the writers penned as Scripture (although it does NOT hold that God did not use the writer’s individuality as wrongfully implied by White). White REJECTS this view.

Now here’s the MAJOR inconsistency between White’s view of inerrancy and his Calvinism. The Dictation Theory of transmission OUGHT to be every determinist’s creed when it comes to transmission because it is the one time even non determinists accept that there are at least some things that God determines (Shhhhh…Most Calvinists believe us Non Calvinists do not believe that God ever determines anything at all!!!). Yet White deviates from his view within Calvinism that says man has absolutely no free will, to a complete capitulation of free will when it comes to the transmission of the Bible.

This reveals an ENORMOUS inconsistency in White’s Calvinist view of free will that simply can not be explained away with his normal obfuscation and equivocating rhetoric. However, it is convenient for White to reject human free will in the transmission of the Bible because his rejection of the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, and King James Bible, depends on human error. Thus, White has stuck himself in a conundrum on both his Calvinism and his view of Bible transmission.

__________________________________

*

**Ironically, when James White attempts to appeal to compatibilism, he refers to it as a “mystery”, something that he vehemently ridiculed Leighton Flowers for.

Simply because it is a mystery though, doesn’t mean Reformed people don’t have any Biblical information to prove their view. The Bible repeatedly shows us that God decreed all things [IT DOES? REFERENCE PLEASE], and that people are still held accountable for their actions, especially their sinful actions.Theologians refers to this as compatibilism: God’s decree is compatible with a person’s will. They don’t contradict each other.” LINK (Emphasis added)

 

“Close Your Bibles”: Is That Sinful In Church?

Dr James A., PhD

I’ve heard a lot of criticism over the methods of Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church, but some are so ridiculous that they wouldn’t pass the law school laugh test. This one has been circling the Twittersphere this week, and it’s so stupid I decided to address it.

• Colin Maxwell ‏@weecalvin1509 8h8 hours ago

  #oldpaths No mere man has the right to say: “Close the Bible and listen to me.” Even Jesus said: “Search the Scriptures…” #DoingItRight
• Colin Maxwell ‏@weecalvin1509 9h9 hours ago

  Colin Maxwell Retweeted DR JAMES A, PHD

  https://twitter.com/DoRtChristians/status/741126650830684161?s=01 …#GoodGrief When the argument needs it to say: “And Jesus told them to ‘Close the Book…” #ItDoesnt#oldpaths

  Colin Maxwell added,

  DR JAMES A, PHD @DoRtChristians

  Apparently, Jesus did it wrong, too: “And he closed the book…” Luke 4:20

  https://twitter.com/weecalvin1509/status/740968285596946432 …

 

The contention is over Jack Hyles on a FEW occasions telling his church members to close their Bibles while he spoke to them. To the IFB critics on the #Oldpaths hashtag, “Close Your Bibles” = “Don’t Search the Scriptures”.

Ironically, these same critics fail to mention how many times Hyles told the crowd to OPEN their Bibles-something like…every service.

I’ve never seen so many that desperate to attack another view or person that they have to resort to such childish and amateur attacks.

The reason Hyles had people BRIEFLY close their Bibles-AFTER THEY READ THE SELECTED PORTION OF IT- (Furthermore…Um…hello? If you were asked to close your Bible, that means IT WAS OPEN), is because many people would flip through pages while he was talking, which means you’re not listening to the pastor, and are distracting the person next to you. Did these critics expect Hyles to just read and not say a word after that? Or just read nothing but the Bible for the entire hour? Why don’t we see that kind of criticism and expectation leveled against every other church in the world? As I’ve constantly pointed out, the IFB is the most criticized denomination in America for their so-called “legalistic standards” by a crowd that attempts to impose more standards on us than Obamacare and OSHA.

When I pointed out that Jesus closed the book after reading 2 verses (boy THAT would have sent the Expository Police into a tailspin. Today’s IFB critic would have crucified Him for THAT alone) out of Isaiah in Luke 4:18-20, the issue was no longer that closing the book was wrong, but that telling someone else to close it was. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Scripture and verse? If the issue was closing the book at all, then it would have been wrong for Jesus to do so. So to avoid the foot-in-mouth position, these critics have to make their own Pharisaic criteria to justify their accusations. and then change the original onus of their argument.

If you wanted to read and study the Bible instead of listening to what the preacher was saying, why bother going to church at all? Do us all a favor, if that’s your attitude, by all means PLEASE STAY HOME so the rest of us can listen to the preacher without having to stand up to see over your nose.