Is It Christian to Be Against Illegal immigrants?

LEFTISTs, who claim to be Christian, are all over the country citing passages from the O.T. to support illegal immigration.  Here’s a prime example from a far-LEFT blogger who claims to be a Christian, all the while being 100% behind abortion and every possible LEFTIST anti-God ideology:

‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God…”. ~Leviticus 19

“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” 

~Deuteronomy 27

“You shall not oppress a stranger nor torment him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not oppress any widow or orphan. 

If you oppress him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will assuredly hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword!” ~Exodus 22

“Then I will come near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, those who oppress the wage earner in his wages or the widow or the orphan, and those who turn away the foreigner from justice..."

~Malachi 3

"Behold, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." ~Ezekiel 16

[which, of course, includes the needy foreigners and immigrants, of course, because, of course it does - you all take all the wrong parts of the Bible literally and ignore the important truths that are true regardless of a biblical verse!]

Etc, etc, etc.

The first problem with his claim is that these were rules for ISRAEL and not the entire world.

An excellent article refuting this abuse of scripture used to support allowing illegals and taxes supporting everything they need can be found here. However, below are some citations to get you started.

III. GOD’S DESIGN: BORDERS AND BOUNDARIES 

It follows that, if God’s design is for independent nations, then there must be national borders and boundaries for those independent nations. And it follows that there must be enforcement of borders and boundaries by governments in order to maintain a nation’s independence. All of this logically flows from so the Lord scattered. 

Now add Romans 13:1 from the NT to our theological construction. This passage expressly states and reinforces the proposition: God is the author of independent nations: 

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. 

Notice the last part of this passage: those which exist are established by God. Scripture teaches not only that the Lord scattered people, but in addition, specifically that He established governments and nations. These are key constructive, essential principles relative to immigration. In addition, note that this is all part of what theologians term the mediatorial reign of Christ, i.e., how God in His sovereignty manifests His reign during His physical absence prior to His second coming wherein He will personally reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 

….

An Israelite citizen is referred to as a countryman (ach) in Scripture, whereas a legal immigrant is referred to as a sojourner (ger) or toshab, and a foreigner is called an illegal (nokri) or zar. Important to this study, and evident from the OT, is that an illegal did not possess the same benefits or privileges as a sojourner or countryman. 

….

THE GOD OF INDEPENDENT NATIONS DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN THE PEOPLES OF NATIONS

Therefore, governmental leaders today in every nation — to be biblically accurate — should invoke and staunchly maintain legal distinctions of status between their resident peoples: 

Citizens, Immigrants, and Foreigners. To remain biblical, these distinctions should never be obliterated. No reformed immigration policy should attempt to eradicate these distinctions; to do so is to posture oneself as more knowledgeable and insightful than God. 

….

THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF EVERY NATION SHOULD BE BIBLICALLY BASED AND STRICTLY ENFORCED — ALL WITH THE UTMOST CONFIDENCE AND ASSURANCE THAT GOD APPROVES SUCH ACTIONS BY THE NATION’S LEADERS! 

Now, go read the complete article.

Bits and Pieces

How about a very thought-provoking article about Jewish theological connection to the Gospel of John!

Joining Forces With People In The Ecumenical Movement For The Sake Of Unity Can Cause Spiritual Harm.

Answering the Muslim “Lost Aramaic” Argument.

How Bill Gothard got his cult of followers going, regardless of his horrid Bible teachings.

False teacher/false apostle Kathryn Krick gets her worshipers demon-possessed just being by her.  Beyond Kathryn Krick: The Hidden Danger of "Subtle" NAR Teachings

Speaking of Tongues…

There are no such things as “generational curses.”

The Catholic Church has too many leaders supporting all that is unholy. This priest is another  perfect example.

Catholics in Spain are seeking to help the invaders!!!!  “What is keeping the migrants in Ceuta? The answer in large part is a collection of non-profit organizations, some backed by the Spanish government and the Catholic Church, which continue providing the invaders with food, supplies and encouragement that if they persist, they will be allowed to remain in Spanish territory, then travel to Spain and then across Europe.”  I guess the Catholic Church has forgotten about obeying the law.  Worse yet is the Bishop of Cueta claiming that these illegal Muslim invaders are just “Missionaries of Hope that Widen Our Hearts.”

Ah, The Chosen is soooooooo NOT Christ-like. Proving the heretical and blasphemous series is from  Satan.

If missionaries encountered Alcoholics Anonymous. The word “alcoholic” was invented to claim that drunkenness is an illness and everyone bought into the claim to absolve drunks from personal responsibility. the inventor also invented the AA “religion.”  Demonic. 

Thought Provoking Memes

And, finally, think about this:

Papist Support for Murder?!?!

I had just read the book, The Anabaptist Story, by William R. Estep and then wrote my article on baptism. Since the book mentioned the Waldenses sect I decided to read a book in my library which I hadn’t read since 2007: History of the Waldenses, by J.A. Wylie.

The Waldenses were essentially the original protestants, long before the Reformation, and they had the New Testament translated into their own language. The commonality with the Anabaptists was that they both read the Bible as written and didn’t add or subtract from it for their beliefs. Both had issues with the papist religion: the Waldenses refused to accept the false teaching of the Mass and the Anabaptists disagreed with infant baptism.

There was nothing in their teachings that I found in these books that could be considered heresy, but the papist church (i.e. the POPE) decided they were heretics and therefore must be destroyed. Both sects had papist armies and leaders persecuting, attacking and murdering them for “heresy.” The papists killed all people of all ages in some of the most heinous ways possible. 

On 8/10/26 the following comment was posted to my article about baptism but I moderated it out and decided to address it in this post. Here is the comment:

John S. Erwin commented on "What About Infant Baptism?"

I know that this is going to send literal chills down Glenn's spine, but I support the persecution of those Anabaptist heretics. My basis for this is Romans 13. The Roman Catholic Church was a government and it had been entrusted with the power of the sword to protect the citizens. If Rome had successfully stomped them out, we would not have many of the cultural problems that exist today, such as the normalization of homosexuality.

First, it didn’t send any chills down my spine, rather just a shake of the head at such blatant ignorance and scripture-twisting. 

Second, the Catholic Church was originally just the entire Christian Church but Constantine made it a virtual part of all government systems, leading the Roman Church into apostasy and heresy.  NOWHERE in the Bible will you find that the church or government has authority to persecute and MURDER those who disagree with the papist church. Murdering people, especially in horrid and heinous ways, proved that the papist church was NOT a Christian church. Murdering people for not accepting infant baptism or the Mass is not protecting anyone. 

Third, in no way could/would Romans 13 refer to the need to murder so-called heretics.

Lastly, being against baptism and the mass would have absolutely NO connection with cultural problems today—that analogy is just plain STUPID!

What About Infant Baptism?

(Blue ink for citations and maroon ink for citations inside the citations.)

I have never accepted infant baptism as legitimate since I could never find it in Scripture and because baptism is symbolic of the new life in Christ. Faith in Jesus is required and an infant doesn’t have that faith. This citation is a perfect description of the problem:

In opposition to the usual arguments for infant baptism the Brethren set forth their position, underscoring the basic insights of Anabaptism. 

First, the nature of baptism rules out the possibility of infant baptism. New Testament baptism requires prior conviction for, and repentance of, sin, and faith in Christ. Baptism is viewed as a symbol of initiation into the church and a sign of the new life which the believer has in Christ. “In other words, baptism is to be administered only after receiving the Holy Spirit; and children, though they are not necessarily condemned, do not have the Holy Spirit.”

Second, baptism is a symbol and not a sacrament. It has no meaning where faith in Christ is absent. 

Third, Christ has set for us an example through his own baptism. 

Fourth, through the Great Commission he has explicitly commanded us to teach and baptize. Fifth, baptism is not analogous to circumcision: 

“As for the matter of circumcision, it is clear that baptism is not the same as the Old Testament act of initiation, but its its replacement. The analogy should not be pushed too far. Summarizing: Baptism is not the expression of a mechanical covenant theory, it requires a certain type of personal standing and a personal relation to God, the Father of Jesus Christ.” (Jan Matthijssen, Bern Disputation, p.32)

William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.206-7

Therefore, on the basis of the N.T., baptism must be preceded by repentance; the person being baptized must have reached an age at which he or she would be capable of repentance. Baptism should never be administered without a previous profession of faith. Baptism is also tied in with membership in the church and infants cannot hold church membership. The order required for believer’s baptism (the only proper baptism) according to Scripture: hearing the Word, believing the Word by faith, repentance, then baptism.

Contrary to some teaching (e.g. Roman Catholicism), baptism has no salvific value, rather it is the inward acceptance of the Gospel and placing one’s faith in the work of Christ for salvation. 

Baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins, an inner transformation of mind and heart, and a pledge of a life of discipleship.

 William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.202. Citing the teachings of Conrad (Konrad) Grebel.

It would not be confusing to say that Christian baptism is immersion in water in the name of the  Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it signifies that the one baptized is identified with, or united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

Earl C. Smith, M.S., D.D., Paul’s Gospel: An Analysis and Exposition of the Major Epistles, pg.102-103

What about “household” baptisms, as in Acts 10 with Cornelius, Acts 16 with Lydia, Acts 16 with the Philippian jailer, Acts 18 with Crispus, and 1 Corinthians 1 with Stephanas? Wouldn’t children be in these households? The Bible says the people being baptized believed the Gospel message—how do infants have that sort of faith? An excellent synopsis of these events and why they don’t include infant baptisms can be found here: Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Finally, in the Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), chapter 7, we find the following instructions about baptism, which is what the early church taught and believed:

Now concerning baptism. Baptize as follows, when you have rehearsed the aforesaid teaching: Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, use whatever is available. And if you cannot do it in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times—in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Big Five O

After the Lord arranged a meeting on 1 August 1974, He then led us to the altar two years later.  We have now been blessed with 50 years together as the two became one. Today we celebrate our 50th.

More Odds and Ends

Long, but interesting article about the defense of the Bible being accurate.

Dismantling 9 “Proofs” of Millions of Years.  The 9 “proofs” are not scientific at all.

The Misplaced Identity of Gay Christianity

When “Sound Doctrine” Gets Redefined.

When a “church” has to decide whether to require monogamy for anyone, let alone leaders, then you know it isn’t a church which follows Christ. The PCUSA denomination has been corrupt from the beginning.  More on the topic.

And if you thought the PCUSA couldn’t get any worse, they are now supporting “sex change” surgery for children, let alone adults.

Mysticism in the Church: Is Mysticism Biblical?

Catholic archbishop praises new mosque, ignores ubiquitous gang rapes by Muslim men.

Then we have a Catholic university having a “very tight relationship” with the Council on American Islamic Relations. 

An old article about the New Apostolic Reformation but well worth learning why they are aberrant false teachers.

It’s been a while since I’ve reported on false teacher Beth Moore, so here’s another good article exposing her unbiblical nonsense.

Then we have the worst of charismania—pure blasphemy! Although this ranks up there—a megachurch “pastor” who says opposing abortion and gun control is “satanic.”

Exposing Mormonism's Latest Deception. Beware of their pretense to Christianity.

Another Response to the Pope!

In my article, Thoughts About the Catholic Church, I posted this statement by Pope Leo XIV (and made a short comment about it): 

God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.

In my “holding” files I just found this post by Robert A. J. Gagnon on Facebook, 4/10/26 at 5:05 PM. His response is much more thorough than mine:

In a new X post today, Leo again appears to be denying even in his Roman Catholic tradition regarding the concept of a "just war." Note Leo's absolute statements: "God does not bless *any* conflict. *Anyone* who is a disciple of Christ is *never* on the side of those" who use military weapons of war. "Peace ... comes *only* from ... dialogue among peoples."

Taking his statements at face value, he apparently believes that after the Japanese attacked us in Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on us we should have done nothing; and that Jesus was opposed to us defeating these two evil empires. We should have continued to engage in "dialogue" with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan while they were committing murder on an unprecedented scale. That is a morally irresponsible verdict on Leo's part.

Jesus did not require the state to be pacifistic. He did not believe that Israel erred every time or even most of the time that it engaged in warfare as reported by his Scriptures (the Conquest, the period of the judges and tribal confederacy, David's reign). "Turn the other cheek" is not a model for the state (obviously), nor is it for internal policing and criminal punishment.

Granted, Jesus did not side with the violent revolutionaries of his day, just as Jeremiah did not side with those wanting to throw off Babylon's yoke in his day, but that is because they both viewed God as using the great empire of their day to punish Israel. Their approach was not a carte blanche rejection of military force in all circumstances.

Leo's level of moral understanding regarding conflict is shocking for someone who is supposed to be a moral leader for 1.5 billion Catholics worldwide.