Others like financial breakthrough Features >>
About the Book
"Financial Breakthrough" by John Avanzini is a practical guide to achieving financial freedom through biblical principles and practical steps. The book emphasizes the importance of faith, stewardship, and generosity in building wealth and achieving financial success. Avanzini provides actionable advice and strategies for managing money, budgeting wisely, and investing strategically to overcome financial challenges and achieve prosperity.
Mosab Hassan Yousef
Mosab Hassan Yousef (Arabic: Ù
Ű”ŰčŰš ŰŰłÙ ÙÙŰłÙ; nicknamed "The Green Prince"; born 5 May 1978) is a Palestinian who worked undercover for Israel's internal security service Shin Bet from 1997 to 2007.
Shin Bet considered him its most valuable source within the Hamas leadership. The information Yousef supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks and assassinations of Israelis, exposed numerous Hamas cells, and assisted Israel in hunting down many militants, and incarcerating his own father, Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. In March 2010, he published his autobiography titled Son of Hamas.
In 1999, Yousef converted to Christianity, and in 2007 he moved to the United States. His request for political asylum in the United States was granted pending a routine background check in 2010.
Biography
Mosab Hassan Yousef (later Joseph) was born in Ramallah, a city 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) north of Jerusalem. His father, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, was a Hamas leader who spent many years in Israeli prisons. He is the oldest of five brothers and three sisters.
When Yousef was growing up, he wanted to be a fighter because that was according to him what was expected of Palestinian children in the West Bank. Yousef was first arrested when he was ten, during the First Intifada, for throwing rocks at Israeli settlers. He was further arrested and jailed by Israel numerous times. As his father's eldest son, he was seen as his heir apparent, and became an important part of the Hamas organization.
Yousef said he saw the light after a stint with his dadâs comrades in an Israeli jail during the mid-1990s. At Megiddo Prison, he witnessed Hamas inmates leading a brutal year-long campaign to weed out supposed Israeli collaborators. "During that time, Hamas tortured and killed hundreds of prisoners,â he said, recalling vivid memories of needles being inserted under finger nails and bodies charred with burning plastics. Many, if not all, had nothing to do with Israeli intelligence. âI will never forget their screams,â he continued. âI started asking myself a question. What if Hamas succeeded in destroying Israel and building a state. Will they destroy our people in this way?â
Yousef's doubts about Islam and Hamas began forming when he realized Hamas' brutality, and that he hated how Hamas used the lives of suffering civilians and children to achieve its goals. Yousef was held by Shin Bet agents in 1996. While in prison, he was shocked by Shin Bet's interrogation methods, which he considered humane, when compared to how Hamas operatives tortured imprisoned suspected collaborators. He decided to accept a Shin Bet offer to become an informant.
Espionage career
Beginning with his release from prison in 1997, Yousef was considered the Shin Bet's most reliable source in the Hamas leadership, earning himself the nickname "The Green Prince" â using the color of the Islamist group's flag, and "prince" because of his pedigree as the son of one of the movement's founders. The intelligence he supplied to Israel led to the exposure of many Hamas cells, as well as the prevention of dozens of suicide bombings and assassination attempts on Jews. He has claimed that he did not inform for money, but rather that his motivations were ideological and religious, and that he only wanted to save lives.[13] In order to thwart any suspicions of collaboration, the Shin Bet staged an arrest attempt, telling the Israel Defense Forces to launch an operation to arrest him, and then provided him intelligence allowing him to escape at the last minute, after which he went into hiding for the rest of his career.
Yousef says he supplied intelligence only on the condition that the "targets" would not be killed, but arrested. This led to the detention of several key Palestinian leaders, including Ibrahim Hamid, a Hamas commander in the West Bank, and Marwan Barghouti. Also, Yousef claims to have thwarted a 2001 plot to assassinate Shimon Peres, then foreign minister and later President of Israel. According to his former Shin Bet officer, "Many people owe him their lives and don't even know it."
Conversion to Christianity
According to his story, Yousef met a British missionary in 1999 who introduced him to Christianity. Between the years 1999 and 2000, Yousef gradually embraced Christianity. In 2005, he was secretly baptized in Tel Aviv by an unidentified Christian tourist. He left the West Bank for the United States in 2007, and lived some time in San Diego, California, where he joined the Barabbas Road Church.
In August 2008, Yousef publicly revealed his Christianity, and renounced Hamas and the Arab leadership, thereby endangering himself and exposing his family in Ramallah to persecution. Yousef has also claimed that his aim was to bring peace to the Middle East; he hopes to return to his homeland when there is peace.
Yousef has stated that despite his conversion to Christianity, he is "against religion", and does not adhere to any denomination of Christianity. He has stated, "Religion steals freedom, kills creativity, turns us into slaves and against one another. Yes, I am talking about Christianity as well as Islam. Most Christians I have seen, seem to have missed the point, that Jesus redeemed us from religion. Religion is nothing but man's attempts to get back to God. Whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, any ism. Religion can't save mankind. Only Jesus could save mankind through his death and resurrection. And Jesus is the only way to God."
Autobiography
Yousef's co-authored autobiography, Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices, written with the assistance of Ron Brackin, was published in March 2010.
Yousef's brother Ouwais denounced the report about his brother's activities, saying: "It was full of lies; it's all lies." Ouwais also revealed that the last contact between his family and Mosab took place more than a year before the news of his spying. Sheikh Hassan Yousef, Mosab's father, while in an Israeli prison, disowned his son for spying for Israel. The Haaretz report on Yousef was described by Hamas MP Mushir al-Masri as "psychological war being waged against the Palestinian people... [it] did not deserve a response".
Deportation threats and political asylum
For a time, Yousef was threatened with deportation from the U.S., after his request for political asylum was denied, since statements in his book about working for Hamas were interpreted as "providing material support to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization", despite Yousef's explanation that they were "intended to undermine the group". His case then proceeded to the deportation stage, despite Yousef's advocates' warning that he would likely be executed by the Palestinian Authority if deported to the West Bank.
On 24 June 2010, Shin Bet handler Gonen Ben Itzhak, who for 10 years worked with Yousef under the cryptonym "Loai", revealed his own identity in order to testify on behalf of Yousef at an immigration hearing in San Diego. Ben-Yitzhak described Yousef as a "true friend", and said, "he risked his life every day in order to prevent violence".
Partially as a result of this, Immigration Court Judge Richard J. Bartolomei, Jr., ruled on 30 June 2010, that Yousef would be allowed to remain in the United States after being fingerprinted and passing a routine background check.
He is a frequent guest speaker on various American news channels, where he talks about the atrocities committed by Hamas.
Films
A documentary adaptation of Son of Hamas titled The Green Prince, directed and written by Nadav Schirman, premiered at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the Audience Award for World Cinema: Documentary. The Green Prince will be re-made into a live-action feature film.
Yousef is collaborating with US-based actor and film producer Sam Feuer in the production of two films: a feature film adaptation of Yousef's book Son of Hamas and documentary The Green Prince, and a historical depiction of the life of the Muslim prophet Muhammad based on the accounts of eighth-century historian Ibn Ishaq.
Views and controversies
Some elements of Yousef's story have been questioned. Former Shin Bet Deputy Chief Gideon Ezra described Yousef's claims as "too good to be true", and stated that, "there are hundreds of collaborators like him. He is not unusual. He just decided to write a book about it." The conversion to Christianity narrative promoted by Yousef and his book publishers remains unsubstantiated as well. Critics have alleged that Yousef claimed he was a Christian (for a longer period of time) in order to help secure asylum in the United States. This tactic is common for Muslim immigrants seeking to avoid deportation to countries where apostasy laws exist. However, he has since become an active figure in evangelical non-denominational Christianity in America, and has appeared on programs such as The 700 Club. Interest in the book from Christian readers helped make it a New York Times best-seller. During an appearance on The 700 Club to promote his book "Son of Hamas", he was welcomed and interviewed by host Pat Robertson.
At an "End Times Prophecy" conference in 2010, hosted by California-based evangelist Greg Laurie, Yousef told the crowd in attendance that Islam is "the biggest lie in human history." He further suggested at the conference that the Quran should not be legal in the United States ("banned on American soil").
In May 2016, talking to a Jerusalem Post conference in New York, Yousef claimed that at one time that he was working for, and being paid by, Israel, the United States, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, all at the same time. He went on to say that Islam as a whole is comparable to Nazism, and must be defeated.
Dressed in His Righteousness Alone
Iâll never forget meeting up with a mentor of mine at Starbucks shortly after becoming a Christian. We regularly met there to read and study the Bible. One day, a person walked by and was elated to find Christians. But during our conversation, my mentor began asking some pretty forthright questions, and I couldnât quite understand why. âDo you believe that a person is justified by faith alone?â he said. The stranger hesitantly responded, âNo, I believe that a person is justified by faith and works.â My mentor graciously but strongly insisted, âThen you donât have a biblical view of justification.â A lot of back-and-forths followed, but because I was a recent convert, I found it immensely difficult to understand what was going on. I barely understood what the term justification meant! Eventually, I discovered the importance of this vital doctrine. Martin Luther and other Reformers considered the doctrine of justification by faith alone the article on which the church stands or falls. It is at the core of the gospel, and the church needs to embrace it as such. What Is Justification? So then, what is justification? This is a crucial starting point. How one defines justification will determine not only how one thinks and believes but also how one lives. Roman Catholic dogma, for example, defines justification as synonymous with sanctification,1 and the result is detrimental. Oneâs standing on the final day is determined by the growth of Christâs righteousness, which is imparted to a person through baptism and increases through participation in the sacraments.2 In a word, justification is essentially a clean slate that one needs to maintain to enjoy a favorable verdict at the final judgment. Diametrically opposed stands the Reformed understanding of justification, which is carefully, succinctly, and biblically defined in the answer to question 33 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: Justification is an act of Godâs free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.3 Notice that justification is an act, not a work or process.4 It is not a hopeful destination. It is Godâs gracious, once-for-all verdict â his declaration of a person to be righteous in Christ, and therefore fully accepted by God. The Greek words for justification and righteousness, along with their cognates,5 belong to the legal sphere.6 Consider, for example, Romans 8:31â34: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against Godâs elect? It is God who justifies [Greek ho dikaiĆn]. Who is to condemn? Justification language belongs to the courtroom; it is forensic. Accusations are met with Godâs justifying verdict spoken over his elect (see also Romans 5:16â19) â a spoken word that melts the hardened hearts of sinners. Whose Righteousness? God, the holy, just, and perfect Judge, finds sinners not guilty and declares them righteous. How? On the basis of the person and work of Jesus Christ â by forgiving our sins on account of the substitutionary death of Christ in our place (Romans 3:21â26) and imputing or reckoning Christâs righteousness to us (Romans 4:1â9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). What is this righteousness? His perfect obedience to God, rendered in his life and death, often referred to as the active and passive obedience of Christ. He perfectly fulfilled the law (Galatians 4:4â5; Romans 8:1â4) and also died under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), in love for his people (Galatians 2:20). Nevertheless, death could not keep its prey, and so Christ tore the bars away and arose a victor from the dark domain.7 Jesusâs resurrection was not only proof that his sacrifice satisfied Godâs wrath; it was also his own justification or public vindication (1 Timothy 3:16; cf. Romans 4:25). On Resurrection Sunday, God declared the verdict of righteous over his Son, and through union with him, we too receive that unchangeable righteous standing (2 Corinthians 5:21). How Do We Receive It? What is necessary to receive this righteous standing? Faith, works, or a combination of both? The answer is faith alone. Paul makes this clear in Galatians 2:16: âWe know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.â Justification is not a both-and matter. Itâs either by faith or by works. Paul fleshes this out in Romans 10:3â4. He speaks of his Jewish kinsmen as those who are âignorant of the righteousness of God,â are âseeking to establish their own [righteousness],â and thereby do ânot submit to Godâs righteousness.â Then he provides this explanation: âFor Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.â We submit to Christâs righteousness by faith. Just breaths later, in Romans 10:9â10, Paul writes, âIf you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.â No wonder Paul, in the very next chapter, helpfully explains that âif it is by grace [that we are chosen, saved, and presumably justified (see Romans 10:10)], it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be graceâ (Romans 11:6). âJustification is not a both-and matter. Itâs either by faith or by works.â A biblically Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone is indeed comforting to the sinner. âHow can I be righteous before a holy God?â is an appropriate question to ask for those outside of Christ. The only acceptable answer is found in Christ. He is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith. And this doctrine is at the core of the gospel. More to the Gospel than Justification? In loving and declaring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, some can begin to think that justification is the gospel. But that is not true. Simply saying, âJesus died for my sins so that I can receive Christâs righteousnessâ does not capture the entire gospel.8 Paul doesnât stop there when he lays out the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1â4. Jesus also was buried and rose from the dead. In fact, the resurrection of Christ plays a crucial role in our justification (as weâve seen in Romans 4:25; see also Romans 1:3â4; 1 Corinthians 15:20â23, 42â49; 1 Timothy 3:16).9 The gospel also includes Jesusâs ascension, enthronement as Lord, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:3â4; Acts 1:11; 2:1â21; 2:32â33). We therefore should not say that justification is the gospel. And yet, neither should we welcome the persistent emphasis of those who downplay justification, whether by minimizing it to a âsubsidiary craterâ in Paulâs theology10 or, even more drastically, by insisting that âour justification by faith is not part of the gospel.â11 In the end, justification is not the gospel, but it is undeniably at its center.12 If you exclude justification from the gospel, then the gospel ceases to be âgood news.â Solely by Faith? The Reformed tradition has consistently promoted a threefold definition of faith: (1) knowledge of the content of the gospel that we believe (Latin notitia), (2) intellectual assent to the gospel of Christ (assensus), and (3) trust in the person and work of Christ on our behalf (fiducia). Recently some have taken aim at the third part of that definition (trust).13 They argue that faith is not primarily âinteriorâ or âemotionalâ but âexteriorâ and âembodied.â In other words, faith is active rather than passive, and it should be seen rather than felt. So they prefer slogans such as âjustification by allegiance alone,â since allegiance underscores the active nature of faith. Those who argue for this definition of faith make a major mistake. Since they redefine faith as a more active response, they argue that Paulâs either-or of justification is actually a both-and â both faith and works. To be clear here, they do not think a person can be justified by works that stem from self-righteous efforts. They believe Romans 3:20, that âby works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.â However, they underline the phrase âworks of the lawâ and say, âPaul was not against Spirit-wrought good works contributing to a personâs justification.â âChrist is the basis of our justification, and he can be received only by the empty hands of faith.â At this point, you may be feeling the way I did in the conversation at Starbucks, not really understanding the fine distinctions. But this is significant. To say that Paul wasnât against good works with respect to justification, you have to make a drastic move theologically. You have to reject the distinction between justification and sanctification. What do I mean by that? Put simply, justification and sanctification are inseparable yet distinct, like the heat and light of a fire.14 You cannot have one without the other; at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other.15 Good works, as Paul commends them, are done in our sanctification, but they cannot contribute to our justification. If they do, justification is no longer by faith alone. Is Christâs Righteousness Imputed? After the conversation with the stranger at Starbucks, I asked my mentor, âWhat does imputation mean?â The word was thrown around during our discussion but never really defined. Imputation means that the righteousness of Christ â his active and passive obedience â is counted or reckoned to believers. Christâs righteousness is imputed, counted, reckoned to you when you are united to Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). As Calvin said, âWe do not . . . contemplate [Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that this righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body â in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.â16 When we talk about receiving righteousness, union with Christ is essential. Imputed righteousness is distinct from infused righteousness. In the Roman Catholic view, Christ merited righteousness for us, and that righteousness is then infused into believers at baptism. Itâs as if Christâs seed of righteousness should be planted into your heart. It becomes your own. And it is up to you, in dependence on the Spirit and the sacraments, to water it and grow in personal righteousness. By contrast, the imputation view intentionally uses the words count or reckon, as Scripture does (Romans 4:1â8; 5:12â19; Galatians 3:6).17 In justification, Christâs righteousness does not become ours as some sort of personal possession. It is counted or reckoned as ours. Why? Because we do not perform the acts of justifying righteousness. Christ, as our substitute, lived the perfect life we couldnât and died the death we deserved. The righteousness of Christ must therefore primarily and exclusively belong to him.18 It is therefore an alien righteousness â it comes from outside of us. And it is graciously imputed, counted, or reckoned to those who have no inherent righteousness whatsoever (Romans 3:9, 23; Ephesians 2:1â3). We are indeed âdressed in his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.â19 For nothing else avails before God. Jesus Receives Sinners Listening to the conversation my mentor had with that fellow at Starbucks was intimidating and a bit over my head. I heard many terms and distinctions that didnât seem, at the time, to make much of a difference in the Christian life. But the more questions I asked, the more I learned that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not only theologically essential but thoroughly practical. Just think of Christians who question their salvation as they struggle with sin. In those times, they easily can turn inward. âHave I done enough to please God?â âPerhaps if I serve more at church, he will accept me.â âI need to stop sinning in order to be accepted by him.â They may never say these words out loud. After all, they wouldnât want anyone to think they were weak in faith â or even worse, an unbeliever. But their knee-jerk reaction to turn inward reveals a deeper underlying issue. They need to turn outward toward the objective realities of the gospel. They need to trust in Christ Jesus, their righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30). They need to rest â not only in mind and mouth, but in heart and life â in the âword of surest consolation; word all sorrow to relieve, word of pardon, peace, salvation! . . . âJesus sinners doth receive.ââ20 Catechism of the Catholic Church: âJustification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior manâ (1989); âThe Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the âinner man,â justification entails the sanctification of his whole beingâ (1995). â© See the Council of Trent, âDecree Concerning Justification,â §7. â© I have slightly updated the language to make the answer easier to read. â© The Westminster divines reserved that language for sanctification: âSanctification is the work of Godâs free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousnessâ (Westminster Shorter Catechism 35). â© See the words dikaioĆ, âI justifyâ; dikaiĆsunÄ, ârighteousnessâ; dikaios, âjust, rightâ; dikaiĆsis, âjustification, vindication, aquittalâ; and dikaiĆma, ârighteous requirement.â â© As recently argued by James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2.461 (TĂŒbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), though for a criticism of other statements he makes, see my forthcoming review of his book in the Westminster Theological Journal. â© Trinity Hymnal #206, âLow in the Grave He Lay â Christ Arose.â â© That is one reason, after all, why the church disciples new believers: to increase their understanding of the gospel of Christ. â© See also Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paulâs Soteriology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987). â© Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 225. â© Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2019), 37. See also Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). â© I am currently in the process of writing a review article of Matthew Batesâs work in the Westminster Theological Journal, which will contain more in-depth critical interaction with his arguments. â© See Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 92. He qualifies this in Gospel Allegiance, 64: âIâm not arguing that faith simply means allegiance without remainder. Nor am I denying that pistis primarily means âfaith/faithfulnessâ or âtrust/trustworthiness.ââ But then he adds a telling caveat: âTrust in or faithfulness toward a leader that endures through trials over the course of time is probably best termed âloyaltyâ or âallegiance.ââ â© John Calvin make this comparison in Institutes 3.11.6. â© I find it telling that Matthew Bates denies the categorical distinction between justification and sanctification because it cannot be found in Scripture (Allegiance, 185â86), and yet, after reading Scripture and laying out his view, he promotes a strikingly similar distinction (see 127, 191â92, 196, and 206). Both justification and sanctification occur in union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11). But at the same time, you can distinguish one from the other throughout Scripture âby good and necessary consequenceâ (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6). See also the Westminster Larger Catechism 77 for a very helpful analysis of the inseparable yet distinct nature of justification and sanctification. â© Institutes 3.2.10; my italics. â© For helpful works on imputation and criticisms raised against it, see Brian Vickers, Jesusâ Blood and Righteousness: Paulâs Theology of Imputation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006); John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christâs Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002); Ben C. Dunson, âDo Bible Words Have Bible Meaning? Distinguishing between Imputation as Word and Doctrine,â WTJ 75 (2013): 239â60; Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015). â© James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church; and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1867), 326. â© Trinity Hymnal #459, âMy Hope is Built on Nothing Less.â â© Trinity Hymnal #394, âJesus Sinners Doth Receive.â â© Article by David Briones Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary