We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Random Good Stuff

I’ve come across some more good stuff these past few weeks, and I want to share them with my readers.

I found a very good article explaining why there should be women deacons.

Something to think about is the “Rampant Biblical Illiteracy” in the church

Pornography has reached pandemic proportions in the USA, let alone in the rest of the world.  It seems like it’s almost daily that I read about arrests for “kiddie porn,” or new types of porn, or new media for porn, etc.  And it is taking its toll among members of the Church.  If you or someone you know is caught up in pornography, then here are "7 Good Reasons to Stop Looking at Porn Right Now."

Did Paul Think Jesus Was God?

From Answers in Genesis comes this excellent article about Prayer and the Trinity.


Lastly, the doctrine of the Trinity with early church fathers is further investigated.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Freemasonry - An Occult Religion

One of my readers asked if I knew anything about Freemasonry, and if I would write an article about it.  I learned about Masonry because of the Mormon Church’s association with it; the temple garment has Masonic symbols and much of the temple ceremony was copied from Masonic rituals.  This was because Joseph Smith was a Freemason, and most of the men of Nauvoo were also Freemasons.  Since I began in-depth studies of Mormonism 40 years ago, it was important for me to learn what I could about Freemasonry.  I have over a dozen books on Freemasonry, written by Masons, ex-Masons, and Christian apologists — including Albert Pike’s tome, “Morals and Dogma.”

There is much information on the internet, as well as in any good library, which will allow anyone to completely familiarize themselves with Freemasonry.  Therefore, for this short article I’m only going to highlight some of the beliefs and practices which are incompatible with Christianity — and the reason why no Christian should be a Mason.

First, I would like to point out that, contrary to many legends and myths of Freemasonry, it is not alluded to in the Bible, nor does it have its origins in the building of Solomon’s temple, nor is it rooted in pagan religions found in the Bible.  Instead, it emerged in the 1700s.

Members of Freemasonry vehemently deny that the Masonic organization is a religion, claiming that it is nothing more than a fraternal organization.  Yet well-known Masonic authors Henry W. Coil and Albert Pike even admit that Freemasonry is indeed a religion.

Proof that Freemasonry is a religion can readily be seen in these facts:

  1. They require a belief in a supreme being.
  2. Their meeting places are in temples.
  3. They have doctrines, including a way of salvation by works.
  4. They have altars and pulpits in their temples.
  5. They have religious ceremonies, rituals, prayers, readings from sacred literature, singing hymns, and even funeral services.
  6. They have chaplains.

Albert Pike stated that “every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion, and its teachings are instruction in religion.”  In his “Morals and Dogma,” Pike even stated that “the ministers of this religion are all Masons who comprehend it and are devoted to it; its sacrifices to God are good works.

Albert Mackey, in his “Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,” says, “the most important article of furniture in a Lodge room is undoubtedly the altar. . . . It is an altar of sacrifice, for on it the candidate is directed to lay his passions and vices as an oblation to the Deity, while he offers up the thoughts of a pure heart as a fitting incense to the Grand Architect of the Universe.  The altar is, therefore, the most holy place in a Lodge.” 

Let it also be pointed out that the holy book on the altar of the local temple will be the holy book of the culture surrounding that temple; i.e., the holy book may be the Bible, the Qur’an, the Upanishads, Vedas, etc.  The initiate may take his oath on the holy book of his own religious belief.  The idea is that all Masons can be in fellowship no matter what god they worship.  However, a Christian is to NEVER condone any other religious belief system because they are contrary to God’s teachings and are idolatrous.

The chaplain of the Masonic Lodge who prays as the voice of the lodge does not pray in the name of the Carpenter of Nazareth or the name of Jehovah or the name of Allah.  He prays to the Grand Artificer or the Great Architect of the Universe.  Under that title men of all faiths may find each his own deity.”  Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma.  But this god is NOT the God of the Bible.

Along the line of Masonry being a religion, I discovered that not only do they have temples but they also have Cathedrals!  These photos are of the Cathedral in Moline, IL, which I discovered when I was in Moline for band practice.  Notice the structural similarities to Roman Catholic cathedrals.

Initiation ceremonies often include occult practices.  The initiate must claim he is in darkness and looking for “light of Freemasonry” - a spiritual light - yet Scripture says the only spiritual light for the darkness is Christ.  The initiate must present himself to a “Worshipful Master,” and yet there is no man who is “worshipful.”  He is also required to take a barbaric blood oath to keep secret the teachings he learns; blood oaths which are required for every degree of Freemasonry.

An example of the blood oath for the first degree is this:  “All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to perform the same, without any mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea, at low-water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my Entered Apprentice obligation.  So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.

This is an extremely unbiblical oath, and to seek God’s help in keeping it is nothing less than blasphemy.

With each degree, the oath includes more penalties, such as having one’s left breast torn open, heart plucked out and given to be eaten by beasts and birds; body severed in two, bowels burnt and scattered; etc.

Masons believe salvation is though hard work and keeping the principles and teachings of the Lodge, and living ethically.  Yet Scripture says that our works are as filthy rags to God (Isa. 64:6) and that we can find salvation only through the work of Christ.

Freemasonry’s connections to the occult include connections to the Kabbala and the mystery religions of paganism, references to each being found often in Masonic literature.

While an Entered Apprentice, and even up to the third degree Mason, may give little thought to the blood oaths and think the whole thing is just a lark, in order to be a Shriner, one must have arrived at the top level in Masonry, which means they know all the “secrets” and have taken many blood oaths and practiced the occultism commensurate with their standing.  Even more abhorrent is that Shriners make a pretense at being Muslims, with the Fez and other Arabic attire.  This in itself is idolatry in that it is paying homage to the god of Islam, let alone aiding the propaganda about Islam being peaceful.

I trust this small taste of what Freemasonry is about will convince you that it is an organization in which Christians have no business participating.

Monday, July 21, 2014

“New Age Bible Versions” — Chapter 16, part 2

Here I continue from where I left off with the last NABV post!  Again, the bold in the Scripture passages is by Riplinger.

5.  “Antichrist” vs “Lord Jesus,” beginning on p.268.  “The following charts continue to show how ‘the beasts’ [sic] bloodless bibles [sic] hide the keys to God’s kingdom — leaving souls out in the cold kingdom of the coming ‘king of nations.’

a.  John 9:35:  “Do you believe on the son of Man?” vs “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” `As noted previously, BOTH titles refer to the Messiah.  So what are we hiding?

b.  Acts 9:6:  “[omitted]” vs Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?  And the Lord said unto him…”  Riplinger makes this appear to be something nefarious, but the particular passage affects nothing.  It just has Saul asking the question, while with the “new versions” Jesus gives instructions without the question being asked.  Again, what is hidden? (Perhaps “Lord” is being hidden, since she made it bold.)

c.  Acts 8:37:  “[omitted]” vs “And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.   And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”  Again, the bolded phrase must be what Riplinger is calling hidden, because, as with the previous passage, whether we read Philip’s statement and the eunuch’s response, the action tells us what transpired - that the eunuch must have confessed his belief since he was baptized then and there.

d.  Luke 23:42:  “Jesus, remember me?” vs “Jesus, Lord, remember me.”  Riplinger makes the first one a question, yet the passage cited never does!  Or is this just a typo an editor didn’t discover?  Again, the problem apparently is the lack of the word, “Lord,” as if the thief on the cross is asking Jesus to remember him while not believing He is Lord?!

Apparently Riplinger believes that references to deity are “hidden” in these passages in the “new versions,” yet if there really is a conspiracy to “hide” the deity of Christ, then why were only so few passages “fixed”?  Nowhere in any of these cited passages has the context of the event been changed, and the deity of Christ is understood.

Continuing with “Antichrist vs Lord Jesus,” on page 269 Riplinger changes gears a bit with the next several passages as she implies that “new versions” support the “New Age” teaching that “the faith must be in ourselves.”

a.  Mark 9:42“who believes” vs “little ones that believe in me.” While the NAS and REB, read as stated, the NIV reads the same as KJV, yet Riplinger includes the NIV in her charge.  GWN, NKJV, NET, ESV, HCSB, RSV, Beck, Phillips, and even Berkeley all read as the KJV, yet with Riplinger’s “et al” you’d think more than two versions would have this “problem”!  Even so, it isn’t a problem because, in context, the subject of the belief has to be Jesus! (I wonder how many versions Riplinger actually reviewed - why does she not list them?)

b.  John 3:15:  “whosoever believes” vs “whosoever believeth in him.” Here we go again; Riplinger says this is with “NIV, NASB, et al” and yet both the NIV and NASB read as KJV!  In fact, I couldn’t find a version on my shelf which meets her claim!  I’m at the point that I don’t want to bother with searching all the versions I have, rather I will mostly just check the NIV and NAS in my parallel Bible.

c.  John 6:47:  “he who believes has everlasting life” vs “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”  I didn’t look beyond the NIV and NAS because they are both as stated here.  However, the lack of the words “on me” doesn’t affect the context.  Anyone reading the passage in context should easily  understand the object of the belief is not self but Christ!

d.  Acts 22:16:  “calling on His name” vs “calling on the name of the Lord.”  This is another example of nonsense.  If one is calling on “His name,” he is certainly calling on the “name of the Lord.”  The two phrases are synonymous!  Riplinger has a real problem with context, and is paranoid about not having “of the Lord” because, in reference to the previous section, someone must be hiding something!  Yet, this section is supposed to be about passages that, in new versions, teach belief - i.e. faith - in oneself!! It would be nice if Riplinger was consistent.

e.  Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 9:18:  “gospel” vs “gospel of Christ.”  Well, Riplinger has apparently returned to the issue of “hiding” things in the “new versions,” because she is complaining about the lack of “of Christ” — as if there is another gospel in the context of these passages.

f.  Gal. 5:15:  “Neither is circumcision anything” vs “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything.”  Something else “hidden” again.  The whole context of this section is about the change of things “in Christ.” Again, context is ignored so as to make the claim that “new versions” have hidden Christ’s name.

g.  Rom. 15:29:  “the blessing of Christ” vs “the blessing of the gospel of Christ.”  ARGH!!  So here we don’t have new versions hiding the deity of Christ, rather we are hiding that the gospel of Christ actually gives a blessing rather than just Christ giving the blessings.  Would not the blessings of Christ include His gospel?

h.  Eph. 1:13:  “in Him” vs “In whom ye also trusted.”  I’m not sure if the charge here is of hiding something or teaching belief/trusting/faith in oneself.  First, I must point out that in the KJV “trusted” is italicized, which means it is not in the original Greek but was put there by the translators.  So when Riplinger complains about what the Greek text says, she has to drop out this word for the KJV!  In the passage, the “missing” KJV phrase is redundant, because further in the passage it says the person believed in Christ!

i.  Eph. 1:11:  “also have obtained an inheritance” vs “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance.”  Actually, the context carries over from vs.10 and it becomes, “In Him also we have obtained.”  Either Riplinger doesn’t understand the context or she is being dishonest.  NIV actually says something different, but there is no need to address it because she didn’t address it.

There is nothing in these passages which support Ripliner’s claim that new version Bibles teach faith in oneself.


6.  “The Beast” vs “The Blood.  This chart (p.270) supposedly shows the theology of “the Beast” by verses which have left out references to “the Blood.”

a.  Col. 1:14:  “in whom we have redemption” vs “in whom we have redemption through his blood.”  I agree that this is missing “the blood.”  My only point would be that the entire context of the N.T. tells us how the redemption was purchased, so to leave “the blood” out of this passage does not weaken the doctrine.

b.  Rom. 3:25: faith” vs “faith in his blood.”  More deceit from Riplinger.  NIV is as KJV, while NAS says, “in His blood through faith.”  If she can’t get the first two of her “NIV, NASB, et al” right, I’m not wasting my time searching for the “guilty” version.

c.  Matt. 27:4:  “innocent blood” vs “the innocent blood” (“Jesus is the only one with innocent blood”).   Whether the passage includes “the” or not, the subject in the context is Jesus.  Additionally, the term “innocent” blood is used often of one who is punished while being innocent of the crime for which he was punished, and has nothing to do with the equivocation Riplinger made.  (see Deut. 19:10; 1 Kings 24:2-4; Prov. 6:16-19, e.g.)

d.  Rev. 1:5:  “freed us from our sins” vs. “washed us from our sins.”  Riplinger implies that in order for Jesus’ blood to be efficacious we must be washed in it.  However, the washing here is figurative, and in the “new versions” the “blood” is still there.  NIV:  “freed us from our sins by his blood.”   NAS: “released us from our sins by His blood.”  So the question is how one is “freed” or “released” from sins by the “blood”?  There is not literal “washing,” and the doctrine is still that sin is paid for by the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

e.  Luke 22:20:  “cup which is poured” vs “blood which is shed.”  In context, the “cup which is poured” out is the “new covenant in my blood.”  So whether the blood is “poured” or “shed,” the context is the same — the cup of wine represents the blood of Christ sacrificed for our sin.

d.  “Col. 1:24:  “which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” vs “the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.”  I don’t understand why Riplinger included this passage in this chart about “blood.”  In fact, I find reading this passage in KJV to be very difficult to understand:  “and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ” seems to me to be saying “what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” — “which is behind of afflictions” does not seem to be comprehensible.

Again, the charge by Riplinger that new versions eliminate the need for blood for forgiveness of sin has been proven  false.


7.  “New Age Avatar” vs “Suffering Saviour.”  Here we have a chart (p.271) which is claiming that passages just make Jesus out to be anybody rather than our savior.

a.  1 Cor. 11:24: This is my body which is for you” vs “This is my body which is broken for you.”  Previous to this, Paul said Christ broke the bread and then gave it to them.  So is the bread that which is “broken” in the KJV?  Christ’s body wasn’t broken at all!  However, there is a parallel here from the bread to Christ’s body, and although Christ’s body wasn’t literally broken, it was broken in a metaphorical sense, which I think is easily understood in the non-KJV versions.  It certainly doesn’t lead to one thinking of Christ as just an “avatar” as claimed by Riplinger.

b.  1 Pet. 3:18:  Christ also died” vs “Christ also hath once suffered.”  In the context, the passage explains what “suffered”in KJV means: “being put to death in the flesh.”  So, by context, they all say the same thing.

c.  Matt. 8:17:  “carried away our diseases” vs “bare our sicknesses.”  To “bare” is to “carry,” so that isn’t the problem.  Riplinger’s problem is “diseases” vs “sicknesses,” as if healing from “diseases” is new age and healing from “sicknesses” isn’t.  What’s interesting is that Matt. 8:17 is quoting Isaiah 53:4, and Isaiah says that he bore our “sorrows.”  I wonder what Riplinger would have to say about that?

d.  Eph. 1:14: to the redemption of God’s (own) possession” vs “the redemption of the purchased possession.”  I discovered that Ripliner’s “(own)” is to let us know that the NAS has the word italicized.  However, she missed the fact that the word “God’s” is also italicized!  She needs to be consistent.  She alerts us to the fact that there is no “purchased” in the “new versions,” but the context of the entire section tells us that, “In him we have redemption through his blood,” and “redemption” in this context is the same as “purchasing.”  So if the word “purchased” is missing, does this relegate Christ to a “New Age Avatar”?!?!

e.  Col. 2:14:  “nailed it to the cross” vs “nailing it to his cross.”  Since the whole context is about the cross Christ was crucified on, isn’t “his” implied?  Riplinger thinks by leaving out the word “his” Christ then is no longer a “suffering Savioiur.”  Of course this is inane.

This chart, like the others, has nothing to back Riplinger’s claim that new version Bibles promote an “avatar” instead of a Savior.


8.  “God in All” vs “God in Christians.”  (p.272)  Riplinger claims that new versions (NIV, NASB, et al) have language which leads to the belief that God is in everything - i.e., panentheism.  She gives but two examples:

a.  Eph. 4:6:  “God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” vs “One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all.”  Firstly, the citation from the “new versions” leaves off the “one” at the beginning; i.e., “one God and Father.”  Did Riplinger do this intentionally to imply that the “new versions” don’t teach one God?  Secondly, the Christian doesn’t have God the Father or God the Son in them; they instead have God the Holy Spirit in them.  So I’d say the KJV is in error here.   The “new versions” could just mean, since the letter is to Christians, that God is in “all people.”   I think the point is not that God is “in” everything, but that He is omnipresent; there is nowhere that God isn’t.

b.  Rev. 22:21:  “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.” vs. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” I see this as like the previous - the “all” has to be the people; simple context, which Riplinger doesn’t seem to understand.  Also, with this one she applies the charge to just the NASB, yet the chart both passages are in says “NIV, NASB, et al.

So here we have Riplinger fining two passages which she believes are promoting panentheism.  This is a gross overstatement.


9.  “Antichrist: King of Nations” vs “Christ: King of Saints”  (p.273) Riplinger found two verses which in the “NIV, NASB, et al.”  the word “saints” is replaced with “nations.”  Of course this means the new Bibles are promoting the antichrist.
a.  Rev. 15:3: King of the nations vs “King of the saints.”   Riplinger notes that different Greek texts vary here, and while the TR has “hagios” and translated as “holy” in other places, the other two texts have “aeon”  (“ages” — as with the NIV, contrary to Riplinger’s heading) or “ethos,” stated by Riplinger to be translated as “pagans” elsewhere in the Bible.  It seems to me that, in context, that “nations” would make more sense because Jesus is not just King of the believers.  The rest of the world may not recognize him as their king, but that doesn’t change the facts.  Even “King of the ages” makes more sense than just “king of the saints.”  KJVO’s actually limits Jesus’ kingship!

b.  Rev. 21:24:  “And the nations shall walk by its light” vs “and the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.”   If one actually looks at the context (as apparently Riplinger doesn’t), the only people in the nations are saved people.  So it becomes redundant to put Riplinger’s phrase in there.

As with the previous chart claims, there is nothing substantiating Riplinger’s charges.


10.  The chart on p. 274 has one verse from the Living Bible (a paraphrase) which shows “Universalism” vs “Christianity.”  The one passage is 1 Tim. 3:16:  “Christ. . .was accepted by men everywhere” vs “preached unto the Gentiles.”  Riplinger is again being dishonest.  The parallel to the KJV in the LB is, “preached among the nations.”  These say the very same thing!  The passage which is supposed to be showing universalism is paralleled by KJV’s “believed on in the world.”  Again, the phrases are synonymous!


11.  Buried in a chart full of rhetoric on p. 275 are two claims against the NAS under “Apostate Christianity.”  The first attack lists the word “proclaiming” vs many passages in the KJV which use the word “preaching” instead.  This is rank foolishness, since in this context the two words are synonymous.  I really have to ask how this is “apostate.”!
The second passage is Rom. 8:2, where the NAS says, “Jesus Christ has set you free” vs the KJV which says, “Jesus Christ hath set me free,” and then she says to “see Gal. 5:1.”  I don’t understand her reference to Galatians, since that passage in every version says, Christ has set/made “us” free.  The context in Romans is indeed “me,” since Paul is talking about himself, but the use of the plural “you” in the NAS would include Paul.  The meaning doesn’t change, so I’m at a loss to see how this is “apostate.”


12.  Riplinger has one more claim against other version Bibles in this chapter; while the KJV in many passages refers to “the way,” newer versions refer to “the Way” (“Way” being capitalized).  To “prove” the problem with this usage, Riplinger cites pagan religious systems which call their belief “the Way,” and cites New Age writers as using “the Way” to describe their various teachings.  Therefore, as Riplinger makes out, Bible versions using a capital letter are promoting the same thing as the Eastern and New Age religions.  However, the actual reason that the new versions use the upper case for “Way” is because of its association with God/Christ, just as they capitalize “the Word” when referring to Scripture.  It is a non sequitur logic fallacy to say that this is proof of New Age” teachings in new Bibles.


13.  So, let’s look at the charges Riplinger has made in Chapter 6.

a.  “A gospel” vs “The gospel,” with claims that “a” replaces “the” and changes the context.  Proven to be wrong about the claim.

b. A message” vs “The word,” the claim being that “message” isn’t precise as to the “Word” of God.  We saw in context that the two words were actually synonymous.

c. A God” vs “the God” again is synonymous in context.

d. A Son” vs “the Son” has the same claims refuted as the previous “a” vs “the” examples.

e.  “A Savior” vs “the Saviour”; like all the previous “a” vs “the” claims, was dismantled.

f.  “Antichrist” vs “Lord Jesus” claims the “keys to God’s kingdom” are hidden and we discovered that there is nothing hidden.

g.  “The Beast” vs “The Blood” supposedly has new versions dropping the mention of the blood of Jesus, yet this was proven to again be an invalid charge.

h.  “New Age Avatar” vs “Suffering Saviour” had absolutely no evidence to substantiate her claim.

i.  “God in All” vs “God in Christians” was another poor claim demonstrated to be false.

j.   “Antichrist: King of Nations” vs “Christ: King of Saints.”  Another weak claim dismantled.

k.  Claims of “Universalism” and “Apostate Christianity” were proven false.

l.  The foolishness of “the Way” being New Age was examined.

m.  Claims against “NIV, NASB, et al.” very often proven that only one Bible has the problem, and usually it’s an obscure version or a paraphrase.

n.  Dishonest handling of the texts used for comparison.

I’d say that, with only 16 chapters examined, Riplinger has continued to be shown as one who doesn’t understand context, who is paranoid about word meanings, who is, by all appearances, intentionally deceptive to make her charges look firm, as one who is not a credible author.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies


I’m going to start with some items I first read about on Erin Benziger’s blog over the past couple of weeks (yes, I know she’s a staunch Calvinist, but she has some good stuff nevertheless).  It’s good to get these alerts about false teachings in as many places as possible!

I haven’t liked Francis Chan since I first heard of him because he is one of those “touchy-feely” preachers.  Over the past year I have learned that he is supportive of Roman Catholicism, and he has not only endorsed IHOP’s false prophet Mike Bickle, but expresses how much he loves him.  Now Chan thinks God has asked him to write his new book.  My question is this: Since Chan promotes false teaching and false teachers, why would God choose him to write a book?

Jonathan Cahn, of “The Harbinger” fame, has a new book which “you can’t afford NOT to read.”  Charlatans like Cahn, with all the “secrets” they’ve discovered, get rich off the gullible — especially non-discerning Christians!

False prophet and teacher Paula White is fleecing the sheep again.  She says that “God has shown her that ‘this is a season of victory for His people.’ The Christian minister also reveals a strong feeling ‘that a seed of $229 in accordance with 1 Chronicles 22:9 is a breakthrough seed for the month of July,’ and declares to recipients of her newsletter, ‘Do not hesitate to follow a prophetic instruction!’”  And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you.  
Why aren’t White and her ilk afraid of God when they blaspheme Him like that?

Can someone please explain how this is proper stewardship of God’s money, and just how this glorifies God or advances His kingdom?

Interesting article about the cult of Mark Driscoll, and the meltdown of his “church.”

Good ol’ Ed Young; his sermons seem to be about as worldly and entertaining as any seeker “church” can get.

The depravity entering the church at large is reaching new heights.

Thanks to Erin for alerting us all to these false teachers so we can avoid them like a plague.

Roman Catholicism never ceases to amaze me with their unbiblical ideas.

Mormon Coffee had an interesting article showing a likely place where Joseph Smith found all the names he used in the Book of Mormon.

On top of that, MC had a great example of the lies Mormons tell on their tours. (I’ve taken tours in Nauvoo and encountered similar examples.)

When it comes to dealing with Mormons, Christians are too easily turned into pretzels because they can’t even defend their own beliefs.  I watched this video of someone role-playing a Mormon to unsuspecting Christians.  It was quite frustrating for me to listen to these students “go down in flames” trying to respond.  It is a good lesson about being prepared.

Andy Stanley thinks we should stop saying “the Bible says.”  His reasoning is totally illogical.  I think Stanley needs to find another job.

The Church of England continues its spiral to total apostasy; they have now approved the ordaining of women bishops.  I think Stan has a good commentary on the issue.  (Yes, I know Stan is also a die-hard Calvinist, but he also has some excellent articles.)

Too often I get asked if I have taken my beef about false teachers/prophets to the individuals I expose, and the persons asking me always cite Matthew 18.  I keep pointing out that Matthew is about someone who sins against you personally and not about exposing in public those who teach falsely in public.  The Lighthouse Trails Research blog had an excellent article on the topic.

Elizabeth Prata had an excellent article with a good point about how Joel Osteen rarely mentions the name of Jesus — false teachers don’t like to mention Christ.

The best approach to Osteen’s teachings has to be this one which shows the application of “Osteen-isms” to those who are poor.

Finally, something to think about with the world of liberal churches and church leaders — they are nothing more than goatherds with fields of goats.  Which is why they are multiplying.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Did They Really Say That?!?

God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist.  There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized the earth from it.  How long has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it.

Brigham Young, 14 May 1871, Journal of Discourses, 14:116


According to the Bible, nothing existed before God created everything from nothing:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Gen 1:1

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”  John 1:3

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”  Col. 1:16


“In the beginning” means that there was nothing before God created time.  Matter is something, which means it had to be created.  Mormons need for matter to be existent because they have to have an eternal regression of gods begetting gods.  However, Scripture is plain that there is only one God who is eternally existent, with no gods before or after him (Isa. 43:10).

Sunday, July 13, 2014

The Saviour


Thou God of all Grace, 

Thou hast given me a Saviour,
produce in me a faith to live by him, to make him all my desire,
all my hope, all my glory.

May I enter him as my refuge, build on him my foundation,
walk in him as my way, follow him as my guide,
conform to him as my example, 
receive his instructions as my prophet, 
rely on his intercession as my high priest, 
obey him as my king.

May I never be ashamed of him or his words, 
but joyfully bear his reproach,
never displease him by unholy or imprudent conduct,
never count it a glory if I take it patiently when buffeted for a fault,
never make the multitude my model,
never delay when thy Word invites me to advance.

May the dear Son preserve me from this present evil world,
so that its smiles never allure, nor its frowns terrify,
nor its vices defile, nor its errors delude me.

May I feel that I am a stranger and a pilgrim on earth,
declaring plainly that I seek a country, 
my title to it becoming daily more clear, 
my meetness for it more perfect,
my foretastes of it more abundant;
and whatsoever I do may it be done
in the Saviour’s name.


From The Valley of Vision, Puritan Prayers and Devotions, p.78-79

Friday, July 11, 2014

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

Well, boys and girls, it’s that time again for another collection of foolishness in the Church, as well as all other types of things brought into it by the master of ceremonies - Satan.

Let’s start with Hillsong Church, a bastion of the aberrant.  Did you know that Christians and Muslims serve the same God?  I think Mr. Houston needs to study up on Islam, because the god of Islam is a false god.

But, hey, false teachings abounding somewhere certainly won’t stop Rick Warren from being a guest at one of their conferences!  (OH, wait — that’s right, Warren also believes Islam worships the same God as do Christians.)  And, of course, you should notice that Mr. porno-vision Mark Driscoll will also be “blessing” them with his attendance.

Speaking of Mark Driscoll, his church just keeps getting more and more bizarre — now they have “demon trials”!

Elizabeth Prata has a great “one-stop shopping” post for her articles exposing Beth Moore as a false teacher.  If that isn’t enough to convince you, take a look at my reviews of some of her teachings: 
A bit about Believing God” DVD series.
More about Believing God” DVD series.
A review of “Breaking Free

I have been around many charismatics who are always “binding” Satan.  I try to not laugh at their deception, but I do ask them to show me from Scripture where that is found, and if they bind Satan, how come he keeps getting loose?  Clint Archer explains why you shouldn’t try to bind Satan.

Mormon Coffee has an interesting article about the so-called golden plates from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon.

Mormon Curtain also examines some claims about the Book of Mormon.

When it comes to pagan celebrations advertised as being “Christian,” I think the Wild Goose is as demonic as it gets.

Over the past few years I keep reading about how the Calvary Chapel movement (denomination?) continues imbibing the whole mystical element of worship which is invading the church.  It seems to be getting so bad that another church has left them.

Ever wonder about the origin of Roman Catholics praying to Mary?  I found the answer this week.

Finally, some more excellent articles from the Christian Research & Apologetics Ministry, some of which were posted on Facebook this week.
What do Christadelphians teach?

What does the International Church of Christ teach?

Is the International Church of Christ a cult? (yes)

The Queen James Bible, the Gay Bible