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
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Sunday, March 17, 2024

The Immortal Jew


The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in the twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?


Mark Twain, Concerning the Jews, Harper’s Magazine, 1899

Monday, March 11, 2024

Agglomeration

Some Protestant truth about Mary, Jesus’ Mother

John MacArthur Blasts The Gospel Coalition: “Woke,” “Useless Entity,” “Like Christianity Astray”


Are Christians To Be Giving Tithes? Absolutely not!


“He Gets Us Campaign,” The Chosen, and books promote/teach lots of false Jesus’s. Beware.


The Chosen and the goats who watch it. Blasphemy and heresy. More of how the series deceives. Additionally, they lie when they say it isn’t a ministry.


IHOP Kansas City was NEVER of or from God. It is a haven of false teachers and false teachings.


Worst church of 2024?  Be sure to go to the link provided on this site to see more information.


Steven Furtick continues to prove that he is a rank heretic, not a real Christian and a horrid narcissist. He can get downright stupid!


YES, T.D. Jakes is a false teacher—and false Christian.


The “generational curse” fraud.


THIS is what you get with a female “pastor.”


False prophet “Tony” is a dangerous NAR “prophet.”


Mike Todd and his Transformation Church are horrid, with false teachings by a narcissist who claims God talks to him.  And he has one of the weirdest teachings I’ve ever heard!


Panentheism: The Second of Many Reasons Why I Could Never Be Roman Catholic.


If you missed the first reason, purgatory, I had posted it on 8/8/23 but here’s the link again.


Catholics to join Muslims in prayer during Ramadan?!?


Gwen Shamblin and Remnant Fellowship—a virtual cult leader and cult.


Friday, March 8, 2024

Rebutting A Catholic's Claim

A friend passed this article to me and asked if I could rebut it, so here goes.

What If Protestants Are Right About the Eucharist?


Contrary to this so-called proof against Protestants, by the author of this article, there are some problems.


Here is a paragraph from the article:

In his letter, Ignatius warns the Smyrnaeans to “keep aloof from” the heretical Gnostics “because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7). Notice that Ignatius doesn’t feel the need to convince his readers of the truth of the Real Presence. For him, it’s enough to say that since the Gnostics reject the Real Presence, we should not even “speak of them either in private or in public.”


Ignatius, who lived in the early 2nd century and was traditionally identified as a disciple of the Apostle John, does NOT say the elements are the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ (“real presence”). The implication since the Last Supper is that the elements are representative of, symbolic of, the flesh and blood of Christ.  


The article’s author then brings in a 4th century Christian to justify the “Real Presence”:

This is the way that Christians approached the Eucharist throughout the first few centuries of the Church. It was not just that a theologian here or there taught the Real Presence, but that it was the Christian position on the topic. In a series of lessons given to catechumens about to enter the Church, St. Cyril of Jerusalem reminded them that “you have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lecture 22). Cyril is comfortable assuming that even those not yet baptized know enough about Christianity to realize that Christians believe in the Real Presence.


Even this can be doubtful that he mean literally bread and wine, just that while it tastes like bread and wine, they are to remember that they represent Christ’s flesh and blood.


Let’s remember Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, doesn’t even hint that the elements are actually, literally flesh and blood—he said he is passing on what he learned from Christ himself and describes the last supper. How much earlier can you get in Christian history?


Theophilus of Alexandria, in correcting what was commonly misunderstood about Christians, stated that it was “barbarous” to think they “eat human flesh.”(Theophilus to Autolycus, III.4)


Then there is Irenaeus, another 2nd century bishop.’

For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. (Philip Schaff, ANF, Vol. I, Irenæus, Fragments, XIII).


This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff's work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69 points out what was really happening in the early church:

The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.

(Cited by Jesse at Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Re-Sacrifice Of Christ?, which I highly recommend for reading)


If the Last Supper was in actuality a Mass, as claimed by Rome, then how could Jesus be sitting there with the elements at the same time saying the elements were his actual body and actual blood? Do you think the disciples understood Jesus to be speaking literally, since the Law prohibited the eating of blood? 


If the Last Supper was indeed a sacrifice of Christ, then we have an illogical situation of Christ sacrificing himself before he was sacrificed on the cross. Additionally, if each Mass is a sacrifice of Christ, then we have a direct contradiction of the Bible which says that Christ was sacrificed once for all time, and that this eliminated the need for continual sacrifices.


And if the human body of Christ is located in heaven at the Father’s right hand, how can it be at the same time in millions of places in Masses all over the world? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus was using the bread and wine figuratively so as to provide Christians with symbols to celebrate with as a memorial?


Was the current idea of the elements being the “Real Presence” being developed in the mid-to-late 4th century? 


Yes, but that goes against everything the early church taught about it.


Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Examining a Gothard Book, Part 2


This post examines Chapter 2: To Do Great Works! of Bill Gothard’s book, 7 Basic Needs of a Wife. 


What is a “ Great Work”?  A great work is a supernatural act that reveals the love and power of God. It can also be a natural work that brings glory to God. When a wife conceives in her womb and brings forth a child, she is doing a great work.


God is the one who initiated life, and He is the one who opens the womb, but it is the mother who cooperates with God and becomes the human instrument through which a great work is accomplished.

Pg.11 


There is nothing “great” about conceiving and giving birth to a child; it is just nature operating how God set it up. The mother has done no “work” in conceiving. Yes her body is doing lots of work when raising the embryo to full-grown birth, but it is not “cooperating” with God to do so.


There is no great God-honoring work to conceive and bear a child. After all, the vast majority of pregnancies/birth are to pagans! And what about out-of-wedlock children?


When a father delights in a newborn child, he gives honor to the great work his wife. If he does not delight in children, he denies his wife the fulfillment of this basic need.

pg.11 sidebar


It gives honor to the man’s wife if he delights in the child?! And if he doesn’t he is denying her fulfillment of a “basic need”? Where in Scripture does it say that a woman’s “basic need” is to have children. A desire is not a “need.” As to the “great work” of his wife, did she conceive the child by herself?


A Great Vision of Godly Generations


It is quite natural for a bride to think of the happiness that she will enjoy in her marriage. However, this violates her basic need to trust God alone for her expectations.

pg.12


WHAT?!??!  Thinking the happiness she will enjoy is violating her “need to trust God alone for her expectations”?!?!  How does that work? Can she not do both at the same time?


Her expectations for marriage must rise above her own happiness and encompass the happiness that she can give to God and to her husband by raising up the foundations of many Godly generations. Her husband must also share this vision.

Pg.12


Wait—she can give happiness to God? Her expectations for marriage have to “rise above her own happiness”? Can’t her expectations for marriage include the happiness of both her and her husband? And what if she cannot have children—does that make God unhappy?


The Reward for “Spiritual” Children


Many wives who cannot have children try to fill the void by adopting them. This brings new challenges, especially if the mother is adopting in order to fulfill her own emotional needs rather than meeting the mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual needs of her adopted children.


The Apostle Paul had no physical children; however, he had untold numbers of spiritual children, and his relationship with them brought great fulfillment. He says of these disciples, you are “my joy and crown” (Philippians 4:1).

pg.15


I know from other Gothard materials that he is totally against adoption; he has the ideology that children bring inherited sin, “generational sin” into the family. THAT is why he stresses that the woman is wanting to satisfy her own needs. 


For Paul and for us it is not enough to lead unbelievers to salvation. We also should train them up in the commands of Christ so that they will be spiritually strong and be able to disciple others. … The greatness of making “disciple makers” is seen in the potential of multiplication: if one wife would teach ten other women the forty-nine commands of Christ during a one-year period, and each of them would do the same thing, she would have 100,000 disciples in just five years! What a great work this would be!

Pg.16


So instead of adopting children, a wife unable to bear children should be teaching “forty-nine commands” of Christ in addition to the gospel. Gothard is focused on legalism—the 49 “commands” should be memorized well so as to pass them on! So, don’t adopt because you may have selfish reasons, just get out there and preach the Gospel with 49 commands!

Friday, March 1, 2024

Church of England Apostasy


The following article was in the November 2023 issue of Decision magazine:


According to a survey by The Times, many Church of England clergy no longer hold a Biblical view of sexuality.


More than half (53.4%) of the clergy agreed that priests should be permitted to conduct same-sex weddings. Slightly less than half (49%) said they’d be willing to officiate the ceremony of same-sex couples.


Out of the 1,185 active Anglican priests who responded to the survey, 62.6% believed the church should not oppose premarital sex. Slightly more than 1 in 3 (34.6%) thought the Church of England’s Biblical teaching on pre-marital sex should stay the same.


As for homosexuality, over half (64.5%) of the clergy said the Church should alter its teaching that homosexuality is “incompatible” with Scripture. Most priests (63.3%) also wanted to end the ban on gay priests, enabling them to have civil weddings.


“The Christian Gospel has always offered a radically distinct, challenging, and life-giving vision to society,” said Christian Concern CEO Andrea Williams. “Simply aping the current values of culture around us is the road to extinction for the Church of England.”


Around 6% of England’s total active clergy participated in the survey.



Why is it that sexual anarchy is so important that the Church wants to turn its back on God?


Of course the Anglican Church has dealt with this issue for at least a couple decades and I’ve many times linked to articles of how apostate they have become. When any Christian feels the need to have society’s approval regarding sexual morality, they’ve proven they don’t truly understand the faith.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Sexual Morality


Sexual morality isn’t normally a topic of apologetics ministries but it should be, because it’s an important teaching which is usually overlooked due to how the world looks at it.


For the Christian all sexual activity must be within the bounds and bonds of marriage, yet so very many of our young believers fall into sexual sin because the world says there is no such thing as sexual sin.


I have played my pipes for at least 50 weddings in the past 40 years (and attended at least 20 as a guest), both Christian and for unbelievers. The sad thing is that it is very obvious with both kinds that with many the couples have been living together or at least sexually active.


My wife came across a TV program while sitting doing hand work (sewing, crocheting or other craft) which shows most couples have no shame. The show is titled, Say Yes to the Dress, which is on TLC. (Free ROKU.) It’s about a place in Atlanta which has wedding dresses costing from low into the upper thousands of dollars. It’s so very apparent that most of the couples have been living together for some time and yet they want the fancy white dresses for big weddings. 


The idea of the white dress, as far as I was taught, was the purity of the bride when taking a husband. And yet on that show it doesn’t appear as if any of the women are “pure.” (Of course the husband to be should also be “pure” but his attire doesn’t have such a symbol.)


As noted above, I’ve played for lots of Christian weddings also and, sadly, many of them are obviously not virgin brides due to the devaluing of virginity even in Christian weddings.


This whole discussion was brought about by two things: the TV series and the following citation with which I will end this post.


[A] consequence of devaluing virginity has been the devaluing of marriage. Until the latter half of the twentieth century, one reason men married was that marriage provided the one socially acceptable way to have sex on a regular basis. It was not the only reason men got married—religion and society made marriage and family central values—but now that A) society does not promote marriage, B) religion is dying, and C) many men can get sex with no commitment, fewer Western (and Asian) men and women are marrying than ever before.


Dennis Prager, The Rational Bible, Deuteronomy: God, Blessings, and Curses, pg.350


Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Examining a Gothard Book, Part 1


One of my blog followers sent me a box of publications by Bill Gothard’s IBLP and other personal teachings quite a while back. So much has gone on in my life that I totally forgot about that box. Recently I came across the box and began looking at the material; oh what a lot to examine and expose!!!


I decided to start with something “easy”: Gothard’s book, 7 Basic Needs of a Wife. It’s an 80-slick-paged paperback. There are so many problems with this book that it would take another book to cover them all! Therefore I will only discuss the most problematic issues. I will be doing this one chapter at a time, so this post is about Chapter 1, “To Depend on God Alone!”


Pg.6:

Love novels and romantic movies are to girls what pornography is to boys. They create an imaginary picture of marriage that is not only unrealistic but also is unattainable.


Um, NO, romance novels and movies are not equivalent to pornography. While some novels and movies can be true-to-life, most are just fantasy and are only emotionally harmful if one indulges too many of them. Porn, on the other hand, is not at all realistic and the people in them are being used and sinning to great degrees.


On page 9 Gothard discusses “Three Levels of Love” and says that God defines the three levels; eros, phileo and agape. These are Greek words and were defined by the Greeks, not by God. Other languages have different words for the same meanings.


Gothard’s example of eros was David’s son Amnon towards his half-sister Tamar, which is fine. But for phileo he says love stops if the person we feel that way towards stops giving to us. So, if you don’t give things to people then you can’t feel phileo towards them? 


But his worst explanation is what he says about agape: Agape love is not possible as long as we have expectations of those whom we love. Agape love gives to the needs of others with no expectations of getting anything in return. God loved us when we were His enemies. (See Romans 5:10)” So a wife can’t have agape love towards her husband if she expects his love? What if she expects him to provide for her? Expectations don’t always have to be give and take,


Gothard then says the following:

 Ineffective Love: When a wife tries to love God and her husband, neither one gets agape love because her love is divided and it is phileo love, which expects to receive.

Correct Love: When a wife gives all her love and expectations to God, then He is able to love others through her with agape love, which expects nothing in return.


So a wife cannot love God and her husband? Find THAT in the Bible! So if she loves her husband along with loving God, then her love expects to receive something from God and her husband? So she has to give all her love to God and none to her husband? And unless she does so then God isn’t able to love others through her?!? Do people actually love God without expecting anything in return—not even salvation?


Gothard’s idea of love types is downright convoluted, especially when he think God is unable to do something.