Random Apostasies and Heresies

I will start this episode with a link to Aberrations in an Abusive Church.  This article describes examples of what can take plane in any church if spiritual abuse or unbiblical authoritarianism is taking place.  Some very good warning signs.

In my last “Random” post I mentioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promoting the acceptance of homosexual boys into the Boy Scouts.  Well, I found some more information about the subject - and it isn’t flattering for the LDS.  Along with the additional information, this article states that Mormons have already been catering to homosexuals.

I’ve also come across some other interesting things about the Mormon Church.  The first is a good article demonstrating that Mormons do indeed teach works salvation, no matter how much they claim otherwise. 

Then there is an article about Elizabeth Smart’s statement against the teaching of abstinence - except in context she was talking about the Mormon version which teaches that, if for some reason a woman is not a virgin before marriage, then she is pretty much worthless, even if it was due to rape.  This is a horrible teaching of which I wasn’t aware, since I study mostly Mormon doctrine.  BUT, does it really surprise me that this would come from a system in which men can have many wives? 

The last one isn’t so much about the LDS as it is about Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw and his compromising with the Mormons by lying about what they teach!  He has been playing footsie with Mormons for quite some time now and, frankly, I don’t understand it.  I guess this is what you can expect for the president of a very liberal seminary.

Another cult in the news is the Seventh-day Adventists.  They have long ago taught that Christ was going to return on a specific date, and when that didn’t happen they just claimed that the prophecy was misunderstood and in reality Christ just changed his location - he “entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary for the first time to begin a work of investigative judgment.”  The church wasn’t supposed to still be here, according to the SDA, and yet here we are.  They are somewhat embarrassed by this situation.

James MacDonald has totally lost my respect with his continued association with bad teachers - as well as copying their teachings.  A new conference is coming up at which he will speaking - “Act Like Men Conference.”  I find this title to be very humorous, since Mark Driscoll, one of the speakers, still behaves as a high school locker-room jock.

It isn’t just in the USA that apostasy is reigning, as anyone knows who has read this blog for any length of time.  Now the Church of Scotland has decided that the Jews never really had a promised land - that they have no more attachment to the land of Israel than does anyone else.  "Promises about the land of Israel were never intended to be taken literally, or as applying to a defined geographical territory."  I guess they read a different Bible.  Read this full article, and you will see just how anti-Semitic this Church is.

Billy Graham’s daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, has an unusual interpretation of the Transfiguration.  Well, I guess it really isn’t so unusual if you compare her with Beth Moore!

Can you believe that there are fake money scams claiming to be by some popular preachers?  The Christian Post has an article exposing the reactions to this fraud by the preachers who are being abused.  The link has been updated since it was first posted, so it is lacking the most important statement of the original:  “Perry Noble, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and others are warning about fake Facebook pages using their names and likenesses to run money scams. Please tell me that I don't need to point out the intense irony of this.”  I guess when you are known for scamming people out of money for your “ministry,” gullible goats who follow you probably won’t notice the fake version!

Lastly, an interesting short commentary about those supposed Christians who are joining the pro-homosexual movement.

Running to His Arms?!?

I’ve mentioned on several posts that many of today’s “worship and praise songs” are of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” type, which often sexualizes Christ.  In fact, at the International House of Prayer they teach what is known as the “bridal paradigm,” where not just the Church is Christ’s bride, but also the individual Christian!

Recently my wife and I attended a Christian wedding where one of these “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs was sung by the congregation (well, not all of us).  What is sad about this is that it was really out of place at the wedding.  While some of the lyrics could be said to have some good theology (however tritely and childishly put together), whatever theology is there is overshadowed by the “boyfriend” theology.

Take a look at the lyrics of “Forever Reign” from the wedding program for the service:

You are good, You are good,

When there’s nothing good in me.

You are love, You are love, 

On display for all to see.

You are light, You are light, 

When darkness closes in.

You are hope, You are hope, 

You have covered all my sin.

You are peace, You are peace, 

When my fear is crippling.

Your are true, You are true, 

Even in my wandering.

You are joy, You are joy, 

You’re the reason that I sing.

You are life, You are life, 

In You death has lost its sting.

Chorus

Oh I’m running to Your arms, 

I’m running to your arms.

The riches of Your love

Will always be enough.

Nothing compares to Your embrace,

Light of the world forever reign.

You are more,

You are more, 

Than my words will ever say.

You are Lord, You are Lord,

All creation will proclaim.

You are here, You are here,

In Your presence I’m made whole.

You are God, You are God, Of all else I’m letting go.

[Chorus]

My heart will sing,

No other Name,

Jesus, Jesus.

Pretty sappy, in my opinion.  But the idea of running to Jesus’ arms, with nothing comparing to His embrace is the perfect example of how songs make Jesus in to a boyfriend instead of Lord and Savior.  This is nothing but “feel-good” theology, which should be pushed out of the Church - and prevented from coming in.

Gimmicky Weddings

How does God look at the institution of marriage?  Well, I’d say, from reading Scripture, that He looks at it as a very serious relationship, a relationship so serious that he uses it as a picture of the relationship between Him and Israel, as well as between Christ and the Church.  For Christians, the latter should be more definitive.

Marriage is serious business, and God invented it in Genesis; the origin is explained in Genesis 2, and the results are stated in vs 23-24.  This passage is so fundamental that we find it again recited by Jesus, and then by Paul when he explains the analogy with Christ and the Church.  Marriage is seen to be inviolate - divorce can be only for specific reasons and even then is not required - let no man separate the couple.  We know that there are many duties and roles spelled out in the Bible for husbands and wives, for which they will be held responsible.

Without going into more details, I think we can agree that marriage is a serious institution, not to be taken lightly or frivolously.  So then, why do so many couples start their marriage with a wedding where seriousness is often thrown out the window in favor of some gimmick?

I have seen media reports on various places where weddings take place which, to me, denigrates the seriousness of the institution for which they are celebrating.  I’ve seen skydiving couples taking their vows in free-fall.   I read of one couple who decided to travel the world and have 30 different weddings in 30 different countries and for each individual wedding they had a gimmick.  A couple who flew in on jet packs.  People who marry through the Internet via twitter, etc.  Couples always looking for unique sites such as cliffs, peaks, stone outcroppings into the ocean.  A couple in costume at a Star Trek convention in a “Klingon Wedding Ceremony.”  In Las Vegas (where else?) you can get married in a “Wedding Wagon.”  I’ve read of underwater weddings where they wear formal attire under their scuba gear, and a couple who took their vows in weightless conditions in a huge NASA aircraft doing maneuvers for training astronauts.  I could go on and on with the unusual wedding locations, but I think you get the idea.

But not only do they have gimmicks for places, many couples use standard venues for the wedding, but they have gimmicks for their attire.  These range from things such as all guys wearing suspenders, everyone in the wedding party wearing one same item with a gimmicky insignia, cowboy boots for the entire wedding party, costume weddings where everyone wears clothing from a particular period of history.  In fact, costume weddings seem to be quite an affair, with various movies celebrated, people dressing as zombies, cartoon characters, etc.  You name it and I’ve seen it in some media outlet.

Now, I’m not referring things such as a ceremony where everyone wears clothing traditional for their culture (such as weddings where everyone is wearing Scottish attire or attire from a particular African nation).  I’m referring to clothing that is just to have a gimmick.  Even receptions can have gimmicky themes.

While some of these ideas I have only read about or seen in a news report, others I have personally witnessed, whether at weddings I have attended or the almost 40 weddings at which I’ve played my pipes.

Whenever I see a gimmicky wedding, it tells me that the couple does not really consider the gravity of what the wedding ceremony is representing - a relationship like no other.  And if you stay for a reception to see how the couple feeds each other the traditional first pieces of cake, you can get a good idea of how the marriage is going to be when you see either one of them smash the cake in the face their new spouse - and I’ve seen it done viciously!

We really shouldn’t be surprised when we see these things at the weddings of unbelievers, but Christians do the same things at THEIR weddings!  I know because I have seen many gimmicky weddings and I just don’t understand why Christians drop to such worldly levels.  And when I see the new husband smash cake all over his new wife’s face, all I can think of is the abuse which will most likely follow in their marriage.

Christians, we need to have weddings that reflect the seriousness of the institution of marriage.  While the world around us is perverting marriage into something against God, and using it for political agendas, Christians should be entering marriage with reverence, knowing that the ceremony is the beginning of an institution which reflects our relationship with Christ.

Random Apostasies and Heresies

There appears to be another relatively new book out there, about which I haven’t heard.  Ali, over at A Watchman on the Wall, has some interesting thoughts about “Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul,” by John and Stasi Eldredge, as well as a few other dangerous books.  These supposed “Christian” self-help books are spiritually dangerous and yet sell by the thousands to gullible, non-discerning Christians.

More bad teaching from Tim Keller: a booklet titled, “The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness.”  The review posted at The Reformed Traveler’s Research exposes the book as nothing but unbiblical psychobabble drivel.  Don’t waste your time with it.

Steven Furtick’s Elevation Church has received approval for expansion.  This large mega-facility already promotes more false teaching than meat from the Bible.  Just what the Christian faith needs - a larger goat pen.

I often expose teachers who claim God speaks personally to them, and one the main ones (besides Word of Faith heretics) I get chastised for exposing is Beth Moore.  Moore’s false claims as to direct revelation from God is the same thing which way too many teachers are doing nowadays.  This is dangerous for those who listen to them, thinking they are getting better teachings because the teachings come from God!  Elizabeth Prata examines this issue.

The Mormon Church sometimes really gets me shaking my head.  For all their conservatism, and claims to be Christian, they have no problem with the Boy Scouts ending a ban against openly homosexual members.  I guess it should really not be surprising, since that cult has historically been wrapped around sexual immorality.

Speaking of the Mormon Church, I find it interesting how they have to revise history to make it appear Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife, was in a great relationship with her husband and even approved of polygamy.  Rather than confess that she left the church over such nonsense, and refused to go to Utah with Brigham Young, the LDS church makes it appear she remained in Illinois for family reasons.  For those interested in Mormonism, I recommend the article at Mormonism Research Ministry’s blog.

One last thing about the Mormon Church: There is an excellent graphic at Mormon Infographics demonstrating some of the conflicting accounts of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” - the vision which is supposedly the foundation of the LDS faith.  I recently discovered this site, and find it to be an excellent resource on the Mormon Church.

An interesting, and thought-provoking article, examines a socially acceptable sin - gluttony.

Todd Bentley gets more and more extreme with his claims; people are coming to life from the dead!  Erin shows Bentley’s latest “tweet,” as well as an old video showing he has long been claiming this.  This man is not of Christ - beware of listening to his lies.

Of course Benny Hinn has been making “raising the dead” claims long before Bentley came on the scene.  Now Benny is begging for people to help him get out of debt.  My question is this: If, as Hinn claims, people send money to his ministry and they will be paid back by God in greater amounts, then why doesn’t Hinn just give all his money away so God can give him enough money to pay his debts?  This is just an example of the lies Hinn tells so as to enrich himself at the expense of those who, sadly, follow him.  He is nothing but a tool of Satan.

Another book review worth following is on Elizabeth Prata’s blog.  A new book by Jen Hatmaker is “7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess,” and it appears to be another money-maker for book stores who could care less about the spiritual danger to those who purchase it.  Elizabeth has two parts of this review posted so far.

"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter Eight

Riplinger is too dogmatic in this chapter, about her interpretation of Revelation being the correct one.  As demonstrated above, Henry Morris has a more literal interpretation and he is also a KJV advocate.  However, the premise of this book is problems with the Bible, and not a forum for this anti-Catholic diatribe which continues page after page.  The chapter begins on page 133 and yet doesn’t address “New Age Bible Versions” until page 141, and even then she begins with a tirade about new versions reflecting Roman Catholicism because they are using the same underlying text!

1.  P. 143 chart, with “NEW VERSIONS” one one side and “KJV” on the other.

a.  Rev. 2:15.  KJV says, “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”  The new versions do not have the phrase, “which thing I hate,” but since the context is what is being spoken against, I think the implication is there.  Now, the interesting thing is how Riplinger interprets this.  “Nico means ‘to conquer; Webster defines laity as ‘the people, as distinguished from the clergy; those not of a certain profession.’ Jesus hates the doctrine which replaces the New Testament priesthood of all believers with a class of clergy or professional scholars who attempt to conquer the common people with credentials.”  Of course she is directing this comment towards Roman Catholicism, but I don’t think the issue as she claims as a meaning for “Nicolaitans” was a problem at the time Revelation was written.  Etymologically speaking, the term could mean “conquerors of lay people”, but the Nicolaitans were a heretical group in the early church, and mentioned by several early church fathers, whose originator was Nicolas - and it is from him they derived their name.  They supposedly has some teachings which also included sexual immorality.

b.  Luke 11:38.  “New Versions” say “ceremonially washed” while KJV just says “washed.”  This, to Riplinger, is forcing Roman Catholic ceremonialism into the text.

First, while she shotguns all “new versions” as having added “ceremonially,” I looked at several other English translations and only the NAS, HCSB, and NLT have any suggestion or the washing being ceremonial, so she should be a bit more honest about her claims.

Secondly,  Matthew Henry’s commentary on this verse addresses it as ceremonial washing, so the idea is not of Catholic origin in the new versions.

Lastly, CONTEXT would be ceremonial washing.

c.  Luke 21:5.  KJV says “gifts” while new versions say “votive gifts.”  I did not look at any but the NIV and NAS and only the NAS says “votive gifts.”  I am going to assume Riplinger’s shotgun here is no better than in the previous verse.

“Votive” gifts are given as a vow or pledge.  The context could be either way.  It doesn’t alter anything.  The use of this term by Catholics does not disallow its use elsewhere.

d.  Col. 3:11.  Let’s start a bit farther back for context, starting at verse 9.

KJV:  “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: But Christ is all, and in all.”

NAS:  “Do not lie to one another, since yo laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him - a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.”

The NIV reads as KJV, so Riplinger’s complaint is only against the NAS - and possibly others like it.  The complaint is that “a renewal” is not in the original, as if deception is being had.  The fact that the NAS italicizes it shows that it isn’t in the original, so no deception is had.  But I really don’t understand the complaint; all the NAS is doing is clarifying what the renewal is, continuing the sense from vs.10.  In some way, Riplinger thinks this is bringing in Catholic theology.

e.  Col. 2:16.  KJV uses the word “holyday” while others use “festival” or “religious festival.”  Since these festivals were at least day-long, and done for religious reasons, are not the terms synonymous? This appears to be a complaint over verbiage with similar meanings, which have no hint of Catholicism.

f.  1 Pet. 1:18.  KJV uses the word “tradition,” while that word is not found in the new versions; Riplinger claims that they “OMIT” the word.  However, while the word “tradition” may not be in the new versions, the understanding certainly is.  NAS says, “way of life inherited from your forefathers,” while NIV says, “way of life handed down to you from your forefathers.”  Don’t they both say the same thing as “tradition?”  If Riplinger is so worried about Roman Catholicism being fostered, then she should blame the KJV because Rome is always talking about “tradition”!!

g.  Acts. 12:15.  KJV says “angel” while “new versions” say “guardian angel.”  I could not find this change in NAS, ESV, NIV, REB, CEV, GWN, TEV, NLT, HCSB, NET, Jewish NT, New Berkeley or NAB (which is a Catholic version!)  I found this change in two little used versions: Ronald Knox’s New Testament and Richard Weymouth’s New Testament, and yet Riplinger painted the broad brush of “NEW VERSIONS”!!!  She must have searched quite a while to find what she was looking for, but the idea of a “guardian angel” was not new to Roman Catholicism - it was a teaching of the Jews at the time of the N.T., and was most likely what was intended to be conveyed in Acts.

h.  1 Cor. 11:16.  KJV says “We have no such custom,” while “new versions” say “we have no other practice.”   I haven’t figured out this complaint.  It certainly gives not succor to the New Agers or Catholics.

At the end of this chart Riplinger says, “Hundreds and hundreds of other examples or Roman Catholic theology in the new versions could be cited and are explored thoroughly in other books.”  Since Riplinger has not demonstrated her claim here, I sincerely doubt if “other books” can do it either.

2.  p.144  chart:

a.  Matt. 16:18.  KJV says, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock...” while the NEB says, “You are Peter, the Rock.”  What Riplinger doesn’t show is that the NEB continues with, “and on this rock...”  The REB puts in the meaning of Peter, which does not thereby make it reflecting Romanism.  I understand this could be abused by those Romanists making Peter the “Rock” on which Jesus built the church, but they do that already with the KJV!

I found it interesting that it was not translated this way in the Catholic NAB!  The only other Bibles where I found it among my collection were the Charles Williams’ translation and the 20^th Century N.T., neither of which do I think were big sellers, although I may be wrong about that.

b.  John 1:42

KJV:  “called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”

“NEW VERSIONS”: “Cephas (which translated means Peter)”

Amplified says, “Cephas, which translated is Peter - meaning Stone.”  I think the point is that Cephas means Peter, which means a stone.  Whether a translation gives that meaning in this passage is irrelevant to the context, since no wordplay is made.  Cephas does indeed translate to Peter, and Matt. 16:18 demonstrates that fact without using the word “stone,” and yet Riplinger has no problem with it.  In Matthew the wordplay is based on already knowing the meaning of Peter.  I’m not sure what Riplinger thinks the conspiracy is here.

c.  Mark 16:20

KJV:  “not in Greek” - that is, Riplinger says it is not the the Greek of the TR.

 “NEW VERSIONS”: “And the promptly reported all these instructions to Peter...Jesus himself sent out through them from east to west.”

The only version I found with this is the NAS, and it is printed in italics, with a footnote saying that a few later manuscripts have this passage.  The interesting thing here is that all early manuscripts do not have the entire section from vs. 9-20.  Most new versions have the same as KJV, with a note to the effect of the lack of support for 9-20.   Of course Riplinger believes older manuscripts are corrupt.  The important question becomes, what difference does it make here? What possible advantage does this give to New Age or Roman Catholic teachings?  How does this support Riplinger’s claim?

3.  P.145 charts.

a.  James 5:16.  KJV “Sins” or “NEW VERSIONS” “faults.”  Are they not synonymous in context?

(These next ones supposedly show the new versions with “The Sacrament of Holy Orders”)

b.  Rom. 15:16:  KJV says, “ministering the gospel of God that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,” while new versions say, “ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable.”  Well, the context is that Paul is acting a priest and the Gentiles are his offering.  Whether you read the KJV or others, the context is the same!  Riplinger is paranoid over the use of the word, “priest.”

c.  Luke 1:23.  KJV says, “ministration,” while new version say, “priestly service.”  Again, the word “priest” is used in context, and saying the same thing as KJV.  Riplinger is paranoid.  (I wonder what she does with 1 Peter 2:9?)

d.  Matt. 23:5.  KJV says, “enlarge the borders of their garments,” while new versions say, “lengthen the tassels of their garments.”  Just what does Riplinger think is on the “borders of their garments?  KJV is not as descriptive as NIV and NAS!

4.  P.146 chart.

a.  Matt. 23:14.  The charge is that this passage is not found in new versions.  NAS/NIV and Amp all have it in the text or footnoted.  But even so, where does this aid New Age or Romanism?  What doctrine is changed?

(The following supposedly promotes Romanism, suggesting “The Sacrament of Holy Eucharist”)

b.  Matt. 12:4, Mark 2:26, Luke 6:4.  KJV says “shewbread” while new versions say, “consecrated bread.”  As an offering to God, is not shewbread consecrated?  This is more fear of using a word used by Catholics.

c.  John 6:33.  KJV “the bread of God is he which cometh,” vs new versions, “is that which comes.”  NIV reads the same as KJV.  NAS footnotes it as “Or He who comes,” but , either way, v.35 makes the context of v.33 very clear!  (I think part of the problem is the modern usage of “that” for a person, which I see on a daily basis in books, newspapers, etc.)

d.  Heb. 10:12.  

KJV: “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

“NEW VERSIONS”: “offered one sacrifice for sins and took his seat forever at the right had of God.”  

I found this only in the Catholic NAB.  NAS and NIV say “for all time,” which is the same as “forever.”  If her complaint is that new versions support Catholicism, and her example is a Catholic version, she really isn’t making sense with attacking others for what the Catholic version does!

e.  Acts 2:13.  KJV says, “new wine,” (and Riplinger parenthetically says “unfermented grape juice”) while the others say, “sweet wine.”  Sorry, but the context says the same thing.

5.  Summation:  This chapter is mostly anti-Catholic paranoia.  Most complaints are about writing style and choice of synonymous verbiage.  There is also the continued emphasis on one interpretation of Revelation, which has nothing to do with the premise of the book.  In most examples the NIV reads the same as KJV, and in many the NAS is very close.  Rather than attack all “new versions,”  and make NIV/NAS guilty by association, the book should address the Catholic translations as a separate issue.  The ironic thing is that two of three significant problems were not changed in the Catholic NAB, and the whole chapter is addressed against Catholics!  Once again, this chapter does not support Riplinger’s claims against modern Bible versions.

Random Apostasies and Heresies

Sola Sisters have an excellent post demonstrating the difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.  You’ll see some great charts with the comparisons.

Assemblies of God has always been aberrational with their charismatic beliefs, including aberrant spiritual warfare teachings, but they still tend to hold to the fundamental doctrines of the Faith.  Now it seems that they are jumping onto the contemplative bandwagon for this year’s General Council Conference as they invite false teacher Ruth Haley Barton to teach there.

Emergent false teacher Tony Jones has a new book out, spreading more of his apostate beliefs.  Lighthouse Trails Research posted a book review of The New Christians.  Just another mine to look out for in the Christian minefields bookstores.  And of course Christianity Astray Today has endorsed it.

Herescope posted a thought-provoking article, Circling the Wagons.  Here’s a hint of what you will find there:

Where in the New Testament did the church attempt to gain pagan popularity in order to evangelize? Roman emperors and provincial authorities openly had legal homosexual marriage partners. But Paul and his churches didn't give them the time of day. They zealously protected their so-called product line, the Gospel message. No cheap pagan knock-offs. They actually believed the so-called 'product' of the Gospel would sell itself if faithfully preached and lived. I (Paul) planted, Apollos watered but God gives the increase. (1 Cor. 3:6). Just a reliable, unashamed intelligent presentation of the Gospel, because it (the Gospel) is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:17)

Rachel Evans again demonstrates that she has no clue about what the Bible teaches.  Tim Keller (who usually gets things right, even if he does have some false teachings) discussed the fact that an obstacle to revival is fornication, and that the idea of giving up illicit sex for the Gospel is an affront to many people.  Evans didn’t like that, and made this response:

I’m often asked to speak on the topic of why young people leave the church. This. This is why young people leave the church. Because our questions aren’t taken seriously, because our value tends to be linked inextricably to our virginity, because our ideas are dismissed as silly.

Hunter Baker gives an excellent response.

Willow Creek was one of the original market-driven assemblies, and while they are now a large association of assemblies, they are still focused on the wrong things.  One of their assemblies is now searching for a “Spiritual Formation Pastor.”  

This position is for a strong leader/developer who can create paths for new believers to move toward a FULL LIFE in Jesus Christ. This includes a restructuring/expansion of ALL things “discipleship.”  

Ah yes, let’s dive headlong in to all things mystical and apostate; there just isn’t a “FULL LIFE in Jesus Christ” without Romanist or Quaker mysticism or contemplative prayer - and don’t forget the labyrinth!

Caryl Matrisciana has a good response to a question regarding the New Apostolic Reformation movement.

One of the things Christ said about false teachers was that you can know them by their fruit.  Word of Faith “prophetess” Juanita Bynum has been jailed due to here love of money - among other things.

False teacher Chuck Currie wants to join with all sorts of pagan religions so as to pray for Boston - and for American Muslims!  The logo is about as anti-Christ as you can get.

Last week I reported on false teacher Paula White’s son coming to her defense against a rapper for his ditty about false teachers.  Well, the rapper, Shai Linne, gave an excellent response exposing White’s false teachings.

Another false teacher among the Word of Faith cult is Peter Popoff.  Now he is selling “miracle water” with all sorts of bogus claims.  I find it really difficult to understand how people can be so very gullible.

Finally, I have over the past six years of blogging been accused of being unloving for exposing false teachers.  The Cripplegate has an excellent article refuting such an idea.