An Ohio “pastor,” Lawrence Bishop II, has decided that bull-riding inside his church [link gone by 7/14/18] will attract people. Yes, but attract them to what? Certainly not God.. He said, “What God has laid on our heart to do is to buck two wild rodeo bucking bulls inside the church sanctuary…,” He was obviously listening to a false god. This is obvious because his mother is also a pastor of their church. He has previously ridden a horse during their “worship” service. Remember, what you win them with is what you win them to, and since this “pastor” is not winning them with the Gospel, guess what they are won to! Another article pointed out that this “church” has a 52-foot statue of “Jesus” (an idol) facing the highway. Bishop abuses scripture to support his false teaching when he says, “The Bible said to compel them to come in, and so that’s what we’re doing.” The Bible NEVER says to compel people to come to the assembly, especially since the assembly is for Christians and NOT for unbelievers! The sad thing is that this goat-pen has been active for 40 years!
Speaking of abused Scripture, here are five verses people need to stop misusing.
Lots of attention has been given to the new survey about why young people are leaving the church. Hip and Thigh has a good response to the survey, and an excellent analysis of the problem.
The NAR is out to conquer all churches.
Answers in Genesis is still giving good reports on the TV series, “A.D. The Bible Continues.” Here are the review on episode six and episode seven.
Another Catholic cleric who needs to be excommunicated is this one who said that an apostle may have been “gay.”
The Church of Scotland took another big step towards total apostasy as they voted to allow “gay” ministers to be in “partnerships.”
For United Methodists, homosexuality doesn’t contradict Christian doctrine. For real Christians it certainly DOES contradict Christian doctrine!
Homosexuality is the big sin being promoted by so many churches today, and these churches doing so are nothing less than apostate. They are helping evil to cause the collapse of society as a whole.
Then we have the Church of England considering a ceremony to re-baptize “transgenders” in their new name reflecting what they consider their “new” gender. Someone needs to tell the Anglican Church, as well as everyone else, that one can’t change their gender no matter how much bodily mutilation and drug therapy they go through.
Well, these are the highlights of the past week’s news about the Church at large; there doesn’t seem to be day going by without reports of false teachings of other gospels and other christs. Be alert!
7 comments:
Hi Glenn,
Your opening cartoon hit the nail on the head. How sadly true. Contrary to popular belief, warning about danger in the church - ie: naming names, giving specific examples of false teaching, calling attention to normally faithful teachers who might be going astray, etc - isn't "negative"; it is an absolutely necessary part of ministry.
Rick Warren begging for more money and misusing Scripture to boot? To quote an old, wise king, there is nothing new under the sun. 2 Peter 2:1-3 is also fitting here. Yup, I love those "tithe-threats". They are so predictably disgusting. Where's a whip to overturn those money changers tables when you need one?
The NAR... I am actually very sorrowful that the AG has let those heretics in the door. While I am not pentecostal, I do love our brothers and sisters in pentecostal denom's (AG, COGIC, etc). I know they are off the mark in certain doctrinal areas, and I truly pray they clean up house. As for Marsha's article, the NAR's plan actually fits perfectly with Bible prophecy. Too bad they're going to be in lock step with the *false* church...
The 5 misused verses, so true. I love the Jer 29:11 meme. Also, the comment about "Compel them"... that's also been a misused verse for ages. At least the above mentioned clown is using rodeo entertainment and not the sword... (not that either is right, but you get my point). Anyhow, another bad one, Jesus is knocking at the door (Rev 3) is not an evangelistic plea (ie, knocking at the door of your heart, cue the altar call mood music), it's the Lord outside of an unfaithful church, calling them to repentance.
Oh yes, and finally, draw someone's blood, that will tell you if they're male or female... as it is written, God made them MALE AND FEMALE.
-Carolyn
Wow. What a round-up. I'll have to take some time to wade through it all. Peeked in on a few already. That Aussie band is no more than a musical Elmer Gantry.
Didn't Jesus say that you weren't to remarry, Matthew 19 for example.
Anonymous,
The command also allowed it if the divorce was for valid reasons, such as adultery.
you talk about 'valid reasons' such as adultery.Jesus doesn't. There is, in Matthew, only adultery, so to imply there are other reasons is anti scriptural.The Mark and Luke don't even allow it for adultery. I read elsewhere you support remarriage on grounds of sexual immorality and abandonment. The only reason Jesus gives in one gospel is adultery. Mark 10 and Luke 16 are as clear on divorce, adultery and remarriage is as clear as the texts that you quote on homosexuality. Strangely you seem to be very hard line on one, not so on the other! Indeed in the original article you called the very idea that a remarried divorcee is committing adultery 'total nonsense' hardly in keeping with these scriptures.
Chris,
This is essentially the same argument you gave on your email to me, and this is the last discussion of the subject I will entertain. I will post here what I told you in the e-mail:
Let's look first at Matthew 5:31-32. Jesus plainly states that "except for adultery" a person cannot divorce and if someone marries that divorced person then they are committing adultery. (the Greek meaning for adultery in "except for adultery" is actually porneia, from which we get the word "pornography," and refers to any sexual immorality. Some versions say "except for fornication").
This exception clause simply states that sexual immorality is a legitimate cause for divorce, and the parties may remarry.
But notice Jesus isn't addressing everything; he simply responds to a statement, "Anyone one divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce," and saying this is a saying people have heard. And notice it is directed in regards to the husband, not the wife. The importance of the certificate of divorce was to protect the woman, proving she was not being unfaithful to a husband because she no longer had a husband. BUT, Jesus is saying that regardless of the saying, the man should not divorce his wife unless she has been sexually unfaithful, and even then He didn't command it, rather He said it was okay. If a man gave his wife a divorce for other reasons, then it was not a legitimate divorce and she was really still married, so that anyone who married her would be actually committing divorce with her.
In Matthew 19 Jesus was responding to a different question. According to the many biblical scholars I have studied, there were two trains of teaching about divorce and remarriage. I can't remember which rabbi's teaching was being discussed (Gamaliel or Hillel), but one teaching was that a man could divorce his wife for "any cause" while the other side said it was for only divorce. Jesus was really responding in regards to those two teachings as to which was correct. He wasn't giving an overall dissertation on marriage and divorce. He simply agreed with the one teaching that marital unfaithfulness was valid instead of the "any cause" teaching.
The fact that neither Mark nor Luke include the exception doesn't negate it; how many places does the Bible have to tell you something for it to be true? Of course Roman Catholics bow to the pope and their interpretation that no divorce is ever allowed for any reason, but they also lie and make up "annulment" which is the same thing as divorce (unless the marriage hasn't been consummated, which is the only valid reason for annulment).
Paul states that he learned his teachings directly from Christ, so Paul's teachings are just as valid as the "red letters" in the Gospels. Paul permitted divorce for abandonment. Another consideration would be that the Jews considered abuse as an abandonment of marital vows - marital unfaithfulness. So if a woman was in an abusive marriage, she had valid claims for divorce.
A valid divorce permits a valid remarriage. A divorce separates the pair so that they are no longer married. Therefore, no adultery takes place if they remarry.
To Chris, Part 2 (stupid blogspot has severe limits on comment length!)
Now, back to the idea of serial adultery. Jesus never even hinted at such silliness, which was pretty much invented by people in the last couple centuries. If a couple divorce for invalid reasons, then when they marry again, that first sexual encounter is adultery because they were considered still married to their previous spouse. The O.T. teachings on divorce specifically state that if the man puts his wife away and she remarries, he can not take her back. So, if a woman remarries, that first time is adultery because it was an invalid divorce. NOW, however, she is legitimately married to her new spouse. Should she divorce him and incur another sin of divorce? No, because her previous marriage is dissolved and she is no longer committing adultery because she is married to the one she is having sex with.
This is not a topic I want to get involved in with long discussions. First, it isn't a salvation issue -- all sins are forgivable. Second, I just don't have the time because the arguments both sides present can be quite in depth. If you truly are interesting in the issue, I can recommend you purchase (or borrow from your church library if they have them) the following books, which I have thoroughly studied:
Divorce & Remarriage, by Guy Duty
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, by Jay E. Adams
Divorce, by John Murray
Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, by David Instone-Brewer (If you only read one book, make it this one)
What About Divorce? by Spiros Zodhiates
May I Divorce & Remarry, by Spiros Zodhiates.
Post a Comment