We Need Spiritual Leadership

Until self-effacing men return again to spiritual leadership, we may expect a progressive deterioration in the quality of popular Christianity year after year till we reach the point where the grieved Holy Spirit withdraws—like the Shekinah from the temple.  

A.W. Tozer.  Cited by Leonard Ravenhill,  Why Revival Tarries, pg.76

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

My, oh my, oh my.  Keeping up with the collapse of the Church at large is a never-ending task.  There are so many good sites doing the same thing I’m doing, with periodic collections of news items, that you’d think we could catch most of it to warn the sheep about, but with so much false teachings out there it really is an impossible task.  Here are examples of some sites I recommend for keeping up with the latest (some of the articles I point to will often come from these sites):

Do Not Be Surprised, has weekly “This ’n’ That” roundups.

Asleep No More has “Random Bits”

Eternity Matters has taken sort of a hiatus from his “Roundup” as he’s been concentrating on examining all the abortion news as well as exposing the “Christian Left.”  Just the continual update on the latter should open your eyes to those who are bent on destroying the true Church.

Living4HisGlory has “Warning You With Tears Wednesday.”

There are more of these types of sites, but don’t be shy about visiting these for starters.

Okay, now for the news!

Along the false gospel vein, is a followup on the Mike Adams’ article I posted about last week as he now examines “The Counterfeit Christian.”

Last week I also told you about an upcoming Beth Moore Simulcast; here’s a good examination of what it will most likely be teaching — and you can see just how dangerous this woman is as a teacher!

Fred continues his review of “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?”

Last week I told you about the false prophet who invaded John MacArthur’s church; now here’s an update on this guy showing just how bad of a false prophet he really is!

A history lesson about the Cane Ridge Revival, which so many Christians hold up as a great event spreading the gospel — sounds like much of it was nothing but the same emotionalism found in today’s false revivals.

Another look at history is Elizabeth’s article about a Baptist publication list from 1870 when compared to Lifeway’s 2015 best-seller list.  The 2015 list just demonstrates that Lifeway is more about making money than protecting the flock from spiritual danger.

Lastly, some humorous truth about the teaching of Joel Osteen and what his “sermon prep” information must look like.

The Apostatizing of James MacDonald

I’ve never been one for listening to the radio, mostly because we often only get it in the car.  Now, when I had long drives to work I did enjoy listening to classical music, folk music, and Christian radio with teaching programs.  My wife has always done more radio because she will listen while doing various chores, such as sewing and other craft work, ironing, etc, and even while driving.  A few years back she discovered James MacDonald and thought he was an excellent teacher.  I listened to some and found him to be pretty much spot on.  Then as time went by some of his stuff became more and more questionable, and before long I started reading all sorts of stuff about him through the Christian apologetics world.  How disappointing it has been to see a good teacher decide to follow and support every popular teacher out there, regardless of that popular teacher’s teaching!  

I have previously alerted my readers to the following problems with Mr. MacDonald:

He claimed that if his congregants were experiencing financial difficulties, it was because they were not obedient with tithing (never mind that tithing is not for the Christian).  Isn’t this like the claims of the Word of Faith heresy?

Participated in the Code Orange Revival in 2012. This “revival” included a bevy of false teachers that no one with discernment should have joined with!  This article also points out other problems with MacDonald, including his endorsing false teachers like Beth Moore!

Then there was the Elephant Room 2, where MacDonald defended T.D. Jakes’ Word of Faith and anti-Trinitarian teachings, and thought he was an excellent teacher!  Many sites exposed this situation, the Cripplegate being one of them, which had an excellent report of other issues with MacDonald.

MacDonald helped heretic T.D. Jakes celebrate 35 years of heretical ministry.  He did this along with many other false teachers and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey.  Does he really thing God approved of this promotion of heresy?

MacDonald demonstrated his immaturity and need to be relevant by getting a tattoo, as well as buddying up with another “pastor” like himself, Mark Driscoll.  (The comment string in the linked article is also quite enlightening as to MacDonald’s ideology.)

Well, all these things are just tips of the many icebergs at Harvest Bible Chapel under the leadership of James MacDonald.  Some solid reporting from someone who attended HBC for many years can be found at Mary Dalke’s blog.  Her examinations are thorough, and should demonstrate conclusively why James MacDonald should not be trusted to teach the Word of God.  (And you’ll get to read about many of the false teachers promoted by MacDonald in some way or another!)

Put YOURSELF in the Bible?!?!

Just when you think you’ve seen it all, along comes a new Bible “application” by a Chicago pastor goatherd pandering to the self-focused Christian.  This “app” puts YOUR name in the text so the Bible talks directly to YOU.  It gives YOU the promises found in Scripture (whether or not they were meant for the original recipient and no one else).  In this way you can abuse Scripture as much as you like and feel good about yourself!

“While the Bible contains thousands of wonderful promises to be trusted, believed and appropriated in the life of the reader, when these promises are read, they often sound generalized and distant," said [Gregory] Ijiwola. [Pastor of The City Light Church]
Um, did it ever occur to him that perhaps the promises were ONLY for the individual receiving it?  Or, perhaps they ARE “generalized,” which does not mean “distant.”  If they sound “distant,” perhaps the problem is with the reader, which isn’t fixed by making him feel good about what he doesn’t understand to start with!

I have to agree with this guy:

The Rev. Dr. Christopher J. Benek, an expert on Christianity and technology, told CP that he saw "several significant concerns" with the App including questions of biblical context.

"To ignore that context by simply inserting one's own name, and thus one's own cultural context into the text, ignores the purpose for which the text was originally written," said Rev. Benek.  "When we make the Bible all about us as individuals, we miss the focus of the larger relational narrative which tells of God's grace and love being extended to all of humanity. It likewise further sidesteps the reality that it is the work of Christian community, in Christ not just individuals, to work towards mutual accountability and justice."

The “pastor,” of The City Light Church really doesn’t surprise me with what he’s come up with, especially when you look at his assembly’s web site.  The “pastor” claims he was given “a vision” from God for him and his wife, Debo, (who also is a “lead pastor” in contradiction to what the Bible says about women not being in authority over a man in the assembly) “to go out to raise an army of people (lights) within the nation.”  Really? God chose him over all the other pastors in the world to raise such an army?

Oh, and that vision includes “reaching into the social contexts of the community.”  AH, is this the social gospel?  I’m sorry, but I can’t find that in the Bible.  How else do you reach a “social context” with the Bible?  And are we supposed to?  Isn’t the Bible for ANY “social context” as it is?  I’m so confused.

“We are a church of IRRESISTIBLE INFLUENCE for good in our city, eliminating the works of the enemy where they have ruled.”  Really?  Their influence is “irresistible” in the Chicago area? Then how come the crime in that town is so bad?

“We are TAKING OVER our individual spheres of influence through our kingdom purpose.”  Did God really give them “individual spheres of influence”?  How come God didn’t do that for any other assembly?  And what proof do they have that they are “taking over” anything?

“We are SPIRIT-FILLED and walking in the SUPERNATURAL-SIGNS and wonders in our world.”  All Christians should be filled with the Spirit, but he means they are charismatic, making them more spiritual than us lowly non-charismatics.  What supernatural signs and wonders do they have, and what is the proof of them?  I don’t see the Bible telling us that we have signs and wonders to give the world.

“Ultimately we light up every neighborhood with the practical manifestation of God’s love and power and harvest many into the Kingdom.”  What hubris!

“It is the dream of the WORLD IMPACT CENTER which is several acres of land on which will be built the worship facility of the church seating thousands, a bible institute with classrooms, hostels and lecture theaters for students from different parts of the world, a world missionary mobilization tower, a publishing center, a recreational and prayer resort center with rooms for people who come from different parts of the world to rest and seek God in prayer.”  AH, HA - the dream of a market-driven mega-church pastor!

“We believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers and the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.”  Totally unbiblical, of course, since no where in Scripture does it say speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit, and ALL Christians are baptized and in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

“We believe in bringing tithes…”  Unbiblical — Christians do not tithe!!! 

“Pastor” Gregory (Lan) “is just about completing his Ph.D in Organizational Leadership at the Chicago School of  Professional Psychology.”  Right there should tell you something about this man’s ideology.  How many times do I have to prove that the psychology field is anti-Christian!!!

So, here’s the bottom line: Mr. Ijiwola says he got a vision from God for his ministry and yet he contradicts what God says in the Bible

1.  Abuses Scripture to assist self-focussed Christians.
2.  Woman lead pastor.
3.  Claims they are reaching “social contexts” when there are no “social contexts” for the Gospel.
4.  Claims “irresistible” influence over a city to eliminate “the enemy” while the enemy is strong as ever.
5.  They have “spheres of influence” they are taking over for “kingdom purpose” (Kingdom Now theology?)
6.  Claims of supernatural signs and wonders which the Bible doesn’t give.
7.  Claim they “light up every neighborhood” manifesting God’s love, yet have no evidence.
8.  Seeking to build a market-driven mega-church appealing to the flesh.
9.  Claim that the speaking in tongues is evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, contrary to what the Bible teaches.
10.  Preach the practice of tithing, which is not a biblical principle for Christians
11. Accepts training in the secular anti-Christian discipline of psychology.

So if Mr. Ijiwola got a vision from God, how come he teaches in opposition to God’s Word?

Gregory Ijiwola is just another charismatic, teaching false signs and wonders while promoting the market-driven ideology to make himself a mega-church leader who appeals to the flesh.  His Bible “app” fits right in with his philosophy.

But It's Becoming Normal

A religion of mere emotion and sensationalism is the most terrible of all curses that can come upon any people.  The absence of reality is sad enough, but the aggravation of pretense is a deadly sin.   

Samuel Chadwick.  Cited by Leonard Ravenhill,  Why Revival Tarries, pg.28

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

Conservative commentator Mike Adams has a good article about “Three Kinds of Christians.”  I’m looking forward to the “to be continued…”

Arch heretic Rob Bell just completed his “Everything Is Spiritual Tour.”  This guy is a dangerous wolf pretending to be Christian, and yet he continues to sucker believers into believing his tripe.

R.C. Sproul’s ministry has an interesting graphic demonstrating the state of the Church insofar as theological beliefs of the average Christian.  Granted, 3000 people is a small survey sample, but in my personal contacts with many, many Christians I tend to find the same things.  Sigh.

Paul Young is back.  You know, that heretic who wrote that horrid book, “The Shack.”  Now he has a new book coming out, “Eve.”  As Elizabeth Prata says, “The heresy continues.”  I was pointed to another blog article covering Young’s new book as well as his old book, and his teachings in general — and if you have no idea who Young is, then I recommend this article as a good primer!

If you use “Bible Gateway” for quick reference, etc, be very wary of the advertisements which may show up.  I received an email this past week alerting me to this site as being advertised there — and this is certainly not something Christians should be fed!  I  realize that sites which open up to advertising may have little or no control as to what shows up, so you need to be careful on ANY site with advertisements.

The Watchman Fellowship has a new profile out on Hinduism, which you may find useful.  They have a lot of good “profiles” on various false teachers and cult, and you can purchase the complete set if desired.  Always concise and usually only 3-4 pages.

When I read about this arrest, it didn’t surprise me.  False teachers are always trying to fleece the flock!

Excellent article by Albert Mohler in regards to that historic First Baptist Church of Greenville, SC, which decided to apostatize over homosexuality.  Somehow they discerned that the Bible is in error.

Marsha West reposted an article from four years ago, and I think she’s right to do so because of the attitude projected by many against apologetics sites like mine.  While Tim Challies had a point, he painted with too broad of a brush, as Marsha pointed out.
I do have to say that those who follow my blog KNOW that I don’t only cover the bad (although exposing the wolves is the primary purpose of this blog), but I also provide information to good stuff, post thought-provoking quotes from excellent teachers, etc.  And I see the same thing with the many excellent blogs I follow.  I know there are indeed “nasty” blogs and sites out there, having come across many, but I think any discerning person will easily discover they are to be avoided.

(I "stole" the graphic from Berean Research)

Away With Palsied, Powerless Preaching

The church today is standing on the sidewalk, watching with fever and frustration, while the sin-dominated evil geniuses of Moscow strut the middle of the road, breathing out threatenings against “whatsoever things are lovely and of good report.”  Behind, follows the purple pageantry of papal Rome.  Moreover, the devil has substituted reincarnation for regeneration, familiar spirits for the Holy Spirit, Christian Science for divine healing, the Antichrist for the true Christ, and the Church of Rome for the true Church.

Agains these twin evils of Communism and Romanism, what has the Church to offer?  Where is the supernatural?  Both in the pulpit and in the press, somnolence seems to have overtaken religious controversy of late.  Even Rome does not call us Protestants any more; we have just the juiceless name of non-Catholics!  Significant, isn’t it?  Hell has no fury like that of this “Mother of Harlots” when she is stirred.  But who now “earnestly contends for the faith once delivered to the saints”?  Where are our unctionized pulpit crusaders?  Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men.  Preachers used to sow seed; now they string intellectual pearls.  (Imagine a field sown with pearls!)

Away with this palsied, powerless preaching which is unmoving because it was born in a tomb instead of a womb, and nourished in a fireless, prayer less soul.  We may preach and perish, but we cannot pray and perish.  If God called us to the ministry, then, dear brethren, I contend that we should get unctionized.  With all thy getting—get unction, lest barren altars be the badge of our unction less intellectualism.


[Replace “Moscow” and “Communism” with “Islam” for current affairs]

Leonard Ravenhill,  Why Revival Tarries (1959), pg.21-22

“New Age Bible Versions” — Chapter 20

Yes, it's been a few months.  It is an arduous task which I have to keep stepping away from to maintain sanity.  So here we go with the next installment.

W.  Chapter 20: “Test 1 for Antichrist.”  The opening premise of this chapter is that current versions often leave off the title “Christ.” The contention is that the full title “Lord Jesus Christ capsulizes the New Testament them of ‘God, our Savior’.”  Of course, Riplinger ignores the multitudes of times the KJV doesn’t use this full title, and instead has searched through other versions to see where “Christ” was not included in the title.  And, as usual, she makes the blanket charge against ALL new versions.

1.  Chart on p.309 lists several passages where “NIV, NASB et al” have left off “Christ”

a.  John 4:29.  This one disputes the question.  KJV: “is not this the Christ?” vs NAS: “this is not the Christ, is it?”  NIV:  “Could this be the Christ?”  The suggestion seems to be that KJV states that Jesus IS the Christ while the others are questioning if He is.  I see all of them saying the same thing—questioning if this could indeed be Christ.

b.  Acts 9:20.  KJV “Christ” vs “Jesus.”  Interesting in that KJV just uses His title vs His name, and yet Riplinger doesn’t complain about them leaving out his name!  Let’s look at the actual passage:

KJV:  “he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.”

NAS:  “he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”

NIV:  “he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.”

The interesting thing is that in vs.22 it specifically says, in ALL versions, that Paul was “proving that Jesus is the Christ.” So here we have, in the same paragraph which Riplinger complains about the lack of the word “Christ” supposedly being a denial of Jesus being the Christ, a very clear statement proving Jesus is the Christ.

c.  Acts 19:4.  KJV “Christ Jesus” vs “Jesus.”  The context is being baptized in Jesus, and the new  versions don’t use His title here.  Interesting though is that at Matthew 28:19 He tells them to baptize in the name of the Son - not His title.

d.  1 Cor. 9:1.  KJV “Jesus Christ our Lord” vs “Jesus our Lord.”  Again, are we talking about Jesus the person being our Lord in both?  Yes.  Is it necessary at the same time to include his title of Messiah?  No.  This is not “look[ing] down in contempt” on Jesus’ title as Riplinger claims.

e.  Heb. 3:1.  KJV “Christ Jesus” vs “Jesus.”  Same issue.  His title is missing, therefore new Bible editors are obviously involved in a conspiracy to “look down in contempt” at that title.  It is really nothing but a non sequitur logic fallacy.  The foolishness is exposed when one sees the title “Christ” just a couple passages down in all versions.

f.  1 John 1:7.  KJV “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son” vs “the blood of Jesus His Son.”  Both ways give the definite identity of who Jesus is.  The foolishness of the claim of this being contempt is discovered just four verses earlier where all versions say “his Son, Jesus Christ.”

g.  Rev. 1:9 and 12:17.  Rather than address these separately, I’ll just point out that, as with the previous passages, while “Christ” may be missing in these verses, other verses around them have the title “Christ.”  If Riplinger was correct that new version editors “look down in contempt” on the title and therefore remove it, then why is the title “Christ” all around the passages they “hide” it from?  Foolishness.

2.  Chart at the top of p.310 lists eight passages where KJV says “Lord Jesus Christ” while “new versions” say “Lord Jesus,” again “proving” the claim that new version editors “look in contempt” on Jesus’ title.  Again, the proof against such a foolish claim are the surrounding verses which DO include the title.

3.  Riplinger then sets in highlights Rom. 1:16 because KJV says “the gospel of Christ” while “new versions” say only “the gospel,” and she claims it is because, “Evidently they are ‘ashamed of the gospel of Christ,’” proven by their omission of the word.  Sigh.  My question is this:  What gospel does the context of the chapter point to?  Answer:  The gospel of Christ.  Anyone reading the New Testament would know that Paul says there is no other gospel, so why would anyone even think that this verse could possibly speaking of another one?!?

4.  Pg. 311.  “Only the inspiration of God brings to light that Jesus is the Christ.  New versions all too often lave the reader in the dark and unblessed.”  Riplinger then gives Philippians 4:13 as her example:  KJV: “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me” vs. “I can do everything through him who gives me strength.”  The “new version” leaves room for a “fill-in-the-blank deity.”  The entire context of Philippians is about living in the strength of Christ, and at 4:19 all versions say that our needs are met in “Christ Jesus.”  So where does this leave room for any other deity, as Riplinger claims?  NOWHERE!

5.  Riplinger then spends a few pages demonstrating the “Christs” of various cults and false religions, as if somehow proving that leaving “Christ” out of some verses gives credence to these belief systems.  Just a slight of hand dishonesty on her part.  Then on p.315 she says, “‘Christ’ takes center stage in the new versions as Satan attempts to move the true God, Jesus Christ into the wings.  Their rendition of Matthew 23:10 sets the tone for the Antichrist’s take-over.”  Oh my, she found one verse for her conspiracy.  Let’s see what it says.   KJV: “for one is your Master, even Christ” vs NASB “for One is your leader, that is, Christ.”  Can anyone explain to me the difference between these versions?  How does NASB do as she claims?

6.  Riplinger follows up that last claim with another chart showing supposed translations to help with bringing in the Antichrist.  The point she is making is that if you just say “Christ” without saying “Jesus,” then you can be talking about any “Christ.”  Of course the reader would have to totally ignore the context to do so, but that doesn’t phase Riplinger with her absurd claims.

a.  Acts 4:24.  KJV “Thou art God” vs NIV, NASB, et al “OMIT.”  Well, both are pointing to Jesus as being the Creator, i.e., God.  The fact that “new versions” don’t say “thou art God” doesn’t negate the context which is calling Jesus God.  (By the way, in the KJV notice the definitive “art” is added by the translators, which would leave it really saying “thou God,” which is really the context of the “new versions”.)

b.  Rom. 10:17.  KJV “word of God” vs “word of Christ.”  This is quite amusing because Riplinger has been complaining over the lack of the use of Jesus’ title “Christ,” but now because it is in place of God it suddenly is there to promote Antichrist over God!  But wait, doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity say that Jesus is God, so that the word of God is also the word of Christ?  Is Riplinger here denying the Trinity?  Sure seems that way to me!

c.  2 Cor. 5:18.  KJV “Jesus Christ” vs “Christ.”  The entire context of  the chapter is the one and only “Christ” who is Jesus.  The amusing part is that in the KJV, “Christ” is used alone throughout the chapter and it is only that ONE time the word “Jesus” is added.  So that ONE time the others don’t add the name makes them open to promoting the antichrist?!?

d.  Col. 3:15.  KJV “the peace of God” vs “the peace of Christ.”  Again, is Riplinger denying the Trinity?  Seems to me that the context of the chapter should have “Christ” vs “God” anyway, so perhaps the scribe which did the TR text made an error?

e.  1 Pet. 3:15.  KJV “The Lord God” vs “Christ as Lord.”  Context seems to be saying that Christ is the Lord God to be sanctified in our hearts.  I think the “new versions” demonstrate the deity of Christ, while KJV at this passage passes over the deity of Christ.  Regardless of the understanding, this is not evidence to support Riplinger’s claim about any deity being able to be inserted for “Christ.”

7.  After more irrelevant rambling, we come to Riplinger’s next chart on p.317, where she says, “The new versions paint the Antichrist into the picture and paint Jesus out in slide of God’s command: [At} the name of Jesus ever knee should bow. Philippians 2:10.”  The chart then shows how the KJV uses the name “Jesus” while “new versions” just use the pronoun “He” or “Him.”

a.  Matt. 4:18.  KJV “Jesus” vs “He.”  This is another example of Riplinger’s foolishness.  (NIV, by the way, does have “Jesus”).  First, the KJV very often uses the pronouns instead of Jesus’ name, so why not charge the KJV with the same crime?  But let’s look at the passage in context, beginning vs. 17.  

KJV:  “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  18. And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.  19. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”  

NAS:  “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  18. And walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.  19.  And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Notice how KJV uses “he” in vs. 19; does that mean it “painted out” the name of Jesus? Riplinger has a very difficult time with context, and with writing style.  Beginning at v.17 we have identified that Jesus is beginning to preach around the Sea of Galilee, so in vs.18 there is no attempt to paint out His name, rather there is no point in using His name over and over when a pronoun points to his name.  To claim this makes room for the Antichrist is as foolish as it gets.

b.  Matt. 8:29.  KJV “Jesus, Thou Son of God” vs “You, Son of God.”  Okay, so except for Jesus’ name, these are identical.  The context is demons talking to Jesus.  Again, how is this painting out the name of Jesus and painting in the Antichrist?  Doesn’t the context have any meaning at all to Riplinger, or KJV Onlyers?

c.  Matt. 12:25.  KJV “Jesus knew their thoughts” vs “knowing their thoughts.”  Again, NIV is not guilty.  Here is the issue again — CONTEXT!  Back at vs. 15 we have Jesus as the subject, and KJV uses only pronouns until vs 25.  The NAS is guilty of using a pronoun at vs.25 (Riplinger leaves out the rest of the phrase, “He said to them,” as if Jesus wasn’t even the topic).  So, according to Riplinger that makes a painted out Jesus and a painted in Antichrist.  Foolishness.

d.  Mark 2:15.  KJV “Jesus” vs “He.”  (Again, does not apply to NIV) In actuality, Jesus’ name is also in the passage, so the pronoun paints out nothing nor does it paint anything in!  Anyone reading the passage in any version should be able to understand who the pronoun is!

e.  Mark 10:52.  KJV “Jesus” vs “Him.”  (NIV not “guilty.”)  Let’s look at the whole passage.

KJV:  “And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; they faith hath made thee whole.  And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.”

NAS:  “And Jesus said to him, ‘Go your way; your faith has made you well.’  And immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.”

So the issue is who the man was following.  Of course the style of the NAS capitalizes “Him,” as an indication that Jesus is who the man is following, as does the CONTEXT!  There is no way anyone would see the Antichrist “painted” into this passage.

f.  Luke 24:36.  KJV “Jesus” vs “He.”  (Again overstating the case with “new versions” since NIV is the same as KJV).  As with all the previous passages, KJV uses the pronoun except in one instance, while NAS uses the pronoun here also, and suddenly this means painting out Jesus and painting in the Antichrist.  Riplinger needs to learn how to read in CONTEXT, because in CONTEXT no one would even consider such a thought.

8.  Pages 318-319.  First we have some rambling about there being a distinct difference between who the “New Age” teachings call Christ vs “The Christ.”  So new version Bibles, when the have “the Christ” instead of just “Christ,” they are therefore guilty of teaching New Age distinguishing between an antichrist (“the Christ) and the real Christ of the KJV.   The problem here is that “Christ” (as noted many times in this review) is NOT a name, rather it is a title — “anointed one.”  So whether you say “the anointed one” or “anointed one” when talking about Jesus in the context of the entire Bible, there is no mistaking who one is talking about.  In fact, “anointed one” (“Christ”) is actually more ambiguous as to the subject, because, after all, David was an “anointed one” of God, as were others.  But when you see “The anointed one” (“the Christ), one is pointing to a particular “THE” — a specific Christ, THE Messiah the Jews were looking forward to.  Just because cults and other false teachings use the same title (but different meaning), that doesn’t make it wrong to use it!! After all, Mormons call Jesus the “Savior,” so if the Bible calls Jesus the “Savior,” does that mean our Bible promotes Mormonism?  That is the logic Riplinger is using, and she lists about 25 passages where “the Christ” replaces “Christ.”  But there are also a couple other passages which include “the” in the list which we can look at because of how silly her claims become.

a.   Acts 5:42.  KJV “preach Jesus Christ” vs “preaching Jesus as the Christ.”  I actually addressed this previously when Riplinger used this same passage to “prove” the removal of Jesus’ divinity.  The context is that they are preaching that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ.  So “the” is more pointed.

b.  Acts 9:22:  KJV “this is very Christ” vs “is the Christ.”  Okay, let’s be a wee bit more honest and look at the context.  KJV “But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.”  NAS “But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.”  NIV “Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.”  KJV says “very Christ” and the others say “the Christ.”  Just what is the difference — how is this “new age” thinking?!?

Notice KJV doesn’t identify who “this” is compared to NAS/NIV do (of course context tells us, but if we practice Riplinger’s logic, we must condemn KJV here!).

9.  The remainder of chapter 20 has more of the same, “proving” that “the Christ” is a New Age term forced into the Bible so that people will think the antichrist will be “the Christ” pointed to.  Again, this whole chapter just demonstrates paranoia, poor logic and foolishness, with absolutely no validity to the claims against “new version” Bibles.

Did They Really Say That?!?

“The Jews are the most worthless of all men.  They are lecherous, greedy and rapacious.  They are perfidious murderers of Christ.  The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon.  Christians may never cease vengeance and the Jews must live in servitude forever.  God always hated the Jews.  It is incumbent upon Christians to hate Jews."

John Chrysostom (c.347-407 AD), “Homilae Adversus Iudaeos”

"What shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of the Jews?  First, their synagogues should be set on fire.  Secondly their homes should likewise be broken down an destroyed.  Thirdly they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds.  Fourthly their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more.  Fifthly passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to Jews.  Sixthly they ought to be stopped from usury.  Seventhly let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses.  To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one, so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden—the Jews."

Martin Luther, Concerning the Jews and Their Lies.

Both citations from the pamphlet, “Who Really Killed Jesus?” by Tony Pearce, published by Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry.

By the time of Chrysostom, the Church was becoming more and more corrupt by being part of the governmental system.  His attitude became the prevailing idea in the Roman Catholic Church through history, which is why Rome persecuted the Jews and murdered hundreds of thousands of them over the years.  Luther was just carrying over his Catholic beliefs.

It is this sort of teaching which turned Jews totally away from Christianity.  It also has turned many non-Jews against the Christian faith. Of course we should ALL know that this teaching is in direct opposition to the Christian faith.  There is absolutely NO biblical justification for persecuting ANYONE!!

The Jews didn’t murder Christ -  Jesus gave up His own life!  Even if the Jews were the instrument, why in the world would Christians hate Jews for executing Jesus, when it was necessary that Jesus be killed in order to provide salvation?!?  This is something that has always bothered me about the anti-Jew teachings of so many false believers and cults.

If anyone teaches this nonsense, ask them to demonstrate from the Bible where Jesus would ever teach it.

We Need Unction

Brethren, we could well manage to be half as intellectual (of the modern pseudo kind) if we were twice as spiritual.  Preaching is a spiritual business.  A sermon born in the head reaches the head; a sermon born in the heart reaches the heart.  Under God, a spiritual preacher will produce spiritually minded people.  Unction is not a gentle dove beating her wings against the bars outside of the preacher’s soul; rather, she must be pursued and won.  Unction cannot be learned, only earned—by prayer.  Unction is God’s knighthood for the soldier-preacher who has wrestled in prayer and gained the victory.  Victory is not won in the pulpit by firing intellectual bullets or wisecracks, but in the prayer closet; it is won or lost before the preacher’s foot enters the pulpit.  Unction is like dynamite.  Unction comes not by the medium of the bishop’s hands, neither does it mildew when the preacher is cast into prison.  Unction will pierce and peculate; it will sweeten and soften.  When the hammer of logic and the fire of human zeal fail to open the stony heart, unction will succeed.

What a fever of a church building there is just now! Yet without unctionized preachers, these altars will never see anxious penitents.

Leonard Ravenhill, Why Revival Tarries,  pg.20-21

Random Aberrations, Apostasies, and Heresies

Ex-President Jimmy Carter (the worst in history until Obama) continues to be looked to as a spokesman for Christianity.  Now he claims that Jesus would approve of same-sex fake marriage.  This man worships another Christ — and apparently always has.

The superstition in the Roman Catholic Church never ceases to amaze me.  Their whole ideology of exorcism has been unbiblical from the start, but it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.  A priest performed an exorcism over a whole town from a helicopter!  Does he really think he affected any demons?  Come on, Catholics, where is your protest over this nonsense?!?  Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed?  It’s no wonder the world makes fun of the Christian faith when they see such antics.

OH BOY!!  Willow Creek, that bastion of the market-driven mentality, just held a “Leadership Conference,” where guest speakers included MORMONS!!!  And Brian Houston of Hillsong, to name a few.  Well, when you think of your assembly as a business organization instead of a place for believers to gather for corporate worship, edification and mutual support, I guess anything goes.

Anyone still in the United Methodist Church really has to justify why they are part of a denomination which is so deep in apostasy.  Now we have a “Methodist Healthcare Ministries” providing almost half-a-million dollars to Planned Parenthood!  Talk about dishonoring God!!!!

How often have you heard the saying, “Preach the Gospel, If Necessary Use Words”?  I’ve always thought it was a very stupid thing to say, but it usually comes from those who think they are more “holy” in someway because they promote the social gospel rather than the gospel which saves.  Take a look at Steven Kozar’s post — it hits the nail on the proverbial head.

Christian Missionary Alliance seems to be going deep into the whole mystical/contemplative movement.  Be forewarned.

Elizabeth Prata has an excellent, short commentary on Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God.

Midwest Christian Outreach’s blog article this week gave me a good laugh.  It’s about how we end up laughing at some of the foolishness of the cults — because it can be so absurd!!  The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” is used as an example of some really silly things.

Lastly, one of the best articles this past week comes from Pamela Couvrette: “The Cult of Personality Under the Evangelical Limelight.”  She hits a lot of false teachers with this one — don’t miss it.