Category: False Christianity

Letter from Phlegmore to Slugwart

2/16/2023

A letter from Divisional Leader Phlegmore to Slugwart, a demon under his supervision (with apologies to C.S. Lewis).

Greetings Slugwart!

I wanted to encourage you to continue in your earnest endeavor to turn humans away from following the King, the Lord Jesus Christ. In order to accomplish this goal, there are three forms of attack that can be used.
The first of these is the direct attack on on God. This is something you seem to be quite proficient at. Whether it is an attack on the existence of God (providing what appear at first glance to be rational and logical arguments for His non-existence); or, an attack on the attributes and character of God. One of my favorite tactics is the over emphasis on God’s attribute of love. I am especially impressed with your use of the “God is love” attack, getting people to focus only on the love of God to the exclusion of His other attributes; and, causing them to view God as some sort of benign grandfatherly type who winks and chuckles at their sin, and automatically forgiving them with a “children will be children” attitude. They have no idea how blasphemous they are being and I love it!
The second of these is an attack on the teachings of God. I personally saw our master use this in the Garden of Eden when he approached Eve and said to her, “Hath God really said?” thus causing her to doubt that God had commanded them to not eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Of course humans have become a bit more discerning since then, and now require a more subtle approach, one that eases into the deception, taking a longer period of time to acclimate the humans to a false teaching. Often this requires the use of intellectuals who do not have a firm biblical foundation beneath them. Apostate “Christian” denominations such as the Anglican church, the Roman Catholic church, United Methodist church (UMC), Episcopal church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and others all have such easily manipulated “biblical scholars” (LOL!). Therefore, the introduction of unbiblical doctrines such as Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, LGBTQ+ Theory (or Queer Theory), etc.; and the twisting of biblical doctrines such as women forbidden to be in positions of authority over men, the stern prohibition against any form of homosexuality, divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, etc., is easily advanced.
A quick note, one method you might try is having a progressive liberal pseudo-Christian group present themselves as conservative or reformed. This is a good way to throw off the true Christians, and especially those who are biblically illiterate. I absolutely love lazy pastors who try to be seeker sensitive and culturally relevant. They are so easily manipulated!
The third of these is an attack on godly pastors, preachers, and teachers. If they will frustratingly insist on soundly teaching the whole of God’s Holy Word – all 66 books, and doing so exegetically, expositionally, then this is the only attack that can work. It won’t stop them from being biblically accurate, but it will cause others, especially those immature in their faith, and biblically illiterate, to run away from them. To view them as “heretics” and “wolves” (even though they aren’t), and otherwise disparage them. I have personally found this to be a very satisfying pastime, and I am sure you will as well. This works on the well known and also the not so well known pastors, preachers, and teachers. One of the best outlets for this type of attack is the internet. Make use of social media. Find an easily manipulated internet personality such as a YouTube influencer or a blogger and use them to attack your target. Better yet, find an internet discernment ministry and use them. No not a real discernment ministry, but one of those “heresy hunters” that are eager to find heresy among the more well known pastors, preachers, and teachers so they can take then down a peg or two, yet have no real understanding of the Scripture, or even of Christianity itself. Quite often you will find they have been manipulated in the past and so are more susceptible to it now.
That’s all for now Slugwart, just be encouraged that we are all in this together, and we have no intention of stopping our attacks on the Triune God, on His Bible, and on His followers.
Your Divisional Leader,
Phlegmore

0 Comments

Did Pope Francis Give A False Gospel?

4/26/2018

1 Comment

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

Did Pope Francis Give A False Gospel?
By Robert Tuttle

On April 15, 2018, Pope Francis was taking a tour of a poverty stricken area on the outskirts of Rome. After his tour, as was his custom, Francis took part in a question and answer session with the children of the neighborhood. One young child, named Emanuele, was so overwrought with emotion he was unable to speak. After much coaxing, the boy climbed the platform and whispered his question in Francis' ear. After the boy returned to his seat, Francis' spoke, and what he said shocked many. Here is a video of the meeting between the Pope and little Emanuele, posted by the Catholic News Service:

And here is what Pope Francis said to the gathered crowd after Emanuele took his seat:

“I asked Emanuele's permission to say publicly the question he asked me and he said yes. So I will tell you. Emanuele asked: 'A little while ago my father passed away, but he had all four of his children baptized. He was a good man. Is dad in heaven?' His father wasn't a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart. And he (Emanuele) wonders if his father, because he wasn't a believer, is in heaven. The one who says who goes to heaven is God. But what is God's heart with a dad like that? What? What do you think? A father's heart. God has a dad's heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself? Do you think? Speak up, come on.” [the crowd says “No”] “Does God abandon his children?” [the crowd says “No”] “Does God abandon his children when they are good?” [the crowd says “No”] “There, Emanuele, that is the answer. God surely was proud of your father because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much. Talk to your dad; pray to your dad.”

At first glance this appears to be nothing more than a very compassionate and understanding man comforting a grieving child. However, a careful examination of exactly what the Pope said reveals it was something much more. It was a lie.

I can understand the temptation to lie in a situation such as this. Who could possibly be so cruel as to tell a grieving child, “Sorry kid, your dad is suffering and burning in hell”? But is that the only alternative option to an outright lie? Francis, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is the “Vicar of Christ” (para.882). The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means “instead of,” therefore, the Pope is (again according to the Roman Catholic church), Christ's representative on earth. How is lying to a child representative of Christ? Francis could easily have told the child that God is just and holy, and very patient with sinners, always giving us the possibility to hear the truth. He could have simply told the child that God was in control of all things and not to worry. He could have told the child any number of things other than telling him his dad was in hell, and still keep from lying about it. And yet, he chose to lie.

To make matters worse, he was not content to simply give the child a private answer. He chose to share it with the entire crowd that was gathered there.
Now, it is important to understand that Francis did not actually say the man was a “non-believer” or that he wasn't a believer. Francis actually used the word ateo, and it means the same thing in Spanish as it does in Italian. It is the word for atheist. It was Francis' understanding that the man was an atheist; and with this understanding in mind, Francis addressed the crowd.

Francis told the crowd, “(Emanuele) wonders if his father, because he [was an atheist], is in heaven.” The obvious answer, the Scriptural answer, is no. Atheists reject God. They reject Christ. Those who die while rejecting Christ go to hell. This is basic Christianity. This is actually part of the gospel, since, if one does not understand they are bound for hell, they will not understand their need for a savior.

The Pope went on, “His father [was an atheist], but he had his children baptized. ...The one who says who goes to heaven is God.” The Pope was correct in saying it is God who says who goes to heaven, and He has given us this information in His word. For example:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 ESV)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36 ESV)

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24 ESV)

Those who believe in (trust, follow and obey) Jesus Christ will have eternal life. They will enter heaven.

Francis continues to address the crowd, “But what is God's heart with a dad like that? What? What do you think? A father's heart. God has a dad's heart. And with a dad who was [an atheist], but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself? Do you think? Speak up, come on.” [the crowd says “No”] “Does God abandon his children?” [the crowd says “No”] “Does God abandon his children when they are good?” [the crowd says “No”] “There, Emanuele, that is the answer. God surely was proud of your father because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are [an atheist]. Surely this pleased God very much. Talk to your dad; pray to your dad.” And this is where Francis not only lied to Emanuele, but he also lied to the entire crowd. And not only that, but the Pope presented a false gospel to everyone who heard his words.

Scripture tells us in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10,

“7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might, 10 when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.”

Did you notice verse 9? “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might.” Those who do not know God, those who reject God, will suffer eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord. And yet, Francis told not only Emanuele, but also the entire crowd and anyone else who heard his words, that an atheist who dies rejecting God would not be left far from God after his death. This is contrary to God's word, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ (see verse 8).

I will admit that it is at least remotely possible that before he died, Emanuel's atheist dad heard the gospel and believed, and came to know Jesus as his Lord and Savior; but I cannot say with any degree of certainty that he did. More importantly, neither can Francis. And yet, with only the understanding of the fact that the man was an atheist who had died, Francis stated that for no other reason than he had his children baptized, that after he died God would not leave him far from Himself. In essence, the Pope stated the atheist went to heaven after he died.

Francis then involved the crowd in his heresy by asking them if God would leave a dead atheist “far from Him,” to which the crowd answered “No.” Emanuele asked the Pope if his dead atheist dad was in heaven; and when the crowd affirmed Francis' words that God would not leave his dad far from Himself, Francis told Emanuele, “There...that is the answer.” The Pope then reinforced the idea that Emanuele's dad was in heaven by telling the child to pray to his dad. (Roman Catholicism teaches its adherents to pray to people who have died and gone to heaven, believing they – as well as Mary – intercede for them).

There is no question that Francis lied to both Emanuele and the crowd, and lying is not representing Christ on earth. What does God have to say about lying and liars in His word? Quite a bit actually, and none of is complimentary to those who lie. Colossians 3:9 tells us, “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off your old self with its practices.” Here we are not only being told not to lie, but also that lying is a practice of unrepentant sinners. Lying is serious business, and it is made even more serious when we read Proverbs 6:16-19 where we read that God hates, among other things, a liar. lying is an abomination to God, and He hates liars. Even more so, in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 we see that liars are included in a list of the lawless and disobedient; and, in Revelation 21:8 we read that those who lie as a pattern of their life will be cast into hell with other unrepentant sinners who die in their sin.

Pope Francis made it clear that an atheist who dies in his sin will go to heaven if he has a good heart (as evidenced in this case by having his children baptized). Again, this is contrary to God's word. Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” This excludes atheists – who reject Christ, from entering heaven. Acts 4:10-12 tells us that salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to me by which we must be saved. Again, for an atheist who has rejected Christ, there is no salvation, and say there is, is nothing less than a false gospel.

Re-read the passage at the top of this post. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

If someone, anyone, preaches a false gospel that is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in Scripture – as Pope Francis did, “LET HIM BE ACCURSED”

Francis seems to place great stock in the man having his children baptized, and apparently thinks God would contradict Himself by making an exception for this man because of this. Actually, this is not too far fetched in Roman Catholicism, which teaches a person who is baptized in the Roman Catholic church, regardless of what they believe, is given salvation. This is, of course, just as contrary to God's teaching in His word as is Francis' false gospel. This is, however, what the Roman Catholic church teaches.

According to “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott (a book highly regarded and endorsed by Roman Catholic clergy), “Baptism effects the forgiveness of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.” And, “Baptism is necessary for all men without exception for salvation.” Furthermore, according to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, “if [anyone] denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema.”

God's word states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9); and Titus 3:5 states, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” So here we have two gospels. The first, which is God's gospel, tells us we are saved by grace through faith, and not by any works of righteousness (such as baptism) that we might do. The other gospel, the Roman Catholic gospel, tells us we are saved by baptism. The Roman Catholic gospel is in contradiction to the gospel as presented by God in His word. Therefore, the Roman Catholic gospel is a false gospel. So it is easy to see why Francis had no problem presenting a false gospel to the crowd.

The standard response from many Roman Catholics to this is, the works referred to in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 are the works of the law, and that baptism doesn't save, but rather imparts to the one being baptized the grace necessary for salvation. However, we need look no further than God's word and Roman Catholic dogma to refute these objections.

Romans 4 tells us that Abraham was saved by faith and not be any works of righteousness; and those works of righteousness could not possibly be referring to works of the law, as Abraham's salvation occurred prior to the law being given. Furthermore, as Genesis 15 tells us, Abraham was saved by faith even prior to his obedience to circumcision, which did not occur until Genesis 17, many years later.

And when we examine Roman Catholic dogma (as noted in Ott's book), the sacrament of baptism, as with all the sacraments, “confer[s] regeneration, forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and eternal life” as long as the minister performing the sacrament does so in the proper manner: “For the dispensing of this grace, it is necessary that the minister accomplish the sacramental sign in the proper manner.” When done in the proper manner (i.e. the official Roman Catholic method of baptism, or the other sacraments), “Baptism confers the grace of justification.” And, just to be clear, according to Roman Catholic dogma, “Neither orthodox belief, nor moral worthiness is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament on the part of the recipient.” Therefore, according to Roman Catholicism, even an atheist who has rejected God, and rejected Jesus Christ, can be saved if only they get baptized. They don't have to believe in God, they can still reject Christ, they just need to be baptized. Of course, there is no evidence that Emanuele's dad was ever baptized. Perhaps Francis was simply applying the baptism of Emanuele and his siblings to his atheist dad.

Clearly, the Roman Catholic church preaches and promotes a gospel that is contrary to the gospel presented by the Lord God Almighty in His word; and while the Roman Catholic church at its Council of Trent may have cursed God for having a gospel different than theirs, it is God's pronouncement of anathema upon those who preach a gospel different from His that will hold eternal consequences.

1 Comment

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

7/22/2016

0 Comments

Archibald Brown

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

Written by Archibald Brown (1844-1922)

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him.

Then again, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers .., for the work of the ministry" (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? Ye are the salt" (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy---something the world will spit out not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22) He was in awful earnestness.

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear him say, "Run after these people Peter and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick Peter, we must get the people somehow." Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.

In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting but they did not pray, "Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are." If they ceased not from preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Archibald Geikie Brown (18 July 1844 – 2 April 1922) was a Calvinistic Baptist minister; a student, friend, and associate of Charles Spurgeon; and from 1908 to 1911, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, the church earlier pastored by Spurgeon.

0 Comments

Can A Christian Reject God And Still Be A Christian?

9/7/2015

1 Comment

Can A Christian Reject God and Still Be A Christian?
There are those who really believe they can!

Excellent sermon last Sunday, as pastor spoke on church growth. The basics of the sermon were that there are two types of church growth, numerical and spiritual, and one does not necessarily guarantee the other. In fact, if a church experiences numerical growth but not spiritual growth, then what results is a church full of “tares,” or false Christians. [see Matthew 13:24-30 for a fuller explanation of tares or weeds]. As pastor pointed out in today's sermon, one of the marks of a true Christian as opposed to a “tare” or false Christian, is that the true Christian stands steadfast in purity of doctrine and purity of behavior – something the false Christian cannot do, or at least can only mimic for a relatively short period of time.

Conversations I have had this past week, many with “professing Christians,” have caused this sermon to stand out more prominently than many of pastor's sermons do, and has caused me to ask myself some important questions – in fact, three important questions. They are:
1. Can a person reject God and still be a Christian?
2. Can a person disregard God and still be a Christian?
3. Can a person live a life of willful and habitual disobedience to God and still be a Christian?

Can A Person Reject God and Still Be A Christian?
The key word here is “reject.” What exactly is meant by “reject”?

The term reject is defined as, 1. a verb, “to dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.” 2. a noun, “a person or thing dismissed as failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes.” So can a person dismiss God as inadequate or inappropriate or not to one's taste” and still be a Christian; or, perhaps identifying God as “failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes”? I believe that for some professing Christians, the answer is yes, and I would point to those conversations I have had this past week as examples of this.

In a conversation I had with a professing Christian, I was told by this person that they felt their ability to separate their faith life from their public life was an admirable attribute. They felt that not only did God not belong in the workplace and even more so through them, but that mankind and man's law were actually higher than and more authoritative than God and God's law. Is this person rejecting God? According to the above definition, yes. They have decided that God law did not meet the standard but that man's law did. They have decided that God does not satisfy the tastes of others in the workplace or public life, and apparently not even their own taste when in the workplace or in public. And yet, they still insist that they are a Christian.

Jesus, however, had something else to say about those who insisted they were truly God's children, while placing man above God when it came to which had more authority. He said in Mark 7:6-8, “And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Jesus condemned those who did this, and it is highly doubtful that He would consider as His true followers, those who reject God. I think Charles Spurgeon explained it well when he said,

“To a man who lives unto God, nothing is secular, everything is sacred. He puts on his workday garment and it is a vestment to him. He sits down to his meal and it is a sacrament. He goes forth to his labor, and therein exercises the office of the priesthood. His breath is incense and his life a sacrifice.

He sleeps on the bosom of God, and lives and moves in the divine presence. To draw a hard and fast line and say, “This is sacred and this is secular,” is to my mind, diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ and the spirit of the gospel.

The Lord hath cleansed your houses, he has cleansed your bed chambers, your tables…He has made the common pots and pans of your kitchens to be as the bowls before the altar— if you know what you are and live according to your high calling. You housemaids, you cooks, you nurses, you ploughmen, you housewives, you traders, you sailors, your labor is holy if you serve the Lord Christ in it, by living unto Him as you ought to love. The sacred has absorbed the secular.”

Can a person disregard God and still be a Christian?
In another conversation, with a different “professing Christian,” I was told that those who condemn homosexual relationships will have to answer to God for their hate and bigotry, while the loving couples who are involved in committed homosexual relationships are virtually guaranteed entrance into heaven.

I have to admit that I was somewhat shocked that these words would come out of the mouth of a person who professed to be a follower of Jesus Christ, especially in light of God's own words concerning His moral law. God repeatedly condemns homosexuality, whether male homosexuality or female homosexuality, as an abominable sin. Repeatedly.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;” (Leviticus 20:13a)

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:26-28)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
[with regard to who will not enter heaven] “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,” (1 Timothy 1:10)

And God is equally clear regarding the definition of marriage – it involves one man and one woman.

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
and
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)

Now, while I do understand that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuals have the right to get married, what the United States Supreme Court, and a great many people in the United States do not understand (and this includes some professing “Christians”), and have an even greater difficulty grasping, is that the United States Supreme Court does not have the power or the authority to over rule God. They are not higher than God, they are not greater than God, and it is the height of arrogance for anyone to believe that they are. They (the Supreme Court and others who look to them as the absolute ultimate law) should also not be surprised when God's people refuse to obey them, or any law or rule or rule maker or enforcer, when they are acting and ruling contrary to God. Acts 5:27-31 provides the true Christian with a pure and reasonable course of action when faced with a situation contrary to God,

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. (emphasis mine)

So, again, the question is asked, can a person disregard God and still be a Christian, especially when one disregards the very word of God? Again we turn to the definition of the word to discover its meaning. Disregard is defined as 1. a verb, pay no attention to, ignore, pay no attention/heed to, to disobey; and 2. a noun, disregard; the action or state of disregarding or ignoring something. Indifference, nonobservance, inattention, disobedience. Given the definition of the word disregard, and looking at 1 John 3:4, which says, “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” [Note: The Greek word used here to translate “lawlessness' (anomia) is also used to translate the words disobedience and sin], it is clear that one cannot live a life of disobedience to God and still be a Christian.

Can a person live a life of willful and habitual disobedience to God and still be a Christian?
The Bible is God's word to man. It does not merely “contain” the word of God, as some think, but it actually IS the word of God; and a Christian accepts the Bible for what it is, and lives according to what God teaches in the Bible.

A brief side note to those who like to cherry pick passages from the Bible to use as (what they think are) arguments against the Bible. To those I say, before you attempt to do this, read the Bible so you can understand the context of those passages, and take a class in Bibliology so you can understand the difference between civil law, ceremonial law, and moral law. After you do that, we'll talk. Now back to the subject at hand.

We know the Bible is the word of God, quite frankly, because it says so. There is, of course, much more to it, but the basic understanding is here. The Bible states multiple times, “Thus says the Lord,” and “God said,” and “God spoke.” Jesus said to His followers in Luke 24:44-45, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (emphasis mine); and He said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” The words of Jesus are Scripture, they are God's words.

2 Timothy 3:15–17 says, “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

All Scripture, each of the 39 books of the Old Testament and each of the 27 books of the New Testament, are God's word. Each word was “breathed out by God.” Each word is useful for equipping Christians for every good work. We need nothing more to live our lives for God. There are those who, for one reason or another, believe that Christians should, and should be required to leave their faith at home or in the church. They believe, for one reason or another, that when a conflict exists between the laws of man and law of God, that man must be obeyed and God must be ignored. They believe, for one reason or another, that God belongs only inside a church building, or inside a private residence, or inside the private thoughts of Christians; but must never be allowed into the public square. I say that

it is the height of arrogance for anyone to think they are higher than God, or that they have more authority than God, or that their laws or rules supersede those of God; and when those who believe these things profess with their mouths that they are Christians, then I say, “what does the word of God say about their viewpoints?”

Disobedience to God is sin. Continued, habitual disobedience to God is, well, I'll let God Himself say it. “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that He [Jesus] appeared in order to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him [Jesus] keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:4-10)

If you are going to life a life of continual habitual sin, then you are not a Christian. It doesn't matter what anyone here on earth tells you, because God is the highest authority. He is the Creator, and the creation does not dictate to the Creator. If you come to God, it must be on God's terms, otherwise you are deceived, and if you remain deceived and in your sin – enslaved to your sin, you will face God to give an account for your sin, and you will be judged. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 gives a vivid description of the judgment that will befall those who continue to reject, ignore, disregard and disobey God. They will be “afflicted” when “the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)

There is hope, however, for those who with a remorseful heart turn away from their sin and turn to God, through Jesus, to seek forgiveness for their sin, as He will be true to His word and will embrace you and forgive you your sins. “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

All Scripture quoted is from the English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers unless otherwise noted.

1 Comment

Your Christianity - True or False?

8/25/2015

0 Comments

Over the years I have been called a lot of things. Especially while working as a correctional officer. Since I became a Christian, however, the names and words I have been called has changed to include some new words and phrases. I am now “preachy” and “narrow-minded” and sharing the gospel with people I find that I am “shoving [my] religion down [their] throat” and I am somehow “forcing” my religion upon them against their will.

When non-believers say these things about me I take it as just part of being a Christian. In fact, I think if non-believers are saying these things about me it is really an encouragement because it tells me that I am obeying the command of Christ to let my light shine, to share the gospel, etc. What does trouble me, however, is when I am told these things by professing Christians. I hear things like, “You know, I'm a Christian too, but you really shouldn't force Jesus on people, and your views are too narrow minded, as long as people are loving and love God, then what does their sexuality matter? Don't be so judgmental!”

What they say doesn't really bother me as much as that they add that four word phrase at the beginning of their judgment of me (yes, enjoy the irony), that they evidently feel lends some authority to their judgment of me. I am referring to the phrase, “I'm a Christian too.” I bothers me because I am not sure they really know and understand what a Christian is. The term “Christian” is tossed around like a Frisbee at a beach party, with no real understanding of what a Christian is. Some people think they are a Christian because they have always been one. They have grown up in the church, they believe in Jesus, they believe in God, and they're sure that at some point they asked “Jesus into their heart” and they were baptized so they are obviously a Christian.

Another group is sure they are a Christian because they believe in God and they do their best to do their best and be honest and fair and so on and so on; and some are even convinced that they are a Christian because they were born in America, and since America is a Christian nation they are therefore, a Christian. And then, of course (and I shudder at the thought of this unfortunately popular ideology), there are those who are sure they are a Christian because they are politically conservative.

Matthew 7:21-23 reads (and this is Jesus Himself speaking), “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” What this is telling us is that on that day of judgment there will be people who approach Jesus Christ, fully convinced in their own minds, that they are genuinely saved, they are convinced in their own minds that they are without doubt a Christian, but Jesus Himself will tell them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” They are false Christians. Self-deceived, duped by Satan, trapped in and enslaved to their sin. They are not saved, and they are not Christians.

Wow. Just wow. Jesus knew and taught way back then, approximately 2000 years ago, that there would be self-deceived false Christians in the church, and in the world. This was an issue that Jesus wanted His followers to be aware of, and so much so that God ensured there would be indicators of true Christianity in His word. A spiritual or Biblical checklist if you will, and it really isn't long and involved nor is it difficult to understand. There are just a few basic teachings that are indicators of what a true Christian is and what a false Christian is not.

1. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 ESV)
Obedience. Jesus requires Christians to be obedient to Him. Please note that being obedient to Jesus does not make one a Christian, however, obedience to Jesus is one of the marks of a true Christian. What are the commandments of Jesus? If you have to ask, then there is a serious issue because the commandments of Jesus are clearly written in Scripture. True Christians love the word of God! True Christians read the word of God, study the word of God, and are filled with the word of God. It is the manual for our lives – and I am not referring to just those parts that we are comfortable with, no, I am referring to the entire Bible, all 66 books. True Christians will read it, learn it, love it, and live it.

Jesus's commandments, such as, repentance, witnessing (by both words and actions), being reconciled to God, loving one another with a sacrificial love, striving to be more and more like our role model Jesus Christ, and, among other of His commandments, turning not just from physical sin but also mental sins such as lusting, hating, or any fantasy about sin. If you want to know what Jesus's commandments are, read the word of God. If you can't even discipline yourself to read and learn and love and live the hold word of God, then how can you possibly know what Jesus's commandments are, much less obey them, and if you don't obey them then you don't really love Jesus, and guess what? Those who do not love Jesus – according to His definition and nor our own – are not true Christians. And this brings us to our second point;

2. The Faith and Works connection. Regardless of how many good things one does, no matter how much one donates to charity, no matter how many people one helps, there is no amount of good works that one can do to ensure salvation. Doing good works does not make someone a Christian, although, there are many people who think that because they do good works they are automatically a Christian. However, a look at Scripture, specifically Ephesians 2:8-10, the progression of salvation as explained here shows that good works come after salvation. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV) In step one of this progression, God, by His infinite grace, gives as a gift to the individual the faith necessary for salvation. First comes salvation, and it is not, as verse 9 tells us, the result of any good work, or anything else done by the individual. It is strictly due to the grace of God and nothing else. After one is saved, then comes the good works.

In essence, the true Christian can say with regard to good works, “I do good works because I am a Christian; I am not a Christian because of the works I do.” James, the brother of Jesus says in his epistle, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17 ESV)

There are two things that are essential for every professing Christian to known, and understand and remember. First, faith without works is a dead faith. If there is no change in the person, no compassion, no sacrificial love for their fellow human being, then they are not a Christian. Period. And this isn't me saying this, this is Scripture. Secondly, if a person is full of good works but does not truly love the Lord, does no pray daily, does not read the word of God, does not have an intimate relationship with God, does not obey the Lord (see number 1), then that individual is not a Christian.

3. 2 Corinthians 7:10 states, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.” (ESV). When by His grace God grants the seeking sinner the faith necessary to come to Him for forgiveness of sin and salvation (see number 2), the individual will come to a realization of the depth of their sin, and this creates a deep, heart-felt, sincere grief, and that grief produces sincere repentance which leads to salvation. This is a huge difference between the true Christian and the false Christian. A changed life. As the Scripture above says, the Christian, the true Christian will experience a “godly grief” which leads to salvation, but the false Christian who really hasn't received salvation, can only experience a “worldly grief” which does not lead to salvation because it is the same attitude toward their sin that every other unrepentant sinner has toward their sin. That “worldly grief” does not produce repentance because there is no changed life.

Upon coming to salvation, the true Christian will experience a life changing miracle (and it truly is a miracle), a new attitude, a new world view. Nothing is really the same because as with the apostle Paul when he received salvation, it is as if a blindfold is suddenly removed and the world is seen clearer than it ever did before, and sin is exposed for the destructive, enslaving, soul eating habit that it really is, and true Christians can see that. Sin becomes so loathsome to the true Christian that he or she becomes acutely aware of sins presence. When it is observed in others the true Christian experiences a sadness for the one lost in sin, and when it is observed in the self, the true Christian experiences a deep, heart-felt, sincere regret and remorse that leads to repentance. This is the “godly grief” spoken of in the passage above.

Sin is such a loathsome thing for the true Christian that although they may (and likely will) sin again, the true Christian cannot live a life patterned by habitual sin. It is impossible for a true Christian to live like that. The true Christian is incapable of living a life patterned by habitual sin. 1 John 3:4-10 explains this, and illustrates the difference between the saved and the unsaved – which includes false Christians. “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:4-10 ESV)

Obedience to Jesus that is the result of loving Jesus. Good works that are the result of salvation, rather than a belief that good works will result in salvation (which they will not); and a changed life, a changed world view, including an inability to live a life patterned by habitual sin. These are the marks of the true Christian. There are others given in Scripture, but I think these are the “Big Three.” So, regardless of an individual claiming that they are a Christian, they may or may not actually be one.

The purpose of this article is not to prepare anyone to go out and point a finger and say “you are a Christian, but you are not” and so forth. In fact, I would encourage everyone to avoid doing that. It is simply not right to do. However, I would also encourage each individual who professes to be a Christian to read this article, and apply it to themselves. I want them to search themselves, to search their hearts and minds, honestly and without reservation, and check the validity of their own Christianity because if someone, anyone, even you my friend, think you are a Christian but your definition of “Christian” is in anyway different than the Bible's definition, then please realize that you are not a Christian, and you will fall into that group of people to whom Jesus will one day say, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

The Lübeck Cathedral, in Lübeck, Germany bears this inscription (please excuse the updated use of “you” rather than “ye”)”

You call Me Master and obey me not,
You call Me Light and see Me not,
You call Me the Way and walk Me not,
You call Me Life and desire Me not,
You call Me wise and follow Me not,
You call Me fair and love Me not,
You call Me rich and ask Me not,
You call Me eternal and seek Me not,
You call Me gracious and trust Me not,
You call Me Lord and serve Me not,
You call Me mighty and honor Me not,
You call Me just and fear Me not,
If I condemn you, blame me not.

Two excellent sermons on this subject by Dr. John MacArthur

0 Comments

The Failure of Moral Relativism

4/24/2015

Moral relativism is the philosophical belief that there is no objective moral standpoint that is inherently correct that can be applied to all people, all cultures, all societies for all time. This belief holds that with regard to an individuals morality, personal beliefs and specific situations will determine the correct morals for that situation. Perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche explained moral relativism best when he said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” In other words, whatever works for you is right. Perhaps you can see the problems inherent in moral relativism.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason wrote an article for Salvo Magazine entitled, “Seven Things You Can't Do As A Moral Relativist”, in which he (obviously) lists these seven things. They are:

1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.

During a conversation I recently had with with an individual, a professing Christian, who made the comment that morality was relative. Our conversation was so illustrative of the points being made by Mr. Koukl, I have to share it in conjunction with his above list. We had been discussing the homosexual marriage issue (he was for and I was against) that is being foisted upon America – and more importantly upon Christians – by a small but very vocal segment of our society. The person I was speaking with (I'll call him “Fred”) stated that. “People are people and morality is relative. Although we would consider the genocide of Indians to 'immoral' today, In the 1840's is was not. While gay marriage may be distasteful to some, it simply can't be immoral. What is immoral about two willing people of the same sex living together?”

“Fred” went on to explain that at his church he was a music minister and had always had gay men in key positions. He was aware of it, and even the pastor was aware of this, however, he said, “we don't meddle in parishioners private lives. Being gay is not a sin, Having sex outside wedlock is.”

As I went to explain that morality is not relative and, in fact, cannot be relative without disastrous results, is pointed to a recent news article as what happens when morality is considered relative, the gang rape of a young woman on a public beach, surrounded by hundreds of onlookers who did absolutely nothing other than video record the rape and then post it online. [Panama City Gang Rape: A Kitty Genovese for the YouTube Era, by Charlotte Lytton 04.16.15]

“Fred” tried to explain that what was different in the example of the Panama City gang rape is that in that incident there was a victim, therefore it was morally wrong because rape is a criminal action. However, that only addresses who is criminally responsible for that act, not who is morally wrong. I responded by asking “Fred” who he thought was morally wrong then? Was it the rapists? Was it the hundreds of onlookers who stood by and did nothing other than video record the rape? How about those who allowed the video to be posted to their website? How about the people who watched or downloaded the video? Are any of these people morally wrong? I asked “Fred” if he thought, as he apparently did, that an act is only immoral if there is a victim, then who decides if there actually is a victim? If a court of law allows a child molester to go free and makes the determination that the three year old that the molester actually raped, wasn't legally raped because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then no crime actually occurred and therefore there is no actual victim. Then, according to “Fred's” moral relativist belief, that rape of a three year old would not be immoral since the court determined that no rape took place.

Of course, “Fred” had no answer, and in fact, he told me that he could not argue with that. He did not, however, reject his moral relativism belief. “Fred's” responses, his arguments in our conversation perfectly illustrate Mr. Koukl's list of seven things a moral relativist cannot do. “Fred” could not accuse those involved in the Panama City gang rape of wrongdoing. He could not call what they did wrong or evil, he could not place any blame upon them for the rape or the video recording of it and he could not say that what the rapists or video recorders did was unfair or unjust; and clearly, “Fred” was unable to hold a meaningful moral discussion.

This is the problem, the failure of moral relativism. Since nothing is really immoral or moral, other than what the individual “believes” is moral or immoral in a given situation or at a particular moment in time, the moral relativist cannot, as Mr, Koukl states, improve their morality because they have no objective or absolute moral standard.

As Christian's – and I will even go so far as to make the distinction of “True Christian's,” we have an absolute, unchanging moral standard, and that standard is God. In fact, every person has that standard of God's absolute morality written on their heart, their DNA so to speak. The problem arises when the individual chooses to ignore that absolute moral standard in favor of their own personal wants and desires which they rationalize and justify by waving the banner of moral relativism, and that brings us back to the issue “Fred” and I started our conversation with. Homosexual marriage. It is morally wrong, and the only thing that an approval of homosexual marriage will do, is to lend a governmental approval of the immoral sexual wants and desires of a select group of individuals. And if that approval is lent by the government, then how can they disapprove of any other immoral sexual wants or desires of any other group?

Moral relativism is the key to a Pandora's Box that once opened, cannot legislatively be closed. Ever.

Recommended Reading:
The seven fatal flaws of moral relativism
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/the-seven-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism-3/

Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/12/top-7-things-you-cant-do-as-moral.html

What is moral relativism?
https://carm.org/moral-relativism

What is moral relativism?
http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-relativism.html

A Frontal Assault on Christianity

4/22/2015

(Photo courtesy of MEMRI JTTM)

From Gary Randall's Faith and Freedom Blog:

New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible
by Gary Randall, Thursday, April 16, 2015

The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."

Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.

Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.

The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.

The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."

We've evolved.

The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.

The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.

Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.

Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."

"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."

In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.

He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."

Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."

Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBT people."

Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another “evangelical” author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."

"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"

Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.

Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."

The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.

To continue reading the entire article by Gary Randall, and I would encourage you to do so, please click here: http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2015/04/new-york-times-on-bigotry-and-bible.html#.VTVY0PB709k

What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality?

4/17/2015

What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality?

Last night I had a very interesting discussion with an individual who, while professing to be a Christian, simply could not find anything immoral about same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, this is a common mindset among many in the church today. Glennon Doyle Melton writes in favor of same-sex marriage on her blog. She says, “For example: when a married Christian says that he loves gay people but can’t support marriage equality, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love. Because loving your neighbor as you love yourself, I think, must mean that you bestow every right you claim for yourself onto your neighbor. If you are free and you love your neighbor as yourself, you want your neighbor to be free, too. If you claim your right to be married, but deny it to your neighbor, then you are loving your neighbor just a little bit less than you love yourself.”

Upon reading her statement I did a double take, and I am sure you can imagine why. Following her logic I can say the same thing about any sin (and make no mistake, the Scripture clearly labels homosexuality as sin), such as say, murder. “When a married Christian says that he loves adulterers but can’t support adultery, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love.” Or how about Child Molestation? “When a married Christian says that he loves child molestors but can’t support child molestation, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love.”Or maybe murder? I'm sure you get the point. As can be seen, Mrs. Melton's logic is severely flawed.

But can't the same be said of any line of reasoning that allows, condones, promotes or encourages any sin? Of course it can, and I am discovering that the various arguments being presented from so-called Christians are all as equally flawed. One of the most common of these arguments is, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so He obviously did not condemn it. The simplest line of reasoning against this fallacy can be found on the Stand to Reason blog, where Melinda Penner writes that since Jesus is God, and all of Scripture is God-Breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), then obviously anything the Bible has to say about homosexuality comes from Jesus. You can read her article here: What Jesus Said about Homosexuality.

While Miss Penner's reasoning could be called simple, it is also quite profound on many levels, and it is also quite true. I do have to say that left on its own, however, it leaves the door wide open for many counter arguments (all faulty in the light of a clear understanding of Scripture), and I wish she had addressed them in her blog article. They are, however, addressed in the comments section, so be sure to read that as well.

There is another article that addresses this subject posted on the Eternity Matters blog, titled What Jesus didn't say?. It is a more in-depth article on this subject, and provides a more well-rounded treatment of the subject. I highly recommend reading both articles.

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) once said, “Hell's next attack will be on that doctrine on which all religion and all morality are based, the existence of a personal, infinite, and eternal God. That effort will be accompanied by a mighty effort to sweep away the standards of Christian purity.” In light of the state of morality in America (and the world) today, I would say Mr. Chesterton's words were prophetic, and coming true today.

Interview with a Christian - Part Two

4/8/2015

0 Comments

Interview with a Christian – Part 2

Here we pick up where we left off yesterday with our reporter friend stating that people to live in whatever manner they choose, and complaining about the Indiana pizzeria denying service to same-sex couples. Here is my answer:

Me: Actually, that isn't true. In fact there was not one single complaint, nor denial of service to anyone ever. However, because of their religious beliefs, because the owners are Christians, the WBND reporter who “broke” the story, actually made the entire thing up. It was a total fabrication. In spite of that, however, the militant homosexual faction of malcontents in this country went ballistic and began threatening to kill the owners and burn the store to the ground. All because of a lie perpetuated by a reporter. A reporter, I might add, who has yet to apologize for her actions. Actions that could have easily gotten someone killed. Actions that forced a family to go into hiding in fear of their lives.

Reporter: Be that as it may, I still don't understand why Christians think the law shouldn't apply to them. “It contradicts our faith” they say, but what they are really saying is, “we are intolerant and we should be allowed to be intolerant.”

Me: I'm not sure how you might think Christians would feel the RFRA shouldn't apply to them. Of course they want it to apply to them! Are you saying Christians do not want equality for themselves? I fond it interesting that there are homosexuals out there who are specifically targeting Christians and Christian owned businesses and manipulating the RFRA in order to use it to discriminate against Christians. Are there bakeries and florists and printers, etcetera who willingly and cheerfully support same-sex marriages and who willingly and cheerfully participate in such? Of course there are. And if these homosexual activists were truly and sincerely interested in having baked goods, floral arraignments and wedding invitations for their ceremony, then they would avoid businesses that choose to not participate in their ceremony. Unless they want the drama created by purposely seeking out Christians and Christian businesses, knowing they will choose to not participate, and then going through the whole litigation process. If they were to choose the former, then their wedding is foremost in their mind and that is what they are working toward. If they choose the latter, however, then it is intolerance, bigotry and hatred that is spurring them on. So yes, Christians are interested in keeping the RFRA alive for their own protection. Unfortunately, the militant homosexual faction in our society is able to manipulate the RFRA and the government is more than willing to allow it to be manipulated, and all for the singular purpose of persecuting Christians.

Reporter: “Militant homosexual faction of our society”? Really? That sounds rather intolerant on your part, don't you think? I thought your God was all about love. Love your neighbor and so on. How can you claim to be a Christian and yet be so intolerant about a group of people who express their love in a manner different than your own? I would submit that it is actually you who are intolerant and narrow minded.

I will say, I respect people of faith, and I salute the extraordinary works of compassion and social justice that many of them do, and I will admit that sometimes we in the news media tend to focus on the shortcomings of religious institutions rather than on their positive contributions. And I fully support the right of religious people to believe what they want and say what they wish, but, only in their pews, in their homes and in their hearts. Those are the only places where those views are appropriate. If you bring them outside and into the public arena, then I have a responsibility to put you back in your place, because if I don't, if you are allowed to single out one group of supposed sinners, then who is to say you will stop with that group? No, you must be stopped and put Christianity back where it belongs, out of the public arena.

Me: It sounds to me like you are the one being intolerant here, being oh so ready and willing to restrict the free exercise of my religious beliefs, beliefs, I might add, that you have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of. You are, and have been, accusing Christians of actions that are not conducive to Christianity. Actions that I have agreed are not Christian – actions that the Bible says are not Christian and cannot be engaged in by Christians. To use an example you have previously brought up – the Westboro Baptist Church, proves that just because someone presents themselves as a Christian doesn't mean they actually are. If you understood the Bible, then you would understand what I am saying here. The Bible very clearly points out what is and what isn't a sin, and in fact very clearly says that we are all sinners and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. It is who we are, it is what we all are, and the Bible tells us that because of our sin we are all destined to an eternity in hell, apart from God. However, because Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified on the cross, dying as an atoning sacrifice for our sins – for all of our sins, because of this we have the opportunity to turn to Him in prayer, seek forgiveness for our sins and repent of our sins. This will ensure us an eternal life in heaven with God and not an eternal life in hell apart from God.

Reporter: You know, you tell a good story, but the fact is, if you people are left unchecked you would eventually institute a theocracy here in America, a theocracy no different than the one in Iran. We are not all intolerant totalitarian Cro-Magnon's like you, and the cold hard fact is that we have all, in many ways, been a victim of the Scriptures and theology that have been used to keep us as slaves. It's been ingrained in us, and now you are using it against the LBGT community. And to you and those like you I say just shut the [expletive] up! I am sick and tired of all this “Jesus talk” and I find it disgraceful! You people do not seem to understand that it is not for the public arena! Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, no one wants to hear it!

Me: What I have been trying to explain to you is that our faith teaches us to be concerned for the spiritual welfare of others. We are to tell others about Jesus and the love He has for all of us, and to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world. We do not want to enslave anyone, in fact, the reverse it true. We want to see those who are still enslaved to sin be set free. Free to love and worship God, their creator. Something they are unable to do while chained and enslaved to sin.

Reporter: Sheesh! You are starting to sound like Franklin Graham! “Oh the evil! Oh the sin!” You know, somebody ought to lock that guy up and give him a bag of cocaine and just let him blow his brains out. I mean, it's common knowledge that he is a cokehead of the worst kind.”

Me: I'm not sure where you get your information, and I am not sure your information is even accurate or remotely true. But I will say that Jesus died for your sins just as He died for the sins of all mankind. He can cleanse you of your sin and He can break the shackles that bind you and enslave you to sin. He is just waiting to hear from you. For you to come to Him with a repentant heart seeking forgiveness.

Reporter: He just might have a long, long wait.

Me: I hope and pray not.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Note: As I mentioned at the beginning of this “interview,” it is imaginary. At least in the sense that I have not sat down and been interviewed by anyone in the media. That does not change the fact, however, that the words “spoken” by the reporter are actual words spoken by actual news and media personalities. They have been lifted from several online sources where the actual words of these personalities were recorded, and they have been edited only to keep the flow of the conversation going. The intent of their words remains intact here. This is not to say that every media personality is anti-Christian, because clearly, they are not. But there are some, and some of them, many of them in fact, are nationally known. There is a war going on in this country, a war against Christians and Christianity.

SOURCES:

Religious Freedom vs. Individual Equality http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/charles-blow-religious-freedom-vs-individual-equality.html (accessed April 6, 2015)

Why does the government consider this grandmother public enemy No. 1? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/19/why-does-government-consider-this-grandmother-public-enemy-no-1/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition. http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html (accessed April 6, 2015)

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/01/tv-reporters-cheap-gotcha-story-incites-hate-mob-against-indiana-pizza-shop/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Liberal Media Attacking Conservative Christians To Promote And Protect Vulgar, Anti-Christian Bigots http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/pdf/Watchdog/2012/MRC-WatchdogJune2012lr.pdf (accessed April 6, 2015)

Bill Maher: Christians have neurological disorder http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28970/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

America Tolerates Anti-Christian Double Standard http://www.rense.com/general87/drt.htm (accessed April 6, 2015)

Your God and My Dignity-Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0 (accessed April 6, 2015)

Time and Newsweek blatantly attack Christian doctrine http://creation.com/time-and-newsweek-blatantly-attack-christian-doctrine#virgin (accessed April 6, 2015)

Anti-Christian Bias in our Society http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/AntiXtian.htm (accessed April 6, 2015)

Does the American News Media Have an Anti-Christian Bias? http://dailysignal.com/2013/12/26/media-anti-christian-bias/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Media Matters' Anti-Christian Agenda Exposed http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Media-Matters-Anti-Christian-Agenda-Exposed/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Fox News Martyrs Tim Tebow With Claims of Anti-Christian Media Bias http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/03/tim-tebow-fox-news.html?utm_medium=twitter (accessed April 6, 2015)

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples
http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

0 Comments

Interview with a Christian - Part One

4/7/2015

Interview with a Christian – Part 1

Over the past few weeks there has been quite a bit of debate in the news and in social media over religious freedom and the rights of homosexuals to be free from discrimination. Most recently, the states of Indiana and Arkansas implemented state versions of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton during his first year in office. It has been claimed that the law allows business owners who disagree with homosexuality to discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to serve them. In their representation of Christian business owners, the media has been less than kind; an attitude that has sparked angry protests among the homosexual community, both in the street (as was the case in Indiana and other places) and online in various social media venues. Recently, an opinion piece titled “Interview with a Christian” appeared in the New York Times. It appeared that the author was attempting to somehow smooth the ruffled feathers of angry homosexuals by presenting the view of a politically correct gay affirming inclusive “Christian.” Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Scripture should recognize the oxymoronic aspect of the label.

Therefore, I decided to take it upon myself to present a more Biblical view of the Christian stand on homosexuality and other topics by subjecting myself to (as the NYTimes piece put it) “an interview by an imaginary –– but representative –– member of the press.” Here is how it went:

Reporter: I understand you have some opinions on the RFRA bills recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas.

Me: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Reporter: I trust you realize that these so-called “religious freedom” bills are actually nothing more than a license for bigoted fundamentalist Christians to use their “faith” to discriminate against people whose only “crime” is to be in love with someone.

Me: That seems like a rather biased statement. You have automatically assumed that one, Christians are bigoted fundamentalists, two, that Christians either have or will use their faith to discriminate against homosexuals, and three, that Christians somehow think homosexuality is a crime. So let me answer each of these three topics for you if I may.

Reporter: By all means. I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

Me: First, your statement that Christians are bigoted fundamentalists seems to be based on personal opinion rather than fact, since bigotry is not conducive to Christianity, and fundamentalism simply means that we believe the Bible to be the factual inerrant word of God – which the Bible itself says about itself, and leaving the Bible open to personal interpretation without regard to what the Bible actually says is also not conducive to Christianity.

Reporter: Are you saying that a Christian can't be a bigot? What about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church? They're a Christian church! And I've rarely seen a bigger bunch of hypocritical bigots in my life! And you can't possibly believe everything in the Bible to be literal or even literally true? That just doesn't make any sense!

Me: I agree that the Westboro Baptist Church engages in hatefilled rhetoric, but just because they might call themselves “Christian” does not necessarily mean they really are. The Bible, which we view as the literal word of God Himself, is very clear about this when it says in 1 John 1:5-6, “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” and in chapter 2, verse 11 God says, “But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” and in chapter 4, verse 20, “If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” Even Jesus Himself said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22) So, while I will not say that those people are not Christian's, since that is God's responsibility and not mine, I will say what the Bible says, and it clearly says that Christian's will not behave that way. Fortunately, those types of groups are few and far between, so it really is unfair to paint with such a broad brush.

As for taking the Bible to be the literal word of God and literally true, yes, I do. All Christians do as there is no reason to believe otherwise. There is plenty of evidence, including extra-biblical evidence, to support the veracity of the Bible. Do we take it all literally? Only the literal parts. Sections that are prophetic or analogous are clearly marked as such so as to avoid any confusion. Plus, as Scripture says, true believers have the Spirit of God to guide them through the Scriptures.

Reporter: I still don't see how you can say that Christians will not use their faith to discriminate against gays who happen to be in love with one another. Or do you believe that gays should be stoned to death as your so-called literal Bible says.

Me: Not only are there no cases of religious people refusing to serve homosexuals, but only cases where those homosexuals wanted to force Christians to participate in activities that strictly violate Christian beliefs; but ff you read the bill, even the original bill before any revisions, you will see that there is no clause in it, nor in any of the other RFRA bills in any other state, nor even in the federal RFRA law that protects religious people or businesses owned by religious people from being targeted by homosexuals for the express purpose of prosecuting those Christians and Christian owned businesses. And I specifically say Christian since Muslim owned businesses have refused to participate in those activities, and they are not prosecuted. In fact, when multiple homosexual owned bakeries were asked to make custom cakes celebrating traditional marriage or that bear the message that homosexuality is a sin, and they refused, there were no prosecutions. Only Christians are being prosecuted for these so-called crimes.

As for homosexuals being stoned to death, that would be a specific law for a specific time, a specific place and for a specific people. It is no longer in effect, so no, I do not believe homosexuals should be stoned or physically harmed in any way. In fact, today, it is only certain Islamic terrorist groups and certain Islamic governments that actually murder people simply because they are homosexuals, and they consider homosexuality to be a crime. Christians do not. We believe homosexuality is a sin, and like any sin, if it is not repented of, and the person does not turn to Christ for forgiveness of their sins, then sadly, very sadly, they will be condemned to hell for eternity.

Reporter: Aren't you really just trying to sound pious and non-confrontational while actually trying to maintain some perceived right or responsibility to hate and discriminate? You have to know that Americans have really lost their appetite for that kind of nonsense, and as a country we are trying to move forward as a beacon of tolerance while retaining a form of religiosity that is inclusive and affirming for all, just as other progressive wealthy countries.

Me: Seriously? Would those “progressive wealthy countries” include say, any in the Middle East? Maybe Saudi Arabia, or Iran (whom are government is currently negotiating treaties with)? Countries that express their tolerance by killing homosexuals and beating women and children while denying their human rights?

And your insistence that Christian's are holding fast to their hate and discriminatory attitudes shows that not only have you not been listening to me, but that you actually do not have a clear understanding of what a Christian is, and perhaps do not want a clear understanding due to some sort of preconceived bias against Christianity or God or Jesus. You seem to be saying that Christians are automatically guilty of hate and discrimination simply because they are Christian.

Reporter: I would say that when you enter into the world of commerce here in America, regardless of your “deeply held religious beliefs,” then you have entered into a nondiscriminatory zone and your personal beliefs are checked at the door. Each customer, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political beliefs must be treated equally. No exceptions.

Me: So you are saying that a Christian business owner must participate in a homosexual activity even if it violates their faith, and in effect, is the same as saying deny your faith or face prosecution?

Reporter: I am saying they cannot discriminate against gays.

Me: So, following your logic, Muslim business owners must also participate as well?

Reporter: Yes.

Me: And Jewish bakeries can be forced to bake Nazi themed cakes, and Black owned bakeries can be forced to bake anti-Black cakes for a Ku Klux Klan rally …

Reporter: I didn't say that.

Me: … And clearly, a gay baker must be required to bake cakes for Christians that say “Just say no to same sex marriage”? Because when bakeries owned by gays were asked to bakes those cakes they simply refused, and they were not prosecuted at all. In fact, some would say that this idea of tolerance you are promoting is really a double standard that protects homosexuals, but targets Christians.

Reporter: There is no double standard when Christians are using a book like the Bible, a book full of hate, to justify their hate and discrimination against gays. If it were up to me the Bible would be illegal!

Me: You mean like in Colorado?

Reporter: Oh, get real! Now you are really grasping at straws. But go ahead and spout your conspiracy theory. It will show people just how loony you people are.

Me: As of November 2014, Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-34-701 stated that the publishing of discriminative matter was forbidden. It went on to say that, no person, whether owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation –– and “place of public accommodation” is defined as, “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.” In fact, it quite literally means anyplace the public uses, with the exception of “churches, synagogues, mosques, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” –– may not “publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method” … “any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description that is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against any … sexual orientation … or against any of the members thereof … that the patronage, … presence, … at such place by any person or class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular … sexual orientation … is … objectionable or not … desired … .”

This law effectively bans the publishing, issuing, circulating, sending, distributing, giving away, or displaying any Christian Bible because it clearly states that homosexuality is objectionable. This means that it is illegal to have a Bible in a public library in Colorado. It is illegal for a chaplain in a convalescent home to hand out a Bible in Colorado. It is illegal for the owner of a barbershop to leave their personal Bible out in plain view in their own shop in Colorado, or, for that matter, any employee of any business to carry a pocket New Testament in their shirt pocket while working. In any public place in Colorado, other than a house of worship, the Bible is illegal.

Reporter: I don't believe you.

Me: Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. The law stands as I have said. Look it up yourself. Colorado Revised Statutes, C.R.S. 24-34-701. It is readily accessible online.

Reporter: This still doesn't answer the question of, why should Christians be allowed to discriminate against gays?

Me: Actually, I have already answered that question. Repeatedly. Christians are not discriminating against gays. For example, take Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman for example. She owns Arlene's Flowers …

Reporter: I know who she is. She refused to sell flowers to two men simply because they are gay.

Me: Well, that's not exactly true. In fact, one of those men, Robert Ingersoll, was a long time customer of Miss Stutzman. The simple fact that she had sold him flowers for an extended period of time proves that she was not discriminating against him. The issue of his wedding to his male partner Curt Freed came up during a conversation, and Miss Stutzman simply said that she could not participate in that wedding by designing custom arraignments for it. This was not a case of a Christian refusing to sell flowers to someone because they are gay, especially since she had been doing that exact thing for some time. Rather it is a case of she did not want to participate in that wedding, because doing so would be a violation of the Christian faith by giving tacit approval of sin. Scripture is clear that a person cannot do this and be a Christian, and doing so is a grievous sin in itself and indicates a deep seated wickedness (Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:19-23; I Corinthians 8:9-13). To force a Christian to do this is tantamount to forcing them to deny their faith – and, in effect, to deny Christ Himself. A Christian cannot do that. And yet, this is exactly what the state Attorney General is attempting to do by requiring Miss Stutzman to participate in homosexual wedding ceremonies.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any government law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. This is exactly what the Washington court has done.

Reporter: Your argument for the First Amendment doesn't wash. It just doesn't hold up anymore, at least not in today's society. While the First Amendment was originally intended to protect individual freedom of religion, America is shifting away from the individual rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. This shift may be recent, but it is here and these sorts of cases are becoming more and more frequent. You might as well get used to the idea that your personal religious opinion doesn't matter in America anymore, and it will never usurp another person's personal liberty.

Too many people in this country have an unhealthy obsession with what other people do in the their bedrooms. You Christians need to mind your own faith and your own business and allow other people to define their own relationships with a god, if such a thing exists, or another person regardless of their sexual preference.

Me: You mean, allow people to sin, and don't warn them about the spiritual consequences of that sin. Isn't that what you really mean?

Reporter: Call it whatever you want, but if people want to sin, that's their business and none of yours. In fact, it is exactly that same kind of self-righteousness that is causing the problem in Indiana right now with that pizza joint. They are flat out denying services to same-sex couples! Outright!

[Tomorrow the remainder of this "interview" will be posted.]

<<Previous

Letter from Phlegmore to Slugwart

Did Pope Francis Give A False Gospel?

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

Can A Christian Reject God And Still Be A Christian?

Your Christianity - True or False?

The Failure of Moral Relativism

A Frontal Assault on Christianity

What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality?

Interview with a Christian - Part Two

Interview with a Christian - Part One

Archives

Categories