The Reason Files
  • Home
  • About
  • The Gospel
    • The Gospel Blog
  • Blog
    • Christian Persecution in America
  • Encyclopedia
  • Extras!
    • Free Downloads
    • Meme Gallery >
      • Meme Gallery Page 2
      • Meme Gallery Page 3
    • Links

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!
Picture
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

The Failure of Moral Relativism

4/24/2015

 
Picture
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

 
Picture
(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

 
Picture
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.
    Picture

    Archives

    November 2023
    July 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    5 Solas
    95 Theses
    Aaron Thompson
    Abuse
    Agnosticism
    Alistair Begg
    Amber Guyger
    A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
    Angelic Revelations
    Angels
    Anne Graham Lotz
    An Open Letter To My Family And Friends
    Antinomianism
    Antiochian Orthodox
    Apocrypha
    Apologetics
    Apostasy
    Archibald Brown
    Armianism
    Arminian
    Atheism
    Atheist Arguments
    A.W. Pink
    Benjamin Knight
    Benjamin Naim
    Ben The Baptist
    Bethel Music
    Bible
    Bible Believer's Baptist Church
    Bible Contradictions
    Biblical Archaeology
    Biblical Interpretation
    Blasphemy
    Book Of Life
    Botham Jean
    Brandt Jean
    Calvinism
    Cannibalism
    Causa Finitum
    Challenge For Christians
    Charles Haddon Spurgeon
    Christianity
    Christian Life
    Christian Living
    Christian Love
    Church
    Church Of Almighty God
    Contemporary Christian Music
    Covid
    Covid 19
    Creeds
    Cults
    Death By Atheism
    Death By War
    Decisional Regeneration
    Denialism
    Dennis Grutzmacher
    Doctrines Of Demons
    Doctrines Of Grace
    Donald Trump
    Double Imputation
    Doubting
    Easter
    Eastern Lightning
    Edmund Sears
    Election 2016
    Elevation Music
    Ephesians 2:8 9
    Ephesians 2:8-9
    Erin M Harding
    Evangelizing
    Fall Of America
    False Christianity
    False Christians
    False Teachers
    Fatima
    FBQ's
    Fellowship With God
    Five Solas
    Free Ebook
    Friday Night Lectures
    Gaslighting
    Gay
    Genocide
    Gospel
    Hell
    Heresy
    Hermeneutics
    Hillsong Music
    Holiness
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    Hymns
    Idolatry
    Imputation
    Insanity
    Irresistible Grace
    Islam
    I Support Abuse Survivors
    Jackie Hill Perry
    James E Adams
    JC Ryle
    Jesus Culture
    John Calvin
    John MacArthur
    Jonathan Edwards
    Josh Buice
    Joshua Chavez
    Joy Reid
    Judging
    Julie Roys
    Justification
    Kenosis
    Kenotic
    Know Your Heresies
    Latter-Day Saints
    LDS Church
    Lesbian
    LGBT
    Liberalism
    Ligioner Ministries
    Ligonier Articles
    Limited Atonement
    Mark Batterson
    Martin Luther
    Martyn Lloyd-Jones
    Mary Worship
    Me Too
    Michael Servetus
    Mike Ratliff
    Monergism
    Moral Relativism
    Mormonism
    Mormons
    Mysticism
    Nancy Demoss Wogemuth
    Nauman Masih
    New IFB
    Old Testament
    Original Sin
    Persecution
    Perseverance Of The Saints
    Philadelphia Church Of God
    Pinecreek Doug
    Politics
    Pope Francis
    Prayer Circles
    Presidential Election
    Protestant
    Protestantism
    Pseudo-Christian
    Pseudo Christianity
    Pseudo-Christianity
    Race
    Racialism
    Racism
    Ravi Zacharias
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reformed Theology
    Refuting The Bible
    Regeneration
    Religious Expression
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act
    Religious Pluralism
    Religious Wars
    Responding To Atheist Arguments
    Resurrection
    Resurrection Of Jesus
    Revoice
    Revoice Conference
    RFRA
    Roman Catholic
    Roman Catholic Church
    Roman Catholic False Teachings
    Roman Catholicism
    Romans 1 28 To 32
    Salvation
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saturday Night Movies
    Scripture Twisting
    Servus Christi
    Sin
    Southern Gospel
    Sovereignty Of God
    Steven Anderson
    Steven Furtick
    Sunday Morning Sermons
    Sure Foundation Baptist Church
    Swedenborgianism
    Synergism
    The Bible
    The Cathedrals
    The Christian Creed
    The Heart
    Theology
    The Trinity
    Ticky Tok Toddy Harding
    Todd Ferguson
    Tolerance
    Tom Ascol
    Tom Buck
    Total Depravity
    Traits Of A Debased Mind
    Trinity
    True Christianity
    True Christians
    TULIP
    Unconditional Election
    Unitarianism
    United Methodist Church
    Vaccine
    Voting
    Waldens
    Website Updates
    What Is A Christian
    What's The Difference
    Wheat And Tares
    William Lane Craig
    Wolf Alert
    Women Pastors


    Click here to read about the Persecution of Christians in America.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.