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

Jackie Hill Perry’s Racist Rap Song

5/21/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Jackie Hill Perry released on her Instagram feed, a new rap video on May 20, 2022, which she titled, “Mr. Morale : A Rap (All The Smoke)” [https://www.instagram.com/reel/CdyDrMLlZVo/]. A reading of the words to this “song” (provided below) soon reveals Mrs. Perry’s dark side.
yeah one verse a week that’s my daily diet,
y’all talk to much y’all should try some silence,
they shootin’ up some grocery stores, where the sirens?
they preach against CRT like it aint, white boys
with AR’s that’s dreaming about killing
and stealing my body and tie it go lynching tree.

I’m bout to buy back my granny house,
gettin my own reparations, I ain’t patient no,
Now yuh, satan gone play in the lake that was waitin’
for us, you playing, I’m praying for love,
what if I told you they stole us and told us,
the Holy Ghost ain’t coming summoning, blood
judgment is coming, I’m running the race,
and that racist the lake is just waiting for ya.


Just who is Jackie Hill Perry condemning to the lake of fire? Who is she condemning to hell?

“They preach against CRT like it ain’t” and “White boys with AR’s that’s dreaming about killing and stealing my body and tie it to a lynching tree” and “judgment is coming” and “that racist the lake is just waiting for ya.”
She equates those White people who preach against CRT with overt racists with guns, and who lynch people. She says judgment is coming and those anti-CRT White people will be cast into the lake of fire.
The demonization of White people who preach against CRT, while not demonizing people of color who also preach against CRT, demonstrates an irrational hatred against White people, and specifically against White people who preach against CRT.

CRT or Critical Race Theory is an unbiblical philosophical framework that presents as its premise the following:
1. Systemic racism is an inherent part of American society.
2. This systemic racism can be found in all areas such as education, housing, employment, healthcare, government, the military, the Christian Church, and, of course, it is inherent in the nature of White people.
3. This systemic racism manifests itself in the racial inequalities that are inherent in the laws, regulations, policies, and institutions throughout America; as well as the inherent racism found in White people.
4. Racism can really only be understood, and thus properly explained, by those who have experienced it. First and foremost this refers to African-Americans, and then secondarily by other people of color. As (it is believed) White people are the prominent progenitors of racism in America, they cannot be the victims of racism, and therefore do not understand it, and are disqualified from speaking about it.

CRT promotes division and partiality, both condemned by God (Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; Titus 3:9-11; etc / James 2:1; Romans 2:11; Galatians 3:28; etc.). Clearly then, CRT is not only unbiblical, but antithetical to Scripture, and therefore to God, and to Christianity as well.

What then does this say about Jackie Hill Perry?


Footnotes:
https://www.naacpldf.org/critical-race-theory-faq/
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html
https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/09/873375416/there-is-no-neutral-nice-white-people-can-still-be-complicit-in-a-racist-society
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

0 Comments

Examining Erin M. Harding

5/15/2022

4 Comments

 
Picture
I went on Twitter today and was looking through my Twitter feed, when I came across a Tweet that mentioned Mrs. Erin M. Harding. Not familiar with who she was I went to her Twitter page and soon discovered quite a bit about her. For instance, she recently completed the courses for (with a 4.0 she says) and was presented with a B.A. degree in Pastoral Ministry at South Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

For those of you who are not familiar with this degree, it equips the student to be a pastor, something God does not permit a woman to be. From the comments she has made, she is an egalitarian, stating she is her husbands equal, and looking to egalitarian scholars to support her desire for women to be pastors

Picture
Picture
Thus she is in rebellion against God who very clearly says that a woman is subject to, not equal to, her husband, and who very clearly and unequivocally states He does not permit a woman to be in authority over a man.
Picture
This command is not simply for the first century Christian woman, but for all women in all places, and in all times. What part of “the husband of one wife” does she not understand? (1 Timothy 3:2). Again, she is rejecting those portions of God’s Word she disagrees with and is therefore in open and unrepentant rebellion against God.

Mrs. Harding has adorned herself with nose piercings and tattoos, which God has said not to do (1 Timothy 2:9; Leviticus 19:28; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Corinthians 3:17).

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
I have also learned that Mrs. Harding uses society rather than the Bible to gauge God’s Church, apparently thinking the Church should be more like the world than Christlike.

Picture
Because of this it comes as no surprise to me that she also supports abortion,

Picture
(Bart Barber supports abortion)

Picture
(Ketanji Brown-Jackson supports abortion)

Picture
(apparently opposing a Black person who supports abortion makes you a racist, and Mrs. Harding somehow can read your minds people)
Picture
Picture
and she has no problem swearing,
Picture
Picture
And yes, that “F” word is simply a replacement for the other “F” word and is just as bad. This is known as using “minced oaths,” and a minced oath is just as bad as the original profanity.
Picture
“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for building up what is needed, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29 LSB). This also includes slander and malicious gossip, lies and otherwise bearing false witness – all things Mrs.  Harding seems to do with wild abandon, as we will soon see.

It is also therefore no surprise that her profanity extends to blaspheming our Sovereign Lord God Almighty.
Picture
Allow me to translate for those not familiar with writing in acronyms. “Laughing Out Loud, Oh My (His holy name), for real, for real.” The use of OMG is equal to taking the Lord’s name in vain. It is using His name as an exclamation rather than with reverence and awe as He is duly owed. It is blasphemy. And not only does Mrs. Harding have no problem blaspheming the Lord, but her Twitter fans apparently approve wholeheartedly of this.
Picture
Her total disregard for God and His Word, and instead choosing to be in open rebellion against Him, has also led to her openly slandering, spreading malicious gossip and lies, and otherwise bearing false witness against Elders in the Church. For example, the time she slandered Josh Buice because he pointed out what President Biden had already publicly said, that Ketanji Brown-Jackson was ushered in as a Supreme Court Justice simply because she is a Black woman. She is supporter of torturing and murdering unborn children (as is Erin Harding), and she is soft on crime. But because Pastor Buice pointed this out, Mrs. Harding not only publicly slandered him by calling him a racist (which he is not), but she devoted an entire podcast to slandering him and spreading malicious lies and bearing false witness against him.
Picture
She also slanders, lies about, bears false witness against and otherwise bashes Pastor John MacArthur,
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
as well as slandering Pastor Tom Buck, calling him the “Steven Anderson of Lindale, Texas” and falsely accusing him of lying, cheating, and manipulating:
Picture

For those of you who don’t know who Steven Anderson is, I have done a 15-part article series on Anderson, which can be found on this blog. The short version, however, is this: Steven Anderson, a pastor in Arizona, is the founder of the New IFB movement. He and his clone pastors routinely call for people to commit suicide, verbally bash homosexuals and encourage their deaths (including celebrating when they are killed). Anderson has even gone so far as to call for someone to assassinate the President of the United States.

All of this aside, however, Anderson is not a Christian. His views of God demonstrate that. Initially he was a staunch Modalist, teaching that heresy from his pulpit for years. Then he changed to a type of tri-theist. He claims the Trinity is divided into three separated persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (he is King James Only and won’t say Holy Spirit). He claims each has their own separate body, their own separate seat of consciousness, their own separate will.

He claims that Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins on the cross, but rather He had to die and go to hell where He was burned alive as a burnt offering, and that is what paid for our sins. He claims that Jesus has always been human, and that when He died the Trinity ceased to exist and was a biunity until the resurrection. He claims that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost all look exactly alike, like they were identical triplets. Clearly, Steven Anderson (as well as his clone New IFB pastors) teach a different god, a different Jesus, and a different gospel.

By comparing Pastor Tom Buck to the heretic hatemonger Steven Anderson, Mrs. Harding is applying all of these heresies to Pastor Ascol. The very definition of bearing false witness, and a willful violation of the 9th commandment.

Recently, Mrs. Harding has amped up her attacks on Pastor Tom Buck,
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

The crux of her argument against Pastor Buck is his “abuse” and potential (according to Erin Harding and no one else) sexual abuse committed by Pastor Buck 30-some years ago. Erin Harding presents these accusations as if Pastor Buck has been engaging in these things continually for the past 30-plus years.

For those unfamiliar with the abuse committed by Pastor Buck, it entailed his anger flare ups in the early years of his marriage, before he became a pastor, and a single incident when his wife placed her hand on him and he grabbed her hand and slapped her wrist. A single solitary incident. I will let you, Dear Reader, decide if that is abuse or not. Personally, although I believe it was (operative word being "was") an abusive act, it was nonetheless a single act. Publicly calling for Pastor Buck to be investigated for sexual abuse, coercion, and manipulation is tantamount to publicly accusing him of these heinous sins, and doing so without a shred of evidence, hearsay or otherwise, to support such accusations. Mrs. Harding is lying. She is bearing false witness against Pastor Buck.

Since that time, Pastor Buck has repented of this, and his wife has forgiven him completely. According to both of them their marriage is strong and vibrant, and the two of them are just as in love with one another as they were when they first married. If not more in love with one another.

This incident became an issue when Mrs. Buck wrote about the incident for a potential blog post, and emailed a copy of it to SEBTS professor, Karen Swallow Prior, asking her to please edit it and send it back. Professor Prior is, after all, an English professor, and it was assumed she was a friend of the Buck’s. As it turned out, she was anything but a friend, as she took the rough draft and gave it to others who did not like Pastor Buck, and who, in turn, leaked it to an online National Enquirer style “news organization” linked to the Southern Baptist Convention. I would like to point out that Mrs. Buck did not send the rough draft to Karen Swallow Prior and ask her to shop it around in the hope of getting some sort of book deal as some of Pastor Buck’s detractors have claimed. She only also Prior to proof read it and suggest corrections. That’s it.

As I questioned the unChristlike behavior of Mrs. Harding, several of her Twitter fans decided to digitally dog pile on me, and begin lying about me and falsely accusing me of all manner of vileness such as allegedly supporting abuse and pedophilia as shown in the above tweet. Both are obvious lies, and as a surviving victim of pedophilia, extremely offensive. Another good example of this is:
Picture
Where Mrs. Harding’s Twitter fan is accusing me of impugning my “sister in Christ with vile tribalistic attacks” and sowing discord among the brethren. I have simply pointed out that Mrs. Harding is behaving like an unbeliever. Which she is.

Before I had finally had enough of their unbiblical behavior and unChristlikeness, Mrs. Harding’s husband jumped in to the fray,
Picture
taking the opportunity to bash on Pastor Buck and myself, acting decidedly like an unbeliever,
Picture
Picture
(Writing that the SATF (Sexual Abuse Task Force) should investigate Pastor Buck just to make sure he wasn't involved in "sexual abuse, manipulation, or coercion" is strongly implying, in a public forum, that he is guilty of all three, when in fact, he isn't)

In one of those Tweets by Mr. Harding, Mrs. Harding quickly follows up with a Tweet of her own wherein she emphatically states that she is not a liar and not a hypocrite. Yet that is exactly what she is. As I have shown, using her own words, Mrs. Harding has lied on numerous occasions. And the simple fact is that for whatever reason she believes Pastor Buck to be an abuser, and yet repeatedly abuses him. Condemning someone for something while you yourself are doing the very thing you are accusing them of, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

In one of Mr. Harding’s Tweets he stated that I and others where engaging in wolf-like behavior:
Picture
This is actually known as “DARVO.” DARVO is an acronym for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” It is a well known characteristic of psychological abusers which they use to manipulate others. The thread that accompanied Mr. Harding’s Tweet, included several examples of this, where Mrs. Harding and her Twitter fan base all exclaimed that she was not abusing anyone, but that it was Pastor Buck and myself who were abusing her by exposing her unChristlike behavior. This is a classic DARVO move, wherein she (and they) attempt to paint us as the ones in sin and her as the innocent victim.

I would also like to point out that the “sister in Christ” defense has been used repeatedly by her Twitter fan base; but, I have to ask if she truly is a sister in Christ. Is Mrs. Harding, who supports the torture and murder of unborn children; who allows unwholesome words to proceed from her mouth, and who withholds words that are good for building up and extending grace, but instead engages in wholesale slander, lies, bearing false witness, hypocrisy, and otherwise bashing on people; as well as openly advocates for the rejection of certain portions of God’s Word and is herself in open rebellion against God, is Mrs. Harding a believer in Christ, a follower of Jesus Christ? Is Mrs. Harding a Christian?

Well, based on her own words as contained in her many Tweets on Twitter, I have to conclude that no, she is not a Christian. How can someone be a Christian while simultaneously behaving so convincingly as an unbeliever? I submit to you that one cannot. Jesus said that we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Either we serve God, or the world. Either we serve God, or we serve Satan. There is no middle ground. No other option. Mrs. Harding has given no evidence that she serves God, and Christians would do well to mark and avoid her as Scripture commands (Romans 16:17-18).
UPDATE
Since this article was released, I have been contacted by Pastor Buck, who corrected me on two points. First, it was Pastor Buck and not Pastor Ascol who was slanderously compared with Steven Anderson; and second, Pastor Buck stated he did not simply slap his wifes hand away, but rather he grabbed her hand and slapped her wrist. Pastor Buck stated, "I want to own my sin." This shows Pastor Buck to not only be repentant, but far more responsible than Mrs. Harding who refuses to acknowledge her sin.

Appropriate corrections have been made.
4 Comments

The "Me Too" & "I Support Abuse Survivors" Crowds

5/15/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
I don’t know about you, but I am so tired of the “Me Too” mentality, and the “I Support Survivors” crowd of coattail riders trying to benefit themselves from the suffering of others. It’s really kind of sick and depraved when you think about. In my mind, the crux of the matter is this: If you have been abused, then seek help with the proper authorities and the proper counselors. People who can actually help you. Biblical counseling is great and extremely helpful, though not always in cases of abuse. Going on social media and inciting others against your abuser is by far, however, the wrong tactic. Especially for you who profess to be a Christian. The “Me Too” crowd is made of fellow abuse victims as well as those who haven’t been abused, but will claim it so people will fell sorry for them. Abuse victims neither need, nor should want people to simply feel sorry for them. What they need, and should want, is sound, professional help. If people want to pray for abuse victims, that’s awesome, but don’t post it on social media that you are doing so. That’s an act reserved for Pharisees. When I see people giving the “obligatory” words, “Praying,” etcetera, or posting the praying hands emoji, I want to ask them how long their prayer tassels are (Matthew 23:5). If you want to pray, then pray. But don’t crow about it, as it makes your prayers insincere and ineffective.

Worse yet are the “I Support Survivors” coattail riders, who will jump on your coattails in order to make themselves feel better and important by “supporting” an abuse survivor, or “standing with” an abuse survivor. Are they taking the abuse survivor into their home to protect her, or him, or them? Are they volunteer foster parents taking in abused children? Are they taking abuse survivors to the hospital or mental health therapy? Or are they simply trying to make themselves look good by bleating like goats and spreading hatred and unforgiveness on social media? If they aren't doing those first three things, then they are not supporting a single abuse survivor.

These types like to rebel against God by sinning as well as to adding to Scripture, and you are helping them commit those sins. How are they adding to Scripture you ask? By adding to the list of unforgivable sins. Scripture clearly states that ALL sins are forgivable except the ONE sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). But for these coattail riders they are ready and willing to add abuse (of any kind) to that list, thus adding to Scripture.

Furthermore, God also commands us to forgive others. “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matthew 6:14-15 LSB). By sharing your abuse story on social media, and these coattail riders then add to Scripture and refuse to forgive abusers, then you are culpable for their sin and eventual casting into the lake of fire if they don’t repent.

A quick note to those coattail riders, heaping abuse on those you suspect of abuse is about as hypocritical as you can possibly be. Just so you know, and thus remove any excuse you may have drummed up in your own head,

If you doubt what I am writing here, simply read the various social media threads and feeds where someone’s, especially a Christian’s abuse story is shared.
As I noted, there are many, many excellent resources for those who have been abused, and that includes those adults who were abused as children. If you haven’t learned to really deal with what you went through, I strongly encourage you to seek professional help, and if possible from a Christian counselor who is thoroughly steeped in God’s Word.
A note on the image I used for this blog article: Is this the image of the abuse victim who feels depersonalized and detached, locked in a fog of despair? Or is the image what an abuse victim sees when they have terrible nightmares of their abuse (and they do have terrible nightmares)? Is this the image they have of their abuser? All three could be true. I’ll let the abuse victims decide. They will know what I mean.

One last thing, and this is for my detractors who will undoubtedly fire back with something along the lines of, “What does Tuttle know about abuse, unless he is an abuser himself! He’s just another old white man!” Well, yes, I am an old (65 years old) white man, though I don’t see what my skin color and gender have to do with this. Men, and even White men, have been, and currently are, the victims of abuse. Abuse victims are not exclusively women and children. And what do I know about abuse? I was physically and psychologically abused from the age of 3 to 17 when I finally left home; and, sexually abused from the age of 7 to 13. I won’t go into particulars, but just know it was far more perverse and degrading than you can possibly imaging. So yeah, I know a thing or two about this subject. And yes, I have forgiven my abusers. If I can, then you can too. Just do it the same way I did. Trust God to grant you the ability to forgive. He doesn’t fail.

If you, or someone you know, is the victim of abuse, please contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline. You can do so by calling, 1.800.799.7233 (TTY 1.800.787.3224), or texting “Start” to 88788, or visiting https://www.thehotline.org/ and clicking on the chat link. Their website also has a link to search for local resources to help you. No one should suffer abuse. No one.
I sincerely hope this has been helpful to someone.
God bless.

0 Comments

Is Julie Roys Now Accusing John MacArthur and Everyone in Grace Community Church with Pedophilia, Torture, Murder, and More?

4/6/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Julie Roys of The Roys Report has written more than 40 hit pieces against Grace Community Church Senior Pastor John MacArthur. Reading them it appears she is simply throwing handfuls of muck at him and hoping some of it sticks. Thus far she hasn’t had any luck, but that hasn’t prevented her from continuing to try.

She claims that she is simply exposing corruption by “Reporting the Truth” and “Restoring the Church,” though there is nowhere on her website where she gets around to explaining what she wants to restore the Church to. She seems to validate herself by saying she is a “Christian investigative journalist.” As much as I would like to test that claim, it is best left for another article at another time.
Apparently all of Mrs. Roys “investigative journalism” and “exposing” of John MacArthur has not amounted to much; and regardless of how hard she has tried her claims are always credibly refuted. That being said, however, Mrs. Roys recently posted a Tweet that seems almost incredible, almost impossible to believe, and, I should note, she offers no supporting evidence whatsoever.
As many people are aware, the Roman Catholic church has a long history of abusing women and children. It has gone on for well over a century. Just in the 20th and 21st centuries there have been dozens and dozens of documented cases of abuse of women, sexual abuse of children, and the torture and murder of children. In Ireland and Canada mass graves have been found full of the bodies of children. Hundreds and hundreds of them, all murdered by Roman Catholic priests and nuns, many (if not most) of them sexually abused and tortured before being murdered. These are not wild claims. They are fully documented and the bodies are pretty concrete proof.

But now we find out that as wicked and vile as the Roman Catholic church has been with their tens of thousands of victims, now we are told by “Christian investigative journalist” Julie Roys that John MacArthur along with all the staff, and the congregation of Grace Community Church have actually been even more wicked than the Roman Catholic church has been over the past century.
Mrs. Roys posted a Tweet on March 23, 2022 wherein she seemed to be saying just that. That John MacArthur and “the rest of...that church” (meaning MacArthur’s Grace Community Church) have been “doing far worse” than the wicked, evil and heinous deeds of the Roman Catholic church.
Mrs. Roys seems to imply that there is rampant sexual abuse, and rampant pedophilia, and the rampant murder of children throughout the staff and congregation (“the rest of...that church”) at Grace Community Church.

Picture
Mrs. Roys is, in a sense, quoting a self-avowed communist and “radical lefty” by the name of Darrell Lucus who writes for the extreme left-wing blog The DailyKos. In a libelous lie-filled article, Mr. Lucus wrote, “Even worse, one of Roys’ Facebook followers discovered that around the time that MacArthur first publicly shamed Eileen, his radio show, “Grace to You,” aired a sermon condemning the rampant sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic priesthood. Now we know that at the same time, MacArthur and the rest of what passes for leadership at that church was doing far worse.”

Notice that Mr. Lucus accuses John MacArthur and the leadership of Grace Community Church of “doing far worse” than the rampant pedophilia, physical abuse, torture, and child murder committed by the Roman Catholic priesthood. An accusation that is without any merit as there is absolutely no evidence of this.
In Mrs. Roys version we read,
Picture
Here see that she has changed Mr. Lucus’ words in such a way as to expand the accusation to include not just John MacArthur and the pastors at Grace Community Church, but also the support staff, the bookstore staff, the coffee shop staff, and the entire congregation of Grace Community Church. An outlandish accusation for which Mrs. Roys has no proof, no evidence, no witnesses. She simply makes the false accusation and expect her followers to believe them without question; and, sadly many of them do.

To be honest, Mr. Lucus is making the same accusation, but it accusing MacArthur and the leadership of Grace Community Church of rampant pedophila, child torture, and child murder by saying they do far worse than the Roman Catholic church. Mrs. Roys simply expanded the accusation to include all of Grace Community Church, which would also include the congregation, the cleaning staff, the bookstore staff, the coffee shop staff, and everyone connected in any way with Grace Community Church. Yes, I know. It is unbelievable that someone would make such an obviously false accusation, and yet, there it is. Her Tweet, containing her own words, is posted above. There is no denying it, there is no explaining it away. It is just there, and no one seems to even bat an eye. Shame on those who have read it and didn’t care.

To be honest, I have to wonder how after this anyone can take Mrs. Roys articles seriously. Of course she has her fan base, rabidly dedicated and loyal to her, hanging on every word that drips out of her poisoned pen. Those who, like Mrs. Roys herself, care nothing for the truth, and only care about seeing people viciously destroyed as they gloat over the destruction and no doubt laugh hysterically at all those who are harmed in the process. Like Mrs. Roys they care nothing for what God has said, they care nothing about obedience to God and they apparently look at ignoring, mocking, and even rejecting God as virtuous and true. They care not one whit that she is leading them all into sin. They apparently can live with the sin just as long as they can revel in the destruction of someone. Disgusting.

0 Comments

Contradictions?

3/18/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Recently, I was on Twitter and was challenged by an individual who claimed the Bible was full of contradictions. When I responded there were no contradictions in the Bible, this person responded with, “no contradictions? okay here goes this will be FUN” followed by several Tweets wherein they listed what they believed were contradictions in the Bible. They then topped it off by saying they could go on and on.
I believe this person simply went to their favorite “attack the Bible” website such as the Skeptics Annotated Bible site or some other site; and just copy and pasted some of the alleged contradictions listed there. I say this for two reasons. First, because they were able to Tweet them so quickly. They either went to the site, or had already been there to copy and save them, hoping for the opportunity to jump on someone with them. The second reason is I don’t think they actually read what these passages say. If they had, perhaps they would not have been so quick to claim their examples were contradictions.
Now then, let’s take a look at this person’s alleged contradictions:
1
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20

“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

Response: When reading the Bible, it is important to avoid “Cherry Picking,” that is, taking verses out of context in such a way as to try and make them say something which they did not actually say. Cherry picking is what is happening here (and in most of the alleged contradictions in this post).
In Exodus 20:5 we read that God “visits” the iniquity of the fathers upon the children…” The term “iniquity” as used here means suffering as a consequence for iniquity. Certainly the fathers will suffer for their iniquity, and so will their families. The fathers will receive punishment. The children will not receive punishment, but will still suffer as a direct consequence for their father’s iniquity. With regard to Exodus 20:5, the iniquity is the premeditated worship of a false god, which is punishable by death. With their father gone, who will support the children? Who will care for the children? This instant poverty that the children are thrust into because of their father’s iniquity will cause them untold suffering, and will force the family into poverty for several generations.
The person making the allegation of contradiction failed to read the context of the passages; and failed to understand, or make an effort to understand, the meaning of key words in the passage. There is no contradiction here.
2
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10

“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Response: What was the purpose of circumcision in the Old Testament? Genesis 17:10 gives a partial answer, it was a sign of the covenant the Lord had with Abraham and his physical and spiritual descendants. But what is the covenant about? It is between God and those who love Him and have their salvation in and through Him. It was an outward sign of an inner faith in God. This is explained in Romans 4:9-13. In Deuteronomy 10:12-16 we read that the physical act of circumcision is of no value, while the spiritual aspects of circumcision are of great value and importance. Again, circumcision is an outward sign of an inner faith in God.
In the New Testament, physical circumcision is not necessary for those who have faith in God, because we are in Christ Jesus, His circumcision is valid for all believers. We read about this in Colossians 2:9-14.
In Galatians 5:2-6 we read that because believers are circumcised in Christ, there is no need for a physical circumcision – a second circumcision if you will; and, in the case of believers, obtaining a physical circumcision displays a server lack of faith in Jesus Christ, and thus negates the circumcision believers have in Christ, and leave the person with no benefit whatsoever while requiring them to keep the entirety of the Old Testament law.
Again, the person making the allegation of a contradiction here has failed to fully read and understand the Scriptures concerning circumcision. There is no contradiction here.
3
“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25

“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Response: The person making the claim of a contradiction here, has cherry picked certain phrases within a larger passage, and used them to formulate a conclusion. This person has failed to even include the complete verses they are quoting!
In the first passage, Exodus 21:23-25, we read the following (verse 22 is included for context):
22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NASB)
This passage is part of a larger passage beginning around verse 12, which discusses the death penalty in Old Testament Jewish Law. As we see in Exodus 21:22-25, the situation is one where a pregnant woman is struck by a man, and the blow causes the death of the unborn baby. In such a situation the Lex Talionis (Life for a Life principle) is implemented and the death penalty imposed.
In the second passage, Matthew 5:39, we read, “39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (NASB)
This too is part of a larger passage, namely Matthew 5:38-48 (which I am not going to reproduce here due to space constraints). In Matthew 5:39 we read about an evil person who seeks to wrong you. And indeed all of verses 38-48 address this same issue. Please note that this is not the same issue as is addressed in Exodus 21:22-25. In the first the issue is murder, and the law’s response to murder. In the second the issue is someone being mean to you, and the Lord’s command in this type of situation is to not take vengeance yourself, but instead to treat them in a Christlike manner.
4
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Response: Once again the individual making the claim of a contradiction here is cherry picking phrases out of certain passages in order to support their claim. And, once again they have failed to understand the passages and phrases they are using. In the first passage, Matthew 19:26, Jesus is indeed reiterating the sovereignty of God. The second passage, Judges 1:19, however, is not talking about what God can or cannot do. It simply states that God was with Judah, not what God could or could not do. The verse and the verses surrounding it, talk about Judah and his men being unable to drive out the inhabitants of the valley.
Once again, the person making the claim has failed to understand what is being stated here, and once again, there is no contradiction.
5
“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat,

“when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31

[The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34

Response: The general point of this alleged contradiction is God forbids human sacrifice, and Jephthah “made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!” I have two points to make about this claim. First, Scripture records numerous instances of people violating God’s Law. Simply because God forbids something, and later Scripture records someone breaking God’s Law by doing that which was forbidden, is not a contradiction, and it is a huge stretch to claim it is, and it also involves redefining the word “contradiction” in order to make it fit your claim.
Second, Jephthah did not make a human sacrifice of his only child.. She became a temple worker for the rest of her life, unable to marry and thus remaining a virgin. And, it is important to note that she voluntarily chose to acquiesce to her father’s decision. She could have run away, she could have pleaded with her father to not send her away, there were all manner of things she could have done to avoid spending the rest of her life in the temple, but she didn’t. She knew she wasn’t going to be put to death, and that she would remain safe, and thus went voluntarily.
Again, no contradiction.
6
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

Response: The person claiming this is a contradiction has failed to notice the distinction in the sense in which God is either seen or unseen. This is due to their failure to read the context of the passages, and instead relying on cherry picked verses, and portions of verses.
In one sense it is possible to see God, and that is when He takes on a physical representation. Whether appearing as a man, or a column of smoke or fire, or a burning bush, etc. It is also possible to see God if He appears in a physical representation in a dream or vision.
In the other sense, it is impossible to see God as He actually is, in His actual form, because He is an invisible Spirit. He exists on a different plane of existence, and so cannot be seen by anyone at anytime.
Both verses are correct, and there is no contradiction.
7
“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4

“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10

Response: Once again the person claiming this is a contradiction has failed to include the complete verses, failed to understand the text, misrepresented the passages, and cherry picked portions of verses to support their claims.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 is correct in saying the Earth will last forever. Please note it does not say what condition it will be in, only that it will last forever.
2 Peter 3:10 states that the Earth will melt with heat, and the things on the earth will be burned up. Please note that it says nothing about the Earth not lasting forever.
In failing to recognize this – whether intentionally or unintentionally – has served to create a false contradiction where no contradiction exists. If the person had looked at the context, i.e. what the Bible says about the Earth; they would have perhaps learned that the Earth started as a formless void created by God. At a specific point in time, the Earth will become nothing more than a bald rock floating in space. Still existing, but with nothing on it. The Earth will then be re-populated with flora and fauna by the Word of the Lord, and a re-created heaven will come down and reside on earth, and believers will live there for the remainder of eternity. There is a lot more to this of course, but in a nut shell this is exactly what will happen to the Earth.
It will last for the remainder of eternity.

There is no contradiction here.
8
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

Response: Exodus 20:8 is God’s command to remember the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, and keep it holy. In other words, a day dedicated to the Lord where no work is done, other than work for the Lord. Romans 14:5 states that one man holds one day above another, and another man looks at all days the same. It then gives the command from God to “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It says nothing about the Sabbath Day of Rest whatsoever.
Since the two verses don’t have much of anything in common, there is no contradiction.
There you have it. All eight of the persons alleged contradictions are exposed as not being contradictions at all. At best, they are misrepresentations of Scripture; which means, the person has either intentionally misrepresented the Scripture in an effort to support their premise that the Bible contains contradictions; or, they have unintentionally misrepresented Scripture due to their inability, their incapability to understand the Scriptures, and thus see things in them that are not actually there.

0 Comments

Know Your Heresies - Kenosis

3/13/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Know Your Heresies:

Kenosis


A very basic explanation of the Kenosis Theory (also known as the Kenotic Theory) is that at some point between conception and adulthood, Jesus emptied Himself of some or all of His Divine Attributes. Different proponents of Kenosis have differing views as to when this emptying took place. Many of us are at least somewhat familiar with the this heresy, as Christians have been singing about it since the 18th century. The song I am referring to is, “And Can It Be (That I Should Gain?)” by Charles Wesley, one of the two founders of the Methodist Church. Here is the first verse and the refrain that I hope will help you to recognize this song.

And Can It Be, That I Should Gain?

1. And can it be that I should gain
An int'rest in the Savior's blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! how can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Refrain:
Amazing love! how can it be?
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!

Now, to be honest, this is one of my favorite songs. I love it. I always have. And it wasn’t until today when I was singing it, that as we got to the third verse, and reading as I was singing, we got to the third line of the third verse, and my heart just sank. I stopped singing. I couldn’t even bring myself to say it. Here is the third verse, with the offending third line highlighted in bold type:

3. He left His Father's throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace;
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam's helpless race;
'Tis mercy all, immense and free;
For, O my God, it found out me. [Refrain]


And there it is. Speaking about Jesus, the third verse states, “Emptied Himself of all but love…” The Kenosis heresy.
For those who subscribe to this heresy, the go to text they use to support Kenosis is Philippians 2:7. To give this some context, here are verses 5-8,
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil.2:5-8 NASB 1995)

There it is in verse 7. In speaking of Jesus, the Apostle Paul writes, “but emptied Himself,…” The word “emptied” is translated from the Greek word, ekenōsen (Strong’s G2758), which is from the Greek word, kenoó. The word does not have the same meaning as we might think. We generally think of the word “emptied,” as meaning removing the contents of something. That, however, is a simplistic understanding of the word, and it doesn’t express the actual meaning of the word.

Those who subscribe to the Kenotic Theory, or Kenosis, have used this simplistic explanation of ekenōsen as meaning “removing the contents of something,” because it fits their theology. This is a type of eisegetical theology, or forcing ones personal beliefs into the text, thus making it support what one already believes. In this instance, they have Jesus removing from Himself all or some of His Divine Attributes. However, as I said, the word does not simply mean that at all. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary we read, “From kenos;...to abase,...(to make of none effect, of no reputation).” The word ekenōsen actually means abased.

Now then, what does Abased mean? Well, according to the current Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the question is asked, “What does abased mean in the Bible?” and the answer given is, “1 formal : to lower in rank, office, prestige, or esteem; abase oneself;” and when we go back to the very first Webster’s Dictionary from 1828, the definition of the word abased is, “ABASED, pp. Reduced to a low state, humbled, degraded.”

And this is exactly what the passage states. Again in verse 7, “but [Jesus] emptied [abased] Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Jesus abased Himself, gave Himself a lower position, that of man. It doesn’t mean He was emptied of His Divine Attributes. It means He actually added a second nature to Himself.

Now, to be fair, ekenōsen can be translated empty, or to empty, but this does not mean the same as empty does in today’s English. This is where context comes into play. Context is one of the primary rules of good biblical interpretation. When reading the Bible we have to remember to understand the text according to its proper context. We look at the passages around it, and then the chapters around it, and then we look at the Bible in its entirety. Where else do we find related passages? We also have to remember to take into consideration the historical context. What would the passage mean to those to whom the letter was intended? In this case, the Philippians.

Now, don’t panic, you are not required to have a doctorate in Bibliology (the doctrine of the Scriptures), nor do you need a degree in the history of Israel and nearby tribes and nations. What is helpful, however, is a good concordance (I recommend the Strong’s because it comes with comprehensive Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for every word in the Bible); A good lexicon, several translations of the Bible so as to compare what each one says, and a few other books. Fortunately, you can find all of this online, for free. The two primary websites I use are Bible Gateway (which I use to compare translations), and BibleHub.com which has (among other useful research tools) a great interlinear Bible. You simply type in the verse you want to read (you have to do one verse at a time), and it will bring it up in both English and Greek (both written in Greek, and also written out phonetically in English), as well as give the corresponding Strong’s reference number, Clicking on that reference number takes you to a wealth of information about that particular word.

Back to what I was talking about. The Kenotic or Kenosis Theory, began in Germany in the mid-19th Century. Then a small group of men in England picked up on it in the late-19th century, and it has taken off from these two beginnings. It features most prominently in Holiness groups, and Pentecostal and Charismatic groups, with the latter being the most vocal about it. They believe that upon His incarnation, Jesus emptied Himself of all or some (it depends on which group you talk to) of His Divine Attributes. The problem with this is that it is taught no where in the Bible. There is not one passage to support the Kenosis Doctrine. Many will point to Philippians 2:7, but I’ve already addressed that above.

More importantly, if Jesus’ Divine Attributes are removed, then He ceases to be God. At best He would be a lesser deity of some sort, but He certainly would not, and could not be part of the Triune God of the Bible. In fact, once you remove Jesus from the Trinity by saying He no longer possess all the Divine Attributes, then the Trinity itself ceases to exist as well, and it has become something else, something less.

Those who subscribe to the Kenosis doctrine will argue against all of this, and insist that although Jesus no longer possessed all the Divine Attributes that define God, He is still God and nothing has changed regarding His deity. But this is simply is not true. If I bake a cake, and I leave out the sugar, the eggs, the oil, and the the baking powder – all essential ingredients, or attributes of a cake; and, I use only flour, flavoring, and water. Is what comes out of the oven really a cake? Or is it something else, something less than? Perhaps not the best analogy, but it gets the point across.

What the Bible actually teaches, and what the Church has historically believed and taught, is the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. The term cannot be found in the Bible, but like the Trinity, the concepts are all easily found in Scripture. This doctrine says that upon His incarnation (which is conception, not birth), Jesus Christ had two natures. He was the “God-Man.” Fully and truly God, and fully and truly man. Not 50/50, or 60/40, but 100% God, and 100% man. His two natures, His Divine nature and His human nature, are both complete, and they are both distinct (which means they are not mingled together to form one partially Divine and partially human nature). While His Divine Nature is able to communicate to His human nature, His Human nature has no idea what His Divine nature is doing unless it is told, and His human nature cannot open up communication with His Divine nature.

This is similar to our communication with God. We don’t know what God is thinking, unless and until He tells us. Scripture tell us that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and beyond our comprehension (see Isa.55:8-9; Rom.11:33). The same was true of Jesus. The thoughts of His Divine nature were higher that those of His human nature, and they were beyond the comprehension of His human nature. And while we can pray to God, just as Jesus prayed to God, unless God answers us audibly, it is only a one-way communication. It is only when God initiates the communication between Himself and man, that the communication can be both ways. The same is true between Jesus’ Divine nature as God, and His human nature as a man.

Kenosis is a heresy that ultimately denies the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ (whether its adherents are willing to admit this or not. Facts are facts.). His Divine attributes are what define Him as God. If He doesn’t have all of the Divine attributes He had when He was in heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then He is something less that what He was, and He ceases to be God. So whether one believes Jesus emptied Himself of all His Divine attributes or just some of His Divine attributes, the end result is a different Jesus, and not the Jesus of the Bible; and, as we have already discussed, this also destroys the Trinity.

The Kenosis doctrine will inevitably lead to the embracing of other heresies as well. One cannot accept the Kenosis Theory as true Christian doctrine, especially after being taught the truth about it (as with this article) and not be in sin, Embracing heresy is a serious sin, which will very often lead to apostasy, and falling away from the faith (see Heb.6:1-8). The Kenosis Doctrine, or Kenotic Doctrine, is unbiblical and it is heretical. It is clearly nothing to play around with, and it should be avoided at all cost.

0 Comments

What is the Difference Between Sin, Trespass, Transgression, and Iniquity?

3/12/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Answer:

Sin: Sin is the general term for anything that “falls short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). It can refer to doing something against God or against a person (Exodus 10:16); or, doing the opposite of what is biblically right (Galatians 5:17); or, failing to do something you know you ought to do (James 4:17). At its root. sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4); sin is ultimately rebellion against God, and there will always be negative consequences for sin (Romans 6:23; Isaiah 66:24; Proverbs 24:33-34). We all have a sin nature that we have had passed down to us from our common ancestor, Adam (Romans 5:12-21); and, that sin nature leads to trespasses.
Trespass: To “trespass” is to cross the line, to go beyond one’s right by violating a boundary or law. We trespass when we violate God’s moral law, or the rights of other people. When we trespass we sin, and when we sin we have trespassed.
Transgression: A transgression is like “sin 2.0,” as it refers to presumptuous sin. To transgress is to choose to intentionally disobey; transgression is willful trespassing. Samson intentionally broke his Nazarite vow by touching a dead lion (Numbers 6:1-5; Judges 14:8-9), and allowing his hair to be cut (Judges 16:17). In doing this, Samson was committing a transgression. When we knowingly and intentionally run a stop sign, speed, tell a lie, or blatantly disregard an authority, we are transgressing. In short, transgression is to make a personal choice to intentionally sin.
Iniquity: Although iniquity is still sin, it is even more serious than transgression. It is more deeply rooted in a person. Iniquity refers to a premeditated choice. To commit iniquity, is to continue to sin without repentance. Micah 2:1 says, “Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on the beds! At morning’s light they carry it out because it is in theor power to do it.”

As we examine these biblical terms, let’s not think about people we know who exhibit all of these, who are perfect examples of them. We all know people like that, but seriously speaking, we should not think ill of them, but rather sincerely pray for them, and present the gospel to them. The true and undiluted gospel. Anything less does them a disservice, and it dishonors God.

Instead, we should look at these biblical terms, and apply them to our own lives, just as God has told us to do in His holy word (2 Corinthians 13:5; Philippians 2:12-13; Lamentations 3:40; 1 Corinthians 11:28-32). If we are honest to ourselves, and to God, especially in asking the Lord to reveal to us any sin that is in us, then when we repent of those sins, we are progressing in our sanctification, and becoming more and more holy, just as God has commanded, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-17; Leviticus 19:2 cf Hebrews 12:14).

0 Comments

Sermon-Study Notes for Romans 1:28-32

2/22/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Several weeks ago, in December 2021, our pastor began to preach through the Book of Romans, taking one verse at a time and exploring what the Apostle Paul was saying to the church at Rome, and by extension to the entire body of Christ ––every believer who has ever lived (and will live). As it is turning out, it was quite a message!
When we got to Romans 1:28-32, our pastor gave a great exposition of those verses. I decided to take it a step further in my personal study time. I took the verses 28 to 32, and dissect each verse by looking at them in a Greek interlinear format, and then exploring what each of the traits of someone who has been turned over to a debased and reprobate mind, what those words actually mean. In some cases they meant exactly what we would think they mean. With others, I learned quite a bit about what the words mean, and what kind of a person someone who has been turned over by God really is; and, in other cases I was surprised to find that some of the words used in the text do not mean what we normally might think they mean!
The entire study was both very fun, and extremely helpful in understanding this portion of Scripture. Below you will find my notes on Romans 1:28-32, as well as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and other related passages, some of which were mentioned in his sermon.
If you would like to watch that particular sermon, it is available on both the church website, and also the church YouTube channel.
Romans 1:28-32 sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5qQZijWXbw
New Hope Bible Fellowship Website: https://newhopebf.weebly.com/
New Hope Bible Fellowship YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChz9V74PM-a7ikbMDCEvx6Q/featured

Romans 1:28-32 [NASB 1995]
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
[Because they refused to acknowledge God, and instead chose to reject Him,] “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”]

And what are the characteristics of someone given over to a depraved (or reprobate) mind? Scripture mentions them, and provides descriptive lists of them. Here are are, but not all:

Romans Chapter 1: Verse 29
unrighteousness: Strong’s G93. adikia [injustice, unrighteousness], (a feminine noun derived from 1 /A "not" and 1349 /díkē, "justice") – properly, the opposite of justice; unrighteousness, as a violation of God's standards (justice) which brings divine disapproval; a count (violation) of God's justice, i.e. what is contrary to His righteous judgments (what He approves).

wickedness: Strong’s G4189. ponéria (from 4192 /pónos, "pain, laborious trouble") – properly, pain-ridden evil, derived from 4192 (pónos) which refers to "pain (pure and simple)" – depravity, iniquity, wickedness.

greed: Strong’s G4124. pleonexia [greed, covetousness, avarice, aggressive desire for advantage], (a feminine noun derived from 4119 /pleíōn, "numerically more" and 2192 /éxō, "have") – properly, the desire for more (things), i.e. lusting for a greater number of temporal things that go beyond what God determines is eternally best (beyond His preferred-will, cf. 2307 /thélēma); covetousness (coveting). pleoneksía (a feminine noun) points to a brand of covetousness, defined by the context.

evil: Strong’s G2549. kakia [(a) evil (i.e. trouble, labor, misfortune), (b) wickedness, (c) vicious disposition, malice, spite], Cognate: 2549 kakía (from 2554 /kakopoiéō, "a wicked disposition") – properly, the underlying principle of evil (inherent evil) which is present, even if not outwardly expressed. [2549 /kakía ("malice") shares the same essential meaning as 2556 /kakós ("wretched evil," its adjectival cognate).]

full of envy: Strong’s G3324. mestos – “full”; Strong’s G5355. phthonos – “of envy.”
Strong’s G3324. mestos – “full” [full, filled with; in reference to persons, whose minds are as it were filled with thoughts and emotions,]; Strong’s G5355. phthonos – “of envy” [envy, a grudge, spite], the miserable trait of being glad when someone experiences misfortune or pain; strong feeling (desire) that sours, due to the influence of sin; 5355 /phthónos ("the feeling of ill-will") refers to the jealous envy that negatively "energizes" someone with an embittered mind. 5355 /phthónos ("ill-will") conveys "displeasure at another's good; . . . without longing to raise oneself to the level of him whom he envies, but only to depress the envied to his own level" (R. Trench, 90).

murder: Strong’s G5408. phonos [murder, slaughter, killing], Cognate: 5408 phónos – murder (intentional, unjustified homicide).

strife: Strong’s G2054. eris [contention, strife, wrangling], 2054 éris (a primitive word, NAS dictionary) – literally quarrel, strife; properly, a readiness to quarrel (having a contentious spirit), affection for dispute.

deceit: Strong’s G1388. dolos [deceit, guile, treachery], 1388 dólos – properly, bait; (figuratively) deceit (trickery) using bait to alure ("hook") people, especially those already festering in excessive, emotional pain (brought on by themselves).
1388 /dólos ("deceit motivated by guile") uses decoys to snare (deceive) people which implies treachery to exploit the naive (undiscerning) – baiting them through (with) their own greed.

malice: Strong’s G2550. kakoétheia [malice, maliciousness, evil-mindedness, malignity, malevolence], Cognate: 2550 kakoḗtheia (from 2556 /kakós, "an evil, vicious disposition" and 2239 /ēthos, "custom") – a malicious disposition (character) that fosters and fondles evil habits. 2550 /kakoḗtheia ("malignity") inevitably shows itself in acts of deceit (treachery) – i.e. what is characteristic of " 'evil-mindedness' that puts the worst construction on everything" (Souter).

gossips: Strong’s G5588. psithuristés [a whisperer, secret slanderer], Cognate: 5588 psithyristḗs – properly, a whisperer; a sneaky gossip (a "back-stabber"); a backbiter, quietly (secretly) destroying another person's character – i.e. covertly, not out in the open, but rather operating "secretively, behind the scenes."
Verse 30
slanderers: Strong’s G2637. katalalos [slanderous, back-biting; subst: a railer, defamer], Cognate: 2637 katálalos – slanderous. From kata and the base of laleo; talkative against, i.e. A slanderer -- backbiter.

haters of God: Strong’s G2319. theostugés [hating God, hateful to God], 2319 theostygḗs(a substantival adjective, derived from 2316 /theós, "God" and stygeō, "abhor") – properly, to abhor God (His will). This rare term refers to people who totally turn against the Lord (used only in Ro 1:30).

insolent: Strong’s G5197. hubristés [an insolent, insulting, or violent man], Cognate: 5197 hybristḗs (a masculine noun derived from 5195 /hybrízō) – properly, someone "damaging" others by lashing out with a nasty spirit. This kind of individual is insolent (delights in wrong-doing) – finding pleasure in hurting others (G. R. Berry). "an insolent man, 'one who, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong'" (Fritzsche, Ep. ad Romans, i., p. 86).

arrogant: Strong’s G5244. huperephanos [proud, arrogant, disdainful], showing oneself above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent especially in a bad sense, "with an overweening estimate of one's means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt, haughty" (cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 64{b})

boastful: Strong’s G213. alazón [a boaster, one who gives one's self airs in a loud and flaunting way], Cognate: 213 alazṓn (a masculine noun) – properly, a wandering vagrant (vagabond), boasting to anyone who is foolish enough to take him seriously! This kind of person claims many things he can't really do, so he must always keep moving on to new, naive listeners. [As a masculine noun, 213 (alazṓn) tends to focus on the source of the empty boasting, i.e. the sinful arrogance that drives it.]

inventors of evil things: Strong’s G2182. epheuretés – “inventors”; Strong’s G2556. kakos – “[of] evil things.”
Strong’s G2182. epheuretés – “inventors” [an inventor, contriver]; Strong’s G2556. kakos – “[of] evil things.” [bad, evil, in the widest sense], 2556 kakós (an adjective, and the root of 2549 /kakía, "inner malice") – properly, inwardly foul, rotten (poisoned); (figuratively) inner malice flowing out of a morally-rotten character (= the "rot is already in the wood"). [2556 /kakós is often a pronominal adjective (i.e. used as a substantive) meaning, "wickedness, inner evil."]

disobedient to parents: Strong’s G545. apeithés – “disobedient”; Strong’s G1118. goneus – “[to] parents.”
Strong’s G545. apeithés – “disobedient” [unbelieving, disobedient, who will not be persuaded] Cognate: 545 apeithḗs (an adjective) – literally, unwilling to be persuaded (by God) which shows itself in outward disobedience (outward spiritual rebellion); disobedient because unpersuaded. 545 /apeithḗs ("unpersuaded") begins with the decision to reject what God prefers, with His offer to persuade about His preferred-will (cf. 2307 /thélēma). See 543 (apeitheia). [Note the root, 3982 /peíthō ("persuade").]; Strong’s G1118. goneus – “[to] parents” [a begetter, father; plur: the parents].
Verse 31
without understanding: Strong’s G801. asunetos [unintelligent, without wisdom, unwise, undiscerning (implying a moral defect)], 801 asýnetos (from 1 /A "not" and 4908 /synetós, "synthesized understanding") – properly, without comprehension; foolish because incoherent (failing to "put facts together"). 801 /asýnetos ("lacking synthesis") describes a person failing to structure information in a meaningful way, and therefore unable to reach necessary conclusions. This person is illogical because unwilling to use good reason.

untrustworthy: Strong’s G802. asunthetos [not covenanting, untrue to an agreement, treacherous], (συντίθεμαι to covenant), covenant-breaking, faithless: Romans 1:31 (so in Jeremiah 3:8, 11).

unloving: Strong’s G794. astorgos [unloving, devoid of affection], without natural affection, hard-hearted towards kindred.

unmerciful: Strong’s G415. aneleemon [unpitying, unmerciful, without compassion, cruel], without mercy, merciless

Verse 32
“and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not ony do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”


It isn’t enough that these people engage in these horrendous sins as they continue to mock and ridicule God with their words, actions, thoughts, and behaviors; but they find it necessary to drag others in to their wallow of filth. Notice that it is those people who “practice” these sinful actions, that are the ones who have been turned over to a depraved (or reprobate) mind. The term “practice” refers to engaging in these sins in a regular, persistent, habitual, and certainly unrepentant manner.
c/f these verses found in Romans 1, with the related passages below:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 [NASB1995]
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Verse 9
the unrighteous: Strong’s G94. adikos [unjust, unrighteous, wicked], of one who breaks God's laws, unrighteous, sinful. Cognate: 94 ádikos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A "no" and 1349 /díkē, "justice") – properly, without justice; unjust, because violating what God says is just; divinely disapproved. See 93 (adikia). 94/ádikos ("unjust") is injustice as a breach of divine justice, i.e. in violation of God's standards. 94 /ádikos ("unjust") describes being found guilty in God's court of law, i.e. as a binding, legal infraction against His law which calls for divine retribution for disrespecting true justice.

fornicators: Strong’s G4205. pornos [a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself], 4205 pórnos (from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a male prostitute. 4205 (pórnos) is "properly, 'a male prostitute' (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator" (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality.

idolaters: Strong’s G1496. eidólolatrés [a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol)], i. e. a hireling, servant, slave), a worshipper of false gods, an idolater; anyone, even a Christian, participant in any way in the worship of heathen, especially one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of the offered victims, a covetous man, as a worshipper of Mammon.

adulterers: Strong’s G3432. moichos [an adulterer], an adulterer, that is, a man who is guilty with a married woman. Not only a man involved with a woman who is currently married, but, “[Jesus said] 31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt.5:31-32); “9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt.19:4-9 esp.v9). Therefore, the adulterous man is any man who engages in sexual relations with a woman other than his wife, or a woman who is divorced (this includes marrying a woman who is previously divorced for any reason other than a sexually unfaithful husband – and unless and until it is repented of and forgiveness is sincerely sought). See also 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, esp. v.15, “15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”

effeminate: Strong’s G3120. malakoi, from 3120 malakos [of persons: soft, delicate, effeminate – catamites], of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, a male temple prostitute, a young male – often a teenage boy – kept for homosexual purposes, more frequently used of the passive and submissive male in a homosexual relationship.

homosexuals: Strong’s G733. arsenokoites [a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast], properly, a man in bed with another man; one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual. More frequently used of a dominant male in a homosexual relationship, or engaging in homosexual activities.

Verse 10
thieves: Strong’s G2812. kleptés [a thief], 2812 kléptēs – a thief who steals by stealth (in secret), rather than in the open with violence (WS, 591). An embezzler, a pilferer.

covetous: Strong’s G4123. pleonektés [a covetous or avaricious person; one desirous of having more, greedy of gain], Cognate: 4123 pleonéktēs (a masculine noun derived from 4122 /pleonektéō, "to covet") – used of "a greedy, covetous, rapacious, person; a defrauder, trampling on the rights of others" (Souter). One eager to have more, especially what belongs to others.

drunkards: Strong’s G3183. methusos [drunken, a drunkard], in later Greek also of two terminations (μέθυ, see μέθη), drunken, intoxicated: 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:10.

revilers: Strong’s G3060. loidoros [a railer, reviler, abuser], Cognate: 3060 loídoros – reproach (reviling); used of injuring another's reputation by denigrating, abusive insults (TDNT, 4:293).

swindlers: Strong’s G727. harpax [rapacious, ravenous; a robber, an extortioner], Cognate: 727 hárpaks – properly, seizing; a sudden snatching (like in a robbery). As an aside, see 726 harpazō, from which harpax is derived. in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we are told that God will harpazō [726 harpázō – properly, seize by force; snatch up, suddenly and decisively – like someone seizing bounty (spoil, a prize); to take by an open display of force (i.e. not covertly or secretly)] the Church. The Latin form of harpázō is rapio (used in the Latin Vulgate Bible, in 1 Thess.4:17), from which we get the transliterated English word, rapture. The Church will be raptured – seized by force, snatched away suddenly and decisively by an open display of force. (and they say “rapture” isn’t in the Bible. Of course it is.)


“10...will [not] inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Galatians 5:19-25 [NASB1995]
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
Verse 19
immorality: Strong’s G4202. porneia, [specifically sexual immorality], 4202 porneía (the root of the English terms "pornography, pornographic"; cf. 4205 /pórnos) which is derived from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a selling off (surrendering) of sexual purity; promiscuity of any (every) type.

impurity: Strong’s G167. akatharsia, [uncleanness, impurity], Cognate: 167 akatharsía (from 1 /A "not" and 2513 /katharós, "clean because unmixed, pure") – ritual impurity, caused by leprosy, open infection, child birth, touching a corpse, etc. See 169 (akathartos).

sensuality: Strong’s G766. aselgeia, [(outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency, a wanton violence), licentiousness, wantonness, lewdness], 766 asélgeia (from aselgēs/"brutal") – properly, violent spite which rejects restraint and indulges in lawless insolence (wanton caprice).
Verse 20
idolatry: Strong’s G1495. eidólolatria, [service (worship) of an image (an idol)], the worship of false gods, idolatry: Galatians 5:20

sorcery: Strong’s G5331. pharmakeia, [the use of medicine, drugs or spells, magic, sorcery, enchantment], 5331 pharmakeía (from pharmakeuō, "administer drugs") – properly, drug-related sorcery, like the practice of magical-arts, etc. (A. T. Robertson). sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it: Galatians 5:20 (where see Lightfoot); of the deceptions and seductions of idolatry.

enmities: Strong’s G2189. echthra, [enmity, hostility, alienation], Cognate: 2189 éxthra – properly, enemy (hatred, hostility); enmity.

strife: Strong’s G2054. eris [contention, strife, wrangling], 2054 éris (a primitive word, NAS dictionary) – literally quarrel, strife; properly, a readiness to quarrel (having a contentious spirit), affection for dispute.

jealousy: Strong’s G2205. zelos [eagerness, zeal, rivalry], 2205 zḗlos (an omamopoeic term that mimics the sound of water bubbling over from heat and perhaps derived from 2204 /zéō, "to boil") – properly, burning emotion (inner feeling boiling over, "boiling from heat," J. Thayer); (figuratively) something very fervent ("red-hot") as with Spirit-fueled zeal to serve the Lord. This root (zē-) is used both negatively ("jealousy") and positively ("zeal") depending on the context. [The root (zē-, "zeal") literally means "hot enough to boil." It is metaphorically used of "burning anger, love, zeal" (A-S) – i.e. to burn (in spirit). It can refer to "boiling anger, love, zeal, for what is good or bad" (J. Thayer).]

outbursts of anger: Strong’s G2372. thumos [an outburst of passionate anger, wrath], 2372 thymós (from thyō, "rush along, getting heated up, breathing violently," cf. J. Thayer) – properly, passion-driven behavior, i.e. actions emerging out of strong impulses (intense emotion). When 2372 /thymós ("expressed passion") is used of people it indicates rage (personal venting of anger, worth). This flaw is completely absent of the Lord expressing (inspiring) intense anger. Accordingly, 2372 (thymós) is used of God's perfect, holy wrath in Revelation (Rev 14:10,19,15:1, etc.). This anger is directed against sin with intense opposition and without sin.

disputes: Strong’s G2052. eritheia [(the seeking of followers and adherents by means of gifts, the seeking of followers, hence) ambition, rivalry, self-seeking; a feud, faction], 2052 eritheía (from eritheuō, "work for hire") – properly, work done merely for hire (as a mercenary), referring therefore to carnal ambition (selfish rivalry). Ancient Greek uses 2052 /eritheía ("mercenary self-seeking") of acting for one's own gain, regardless of the discord (strife) it causes. 2052 /eritheía ("selfish ambition") places self-interest ahead of what the Lord declares right, or what is good for others.

dissensions: Strong’s G1370. dichostasia [division, dissension, standing apart], 1370 dixostasía (from dixa, "separately" and 4714 /stásis, "a standing, stance") – properly, separate-standings ("standing apart"), used of divisions which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions.

factions: Strong’s G139. hairesis [a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention], 139 haíresis (a feminine noun derived from 138 /hairéomai, "personally select, choose") – properly, a personal (decisive) choice. 139 /haíresis ("a strong, distinctive opinion") is used in the NT of individual "parties (sects)" that operated within Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – and hence how being a Sadducee (Ac 5:17) was sharply distinguished from being a Pharisee (Ac 15:5; 26:5). [As a feminine noun, 139 (haíresis) highlights the subjective (individual) nature of a specific (divisive) opinion.]
Verse 21
envying: Strong’s G5355. phthonos [envy, a grudge, spite.], the miserable trait of being glad when someone experiences misfortune or pain; strong feeling (desire) that sours, due to the influence of sin; 5355 /phthónos ("the feeling of ill-will") refers to the jealous envy that negatively "energizes" someone with an embittered mind. 5355 /phthónos ("ill-will") conveys "displeasure at another's good; . . . without longing to raise oneself to the level of him whom he envies, but only to depress the envied to his own level" (R. Trench, 90).

drunkenness: Strong’s G3178. methé [deep drinking, drunkenness], apparently a primary word; an intoxicant, i.e. (by implication) intoxication, drunkenness.

carousing: Strong’s G2970. kómos [reveling, carousal], 2970 kṓmos – a riotous party (drunken feast) which hosted unbridled sexual immorality; hence, revelings (debauched "partying"). [2970 (kṓmos) had the original meaning, " 'a carousal,' such as a party of revelers parading the streets, or revels held in religious ceremonies, wild, furious, and ecstatic" (K. Wuest, Word Studies, Vol 2, Pastoral Epistles, 1 Peter, 112).]

and things like these: kai [and] ta [things] homoia [like] toutois [these]: Strong’s G3664. homoios – “like” [like, similar to, resembling, the same as]; Strong’s G3778. houtos, hauté, touto [that, these], οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο, demonstrative pronoun; it refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named.


“21 ...of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”
Ephesians 5:5 [NASB1995]
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Verse 5
immoral: Strong’s G4205. pornos [a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself], 4205 pórnos (from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a male prostitute. 4205 (pórnos) is "properly, 'a male prostitute' (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator" (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality.

impure: Strong’s G169. akathartos [unclean, impure], 169 akáthartos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A "not" and 2513 /katharós, "clean, purged") – properly, not pure (because mixed), i.e. adulterated with "a wrong mix" and hence "unclean" (because tainted by sin).

covetous (which is idolatry): Strong’s G4123. pleonektés [a covetous or avaricious person; one desirous of having more, greedy of gain], Cognate: 4123 pleonéktēs (a masculine noun derived from 4122 /pleonektéō, "to covet") – used of "a greedy, covetous, rapacious, person; a defrauder, trampling on the rights of others" (Souter). One eager to have more, especially what belongs to others; Strong’s G1496. eidólolatrés [a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol)], i. e. a hireling, servant, slave), a worshiper of false gods, an idolater; anyone, even a Christian, participant in any way in the worship of heathen, especially one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of the offered victims, a covetous man, as a worshiper of Mammon.
Revelation 22:14-15 [NASB1995]
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Verse 15
dogs: Strong’s G2965. kuón [a dog], 2965 kýōn – literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others.

sorcerers: Strong’s G5333. pharmakos [a poisoner, sorcerer, magician], Cognate: 5333 phármakos – properly, a sorcerer; used of people using drugs and "religious incantations" to drug people into living by their illusions – like having magical (supernatural) powers to manipulate God into giving them more temporal possessions.

immoral: Strong’s G4205. pornos [a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself], 4205 pórnos (from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a male prostitute. 4205 (pórnos) is "properly, 'a male prostitute' (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator" (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality.

murderers: Strong’s G5406. phoneus [a murderer], Cognate: 5406 phoneús – a murderer, committing unjustified, intentional homicide.

idolaters: Strong’s G1496. eidólolatrés [a server (worshipper) of an image (an idol)], i. e. a hireling, servant, slave), a worshipper of false gods, an idolater; anyone, even a Christian, participant in any way in the worship of heathen, especially one who attends their sacrificial feasts and eats of the remains of the offered victims, a covetous man, as a worshipper of Mammon.

[everyone who] loves and practices lying: Strong’s G5368. phileó – “loves”; Strong’s G4160. poieó – “practices” ; Strong’s G5579. pseudos – “lying”
Strong’s G5368. phileó – “loves” [I love (of friendship), regard with affection, cherish; I kiss], 5368 philéō (from 5384 /phílos, "affectionate friendship") – properly, to show warm affection in intimate friendship, characterized by tender, heartfelt consideration and kinship; Strong’s G4160. poieó – “practices” [(a) I make, manufacture, construct, (b) I do, act, cause] with the names of the things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; Strong’s G5579. pseudos – “lying” [a lie, falsehood, untruth; false religion], a lie; conscious and intentional falsehood.
_____________________________________________________

The Following Passages Don’t Necessarily State Certain People and Groups of People Who Will Not Enter Heaven, but These Passages Certainly and Strongly Suggest It

_____________________________________________________
Hebrews 12:14 [NASB1995]
14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

sanctification: Strong’s G38. hagiasmos [consecration, the process of making or becoming holy, set apart, sanctification, holiness], Cognate: 38 hagiasmós (a masculine noun derived from 40 /hágios, "holy") – sanctification (the process of advancing in holiness); use of the believer being progressively transformed by the Lord into His likeness (similarity of nature). See 40 /hagios ("holy").

[This is a good passage to use when examining ourselves (something we should all be doing on a regular basis). Do we see the process of sanctification (becoming more holy and less worldly as the days go on) taking place within us? Is our attitude with others becoming more Christ centered, more God centered, instead of more worldly? We should be examining ourselves regularly to ensure we are really in the faith, and not simply pew warming pseudo-Christians. See also: Philippians 2:12-13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; and 2 Peter 1:5-11, especially verse 10.]
1 Timothy 1:8-11 [NASB1995]
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Verse 9
lawless: Strong’s G459. anomos [lawless, wicked, without law], Cognate: 459 ánomos (from 1 /A "no" and 3551 /nómos, "law") – properly, "no-law," i.e. lawless disregard for proper authority.

rebellious: Strong’s G506. anupotaktos [not subject to rule, unruly], 506 anypótaktos (from 1 /A "not" and 5273 /hypokritḗs, "under God's arrangement") – properly, not submissive; disobedient (unruly), unwilling to come under Christ's Lordship; refusing to "fall in line with" (fit in with) God's plan; uncooperative, with a defiant attitude towards duly-appointed authority; uncontrollable, refractory (unsubjected); anti-authoritarian (rebellious).

ungodly: Strong’s G765. asebés [impious, ungodly, wicked], 765 asebḗs (an adjective which is the negation of 4576 /sébomai, "to respect") – properly, lack of reverence ("without due respect"), i.e. failing to honor what is sacred – especially in the outward (ceremonial) sense.

sinners: Strong’s G268. hamartólos [sinning, sinful, depraved, detestable], Cognate: 268 hamartōlós (a substantival adjective, derived from 264 /hamartánō, "to forfeit by missing the mark") – properly, loss from falling short of what God approves, i.e. what is "wide of the mark"; a blatant sinner.

unholy: Strong’s G462. anosios [unholy, profane], 462 anósios (an adjective, derived from 1 /A, "without" and 3741 /hósios, "reverence for what should be hallowed") – properly, utter disregard of what is sacred, i.e. willful (arrogant) disrespect of the things of God; "impious; wicked" (J. Thayer).

profane: Strong’s G952. bebélos [permitted to be trodden, by implication unhallowed], 952 bébēlos (an adjective, derived from bainō, "go" and bēlos, "a threshold to enter a building") – properly, improper, unauthorized entry – literally, "crossing a threshold" which profanes because of improper entrance. 952 /bébēlos ("profane because of improper entrance") refers to people unfit to access (know) God, because they approach Him apart from faith.

[those who] kill their fathers or mothers: Strong’s G3964. patralóas – “kill their fathers”; Strong’s G3389. métrolóas – “kill their mothers”
Strong’s G3964. patralóas – “kill their fathers” [a patricide, a murderer of his father] From pater, and the same as the latter part of metraloias; a parricide -- murderer of fathers. ; Strong’s G3389. métrolóas – “kill their mothers” [a matricide, smiter of his mother], From meter and the base of halon; a mother-thresher, i.e. Matricide -- murderer of mothers.

murderers: Strong’s G409. androphonos [a murderer, man-slayer], From aner and phonos; a murderer -- manslayer
Verse 10
immoral men: Strong’s G4205. pornos [a fornicator, man who prostitutes himself], 4205 pórnos (from pernaō, "to sell off") – properly, a male prostitute. 4205 (pórnos) is "properly, 'a male prostitute' (so Xen., etc.); in the NT, any fornicator" (Abbott-Smith); i.e. anyone engaging in sexual immorality.

homosexuals: Strong’s G733. arsenokoites [a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast], properly, a man in bed with another man; one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual. More frequently used of a dominant male in a homosexual relationship, or engaging in homosexual activities.

kidnappers: Strong’s G405. andrapodistés [an enslaver, one who forcibly enslaves, a kidnapper, a slave dealer], a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer, i. e. as well one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery, as one who steals the slaves of others and sells them; one who takes a person who has been taken in war, and then sells them into slavery.

liars: Strong’s G5583. pseustés [a liar, deceiver], Cognate: 5583 pseústēs (from 5574 /pseúdomai, "to falsify, lie") – properly, a lair; a person who falsifies, misrepresents (distorts, misleads).

perjurers: Strong’s G1965. epiorkos [sworn falsely, a perjurer], from ἐπί (which see D. 7) against, and ὅρκος); (masculine as a substantive) a false swearer, a perjurer: 1 Timothy 1:10.

[whatever else is] contrary to sound teaching: Strong’s G480. antikeimai – “contrary”; Strong’s G5198. hugiainó – “sound”, Strong’s G1319. didaskalia teaching”
Strong’s G480. antikeimai – “contrary” [resist, oppose, withstand, lie opposite to], 480 antíkeimai (from 473 /antí, "against" and 2743 /kautēriázō, "to place") – properly, place fully against, constitutionally oppose – like someone being thoroughly unreconcilable ("intractable, implacable").; Strong’s G5198. hugiainó – “sound” [to be well, in good health; right, reasonable, sound, pure, uncorrupted], 5198 hygiaínō (the root of the English term, "hygiene") – properly, in good working order – hence, "healthy," in sound condition (in-balance); Strong’s G1319. didaskalia “teaching” [instruction, teaching], Cognate: 1319 didaskalía (a feminine noun derived from 1321 /didáskō, "teach") – properly applied-teaching; Christian doctrine (teaching) as it especially extends to its necessary lifestyle (applications).
The preceding lists, all of which appear in Scripture, provide descriptive traits of people who have been given over to a debased and sin-filled mind; a mind that is controlled not by the Holy Spirit, but by a demon. Please note that this doesn’t mean that anyone who engages in one of the sins mentioned is a lost and reprobated sinner. No, it means that those who engage in these sins that are mentioned in the above lists, and do so habitually, persistently, and in an unrepentant manner ––as a pattern of their life, then the chances are that they have been been given over to their sin, they have been given over to a debased, depraved, reprobate mind. They can be described by their sin.
Now, this doesn’t mean they cannot come to salvation. Of course they can, if the Lord calls them to salvation. First Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verse 11, assures of the truth of this. They can come to salvation just like anyone else can. They may be reprobate, but they are not beyond salvation. In this verse, the Apostle Paul states in this verse, “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” [c/f Heb.10:19-25]
Our responsibility is to love them, and lead them to the Lord by presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and, to pray for them constantly and live a solid Christian life that glorifies the Lord God Almighty.

I hope you have found this this brief word study beneficial. May God richly bless each of you.

0 Comments

Answering An Anonymous Atheist

12/21/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Answering An Anonymous Atheist
by Robert Tuttle
Hello Friends,
What follows is part of an exchange between myself, and an atheist online. I will not reveal this persons name, but I will say English is not their first language. This is the reason for some of their statements and questions sounding a bit odd. I have made no attempt to correct any of their responses. They appear just as I received them.

Personally, I think they managed to communicate quite well in spite of having to use a language they may not be completely familiar with. I believe them to be an intelligent, albeit confused, individual. In this portion of our exchange, this person sent me two messages back to back, and just a few hours apart. They appeared on my computer as one long, very long, message. Far too long to answer in the forum we were conversing in. So I have decided to answer them here, in this blog article. Their statements and questions will appear in blue and italicized, while my answers will appear in black and standard lettering. This way I will be able to answer their many questions and statements right in the body of their messages.

The messages begin with their response to a list of internationally known Christians who can justify their beliefs. The person had previously pointed to their list of internationally known atheists who are well known for arguing for atheism and against Christianity. That should help you understand what we are talking about at the start of this exchange. I hope this little exchange is useful to someone out there in Inter-Web-Land. If any of you have any questions, please send me an email and I will do my best to answer them. And above all else, I pray that the Lord Jesus is honored and glorified here. Let’s jump right in.

Hello my friend, I hope you don’t mind my chosen method of answering your very long messages, but I am afraid our discussion group format tends to get over loaded by overly long messages and responses, as I am sure this one will be. You have asked many, many questions, and brought a great deal of subjects. I am going to try and answer all of them as best I can.

Message #1:
Robert, very impressive your list, you say they are Christians, can you direct me to some of their publications debating the subject Christianity’s.
In my case I may refer to Richard Hawkins modern, contemporaneous with lots of publications with respect to religions, also with rational with respect why religions are fabrications only.

Yes, they are Christians, or at least professing Christians. While they are all very competent in explaining their faith, and why they believe as they do; none of them are in the habit of calling attention to themselves by becoming celebrity apologists. They already have a job, and that is where their academic focus is. This would, of course, be the exact opposite of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and others who have created a cottage industry revolving around their attempted refutation of Christianity – a job for which they are paid handsomely. I would also point out that your truth claim of, “religions are fabrications only” is really nothing more than Dawkins’ personal, biased, and unsubstantiated opinion. Neither he, nor you, have ever produced a single piece of evidence – convincing or otherwise – that corroborates this truth claim.

While we are on this argument, can you justify why there are so many believers to different gods; I am reticent to believe there are so many deities, as a matter of fact, I am reticent in believing that there are ANY deity and since we are on this argument, if your god is the mighty one and we supposedly are his sons and daughters, can you explain the reason why some of us is rich, some poor, some healthy and some…

From the Christian point of view there is only one God, and that is the God of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. So no, I cannot justify, nor will I try to justify why there are so many false gods and idols that people (and I would argue this includes atheists) cling to. Perhaps it makes them feel safe and comfortable in their personal beliefs. Beliefs, I might add, that generally speaking are contrary to the revealed word of the one true God.

With regard to why some people are rich, some poor, some healthy, and some…; that answer is actually fairly easy. Some people are better at making and saving money than other people are, and some people are, for whatever reason, exposed to situations that endanger their health, while others are more diligent in avoiding such situations. But whatever the reasons for any of these situations, not one of them is God’s fault or responsibility.

If your god is so mighty, why human being, WE HAVE TO KILL our inferior species in order to survive, why we have the options to go to Heaven or hell once dead and not the other species.. etc.. etc.. etc.. and again, Robert, why you are (I believe) an intelligent person and your neighbor is barely in condition to understand is name.. You see Robert, you are preaching the followers and tell them how it is without possibilities to an alternative, I am atheist, therefore I do not believe in your fantasies, but I am more democratic and ask you to provide what you are squealing around and if I don’t have an answer, I am honest enough to say so why you, as religious, pretend to believe by faith if something is not understandable.

The reason we have to kill animals and plants in order to eat is because of sin. This is also why some people have cognitive difficulties. Sin. Sin is basically rebellion against God. Prior to the fall of mankind as described in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, food was provided to us. At the moment of the fall, mankind had made the conscious personal decision to reject God and rebel against Him. In essence, mankind thumbed their collective noses at God decided to to things themselves, and God simply gave us what we asked for; and that includes finding our own food. In fact, God stated very clearly that no longer would we benefit from His feeding us, and we would have to work hard in order to feed ourselves.

The reason we have the choice of heaven or hell, is that God is not a monster. He is fair and He is merciful. He gives countless opportunities for people to choose heaven instead of hell. God simply says if you want to choose heaven, then you have to come to Him according to His standards and not our own. Pretty easy though. All you have to do is turn away from your evil ways and turn toward God and following Him according to His word. The Bible says if you verbally agree that Jesus is Lord (which means obeying Him as your King), and believe that God raised Him from the dead, then you will go to heaven. If you don’t want to do any of that, then by default you have chosen to spend eternity in hell. God will simply give you what you are asking for.

With regard to alternatives, of course there are alternatives. The problem is, however, those alternatives, by their own admission, are unable to do what salvation in Christ can do. They are faulty alternatives. You are always free to choose one of those substandard alternatives if you desire.

With regard to your “pretend to believe by faith if something is not understandable” comment, actually my faith is not pretend. It is very real. And I find that there is very little in the Bible that I do not understand, at least to some degree. And there are ample resources available to help me understand those things that I may not have a firm grasp of. Atheism on the other hand, has many things it cannot answer such as how did the universe begin? Why does the universe, and everything in it, exhibit overwhelming evidence of intelligent design? What is the purpose of man’s existence? What is the source of objective morality? It has been my experience that when faced with these questions, atheists invariably fall back on their own blind, unsupported, unsubstantiated faith and answer with either, “We don’t know right now, but given enough time…” or, “We don’t know, but anything but God.” It apparently takes an amazing amount of faith – and blind faith at that, to be an atheist. Far more faith than I possess.

While we are into this subject, can you mention to me what happened to all those persons that lived before your entity was invented? If we are all of us his children, what happened to those poor souls that lived and died without know their alleged creator, furthermore and now I am referring to the present believers but in a different god, where do they go once die.

There were no persons in existence before God existed (He was not “invented”). God created mankind. This is explained in the very first chapter of the Book of Genesis. In answer to your next question, there are no people anywhere who do not have at least a basic understanding of God. This is known as natural revelation. If a person comes to a saving faith in God through Jesus Christ, then when they die they will go to heaven. If not, and this includes all those who place their faith in a false god other than the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ, then when they die, they will be sent to hell just as they wanted.

You see Robert, you do not have all answer but you are not humble enough to admit your limitations.

While I do not have all the answers and I readily admit that. I have never claimed that I do. However, thus far you have not asked me anything that I do not have the answer for.

Furthermore, I don’t know whether you are catholic or but let’s suppose that you are catholic, the religions preaches love and forgiveness but if you go back a few hundred years, they were the one BURNINNNNG the infidels.. did their god change directives or the religion decided that this course of action is not acceptable anylonger.

I think I need to explain something to you. There is the catholic Christian Church, and there is the Roman Catholic church. When you say “catholic” and talk about burning infidels, that would be the Roman Catholic church, not the catholic Christian Church. There is a common misunderstanding about the names. The word catholic simply means universal, or throughout the entire world. There is only one Christian Church, only one, and it is found throughout the world. It is, therefore, catholic, or universal in nature.

The Roman Catholic church is not actually catholic, as that term applies only to the true Christian Church. The Roman church is not Christian. In fact, many, many, many of those “infidels” the Romanists burned were Christians. Did the Romanist god change? No, he is still a false god, still not the god of the Bible, and can still be bought off by paying the Roman church. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic church actually cursed the God of the Bible in 1546 at their Council of Trent. So no, they are not Christian by any stretch, and they do not worship the God of the Bible. They worship a different god.

Robert, I am not trying to change your mind but be intelligent and accept alternative of your believe.

I am glad you are not trying to change my mind, because you cannot. And as I have already explained, there are many alternatives to Christianity, however, every single one of them is substandard. By their own admission not one of them can do what Jesus Christ can do. They are all false religions, all full of people destined for hell if they do not renounce their false religion – including atheism, and come to faith in Jesus Christ on God’s terms rather than their own.

Message #2:
The exact time when humans first became religious remains unknown, however research in evolutionary archaeology shows credible evidence of religious-cum-ritualistic behaviour from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45-200 thousand years ago).

Humans have always believed in God. They just have simply not always worshiped Him. More often than not, like you, they reject God and rebel against Him. And there are too many zeros in your 45-200 thousand years ago timeline. Far too many zeros. According to the Bible, the Earth and the universe are at most six to ten thousand years old. And before you point to radiocarbon dating, please remember that it is an inexact science. And please remember that when a living mollusk was radiocarbon dated, it was shown to be tens of thousands of years old. For every scientist who claims the earth and universe are billions of years old, there is an equally intelligent scientist who will say no, it is only six to ten thousand years old. But that is a discussion for another time.

Do animals believe in God?
There is no evidence that any non-human animals believe in gods, pray, worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical of human significance, or many other behaviours typical of human religion. .

No. Animals do not believe in God. They are incapable of believing in God. They have no understanding, nor even the capability to understand spiritual matters. Animals do not possess a soul or a spirit. When they die, that’s it. They are dead. This is obviously difficult for those of us who have become attached to our pets, and love them very much. But the reality is that there is no evidence that any animal ever enters the afterlife into heaven or into hell. They simply cease to exist. Again, because they do not possess a soul or a spirit.

With regard to your next statement, all animals are non-human. So when you say “non-human animals” you are being redundant. Humans have a soul and a spirit, animals do not. This is what separates humans and animals, mankind from the animal kingdom (although some humans do behave as though they are more animal than human, but that is the result of sin).

What was first religion?
Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years.Oct 6, 2017
What was first religion?
Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years.Oct 6, 2017

The first recorded religion was the worship of Yahweh, the God of the Bible. This is recorded in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and it took place approximately six to ten thousand years ago. This answer will stand regardless of how many times you repeat it.

What was Jesus's religion?
Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues.
Religion Adherents Percentage
Christianity 2.382 billion 31.11%
Islam 1.907 billion 24.9%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58%
Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.16%
Attention Robert Tuttle, after having received your “ARROGANT” message, I decided to review the Google’s publications, yes, pardon , me it doesn’t present religious’ answer but facts and statistics, data acceptable by the majority with documentations and not that YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE BY FAITH.

I am not sure what the point of any of that was. Yes, Google presents “facts.” At least facts as they interpret any set of given data at any given point in time. It neither proves nor disproves, supports and doesn’t support any of your arguments against Christianity. Other than calling my message consisting of the names of internationally known Christians, “ARROGANT” you haven’t actually made any kind of point, so I am not sure what it is you want me to say.

There are several issues that you should evaluate before coming out with your statements and I will comment them individually, no, not for your own benefit because you appears to have ONE TRUCK MIND but for the readers.

That is an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to encourage a civil dialog.

Religion is some think intrinsic in the human being, NO NOT CATHOLIC OR JEWISH OR..etc.. but religiouns, therefore it is based in your specific religion to believe, an instinct in the human being to have an entity over him that guide him, provides for him, punish or rewards him according to his behavior.

Actually, belief in God is inherent in all human beings. It always has been, since the day of creation. And since that day, if nothing else, mankind has has natural revelation to point them to God. The problem, however, is that many, most in fact, are like you, and they have made the conscious decision to reject God, to rebel against Him, to harden their heart against Him. They have therefore chosen to blind and deafen themselves to the obvious. Personally, I see this as no different than an obstinate toddler sticking his fingers in his ears, squeezing his eyes shut, and screaming, “I can’t hear you, I can’t see you, you don’t exist!!!” Pretty much the same thing.

I wish to emphasize that, the first religion is from 45 to 200 thousands years hold, therefore, your god and saints were not even conceivable at that time, or unless am I missing some thing, I would live to be corrected.

As I have already explained, the first recorded religion is the belief in and worship of Yahweh, the God of the Bible. This is recorded in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and this worship, this religion, began approximately six to ten thousand years ago. In Genesis chapter 4, verses 3-5, we see Cain and Abel bringing their offerings in worship of Yahweh. As I said, the time frame for this was six to ten thousand years ago. Long before India was populated, long before Hinduism was created.

There is no evidences that animals believe in god, why not? According to your believes, he created them, yes of course, for our own consumption but let me ask you a dog knows and recognizes his own owner because it sees it hears from it recognizes its own voices, a cat knows his house, his owner, it knows when it is time to eat and where the dish is located and so are related to other animals, what I am trying to establish is that, they do have a material reference in their life and they should not, if it was real that who created them but when we listen to you it is mentioned that GOD SAID or IT IS WRITEN or again IT IS QUOTED IN..ETC. which I mean, nothing substantial and in poor words, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE and that’s it.

No, God did not create animals for our consumption. Not in the least, and I am not sure where you would come up with such a notion. Certainly not from the Bible, and not from any Bible believing Christian. Animals were originally created to worship God by their mere existence. They were created, as all things were created, for God’s own good pleasure, to worship Him, and for Him to love and care for. That’s it. No other reason. And that is how it was up until mankind decided to reject God and rebelled against Him, thus throwing the entire system into disarray and confusion. Animals stopped being peaceful and began preying on each other, as did mankind, and mankind then had to fend for itself. This included feeding itself, and it was mankind who made the decision to eat animals. Prior to the fall mankind was vegetarian.

Yes, dogs and cats, horses and cows, sheep, ducks, chickens, and all manner of domesticated animals are trained to find their way home, they learn who their owners are. I don’t see what is so unusual about this. You say they should not if they are created by God. Really? Why not? What evidence do you have to support this truth claim of yours? None, I suspect. If I am wrong, then please provide this evidence.

And you are quite wrong to claim that all I ever say is “GOD SAID” or “IT IS WRITTEN” or “IT IS QUOTED IN” etc. I have never said any of that. Your claims are completely untrue. And I certainly never led you or anyone else to the conclusion, “YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE and that;s it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Like many, if not most, atheists, you seem to labor under the delusion that Christianity is nothing more than blind, unsubstantiated, unsupported faith. But that isn’t so. While Christianity does indeed take faith, it is faith that is based on both evidence and experience.

Wow, then what you are insisting that your got is the real one, on what are you basing your statements ? 4000 years ago, there was not Christians or Jewish or… it appears that was the first religion entertained by the human being and my first question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT RELIGION WAS WRONG AND YOURS OF TODAY RIGHT… Or next statement. If 4000 years ago the people on hearth were practicing HINDUISM and today Catholic or Protestant or Jewish religions, don’t you consider that the today’s religion will pass to history like the previous one !!!! If you are willing to deny it, you have to provide some rational in your believe.

Yes, the God I believe in is the only true God, and all others, including the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, the Mormon god, the Jehovah’s Witnesses god, the Sikh god, and so on, are all false, man-made gods. Not one of them has a single piece of evidence to support their existence, and overwhelming evidence that shows they do not exist. I have already shown that Hinduism was not the first religion. So I am not going to rehash that again. Twice is enough. Suffice to say that 4,000 years ago people were worshiping Yahweh, the God of the Bible, as they had been for at least 2,000 years before that, and possibly as many as 6,000 years before that. And we are still worshiping Yahweh, the same God that has been worshiped for six to ten thousand years. Same God, the God of the Bible.

The only difference is we no longer have to bring animals and grain to Him as offerings and sacrifices. Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice for sin, and now we offer ourselves to Him, in service to Him. Completely. Unquestioningly. Unhesitatingly. He has purchased each one of us and we all belong to Him. Every other religion will eventually pass away, but the one true religion that worships Yahweh will never pass away. I think history has proven that beyond any real doubt. Kings, emperors, dictators, armies, police forces, entire nations have tried desperately to destroy any true and authentic worship of Yahweh. This has been going on for millennia, and it is still going on, and to date, not one has ever been successful. This is one of the evidences of the validity of Christianity.

I don’t know for sure but you talk like a catholic…,however and notwithstanding that, you venerate Jesus as catholic, you insict he is the one who created the Christian’s religion and he was Jewish from Jewish mother and all his friends and/or associated were Jewish and as Far as I remember, when the alleged death on the cross, he was still Jewish, soo, who the hell created the catholic religion; ok it is a mystery and mysteries must be believed even if not understandable.

Again, no, I am not a Roman Catholic. I have already explained all of that so there is no need to go into all of that again. And I do not venerate Jesus as Roman Catholic. I worship Jesus as God. Christianity began on the Day of Pentecost, when the Apostles began preaching and thousands of people came to faith in Jesus Christ. That was the very first Christian Church. It is not a mystery at all. Nor is it a mystery how the Roman Catholic church came into being. It finds its roots in the decree of the Roman Emperor Theodosius I (347-395 AD). In 380 AD Theodosius I decreed that Christianity, or what he believed to be Christianity, was to be the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

Without writing a novel here, the bare bones explanation is, the Roman Empire always had a state religion. It was pagan, and the worship of many gods took place. The pagan priests were supported by the state. When Christianity was made the official state religion, Theodosius I decreed that all pagan temples were now Christian temples, and all pagan priests were now Christian priests.

In order to stay on the states payroll, these pagan “Christian” priests, tried to incorporate Christianity into their pagan belief systems, but they only succeeded in created a paganized version of Christianity, that was not only unbiblical, but antithetical to the Bible and to God. These pagan priests continued their pagan “Christian” practices and beliefs, as they represented the Roman Empire’s version of Christianity.

In the mean time, the true Christian Church continued doing what it had always done, and worshiped God according to His word, the Bible. As time went one the catholic Christian Church became a mixture of true biblical Christianity, and Roman pagan “Christianity.” There were power struggles over who would be in charge, true Christian leaders or Roman pagan leaders. Eventually the Roman pagan leaders gained a solid foothold in the Church, and they began punishing any who rejected their paganism. True biblical Christians were tortured, burned to death, hung, and otherwise murdered by the Roman pagan leaders.

In 1546, the Roman pagan leaders placed a curse on the God of the Bible, by rejecting God only true gospel, and cursing all who taught it. At that point the Roman Catholic church was born, and it broke away from the one true apostolic catholic Christian Church. That is the cliff notes version of Church history. The full length version would take several large, thick volumes.

Now Robert, can you say ,without blushing, that your religion is the true one and all the others…

Yes, absolutely, without question and without hesitation.

You know, I respect you, we are living in free countries and you are entitled to be wrong but don’t try to convince people in your believe when your believe is only a figment of your imagination.
Regards, and of course.. have a Merry Christman

Well, my friend, I respect you as well. And I am not trying to convince anyone to become a Christian. I won’t beg them, or coerce them. That is not biblical Christianity. God has told us in His word, the Bible, that we are required, mandated, to tell people the gospel. What they do with that information is up to them, not us.

I can tell you that according to God, mankind has rejected Him and rebelled against Him. Because of this, mankind is destined to be punished in hell, for the remainder of eternity when they are judged after they die. But God, being merciful and forgiving, has offered us a way to have our sins atoned for, and our punishment taken away. To accomplish this, Jesus came to Earth from heaven, and was born of a virgin. He was, and is, fully God and fully man. He lived a perfect life in our place, and died guiltless being crucified on a cross. His death was an atoning sacrifice for our sin. After three days, Jesus arose from the dead and was seen by hundreds of people. Forty days after He rose from the dead, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, and there He is today, awaiting the moment when He will return to judge those who have rejected Him and rebelled against Him.

Now you know the gospel. Now you have no excuse when you stand before God. I have done my part, fulfilled my obligation. I will continue to pray for you, for your salvation. But other than that, all I can do is answer your questions when you ask them. As I said, I am not going to try and coerce you, or persuade you, or beat you over the head about it. You have the gospel, the next move is yours.

Have a Blessed Christmas. Be safe, be healthy, be happy.
0 Comments

Why Do Christians Sing Songs Written By Pseudo-Christian Cultists?

12/20/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Why Do Christians Sing Hymns Written By Pseudo-Christian Cultists?
by Robert Tuttle


Much has been made of Christian churches singing songs by Hillsong, Bethel Music, Jesus Culture, Elevation Music, and other modern, Contemporary Christian Music because of their ties to Pseudo-Christian, New Apostolic Reformation churches. And rightly so. Some, such as Elevation Church and its pastor, Steven Furtick, teach blatant heresy. Churches like Hillsong, Bethel, and Jesus Culture Sacramento are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a hyper-Charismatic religious movement that believes and teaches a Jesus that is different than the Jesus of the Bible (though they would vehemently deny this). The NAR Jesus emptied himself of all his divine attributes. This is known as the kenosis, or the kenotic heresy. While they insist their Jesus was still God, he still divested himself of all divine attributes. The problem with this is, that common sense tells us that if he was empty of divine attributes, then he was no longer God!

Furthermore, the NAR Jesus died on the cross not to atone for the sins of those who believe in him, but rather to guarantee his believers would prosper in both their physical health, and their material wealth. The NAR (and also the Word of Faith movement adherents who believe in the same Jesus as the NAR) also believes that their Jesus died and went to hell, and suffered there, and had to be born again and that is what pays for the sins of Christians. They teach that Jesus went to hell in our place, and served as a ransom paid by God to Satan to rescue Christians from hell.

Friends, this is not only heresy, but blasphemous heresy!

Steven Furtick, the founder and pastor of Elevation church, however, is a different story. Not only does Furtick teach a different Jesus, but a different god altogether! Steven Furtick has embraced the false god of his spiritual mentor, T.D. Jakes (founder and pastor of The Potter’s House church); and like Jakes, Steven Furtick is a Trinity denying Modalist.

Oh, to be sure, Furtick (and Jakes) will claim that he does believe in the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The difference between Steven Furtick and biblical Christianity is, biblical Christianity believes in and teaches that God is three distinct but inseparable persons, co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial; while Steven Furtick believes in and teaches Modalism, which states that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit are not distinct inseparable persons, but rather three modes or manifestations of the one God. In other words, The god of Modalism, the god of Steven Furtick, is Jesus. And sometimes he changes modes and becomes the Father, and sometimes he changes modes and becomes the Holy Spirit. A totally different god than the God of the Bible.

And so, because of the blatantly false teachings of these churches, the fact that they believe in and teach a different Jesus and a different God, discerning Christians refuse to sing songs written by these people. After all, the god and the Jesus mentioned in their songs are not the god and not the Jesus of the Bible, but rather the NAR Jesus and the god of Modalism.

This article is not about the songs written by these modern heretics, songs that unfortunately are still being sung in some churches and by some professing Christians. No, this article is about a much older song, a beloved song that is sung in almost every church during the Christmas season. Before I tell you the title of that song, let me tell you a bit about the writers of that song.

Edmund Hamilton Sears (1810-1876) was a Unitarian minister. Rev. Sears wrote the words to the song. Unitarians, and thus Rev. Sears, believe that God is one person. They believe the Father is divine, but they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They deny the Trinity. In other words, Unitarians, and this Rev. Sears, believe in a different god rather than the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, Unitarians, and thus Rev. Sears, deny the doctrine of original sin, and they deny the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell. These are the strange, heretical beliefs of Edmund Hamilton Sears, but they are not his only strange heretical beliefs.

Although Sears was a Unitarian, and not just, but a Unitarian minister, he was also heavily influenced by Swedenborgianism, the religious movement based on the teachings of Emmanuel Swedenborg.

According to Swedenborgianism, God has many names, depending on the religion and beliefs of the individual. They deny the deity of the Holy Spirit, they deny the Trinity, and they believe that Jesus Christ did not atone for our sin on the cross. Swedenborgianism teaches that salvation comes through the sincere practice of an individuals religious beliefs, whatever they may be, whatever religion the individual might belong to. They believe we determine our own afterlife, which is spiritual and based on how well and how sincerely we practice our particular religion while still alive.

As a Unitarian, Edmund Sears denied the deity of Jesus Christ. As a Swedenborgian, however, he actually believed in the deity of Jesus, but went on to claim that while Jesus was God, He was the only God. He denied the deity of the Holy Spirit, and believed that God the Father was the divine essence within Jesus; or that something within Jesus that made Jesus divine.

Swedenborgians, and thus Edmund Sears, believe that Jesus, who is God, took on a human body at the incarnation, and so became a human. They say that when Jesus prayed to the Father, this is evidence of Jesus progressing to the point where his human body would become one with the divine. Then, after his death, when he rose from the dead; they say Jesus discarded his human body, and he put on a new human body that comes from the divinity within him. At that point, Swedenborgianism teaches, Jesus became “The Divine Human.”

Finally, Swedenborgians, and thus Edmund Sears, accept only 27 of the Old Testament books as divinely inspired by God. They reject the books of Ruth, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, and the Song of Solomon. Of the New Testament, they believe only the four gospels and the Book of Revelation are inspired by God. They believe and teach that the rest of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles and various Epistles, are divinely “influenced” but not divinely inspired. They believe the Bible, taken literally, is nothing more than a collection of parables, which serve to hide the secret knowledge of the Bible, that can only be understood by those who have been enlightened by God, namely of course, Swedenborgians.

And now, what was the beloved hymn written by the Unitarian Swedenborgian Edmund Sears? It was one we all know and have sung many times. It was It Came Upon A Midnight Clear.

Some people have noted that God is not mentioned anywhere in It Came Upon A Midnight Clear. But this is not so. It contains a reference to the only God the Swedenborgians believe in. The reference is found in the first verse, where it states, “heaven's all-gracious King.” That is Jesus Christ according to Swedenborgianism, and that is who the verse refers to.

No doubt there will be some who read this article who will instantly judge me to be a “Pharisee,” or “Legalistic,” or something similar. They are those who believe God is liberal and doesn’t care what songs we sing to Him, or how we worship Him. “Grace!” they shout, “God’s grace!” And they claim “Christian liberty” gives them permission to sing and worship as they desire rather than how God desires. For these people to be correct, however, the God of the Bible has had to change His nature (something Scripture says He will not and cannot do). For the Old Testament gives example after example after example of God punishing those who do not worship Him in complete, total, sincere reverence; being particular not to bring anything unclean before Him.

To follow the logic of those people who say there is nothing wrong with singing praise songs by Hillsong, Elevation, Bethel, or Jesus Culture; or Christmas hymns by the Unitarian Swedenborgian Edmund Sears; then it should follow that it is just as permissible to sing songs by Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Christian Science, or worldly songs for that matter. After all, unbelievers are unbelievers, and if songs by some unbelievers are acceptable then songs by all unbelievers should be acceptable. Unless, of course, there a certain degree of hypocrisy in those who advocate for singing songs by some unbelievers but not all unbelievers.

When I hear professing Christians singing these praise songs and Christmas songs written not just by unbelievers, but by heretics and blasphemers; I am reminded of Nadab and Abihu bringing strange fire before the Lord, and I can’t help thinking these professing Christians will one day have to give an account to the Lord as to why they thought music from blasphemers and heretics was acceptable.

At the end of the day, each one of us will have to decide if we will sing praise songs and Christmas hymns written by blasphemers and heretics. I hope and pray that each one of you will prayerfully consider what I have now told you in this article. As for me and my house, however, we will serve the Lord.
0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    Picture

    Archives

    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 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.