Chester Street

Susan G. Komen's worldview has never been about Truth

2012-02-01T19:19:00.000-05:00

While my inbox is being flooded with praise and adulation's for Susan G. Komen's decision to "stop" [temporarily suspend its long time relationship] their funding to the blood for profit Planned Parenthood "reproductive right" killers, I remain utterly unimpressed! It is sad [yet typical] so called "conservative Christian" organizations haven't picked up Susan G. Komen's utter duplicity and hypocrisy until a law suit was forced upon them, as IF the TRUTH needs public support.

How to Find Faith

2012-02-01T14:25:00.000-05:00

I have visited with individuals who readily admit they do not have religious faith. They do not want to be characterized as being an atheist, but they do not have faith that God superintends the affairs of humans. They do not believe in divine intervention to keep a person from being harmed. They speak more of fate than faith, and I find that sad.

My personal testimony is that I have been fortunate. From a child I have known those Scriptures which are able to make a person wise unto salvation through faith (2 Tim. 3:15). I have been asked when I was saved or born again and I have to honestly reply, “I do not know. My earliest memories include going to Sunday School and church and loving Jesus.” I may not know when I walked through a door, but I know when I am home. In like manner, I may not know the moment of my conversion but I know I am in Christ for I have met the gospel terms, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).

For the questioning soul, for the skeptical individual, for the person who prides himself on being open minded to the teachings of atheism and agnosticism but secretly would like to have religious faith, I offer the following counsel.

First, recognize that everyone has faith; the only question is faith in what. The atheist has faith that there is no God. That is where he places his hope and trust. Therefore, the atheist, and even the agnostic, can rail against orthodox religions without understanding that his own belief’s system is a religion itself. The Oxford English Dictionary connects the word religion with relegere, which means “to read over again”, perhaps to emphasize the ritualistic nature of religions. Certainly the atheist or the agnostic will go over and over in his mind why Christianity cannot be true and God cannot be real. He has placed his faith in his own reasoning powers.

Second, for the soul searching for faith I would suggest reading the Bible. The Bible says that “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17). People want God to speak to them. I have good news. God has spoken but some people are not listening. If you want to hear God speak, if you want to find faith, then read the Bible. A good starting point is the gospel of John which is found in the New Testament.

Third, understand that small faith can become bigger faith when exercised. If a person will open his mind to the possibility that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died according to the Scriptures, was buried and rose again the third day, that small faith can grow and grow until there is a full embracing of Christ and the soul cries out, “My Lord and my God”! The 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard understood that God is totally other than man; between God and man there exists a gulf, a chasm that faith alone can bridge. Jesus Christ has come to bridge that gap between man and God and says to all the world, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Fourth, in order to find faith, saving faith, joyous faith, it must be asked for as a gift. The Bible says that faith is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8–9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Do you want to find faith? Then understand that everyone has some sort of faith, faith is found in the Word of God, small faith, as tiny as a grain of mustard seed can grow, and ultimately the faith that embraces Christ as Lord and Savior with the reward of eternal life must humbly be asked for. Perhaps this prayer, if prayed from the heart will help.

“Dear God, I want to believe in you and pray to you in sincerity. Right now I am seeking. I am not sure about many things, including Your own existence. I am skeptical about what the Christian religion teaches. I wonder about the stories in the Bible and the miracles I read about. Nevertheless, I am willing to humbly ask You to give me the gift of faith so that I too can have eternal life. I will appropriate the means of receiving faith in that I will read the Bible. Please help. I ask for this priceless gift.” Amen.

The idol of love

2012-01-24T12:31:00.000-05:00

There is literally a world of difference between "God is love", and "Love is God".

Within the churches where love has become an idol, there is this primary devotion to unconditional acceptance. There are no judgements made to distinguish between true and false converts, and right doctrine is often set aside for "what works".

Biblically, love has nothing at all to do with self expression or self fulfillment. Increasingly more and more churches are putting God's stamp of approval on an idol; her name is love and she never judges those she loves.

In essence, Love has become the false converts idol of our day, and it must be told that God hates idolatry and will judge those who participate in it. Think about it.

A great resource to explore this topic more is Jonathan Leeman's book:

The Church and the Surprising Offense of God's Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (IX Marks)

The Cross of Christ

2012-01-24T12:09:00.000-05:00

The cross of Christ isn't an invitation; it's an historical reality and fact that Christ has either paid your sin debt, or you will.

Repent and believe.

The Modern Methodist Church and John Wesley's Theology

2012-01-04T09:47:00.000-05:00

I. Introduction and Purpose

The current United Methodist church slogan is “Open hearts, Open minds, and Open doors.” Contrast the slogan with the words of John Wesley on October 10, 1745 – “It is vain, therefore, for any that is called a Methodist ever to think of not giving offence. And as much offence as you give by your name, you will give still more by your principles.”[1] Whereas the context of Wesley’s statement was in giving his advice to “a people called Methodist,” and the historical setting is different from today, it can hardly go unnoticed how the modern Methodist’s church slogan implies a willingness and openness to embrace different principles; principles that are “open” – not timeless. In addition, it almost, if not explicitly implies the Methodist church is a church body that celebrates diversity; an “open mind” is perhaps a virtue.

The purpose of this paper will be to briefly examine Wesley’s theology, specifically his understanding of sanctification coupled with Justification by Faith alone, and why this doctrinal murkiness has lead to a modern day Methodist Church Wesley would hardly recognize; if not reluctant to have his name associated with. The research will show the modern Methodist church has brilliantly capitalized on Wesley’s less than precise theology, adopted an un-Wesleyan theology of inclusiveness and diversity at the expense of scriptural truth and doctrine. This will be evidenced in the November 3, 2009 document - “God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action”[2] signed by The Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church (all fifty of them). Further evidence will show that unlike Wesley, the modern Methodist church leadership has abandoned its willingness to scripturally distinguish between that which is holy and that which is profane, that which is temporal and that which is eternal. It should also be noted that while the research focuses on a small sampling of Methodist leadership in general, there does remain a Methodist “body” of believers, laity and pastors alike, that are committed to scripture’s authority and to a Wesleyan model that teaches holy living, both in mind and act.

II. Wesley’s Evolving Theology

Wesley’s conversion experience and his later writings do appear to be a contradiction, especially in terms of how one is saved. Wesley was on a return trip to England after an unsuccessful missionary journey in the new colony of Georgia, when he met Peter Bohler, a Moravian missionary. A careful reading of Wesley’s journal from February 7 to May 24, 1738 establishes the great influence Bohler had upon Wesley’s early understanding of the instantaneous work of “Justification by Faith Alone”.[3] While John Wesley was on this ship returning to England, amidst a great storm and fearing for his life, he observes the Moravian missionaries singing hymns of praise, apparently without fear of death. Eventually after searching the New Testament, Wesley would be convinced that Bohler was correct and soon became committed to Luther’s understanding of this doctrine. Wesley’s journal records his own words:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. [4]

About a month later, John’s brother Charles had experienced a similar conviction, thus both men leaving behind their fundamental Romanism, to become Protestant Reformers,[5] at least for a short period of time.

Approximately a year later, John Wesley’s view of justification by faith alone, would clearly be modified. Wesley would eventually become highly critical of Luther’s “justification by Faith alone” because it did not give a proper place to sanctification.[6] Dr. Cox argues that Wesley’s later criticism over Luther’s doctrine of “Justification by Faith Alone,” was not because he fundamentally disagreed with Luther, but much more likely that Wesley had subsequently discovered the doctrinal errors of the Moravians to be intolerable; specifically their willingness to deny the value of any good works.[7] Nevertheless, neither Luther nor most of the Protestant Reformers would have accepted the Wesleyan idea of “Christian Perfection” (man may become perfect before his death); in John Wesley’s own words - “And I do not contend for the term sinless, though I do not object against it.”[8] What is relevant here, is Wesley was responding theologically (doctrinally) to his own historical setting; the Moravians’ denial of good works and an eighteenth century church failing to “transform” the outward life of those professing the faith. Where Wesley had previously searched the scripture to confirm or deny a particular doctrine, he was now implicitly establishing categories of Christians; “saved” and “almost saved” by outward signs of righteousness. For instance, Wesley declares – “every inward working of every human soul: every appetite, passion, inclination, [and] affection” will be manifested and that will be the evidence of the one who is either righteous or unrighteous.[9] Wesley’s understanding of Justification by Faith alone has indeed dramatically shifted. In fact, his understanding had far reaching implications on Wesleyan theology as it is understood in the modern Methodist Church; keeping the law is necessary for salvation (or maintaining salvation), specifically loving God and neighbor.

In Wesley’s sermon “On the Wedding Garment” he makes clear the necessity of personal holiness:

Does not that expression, “the righteousness of the saints,” point out what is the “wedding garment” in the parable? It is the “holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.” The righteousness of Christ is doubtless necessary for any soul that enters into glory: But so is personal holiness too, for every child of man. But it is highly needful to be observed, that they are necessary in different respects. The former is necessary to entitle us to heaven; the latter to qualify us for it. Without the righteousness of Christ we could have no claim to glory; without holiness we could have no fitness for it. By the former we become members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. By the latter “we are made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.” [10]

Wesley unfortunately has missed a crucial point - the man without the wedding garment was not some “wedding crasher.” The slaves on behalf of the King’s command invited and gathered both evil and good (Matthew 22:10). The wedding garments are provided by the King, and the man who did not wear his garment had purposely rejected the King’s provision.[11] There is no “qualification” that the guests must meet, it is precisely coming to the wedding party, being in the very presence of the King, and rejecting the wedding garment (the righteousness of Christ) that condemns the man.

To conclude this brief examination of Wesley’s theology, it must be noted that at the very heart of his theology was the idea that God desires to save all people. His emphasis on sanctification and even Christian perfection orients his entire soteriology.[12] Wesley understood at the very heart of being created in the image of God, is the image of love.[13] Sin was not the primary problem with man’s condition; rather man no longer had a relationship with God because self had replaced God as the object of man’s love.[14] In other words, justification no longer equates to salvation; rather sanctification means salvation and therefore salvation by necessity becomes a process, not a onetime divine act. Wesley conceives of sanctification as holy affections, and chief among them are love for god and neighbor.[15] It is here, the modern day Methodist church leadership has turned Wesley’s concern for holy living into a virtual buffet of “holy” affections. Where Wesley may have had a contradictory and evolving theology, the modern day Methodist church (leadership specifically) would hardly be recognizable to him, if not outright offensive.

III. God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action

In 2009 the United Methodist Council of Bishops issued the following words in their foundational document for God’s Renewed Creation:

For many hundreds of years “The People of the Book,” Jewish, Christian, and Muslim have lived through hard times of draught, fire, floods, raging waters and tempestuous winds, sustained by the ancient wisdom of the Psalmists who over and over again sang of “the steadfast love of the Lord.”

Today, the human family is awakening to alarming news: after several thousand years of a stable climate that enabled us to thrive, the earth is heating up at an accelerating rate. Climate change poses a particular threat to the world’s poor because it increases the spread of diseases like malaria and causes conflicts over dwindling natural resources. Easy access to small arms ensures that such conflicts turn deadly, and the specter of a nuclear war that would destroy the earth continues to loom over us.[16]

Why is all this happening? – “Because the peoples of the world are reading the signs carefully---we see clearly that God is doing a new thing, and that God is inviting the human family to participate in transformation.” [17] The foundational verse, according to the bishops, rests in Jeremiah 29:11 – “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for welfare and not evil, to give you a future and a hope.” This quoted from the pastoral letter to be read to all UMC congregations:

First, let us orient our lives toward God’s holy vision. This vision of the future calls us to

hope and to action. “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope” (Jeremiah 29:11). Christ’s resurrection assures us that this vision is indeed a promise of renewal and reconciliation. As disciples of Christ, we take God’s promise as the purpose for our lives. Let us, then, rededicate ourselves to God’s holy vision, living each day with awareness of the future that God extends to us and of the Spirit that leads us onward.[18]

It should be noted once again, all fifty United State’s bishops signed their name to this document.

At first glance, this document may appear to be harmless, but with a closer inspection the bishops have failed miserably with their foundational scripture on at least two key points. First, taking context into consideration, Jeremiah 29 is addressed to the Israelites in exile, not to Christians or even all people in a general sense. Jeremiah 29:4 makes this unmistakably clear – “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon…” Secondly, and perhaps most important, the bishop’s general promise of “renewed hope” and welfare is utterly void of what happens to those who die without Christ as Lord and Savior. Simply scrolling down a few more verses (v 17-18), the same “lord of hosts” issues His promise of judgment, curse, and terror; why these “judgment” verses are not also applicable to all peoples is not addressed by the bishops. Clearly the bishops in advance have settled on what they want scripture to say, in order to lend justification for their own agenda; “social and environmental holiness”.[19] This “holy” agenda goes so far as to include the promise “to measure the carbon footprint of our episcopal and denominational offices, determine how to reduce it, and implement those changes.”[20]

Since Wesley’s theology centered both on God’s desire to save all people and holy living (sanctification), the Methodist bishops have simply evolved his theology one step further to address whatever current social, and at the present, environmental issues that have arisen in modern times. The politics of such pronouncements should be obvious; the letter is completely silent on protecting the unborn, protecting persecuted Christians in nations hostile to Christianity, or any mention that “global warming” is far from being a settled issue. In fact, it appears the bishops have disregarded the clear teaching of scripture recorded in 2 Corinthians 6:14 – “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness”(NASB). If the bishop’s claim – “God is already visibly at work in people and groups around the world” and “we rededicate ourselves to join these movements, the movements of the Spirit”[21] is true, then Paul’s word about being spiritually yoked with the unbelieving “world” would certainly be detrimental to a faithful Christian witness to a lost world in need.

IV. Discernment within the Methodist Church

United Methodist Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the General Board of Church & Society, wrote a letter in September 2009, entitled - "Word from Winkler - Congregational malpractice."[22] Mr. Winkler states the following:

The provision of health care for all without regard to status or ability to pay is portrayed in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:24-35). In a conversation that began with the question of how one might obtain eternal life, Jesus asserted that one must love God and one’s neighbor. In response to the next question as to who one’s neighbor is, Jesus told of a Samaritan, an outsider, who coming upon a wounded traveler, provided him with health care. Jesus described the duty to provide health care as owed regardless of the merit or ethnicity of the person in need, and owed to the limit of one’s economic capacity. By the way, this is from #3201, “Health Care for All in the United States,” 2008 Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church.

Taking a closer look at Winkler’s use of scripture, it is evident that an agenda, not context guides his interpretation. The question posed to Jesus was asked by a scribe, a legal expert in the law, and one of those “religious elites” that also included the Pharisees. It should also be noted, it was the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus consistently confronted head on for their self righteousness. Winkler either purposely or ignorantly obscures verse 29 – “But wishing to justify himself he said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor’?” At issue in this text, is not a health care issue, or even helping those in need. The entire point of the parable rests in Jesus showing the scribe that he had no right to hate his enemy (the filthy Samaritan). Winkler subtlety implies the Samaritan was an “outsider”, as if the outsider could also be one of those without health care. Jesus specifically used a Samaritan for a spiritual lesson; furthermore, the Samaritan actually used his own money to provide the help. The scribe had a spiritual problem, he hated his enemy (Samaritans); a lesson on character, not health care. If leaders within the Methodist Church can no longer discern the clear meaning of scripture, then any significant hope to transform a lost world is diminished. At stake is not just proper hermeneutics, but also a church’s ability to distinguish the holy from the profane; heresy from sound doctrine.

Perhaps there is no issue within “mainstream” Christianity more divisive than same-sex sexual relationships; the United Methodist Church’s current position states it is – “incompatible with Christian teaching.”[23] How long this UMC position will remain in force remains a heavily debated topic within Methodism, particularly in the West (America). In November of 2011, former Methodist pastor Jimmy Creech spoke to the students of Duke University Seminary (a Methodist Seminary). According to Creech, homosexuals “suffer from a hideous violence called ‘Christian morality’ that attacks their very being, their very souls.” He further argues: “Gay people internalize these misconceptions…[and] pretend to be someone they are not or end their lives.”[24] In 2005 Virginia Methodist Bishop Charlene Kammerer suspended a pastor for denying church membership to a practicing homosexual.[25] John Wesley’s notes on Romans 1:27 could not be more diametrically opposed to the concepts being portrayed by Creech and Bishop Kammerer – “Receiving the just recompense of their error - Their idolatry being punished with that unnatural lust, which was as horrible a dishonour to the body, as their idolatry was to God.”[26]

In the “spirit” of Open hearts, Open minds, and Open doors, Claremont Seminary in 2009 added clerical training for Muslims and Jews, thus straining the support it receives from the United Methodist Church.[27] In addition, Wesleyan scholar Kenneth J. Collins goes as far to suggest that the obstacles to the Muslim receiving the gospel, are not doctrinal (the divinity of Christ and his crucifixion specifically mentioned),[28] but are in fact – “the lives of the Christians.”[29] It is here that Collins attempts to compare Wesley’s own criticism of his Anglican Church as being a “stumbling block” to reaching the eightieth century Muslims. In addition, Collins strongly argues that all obstacles and stumbling blocks should be removed in order that the blessings of Christ can be received by all people; Christ died for not only Christians, but Muslims as well.[30] Collins’ view begs the question – when historically has the Christian faith not been defined by its doctrines?

Setting aside the lengthy historical debates between Calvinist and Arminians, John Wesley appropriately places the differences of the two succinctly when he states – “Is predestination absolute or conditional? The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.”[31] Again, the Wesleyan emphasis remains on “conditional” election; holy affections and loving one’s neighbor being the foremost in Wesley’s theology. Where Wesley was ready, willing, and able to draw a line between the “holy” and “profane”, the only thing “profane” in the Methodist church today, is actually drawing such a distinction. Whether it is “environmental holiness” or punishing a local pastor’s stance on sexual purity and church membership, the implications are clear – the Methodist leadership is more concerned with worldly praise than submitting to God’s word. In essence, the Methodist church has lost, or at best, is losing its ability to discern “good” from “evil”; diversity is the sacred calf that must be protected at all costs.

Students at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. are required to sign a “Commitment to Diversity” which includes “sexual orientation”.[32] The mere term “sexual orientation” would be foreign to John Wesley, and furthermore, it is a term of recent adoption, primarily to lend justification to a political movement, not religious. Secondly, the term itself implies a powerlessness to change, and change is at the very heart of the gospel as the apostle Paul expresses in 1 Corinthians 6:11- “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.” For a seminary claiming to represent the teachings of Christ Jesus to even use such a term, is evidence it values something far greater than God’s word; specifically inclusiveness, toleration, and diversity. In other words, inclusiveness, tolerance, and diversity have become modern day expressions of loving one’s neighbor within the Methodist Church. It should not be denied that Wesley’s own theology has contributed to this “modern” understanding - that God desires to save all men, and all Christians may achieve some degree of perfection. The concept that some “faiths” (Methodist specifically) are transforming the world by “loving neighbor” ultimately undermines why Jesus went to the cross - that all men have failed to precisely do just that. Discernment is the result of spiritual maturity, and without discernment, the Methodist Church will continue to lose its identity, especially an accurate historical identity with John Wesley as it relates to his emphasis on sanctification, or perhaps better understood biblically, discipline within the church.

V. Conclusion

In 2 Corinthians 11:13, Paul uses some very harsh language –“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ”. In essence, Paul is warning the church in no uncertain terms that the ability to recognize those who masquerade in self styled piety is essential. The damage “false teachers” can do is exceedingly greater when they are inside the church walls. Who in the Christian faith will argue treating the environment (God’s creation) with respect and care is wrong? Who in the Christian faith will deny the importance of loving one’s neighbor or sharing the gospel to one’s “enemy”? The true Christian’s enemy is Satan, and Satan always uses deception; he is the great deceiver. The Methodist bishops may speak of “love”, peace, joy, and diversity, but is it centered on Christ and His word – scripture? The Methodist bishops have become like the folks in Corinth; they think of themselves as being so highly gifted in their ability to “love neighbor” – they are actually easily duped into a worldly mindedness. Having an open mind is not a virtue, nor is it even hinted at in scripture as being desired by God’s children. In fact, the scriptures as a whole seek to “close” the believer’s mind to all that celebrate human wisdom over and above God’s word (Isaiah 5:20-1).

Central to the Methodist bishop’s error is the un-Wesleyan notion that all faiths deserve respect and acceptance under the cloak of “loving neighbor”. In essence, this is the heart of self righteousness for at its foundation, it implies a fulfilling of the law. Wesley’s idea of obtaining “perfection” in this life deserves its fair share of the blame. What is not often expressed is the biblical teaching that “religious” folks may also fail to understand spiritual truth; the Pharisees being a primary biblical example. Saving the planet is an idea that springs forth from a self righteous mind. Celebrating those things that unbelievers (different faiths) share with Christianity over the stark differences, is also another avenue of self righteousness. The most essential things according to scripture are those doctrines that separate Christianity from all other faiths in the world– the gospel itself. When a body of bishops can no longer distinguish heresy from sound biblical doctrine, they are no longer servants of Christ, but of men.

[1]John Wesley, Advice to a People Called Methodist [article on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/advice/; Internet.

[2] God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7BDB6A45E4-C446-4248-82C8-F131B6424741%7D/GRC_Foundation_Doc_110309.pdf; Internet.

[3]Leo G. Cox, “John Wesley’s View of Martin Luther”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 7 no 3 (Sum 1964): 85.

[4]John Wesley, Journal of John Wesley, I Felt my Heart Strangely Warm [document on-line] (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.vi.ii.xvi.html; Internet.

[5] Leo G. Cox, “John Wesley’s View of Martin Luther”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 7 no 3 (Sum 1964): 85.

[6] Ibid., 88.

[7]Ibid., 87.

[8]John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, ed. by Thomas Jackson (1872; Christian Classics Ethereal Library) [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/perfection/files/perfection.html; Internet.

[9]Kenneth J. Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 196.

[10]John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, Sermon 120, On the Wedding Garment (1872; Christian Classics Ethereal Library) [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/sermons.vii.xii.html; Internet.

[11]John MacArthur, The John MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 1166.

[12]Henry H. Knight III, “Love and Freedom ‘by Grace Alone’ in Wesley’s Soteriology: A Proposal for Evangelicals,” The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vo. 24, No. 1 (Spring 2002): 57.

[13]Ibid., 58.

[14]Ibid.

[15]Ibid., 65.

[16] God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7BDB6A45E4-C446-4248-82C8-F131B6424741%7D/GRC_Foundation_Doc_110309.pdf; Internet, 4.

[17]Ibid.

[18]God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action, A Pastoral Letter from the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7BDB6A45E4-C446-4248-82C8-E131B6424741%7D/Pastoral_LtrEngNov32009CEed.pdf,; Internet, 2.

[19] God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7BDB6A45E4-C446-4248-82C8-F131B6424741%7D/GRC_Foundation_Doc_110309.pdf; Internet, 2.

[20]Ibid., 7.

[21]God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action, A Pastoral Letter from the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/%7BDB6A45E4-C446-4248-82C8-E131B6424741%7D/Pastoral_LtrEngNov32009CEed.pdf; Internet, 5.

[22]Jim Winkler, “Word from Winkler – Congregational malpractice”, Faith in Action (28 September 2009) [article on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc-gbcs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=frLJK2PKLqF&b=5489299&ct=7532533&tr=y&auid=5386346; Internet.

[23]The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, 2008 [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066287&content_id={1F6BAEA8-E9EE-4867-B892-2F6871C78CB6}&notoc=1; Internet.

[24]Barton Gingerich, “Defrocked Methodist Jimmy Creech Speaks at Duke,” The Institute of Religion and Democracy, December 2011 [article on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011): available from http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2197; Internet.

[25]“Virginia Pastor Suspended For Denying Membership To Practicing Homosexual Thread”, UMC Page [articles on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011) available from http://ucmpage.org/news/virginia_homo_suspend_thread.htm; Internet.

[26]John Wesley, Wesley Notes on the Bible (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.vii.ii.html; Internet.

[27]Mitchell Landsberg, “Claremont seminary reaches beyond Christianity” Los Angeles Times, 29 June 2010 [article on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/local/la-me-claremont-20100609; Internet.

[28]Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2007), 120.

[29]Ibid., 118.

[30]Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2007), 120.

[31]John Wesley, “The Question, ‘What Is an Arminian?’ Answered by a Lover of Free Grace”, [document on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/; Internet.

[32]Wesley Theological Seminary Student Handbook, 2009-2010. [book on-line] (accessed 16 December 2011); available from http://www.wesleyseminary.edu/Portals/0/docLib/SSV-2009FA-Student%20Handbook.pdf; Internet, 57.

15 Inspiring LGBT Religious Leaders...?

2011-10-22T17:30:00.001-04:00

As usual the Huffington Post is systematically staying right on mission: Shaping the culture into a mind-set where black is white, and evil is good.

Reflecting and shaping the culture in which it is embedded, religion has historically been hostile to LGBT-identified people and communities. However, over the last three decades more denominations, congregations and individuals have come out in support of honoring the full humanity of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people. Today, hundreds, if not thousands, of religious communities are truly places of celebration, healing and hope for all people.

This initial list of 15 ground breaking individuals is just a sampling of the many LGBT religious leaders who have reclaimed religious traditions and communities. We hope that you will use the feature on this slideshow to add gay religious leaders who you feel should be included. Meanwhile, we thankfully acknowledge the ongoing contributions of these inspiring religious leaders.

This is so egregiously false, it is ~~difficult~~ easy to believe they actually wrote this. "Reclaimed" they say? This would only be possible if one is willing to re-write the entirety of history and deny historical fact. Apparently, the folks at AOL and the Huffington Post will do just that.

The only way to celebrate sin, is in fact to hate the Jesus of scripture, or of course - re-write His words.

A terrible warning to us all - Yes, - "God gave them over." Romans 1:24.

15 year old Jamie Hubley

2011-10-17T16:06:00.004-04:00

Well, another "gay" teen takes his life as reported by the Ottawa Citizen.

"I hate being the only open gay guy in my school… It f***ing sucks, I really want to end it. Like all of it, I not getting better theres 3 more years of highschool left, Iv been on 4 different anti -depressants, none of them worked. I’v been depressed since january, How f***ing long is this going to last. People said “It gets better”. Its f***ing bull****. I go to see psychologist, What the f*** are they suppost to f***ing do? All I do is talk about problems, it doesnt make them dissapear?? I give up." - Huffington Post.

I suspect the maggots like Dan Savage (the leader of the "It gets better" ~~project~~ lie) will appear with his unclean hands and mouth to protest and proclaim the lie that most Canadians and Americans have swallowed up like manna falling from the sky - "you can't change!".

There is a reason God teaches us to raise up our children in the knowledge of Him, it actually matters. Jamie Hubley, by all accounts, appeared to be a very troubled teenager, but it appears not one adult in his life told him about his creator and only hope - Christ Jesus. In his own words - "Remember me as a Unicorn :3 x) MAybe in my next life Il be a flying squirreel :D". Yes, this is exactly the results of a world that has abandoned the Truth for lies.

Perhaps this teenager knew exactly what so many others know without being capable of understanding nor communicating it; yes, they have a problem....No, its not a lack of "love" problem or a "gay" problem - its actually a problem called - sin. And yes, even teenage boys and girls are loaded with it. Without a Biblical worldview or education, there are absolutely no True answers to the most pressing questions of life, no matter what secular educators would have you and your children believe.

Telling teens, or adults for that matter, that they should embrace and celebrate what they actually hate about themselves - is indeed a death sentence. You cannot cut the sin out of you, you cannot find a love or "partner" that will take it away, you cannot change what only God can.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Or you can take the worldly wisdom of the likes of Dan Savage or Lady Gaga - you don't have a problem, and don't worry, it will get better. Celebrate your sin, let it rule in your life. The religious fundamentalist bastards won't rule our lives forever...

Inserted from Jamie's blog - "You can't break...when you're already broken" .

Read these prophetic words from G. Craige Lewis:
In every walk of life, we make choices. These choices will get us approved by some and rejected by others. But the homosexual doesn't want ANY rejection because all rejection points to that personal rejection they are feeling deep down inside because they are warring against their very image and nature itself. Because they feel God rejects them spiritually, and nature rejects them naturally, they have no validation. So, they need people to validate them at all times, with no rejection at all. Any type of rejection, whether its verbal, physical, mental, or emotional points to the fact that they feel bad about their present state and desire to change but feel they cannot. This is why it's so important that we as a church offer deliverance to them. Not at the cost of compromise or acceptance, but by convicting and offering Christ as an opportunity to be recreated. I do not believe a homosexual is born homosexual because we are not born with behavioral traits, but we are taught them. But even if they want to claim they were born that way, Christ can make us BORN AGAIN! This is a recreation into a new creation and old things can be passed away. So, there is hope for the homosexual and lesbian but if the church continues to condone this lifestyle and not make a difference between the sacred and profane, then we won't have answers for them when they come for reconciliation.

Questions for homosexuals - and those who approve of it.

2011-10-15T16:14:00.000-04:00

Source: CARM

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, "they are born that way," then shouldn't they also support “homophobia” since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual-orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn't it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?
GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn’t pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?
GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If pedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?
CONSENT: In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if pedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?
CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?
MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?
CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?
CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)? If not, why not?
CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?
CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?
FAIRNESS: Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?
FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms – the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?
FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?
FAIRNESS: Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behavior?
FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?
FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?

1. Frotterusim is the act of deriving sexual pleasure from intentionally rubbing against and/or touching a non-consenting person.
2. Voyeurism is act of deriving sexual pleasure from watching another person undress and/or participate in sexual activity.

The Deadly false promise of the "it gets better" campagin

2011-09-30T12:36:00.001-04:00

GCMW: Video and Full Article

Homosexual activists Dan Savage and Lady Gaga should be brought up on charges of murder for issuing wholesale false promises and lies to young people confused about their sexuality.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44 ESV

Just this past week, Savage’s so-called “it gets better campaign” proved just how ineffective it is when a fourteen year old boy in Buffalo, New York committed suicide after embracing its dead message. ABC News reported that Buffalo police are considering charges.

It was clear Jamey Rodemeyer was walking on unstable ground when he posted a video as part of Savage’s massive internet based deception movement. Watch his video where he attempts in vain to prop up his life on Savage’s dead promise. This is the portrait of a child with an empty heart. He doesn’t believe the IGB promise even while he tries to convince others with the same empty words he is holding onto.

Re Decisional Regeneration

2011-09-30T11:04:00.000-04:00

While the words "make a decision for Christ" are not used in Scripture, the fact that we are commanded to repent seems to imply an exercise of the will.

Instead of "inviting Jesus into your heart", which is a foreign concept in scripture, we should urge repentance and throwing ourselves on the mercy of Christ and His finished work on the cross.

"We must preach the gospel that they are sinners, but that Christ has come to save sinners just like them. We must not deviate from the Scriptures in order to win more bodies while we give false assurance to souls."

Why "Prevenient Grace" should be rejected as unbiblical

2011-09-08T14:35:00.000-04:00

Prevenient Grace – in the simplest understanding it is quite simply grace [God’s] that is resistible. Another term used to describe the same concept is “pre-regenerating grace”.

From a theological stand point, it is grace that enables sinners to come to God in faith, (the sinner is no longer incapable of responding to God) but it does not guarantee the sinner will respond. In essence the sinner has experienced just enough grace to now be capable of coming Christ, but not all sinners will (choose to). Therefore, this “kind” of grace in order for it to be effectual (saving) is solely dependent on the sinner’s response, not God.

While an entire book could be written on this topic, let’s cut right to the core.

Paul tells us in Philippians 1:6, that - “He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ.” This single verse alone should destroy any notion that God’s saving grace is somehow ineffectual or not guaranteed – simply because it is the work of God, not the sinner.

Furthermore, prevenient grace does considerable harm to the very unity of the triune God. The supporter of prevenient grace has the Holy Spirit out in the world spreading some sort of “buffet type grace” to all of humanity, Jesus who had to have died for ALL mankind, since He is offering saving grace to all mankind, and a Father that is either incapable of saving those for whom Jesus has already paid the penalty, or He just can’t since the sinner refuses to accept His grace. In essence, prevenient grace necessitates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are out doing their own thing in utter disunity. Nothing could be further from what the scriptures teach.

Romans 8:30 - And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

The Biblical facts are, man does not need to be made partially better (able to respond), he needs a miraculous re-birth. Man needs to become alive (resurrected) in Christ.

Prevenient grace, therefore must be rejected as unbiblical.

John 1:12–13

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Ephesians 2:8–9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Once Saved - Always Saved: False teaching?

2011-09-06T21:17:00.000-04:00

It is with regret over several friendships lost, and at the same time, great joy in proclaiming the True Gospel, that I write this post. As some readers (all three of you) may know, I have over the past six years with great affection supported DL Foster’s ministry (The Gay Christian Movement Watch blog and Witness Ministries). Today, I can no longer do so with any confidence – I hope that changes. The reason is the same reason I recently left a ten year membership and leadership position at my church: Teaching that Salvation can be lost. The Truth: Salvation cannot be lost.

Other ways of expressing the same lie:

· “Salvation is not a static, one-time event in our lives. It is the ongoing experience of God’s gracious presence transforming us into whom God intends us to be.” [Official United Methodist Church statement].

· “We work out our salvation in partnership and guidance of the Holy Ghost. If once saved, always saved excludes sin and repentance of the believer, then it is a false teaching.” DL Foster. [Notice the words “We work out our salvation in partnership”, as if the Biblical Jesus was looking for “partners” and as if His work on the Cross was somehow insufficient and needed more work].

Any ministry / church that speaks of the exclusivity of Christ in salvation, uses orthodox language, teaches salvation by grace, and proclaims the authority and sufficiency of scripture, yet denies salvation is secure, or that it is conditioned upon man’s continued obedience, is quite simply – very dangerous. It could actually be more dangerous than the common cults of our day who also teach of “another” Jesus and “another” Gospel, simply because it is much harder to discern.

Let’s break this down:

Justification (God declaring man righteous) is NOT a repeated process.

"To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). That is justification.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ’s sinless record reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17).

The results are crystal clear:

· We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)

· We become fellow-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17)

· We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)

· We are henceforth "in Christ" (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

Just as our physical birth can never be undone, so too our spiritual birth can never be undone. Christ said “You must be born again” (John 3:7), not “you must be born again and again and again.” In Philippians, Paul praises God for the confidence that “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion” (1:6).

Conclusion: one cannot “fall from grace” – loose their salvation because salvation is NOT a process – it is a divine act of God. Salvation is wholly and entirely a work of God, not man.

The god who saves men, but says it is up to them to lay hold and keep said salvation, does not exist. It might make for a profitable ministry in fulfilling folks desires to be spiritually fulfilled in their own works (since a works based salvation is always attractive to the unregenerate / unsaved/ natural man), however it is absolutely foreign to scripture. Think about it, even true believers can get caught up in their "good" works to the point that are actually offending the imputation of Christ's work (His blood) on the cross.

I pray God leads His faithful to renounce these teachings in no uncertain terms in order to transform perhaps some leaders to recognize their error and correct their teachings so as to not to continue to mislead others. Many men and women (Saints of the past) have been brutally tortured and killed defending this very doctrine. It is NOT splitting theological hairs – I ask you to pray-fully consider and search scripture to verify.

From a personal perspective, as much as DL Foster has touched my life (he continues to deserve much credit for his orthodox stance in defending sexual purity) and the many (minority as time goes on) Methodist Pastors remaining true to a biblical teaching of faith alone; anyone who teaches salvation is progressive or dependent on man - teaches another gospel and condemns himself. Galatians 1:9, “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

Yes, it is indeed that serious. Paul was specifically addressing this very topic: Man is “justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law” (Galatians 2:16). Faith plus works is another gospel, and if any man or Christian denomination teaches a works plus faith based salvation, no matter how “slick” they try to be using orthodox language, God’s wrath remains upon them. The whole of scripture concurs with this Truth. It is real easy to teach "eternal security," and at the same time deny it with works - and nobody notices.

What about continuing in sin after salvation?

First, please understand this Biblical Truth: Jesus' death was absolutely sufficient to pay for all of our sins—past, present, and future, pre-salvation and post-salvation (Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Second, the Bible makes it clear that a true Christian will not live "any way he wants to." Believers are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17), they will demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and not the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Lastly 1 John 3:6-9 clearly states that a true Christian will not live in continued sate of willful or unrepentant sin. A life patterned by willful unrepentant sin, is a life that is still lost.

Two key points that should / must be drawn here: 1. there is a difference between how a person is to live, and how a person is saved. 2. Faith and repentance are the result of salvation, not the cause.

Two book recommendations for further study:

Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ, John MacArthur.

Saved without a Doubt: Being Sure of Your Salvation, John MacArthur.

Beware: Serpent Under Sand

2011-09-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

The Word warns us that in the last days in which we live there will be many false Christs - those who claim to be Christ but who are imposters. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5). We who profess to be Christians must take heed. We must be very careful that we are not deceived. Our calling is to trust, love, and follow the true Christ and Him only. We may have nothing to do with the false Christs who are so numerous in our day.
We know about the Christ of the cults and other religions. He is a good man, a prophet, the first creation of God, a great spirit, a divine idea, or even a god himself. But he is not true and eternal God. He receives his existence from another who is greater than he. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.
We know about the Christ of Roman Catholicism. They profess that He is true God. He suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin. He arose again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. But he is not a complete Savior. The Christ of the Roman Catholics can not save sinners without their own good works and the intercession of priests. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ.
There is, however, another false Christ who is much more dangerous than the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. He has deceived people for many years and he continues to deceive millions. This Christ is so dangerous that, if it were not impossible, he would deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). He is the Christ of Arminianism.
This false Christ is extremely dangerous because in many ways he appears to be the True Christ. They say that he is true God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They say that he died on the cross to save sinners. They even say that he saves by his grace alone, without the work of man. This Christ will have nothing to do with the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism.
But watch out! Be warned! The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the Bible. Do not be fooled!
1. The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation.
The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4)
2. The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come.
The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13)
3. The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ.
The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2)
4. The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost.
The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18)
5. The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ
The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25)
As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills.
If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. I pray for grace that you might repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Savior.
- Steven Houck

Lost all my links

2011-09-01T12:22:00.000-04:00

FYI for the handfull of readers: Maybe my blog has been hacked - had to re-do the template so I lost all my links etc..

Glenn Beck's tour was supposed to be about truth. But since the truth was inconvenient, it was surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.

2011-08-30T12:32:00.000-04:00

Stolen Blessings: The LDS Connection

by Jack Kinsella

www.omegaletter.com

www.olivetreeviews.org

August 30, 2011

Israel was beautiful. Israel always is. But this trip to Israel was different than any other I've been on -- and "different" does not always mean the same thing as "good." If you love Glenn Beck and believe that he is both a good Christian and an honest man, perhaps today's Omega Letter (OL) isn't for you. I am going to be as charitable as possible, under the circumstances, but I have to call it as I see it.

Today's review is primarily theological -- later we will discuss the political elements of the tour and how our presence was received in Israel. There was a lot of really good stuff -- but first things first.

We must begin at the beginning, inside a cloud of deliberate deception. Glenn Beck said that he had investigated the tour companies involved thoroughly, and recommended Voyager Travel as the one that he knew best.

So we also checked out Voyager Travel at their Web site. I didn't do a very good job, as it turned out. As you can see from the link above, Voyager Travel is represented as a secular tour company with tours to Norway, England, Alaska, Denmark, and oh, by the way, a special Restoring Courage event in Israel by Glenn Beck. It seemed ok.

I personally never expected the tour to be "religious" -- there were far too many different Christian denominations and other religious faiths among us, including a number of Jews, atheists or agnostics who came specifically to attend the Glenn Beck events and demonstrate their political support for the State of Israel.

During one of the few times that I had access to the Internet while on the tour, I had reason to Google Voyager Travel, seeking information about our itinerary.

I don't know how I missed it from home -- (maybe the excitement of the trip?) but I didn't Google it before signing up -- I went directly to the URL recommended by Beck.

Had I Googled first, I might have notice that directly below the Voyager site was a mirror site of LDS Travel -- identical in every respect to Voyager Travel, except that LDS Travel makes it clear that it is a Latter Days Saints Church operation.

The Voyager site is scrubbed clean of any reference to LDS -- although the two sites were clearly the same. So, instead of signing up with a secular touring company, we were inadvertently contributing financial support to the LDS church.

In other words, we were contributing (to whatever degree,) to the advancement of Mormon LDS doctrine and missionary work.

It soon became clear that the event was a Mormon religious tour carefully disguised as a "Christian" tour. To maintain that fiction, the tour planners engaged a "Christian" guide service -- which meant in this case that it was led by a Greek Orthodox Catholic guide.

George was a terrific guy to be around and an excellent tour guide -- if one went to Israel to tour sites important to the Greek Orthodox Church -- or those dedicated to Mary. When it came to Mary, George informed us, the Bible was wrong.

In Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1 where it says that Mary was the mother of James the less, Joses, and Salome, George told us, "This is not true." George insisted that Mary was ever virgin and Jesus did not have any half-brothers or sisters.

Sites dedicated to Mary were high on George's list; although we missed many sites listed in the itinerary to accommodate Glenn Beck's constantly-changing schedule, we didn't miss any of the "Mary" sites, like the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, the Grotto, or the Wedding Chapel in Cana.

I say that to illustrate the religious nature of the "Christian" tour set up by Voyager Travel, which was supposed to be "non-denominational with a Christian perspective." That should have tipped us off -- to non-Christians, Christianity is determined by church affiliation, not doctrine.

Christians know that Christianity is a matter of doctrine, not church affiliation. One can be a member of a church and not be a Christian, or not be a member of any church, in some instances, because they are Christian.

We also noticed very early on that our bus had about a half-dozen overtly Mormon members, and probably another half-dozen who kept it to themselves.

But whenever a discussion erupted that questioned LDS participation, whether or not the LDS was actually running things, or whether all the tour leaders were Mormons, one of our Mormon 'minders' would quickly appear to change the subject.

If the topic was Mormon doctrine, several Mormons would attach themselves to the discussion to 'correct misconceptions'. Some of the Christians in our group renamed them "The Decepticons".

It will take a series of OL columns to discuss the tour itself. Much of the tour was good. There were many, many unexpected blessings. Today is simply the introduction.

But as the title of today's OL implies, most of the expected blessings were not there. (The blessings were not associated with Glenn Beck.)

Assessment:

The best place to begin, I think, is with a statement made by Glenn Beck at the first event in Caesarea-by-the-Sea in the very same open-air theatre in which Paul the Apostle was put on trial before King Herod Agrippa.

(A Roman amphitheatre is a completely round structure. A theatre is shaped like a half moon, as is the one in Caesarea.)

It was in that very theatre that the saddest eight words in the New Testament are recorded when Agrippa said to Paul:

"Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28)

(I wish I could have persuaded Glenn Beck, but this picture is as close as I ever got to him.)

It was there, on that very spot, that Glenn Beck recited the wonderful reception he received by Israeli political leaders, Jewish rabbis and even several Muslim leaders.

Only the Christian leaders received any word of condemnation from Glenn Beck, who choked up with tears when he said accusingly, "it was only the Christians that questioned my salvation."

What Beck was insinuating in no uncertain terms was that those Christians who questioned his salvation were more intolerant, less good, and less, ummm, Christian than were the two thousand or so Americans sitting in that open-air theatre in Caesarea.

We will start with that statement, since it immediately divided the group into 'camps' and set the stage for the rest of the tour.

He made that statement, from the very place King Agrippa was almost persuaded, while surrounded by famous born-again Christian authors like David Barton, John Hagee and Mike Evans, all of whom took time out from their own sermons to salute Beck's "courageousness" in offering his support to Israel. (Maybe so, but I personally thought the thousands that forked over more than $6000 apiece to come to Israel as Hamas rockets were pounding the Israeli coastal cities were just as courageous -- and they weren't getting paid to be there.)

Significantly, not one of the famous born-again evangelists questioned Glenn Beck's salvation, although Glenn Beck made it clear that the issue at hand was the status of Glenn Beck's salvation through aegis of the LDS (Mormon) church.

Given Beck's statement, offered more as an accusation of those unnamed 'Christian leaders' than anything else, it seems essential to me that we examine salvation as the Mormons define it:

Mormons believe God is not eternal, or even the only God, but was who inhabited a planet in the star system, Kolob. They believe they are saved by obeying Mormon doctrine. They believe that God had a god that elevated God to godhood and that they, too, can be elevated to godhood.
They believe they lived as full-grown adults (the Doctrine of Pre-existence) in a spirit world before they were born. In Pre-Existence, they had friends and family and relationships and knowledge. While there, they were presented with the Plan of Salvation, which included being given a choice to be born as humans with the prize at the end being godhood of their own planet.
They didn't have to and some were content to stay in the spirit world where they were already in heaven instead of taking the plunge and getting a shot at being God.
They believe that when their spirits passed into existence, they also passed through a Veil of Forgetfulness where they forgot their previous spirit lives. Here, they recreate their pre-existent families as eternal families.
Jesus and Satan were brothers and God liked Jesus' plan best so Satan rebelled. Mormons don't believe in the sin nature, or 'original sin'.
Mormons believe the purpose of human existence is to become like God. Mormons also believe it is ok to lie about their beliefs and affiliations to non-Mormons and to new Mormon recruits under the 'principle' of "milk before meat.".
So they are free to deny the crazier parts, (God was a man, there are lots of Gods, including them, they take spirit wives to become goddesses, etc.) on the principle that until a Mormon has been sufficiently indoctrinated, they will recognize how crazy it sounds and maybe refuse to join or even quit and then spread the word.
Mormons believe that after they die, they move back to the spirit world. Some of them are imprisoned for not believing the Mormon gospel while on earth. Those that never heard the Mormon Gospel will be visited by Mormon spirit missionaries.
Mormons believe that the dead can be saved after death if they are baptized by proxy by living Mormons.
Mormons in this spirit world can still sin:

"Those who are righteous in this life will still be righteous. Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. We will have the same desires after we die as we had while on this earth" (Gospel Fundamentals, "Life after Death," pg 195.).

Resurrection is in several parts and only those who had a perfect knowledge of the divinity of Christ yet chose Satan will be damned. The rest will go through various stages of perfection while in the post-life spirit world.
Finally, if you miss your dog, don't worry. Fido, (as well as every other dog, cat, hamster, pigeon, aardvark and platypus) will ALSO be resurrected during the last of the, umm, seven different resurrections taught by the LDS.
The Mormon Plan of Salvation is in seven parts as well, with final stage, logically enough, called the Final Judgment.
At Final Judgment, those finally judged go to one of three heavens, as befits their works, or to the Outer Darkness, which is Mormon hell.

So, since Glenn Beck's salvation is in seven parts, of which Glenn Beck is currently only in Stage Three, (Mortality), even Glenn Beck ought to be questioning it -- since it ain't over yet and nobody, LDS or otherwise, has it until it is over, according to LDS theology.

This is a good place to recap and summarize where we have come with this so far. By concealing the relationship between Voyager Travel and the LDS, many well-meaning Christians were duped into contributing to the LDS Church and their efforts at LDS evangelism.

We were deceived into contributing to a religious system than cannot save and a god who is neither eternal nor Biblical, and a created, rather than Divine Jesus whose only qualification for the job was being a better planner than Satan.

We were tricked into providing money for use by Mormon missionaries that will lead people away from salvation rather than to it, and loaned our legitimacy to that cause by appearing together with thousands of others in a show of support that was supposed to be for Israel but was manipulated into a night to honor Glenn Beck's 'courageous' stand of faith in a god who cannot save.

The entire premise of the tour was that of having the courage to stand for what we believed in. It began by deceiving the bulk of those attending who certainly would NOT have signed up with an outfit called LDS Travel by disguising it as something else.

The uneven yoking of the LDS, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational and born-again Christians under a single religious banner may have sounded spiritual, but Satan is a spirit, as well.

There were other travel agencies, but Voyager was the one recommended by Glenn Beck. Is it possible that Glenn Beck didn't know that Voyager Travel changed its name from LDS Travel in order to deceive non-Mormons? Is it conceivable that there could have been any other reason for concealing the LDS connection?

Beck said he researched the Voyager travel agency carefully. If he didn't know about the LDS connection, he lied about researching it. If he did know, then he must have agreed to burying the connection between the LDS and Voyager Travel.

Glenn Beck's tour was supposed to be about truth. But since the truth was inconvenient, it was surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Corinthians 6:15-16)

If the LDS really is just another Christian denomination, as its apologists insist, then why the deception? The answer should be obvious.

People don't hide something unless there is something to hide.

"It Gets Better" -- Phony 'anti-bullying' project founded by gay anti-Christian pornographer, pushing homosexuality on vulnerable kids. Supported by politicians, corporations, Red Sox.

2011-08-12T11:38:00.000-04:00

MassResistance update:

The founder, leader, and public face of "It Gets Better" is a media-savvy homosexual activist named Dan Savage. Savage is clearly an angry and obviously disturbed individual who appears to have an obsession with kids and filthy language.

Dan Savage's writings, statements, and activities are so disgusting and obscene that we cannot include them in this email. We've posted the unedited examples HERE.

2. Unbelievable: Boston Red Sox manager, 2 players make video supporting pro-gay "It Gets Better" project targeting kids.

Red Sox manager Terry Francona and star players Jason Varitek and Kevin Youkilis are featured in a well-polished video put out by the Boston Red Sox last month to support the homosexual websites It Gets Better and The Trevor Project which target troubled kids with a pro-homosexual (and transgender) message. "It Gets Better" was founded by Dan Savage, an anti-Christian homosexual activist pornographer with a history of angry, extremely obscene attacks on various conservative public figures.

The video, posted on the Red Sox website and also on YouTube, uses emotional language by the baseball celebrities to reinforce the subliminal message that kids should be who they are -- i.e., born gay (or transgender) -- and feel free to continue to act out their homosexuality, because eventually as a gay or trans adult they will have a wonderful life. As Varitek tells kids "It's OK to be your own unique being . . . It gets better."

Emotional VIDEO made by Boston Red Sox supporting It Gets Better and The Trevor Project

The video is very slick in the way it pulls kids in. The players are interspersed with young "gay" kids who appeal to any kids who may feel bullied or troubled in any way, and they say to them, "If you need help call the Trevor Project" -- which leads kids to homosexual groups, gay-oriented books and movies, and gay-friendly counseling services.

The subtle but powerful theme: If you stick it out with your gay (or trans) identity, it gets better for you as an adult. One unidentified (presumably gay) adult says, "Once you make your way through the hard part, the rest of life is so much more fantastic than anything you can imagine." After that, Terry Francona says "You have your whole life ahead you." It ends with a "gay" child stating again: "It gets better."

Why would the Red Sox do this?

On July 1, when the video was released, the Boston Globe reported that the Red Sox senior vice president for public affairs said that the organization is "proud" and "honored" to support the "It Gets Better" project, and that several members of the Red Sox staff were involved, along with local homosexual activists.

Knowing the extremely offensive statements of the It Gets Better founder, and the highly controversial nature of the message, one would think that a major league baseball team would steer clear of this.

But in fact, according to an insider we talked to, most of the Red Sox players, staff, and management are pro-Obama liberals who support the left-wing agenda.

People like Terry Francona, Jason Varitek, and Kevin Youkilis are multi-millionaires who hang out with glitzy liberals and are disconnected with average parents trying to raise their kids. They are likely supportive of the homosexual agenda or at best indifferent to how it affects children, their families, or society. A few years ago, when the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" stars collaborated with the Red Sox, Varitek worked closely with them, we were told.

One wonders whether they find Dan Savage's vile comments about Rick Santorum, Pastor Rick Warren, Michele Bachman, and Scott Brown amusing, rather than offensive.

Dear Society of Evangelical Arminians

2011-08-05T11:40:00.000-04:00

1. If He (Christ) "preserves us in salvation as long as we trust in Christ" - then it is still up to us to keep us saved, therefore, there is NO security in Christ as you claim (Article 5).

2. Irresistible Grace does NOT mean God forces one to believe, it means God's grace upon you WILL be irresistible. God does not desire to save men, and loose that "battle". If God decrees that you will be saved, you will be Saved!

What should be learned from the Casey Anthony verdict?

2011-07-14T19:12:00.000-04:00

1. Doubt is being considered more and more of being a virtue, generation after generation.

2. "Chance" or misfortune, is a now considered to be powerful force; not simply the nothing it is in reality.

3. "Guilty" no longer means anything objective, it's a circumstance that cannot be judged.

For far too many people, jury's included, these are likely the unspoken realities of their worldviews.

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

2011-06-28T11:44:00.001-04:00

The goddess of Chance

2011-06-04T10:28:00.000-04:00

Please read this representative type of comment (of many) regarding the Harold Camping story:

Commenter 1:

People need to have the COURAGE to become agnostic.

There is NOTHING wrong with saying 'I don't know'.

There is plenty wrong with saying 'I DO know'.

Commenter 2:

Agreed. Doubt, in my estimation is one of the most powerful forces in the universe.

Source: May 21 'Judgment Day' Believers React To Being Alive On May 22

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/may-21-judgment-day-may-22_n_865298.html

This might surprise you, but this “kind” of thinking is purely the product of how reasoning is being taught (corrupted) in our Universities and public school systems – i.e. Evolution.

Think about it, Commenter 1 praises, perhaps even celebrates, the unknown. However, he abhors absolute certainty (The Truth). The one thing he is certain about is that it is WRONG to say “I do know”. Anyone but me see the utter contradiction here? It’s kind of like saying “I don’t know anything for sure, but I do know one thing for sure, what you are saying is wrong”.

What does this have to do with evolution? Look at Commenter 2’s statement. “Doubt” is now a force. In order for evolution to be viable, guess what must also be a force? Chance! That’s right; “chance” must be a force in order for evolution to make any sense. When a so called scientist attributes “power” to chance, they have not only abandoned reason; they have left the science building. Neither Commenter 1 nor 2 are remotely aware of the absurdity of their own comments. They obliterate reason and meaning from everything.

This irrational “religion” isn’t really new, however. Back in the day, there was this goddess in the Greek pantheon called “fortune”. Like fortune, “chance” is the new goddess of evolution. Goddess Chance has become a force, a force so great and mighty that she can out of nothing make everything.

The Truth:

This is an age old religion of fools (Psalm 14:1) – The fool says in his heart, “There is no God”.

Romans 1:20 – For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex...

2011-05-20T09:36:00.000-04:00

TOPEKA, KS—Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday the grand opening of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex, a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible.

During a press conference, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told reporters that the new state-of-the-art fetus-killing facility located in the nation's heartland offers quick, easy, in-and-out abortions to all women, and represents a bold reinvention of the group's long-standing mission and values.

"Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what has always been our true passion: abortion," said Richards, standing under a banner emblazoned with Planned Parenthood's new slogan, "No Life Is Sacred." "And since Congress voted to retain our federal funding, it's going to be that much easier for us to maximize the number of tiny, beating hearts we stop every day."

"The Abortionplex's high-tech machinery is capable of terminating one pregnancy every three seconds," Richards added. "That's almost a million abortions every month. We're so thrilled!"

The 900,000-square-foot facility has more than 2,000 rooms dedicated to the abortion procedure. The abundance of surgical space, Richards said, will ensure that women visiting the facility can be quickly fitted into stirrups without pausing to second-guess their decision or consider alternatives such as adoption. Hundreds of on-site counselors are also available to meet with clients free of charge and go over the many ways that carrying a child to term will burden them and very likely ruin their lives.

The remaining space is dedicated to amenities such as coffee shops, bars, dozens of restaurants and retail outlets, a three-story nightclub, and a 10-screen multiplex theater—features intended not only to help clients relax, but to foster a sense of community and make abortion more of a social event.

"We really want abortion to become a regular part of women's lives, especially younger women who have enough fertile years ahead of them to potentially have dozens of abortions," said Richards, adding that the Abortionplex would provide shuttle service to and from most residences, schools, and shopping malls in the region. "Our hope is for this facility to become a regular destination where a woman in her second trimester can whoop it up at karaoke and then kick back while we vacuum out the contents of her cervix."

"All women should feel like they have a home at the Abortionplex," Richards continued. "Whether she's a high school junior who doesn't want to go to prom pregnant, a go-getter professional who can't be bothered with the time commitment of raising a child, or a prostitute who knows getting an abortion is the easiest form of birth control—all are welcome."

Nineteen-year-old Marcy Kolrath, one of the Abortionplex's first clients, told reporters that despite her initial hesitancy, she was quickly put at ease by staff members who reassured her that she could have abortions over and over for the next decade before finally committing to motherhood. Kolrath also said she was "wowed" by the facility's many attractions.

"I was kind of on the fence in the beginning," she said. "But after a couple of margaritas and a ride down the lazy river they've got circling the place, I got caught up in the vibe. By the time it was over, I almost wished I could've aborted twins and gotten to stay a little longer."

"I told my boyfriend we had to have sex again that very night," Kolrath added. "I really want to come back over Labor Day."

Guess which one is not protected...

2011-04-19T14:23:00.000-04:00

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

2011-04-13T12:19:00.000-04:00

Source: Grace to You Blog

Is Rob Bell truly a Christian, or is he one of those dangerous deceivers Scripture warns us about repeatedly (Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Colossians 2:8; 2 Peter 2:1; etc.)?

It's a fair—and necessary—question. Christ’s famous warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing is given to us as an imperative: “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Our Lord clearly expects His true disciples to be able to spot spiritual imposters and wolves in sheep’s clothing—especially those who are purveyors of deadly false doctrines.

Rob Bell certainly fits that category. He relentlessly casts doubt on the authority and reliability of Scripture. He denies the Bible’s perspicuity, disavows its hard truths, and ridicules some of the most important features of the gospel.

Granted, Bell (who was raised in the evangelical movement and is an alumnus of Wheaton College) still insists on calling himself “evangelical.” He reiterated that claim recently in a March 14 interview with Lisa Miller, where he stated, “Do I think that I’m evangelical and orthodox to the bone? Yes.”

A careful examination of Bell’s teaching suggests, however, that his profession of faith is not credible. His claim that he is “evangelical and orthodox to the bone” is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Bell’s teaching gives no evidence of any real evangelical conviction. If “each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:44), we cannot blithely embrace Rob Bell as a “brother” just because he says he wants to be accepted as an evangelical.

If, as Jesus said, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), then we ought to look with the utmost suspicion on anyone who doubts and denies as much of Jesus’ teaching as Rob Bell does, and yet claims to be a follower of Christ.

Scripture is crystal-clear about this: “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Historic evangelicalism has always affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, while declaring (as Jesus and the apostles did) that the only way of salvation for fallen humanity is through the atoning work of Christ, and the only instrument of justification is faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the gospel.

Rob Bell believes none of those things. His skepticism about so many key biblical truths, his penchant for sowing doubt in his hearers, and his obvious contempt for the principles of divine justice as taught in Scripture all give evidence that he is precisely the kind of unbelieving false teacher Scripture warns us about.

Bell is an inveterate syncretist who loves to blend “progressive” and politically correct dogmas with eastern mysticism, humanistic jargon, and Christian terminology. His teaching is full of barren ideas borrowed directly from old liberalism, sometimes rephrased in postmodern jargon but still reeking of stale Socinianism.

What Bell is peddling is nothing like New Testament Christianity. It is a man-centered religion totally devoid of both clarity and biblical authority.

Given those facts, you might think any true evangelical would reject Bell and his teaching outright. But evidently many in the American evangelical movement think they are obliged simply to accept at face value Bell’s claim of orthodoxy. No less than Mart DeHaan, voice of Radio Bible Class, decried Bell’s critics, portraying them as the divisive ones for pointing out the unsoundness of Bell’s teaching. DeHaan wrote,

I’m left wondering… are we allowing love (and truth) to win now… by using threats of group pressure and blackballing of brothers like Rob, and those who openly or secretly stand with him? Is that really the best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy? [emphasis added]

The biblical answer to DeHaan’s question is clear and fairly simple: The best way to maintain a strong and healthy orthodoxy is to “[hold] fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching . . . to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers . . . who must be silenced” (Titus 1:9-11).

We have a duty not only to expose, refute, and silence Rob Bell’s errors, but also to urge people under his influence to run as fast and as far as they can from him, lest they be gathered into the eternal hell he denies. It won’t do to sit by idly while someone who denies the danger of hell mass-produces sons of hell (cf. Matthew 23:15).

In a series of posts this week, we will demonstrate from Rob Bell’s own published works that he has long been hostile to virtually every vital gospel truth; we will consider some of the questions he has raised about what the Bible has to say about hell; and we will compare and contrast what Bell is saying about hell with what Jesus said about it.

Buckle in and get ready to be challenged. These are admittedly some of the hardest truths in the New Testament, but there’s no reason anyone holding authentic evangelical convictions should find the subject confusing or controversial.

John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher

Why I Care About Hell

2011-04-07T10:22:00.000-04:00

By Sam Welbaum: who is currently working on a PhD in Philosophy of Religion and Theology. In addition, he is the Youth Pastor at Shoreline Baptist Church in Fountain Valley California and is a Staff Apologist with Apologetics.com.

Why are so many people so concerned about defending a doctrine that states that countless people will suffer for all eternity? Wouldn’t it just be nicer to say that everyone gets to be happy for eternity? Perhaps everyone gets to lay back in a hammock eating lemonheads on a beach in New Caledonia while listening to Izzy’s rendition of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” Wouldn’t that be a better story?

No. No, that would not be nicer to say. Why? Because it isn’t true, and hearing truth is far more important than merely hearing what you want to hear. If it were nicer to tell people only what they wanted to hear, then there would be no talk of armed robberies, we would be silent about cancer and we would be mum about war. Yet, if there were a man pointing a gun at my head asking for my money, it would not be nice of you to tell me that it was a blow dryer. Saying falsehood because it sounds nice is not a way to deal with reality.

You may have noted that my analogies in the paragraph above were all negative ones. Does this mean that hell is bad? No. Hell is bad insofar as prison is bad, because that’s what hell is, a prison. Do we think that a life sentence in prison is morally wrong? No, we don’t. So then, why do so many thinkers in today’s world have such a problem with hell? The answer’s easy—people who don’t understand sin, cannot understand hell.

Sticking with the prison analogy, let’s say that a mass murder gets put in jail for life. Most people wouldn’t have a problem with the sentence, and the only ones that did would probably be disappointed that the man wasn’t given the death penalty. Now let’s say that an Eagle Scout steals a candy bar, and when prosecuted, he gets sent to prison for life as well. Almost everyone, except for perhaps those who hate Eagle Scouts or love candy bars, would be outraged. How dare the justice system put this Eagle Scout in jail for life! Prison, where he will suffer and be separated from he outside world! People would find the verdict reprehensible and vile. No one would think that a just punishment was given.

And that right there is the crux of the issue. Why do pastors today seem to have a problem with hell? Why do Christians want to pretend the doctrine doesn’t exist? Why do we desire to have our ears tickled telling us that God would never punish people for eternity? Because we are a world of mass murders who think we are Eagle Scouts.

Now, I’m rather sure that no one reading this is an actually murderer, and I myself often stay my hand from bringing retribution on those who correct my many misspellings. However, the fact is, no matter how good we think we might be, we are only measuring ourselves against each other. I am not as bad as Hitler because I have not killed 6 million Jews. Totally. I’m not saying anyone reading this, nor anyone weakening the doctrine of hell is worse than Hitler, but I am saying that Hitler isn’t our mark of demarcation.

Another example. Those of you who know me are aware that I am not what one would call “in shape” or “physically fit” or any such nonsense. However, when I go to the gym at about 1am, there are usually two or three people there who are more out of shape than I am. So, I do what any sane person would do and I take the treadmill next to them and crank it all the way up to 2.5mph with a 6 incline and I go to town. Suddenly, I look like an athlete. These guys next to me are only doing 1mph on a 0 incline? I’m basically an Olympian. But, if I had to run a 6 minute mile, it doesn’t matter how many out of shape guys I out treadmill, or how athletic I feel, the fact is that in my present state, I’m going to fail.

We can compare ourselves with each other all that we like, but our eternal destination is not a committee decision. When we look to each other to define our goodness, all we end up doing is convincing ourselves that we’re better than we actually are. People think teaching the doctrine of hell is mean, because they don’t think that anyone deserves it. They don’t think anyone deserves it, because they don’t understand the doctrine of sin. Sure they might understand that sin is bad, but when they say its bad, what do they actually mean? Do they think sin is bad in the same way that a mistake is bad? Or that an error is bad? If so, then yes, it would seem that sending someone to eternal punishment is unjust.

Yet we have a just God. And that God spoke about hell. As did Jesus and every New Testament author. None of them gave the idea that hell will be temporary, and none of them gave the idea that someone could leave once there. Those ideas simply aren’t in the Bible. So where do they come from? They come from people not understanding that we actually deserve life terms. They come from people thinking they’re in shape on the treadmill due to the fact that the person next to them is worse off. They come from people not understanding sin as spiting in the face of God. And it is not nicer to tell someone that sin is merely a mistake when it is actually spiting in the face of the Almighty. It is not a better story to say that God thinks, “Oh, they are only human and not all that bad.”

No, that isn’t nicer at all. That is a dangerous, dangerous lie. And it’s a lie that I pray more people will start combating. A Christian who does not take hell seriously is a Christian who does not take sin seriously. A Christian who does not take sin seriously is a Christian who does not take holiness seriously. A Christian who does not take holiness seriously is a Christian who does not take God seriously, and I wonder how Christian such a person is.

Who's in Hell? Pastors' Criticism of Eternal Torment for Some Sparks Fierce Debate

2011-03-26T10:28:00.003-04:00

From Fox News: A Methodist pastor who voiced support for a book questioning the view of hell as a place of eternal damnation is "shocked" by his church's decision to fire him. Chad Holtz, who served as pastor of the United Methodist church in rural North Carolina, said he hoped his personal belief posted on Facebook would engage -- not anger -- members of his congregation.

Holtz was dismissed this month as pastor of Marrow's Chapel in Henderson after he wrote a note on his Facebook page supporting a new book by Rob Bell, a prominent young evangelical pastor and critic of the traditional view of hell as a place of torment for billions of damned souls.

Bell, the pastor of the 10,000-member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., criticizes the belief that a select number of Christians will spend eternity in the bliss of heaven while everyone else is tormented forever in hell.

"This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear," Bell writes in his book.

Bell obviously has a problem with Jesus’ message; in fact, no one spoke more about hell than Christ Jesus. Hell is an eternal place of fire and punishment - (Matt 3:12; 5:22; 5:29-30; 18:8-9; 25:41; 25:46; Jude 7; Rev 20:15).

If one rejects eternal punishment and the bible teaches eternal punishment, one is left with no other alternative than to dismiss the authority of the Bible. The only place one finds a God that is a God of love, is the Bible. When folks accept this, (albeit usually at the exclusion of His holiness) yet reject eternal punishment, it is not so because the scriptures are unclear; it is an objection based on theological concerns not exegetical. The phrase “God is dead” comes to mind in the sense that man would also like to dismiss, if not kill the notion of Hell, and probably for good reasons. The reasons why men have a somewhat “natural” desire to make God inconsequential in their daily lives may also hold some of the same answers as to why the doctrine of hell is so differently understood and viewed.

Bell, and the rest of the like-minded world are perfectly free to choose any god they wish, just as long as it is not the God of the Bible. Bell’s god bothers the souls (hearts) of no one, makes no absolute or eternal demands. The God of the Bible is the creator, sustainer, savior and judge. Bell has made a god created in man’s image, and that is a very terrible thing.

This Methodist pastor’s words are very instructive here: he states “"I lost the idol of belief; I lost a very powerful and useful motivator -- fear; I lost the right to hate my enemy and I lost my place in a tribe,…We do these somersaults to justify the monster god we believe in," he said. "But confronting my own sinfulness, that's when things started to topple for me. Am I really going to be saved just because I believe something, when all these good people in the world aren't?"

This “pastor” is unmistakably standing in judgment of God’s word. This is precisely why theology and doctrine are critical. First, his motivation is wrapped up in fear, not what Jesus has accomplished on the cross on behalf of lost sinners. Two, he actually “believes” men are “good” and deserve something more than God’s wrath, and at the same time discounts one’s “belief” as being inconsequential. You can’t have it both ways, either what you believe will save you or it will not. You can’t say one’s “beliefs” don’t matter when it comes to hell, but they do matter if you are arguing against a god who judges men to hell. And perhaps most disturbing, he actually minimizes the Cross of Christ by not mentioning it once in "his" salvation equation. Thankfully, this one rural United Methodist Church had the spiritual maturity and God given discernment to throw him out! Maybe after Satan has had his way with him, he will repent and return to fellowship and obedience to God’s word.

Pastors who embrace false teachings and do not protect the flock from unbiblical theology and doctrines, are doing the work of Satan, and yep - he too is as real as hell.

Lastly, we would do well to remember, the ultimate object of our faith is not doctrine, it is in fact the person - Christ Jesus. We are not at liberty to claim He is our savior while contradicting His word. We must remember - even the demons believe in Jesus, make sure your belief is not the same kind as theirs!

The goal of every (false) religion on earth is in some way trying to appease God. Biblical Christianity knows know such system - God alone is both Just and the Justifier, we have not been left alone to work out a plan. We indeed believe what Christ has done and said, from Genesis to Revelation and we do not dare stand in judgment of His word, His word has and will always stand in judgment of men.

MUHAMMAD: A TRUE OR FALSE PROPHET OF GOD.

2011-03-23T19:36:00.000-04:00

I. Introduction and Purpose

No matter what one may call or give title to, Muhammad is claimed by almost a billion Muslims around the world to be a prophet of Allah. In essence, Muhammad claimed with authority to be a “Messenger of God”. If this claim is true, then anyone who desires to know God and His message would listen and read the divine revelations contained in the Qur’an. Islam makes it quite clear that God has sent prophets to mankind with divine teachings; the Qur’an being the final and more perfect revelation and Muhammad being God’s last prophet (Qur’an 10:47)[1]. The purpose of this paper will be to examine whether or not Muhammad was indeed a true Prophet; “a Messenger of God” and upon what basis is one to accept this claim to be true. The research will show that Muhammad did indeed fulfill one prophetic “office” in his ministry; warning others of idolatry, yet thoroughly fails any objective criteria that would make him a spokesperson or true “messenger” of God.

It should also be noted at this point, the research done here will be examined and analyzed from a Christian worldview; the Bible being the complete and final authority culminated in the person and work of Christ Jesus. If in fact Islam is one of the fastest growing faiths in the world, then it becomes absolutely necessary for both Christian and Muslim to dialogue about their respective beliefs and teachings; asking ‘why do I believe what I do’ is a good and necessary duty. It is this writer’s contention, that whether Christian or Muslim, “arguing” for or against truth claims is necessary to arrive at the truth and thus recognizing true prophets of God from false prophets is essential to both faiths. It is in this universal “spirit” of truth seeking, that the research is done.

II. Purpose of the Prophet

Since Muhammad claimed he was a prophet, a messenger of God, it becomes necessary to understand the purpose of the prophet. Anyone can claim to have received a “message” or revelation from God, but in what manner is one to distinguish the validity of said message from the messenger himself? In 2 Samuel 18:24-27 the term “watchman” is used to describe the prophetic role; a “messenger” that warns the people of approaching judgment so the people may respond. In Ezekiel 33:2-9 it is made abundantly clear, this “watchman” is receiving a “word from the Lord”, therefore the watchman must be faithful and obedient to the message; or the blood of the watchman will be required (v. 6). In essence, one of the Old Testament prophet’s roles was that of a person who would warn the people of his day and society about their sin and their need to change their ways (repent). Muhammad by all accounts, did attempt to warn the people of his day (seventh century Arabia) of their need to stop worshipping false gods. In this context of being a “watchmen”, he fulfills one of the prophetic Old Testament roles as traditionally and biblically understood; forth-telling.

Most biblical prophecy is not predicting the future (foretelling), but rather proclaiming a message that is concerned with the immediate circumstances (forth-telling).[2] Deuteronomy 18:22 makes it clear, that any man who speaks in the name of God, and what is spoken does not come to pass, means the message was not from God. Therefore, any foretelling done by a prophet must be one hundred percent accurate; ninety-nine percent accurate is rejected. Professor David Farnell argues that the authority of any genuine prophet rests in God as the source of the prophecy, not the prophet himself.[3] Therefore, in analyzing all the biblical evidence, the prophet’s speech is God’s speech and is completely true and authoritative.[4]

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the biblical role of the covenants cannot be ignored when discussing the role of the prophets. No matter what prophetic book one reads in the Old Testament, there is the prevailing theme of calling a rebellious and sinful people back to the covenant with Yahweh; creator and Redeemer.[5] Biblically there are five covenants; Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic (Priestly), Davidic, and the New Covenant. While an entire paper could be written on each, it is most noteworthy here to simply say that biblically, all the prophet’s messages are based upon and firmly founded on these covenants. Muhammad not only claimed to be a prophet (being the “Seal of the Prophets”)[6], a “messenger of God”, but he did so by precisely linking himself to the prophetic tradition of Moses, Noah, Abraham, David, and Jesus.[7] In fact, while most Muslims argue today these texts (Old and New Testament) have been corrupted, Deuteronomy 18:15 is the key text they will use to show the announcement of Muhammad himself –“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him” (NASB). Furthermore, even with the argument that these texts have been corrupted lingering near by, more biblical texts are cited by Muslims that testify to the validity and authority that Muhammad is indeed the final prophet (Is. 29:11-13; 40:6).[8]

III. Muhammad the Prophet

There is what might be called “the age old question” that is asked of Christians by Muslims – “Since we [Muslims] accept Jesus as a genuine prophet and messenger of God, can you [Christians] not reciprocate by accepting the genuineness of Muhammad’s prophethood?”[9] While some Christian groups have gone so far as to invent a “new theology of non-Christian religions”[10] in order to answer this fair question without offending the “unanimous recognition given to the sincerity of Muhammad,…but also to the value, the beauty and merit of that preaching,”[11] the true answer must be – no. Can self professing Christians do any justice to the truth of God’s word, the very words of His prophets; by inventing a “new theology” for non-believers, just so they are not offended? Clearly, neither Muslim nor Christian is benefited by paying insincere “recognition” to the other; terminology does in fact matter for both the Muslim and Christian. For the Muslim, calling Muhammad a prophet, but in reality only meaning a sincere, inspired, and perhaps “saint-like” man, will be rejected outright. A prophet in Islam is indeed one who speaks, and as the right to speak in the name of God.

Going back to Muhammad’s early years (his original encounter with the angel Gabriel) may be instructive here. Muhammad lived in a historical setting that was rampant with the poets inspired by evil spirits and soothsayers, therefore, his initial fear of having some kind of experience that was not of God (evil), can surly be understood and is not without a basis.[12] Once Muhammad is assured that “the law of Moses has been bestowed on him” and that he is indeed “the prophet of this nation”,[13] his ministry is born interestingly, with the assurance of a self professing Christian.[14] Muhammad’s early years as recorded in the Qur’an (Early Meccan Period 610-612) have no reference to him becoming anything but a tendered hearted prophet who cared for the poor and was sensitive to the needs of strangers.[15] This “ideal” description of his prophethood would gradually change over the years, especially when the Jews rejected his claims to be a prophet in the tradition of Moses. The Medina phase (622-623) of Muhammad’s life, takes on a much different approach. Shedding the blood of those who opposed him and taking Islam beyond the confines of Arabia, has led some to argue the “prophet of mercy” had become the “Prophet - Statesman”.[16]

Mehmet Aydin argues that religiously speaking, prophet hood is not the natural result of some personal endeavor, even though many prophets do experience deep and moral experiences before they have received revelation from God.[17] For the Muslim, Muhammad’s concern for the community and social justice is revelation from God; the ways and means which Muhammad adopted are simply the means in which the message itself is communicated;[18] shedding blood would by necessity be just another means of communicating God’s message in Islam. Take for instance Qur’an 10:47: “Every community is sent a messenger, and when their messenger comes, they will be judged justly; they will not be wronged.” This clearly shows that according to Muhammad, one of the universal functions of the prophet is to be a just judge between the people.[19] Muhammad’s concern for the people, however, is by necessity tightly enveloped in his power (or lack thereof) to change things. Unlike the more recent Western notion that the church and state are separate, the Muslim sees no contradiction in establishing a “state” or community governed by the “message”. In other words, a message (Islam) that begins with a warning of God’s judgment evolves into an “army” or community administering God’s message (justice included).

IV. Muhammad the False Prophet

As previously mentioned, one of the key biblical texts used to assert the authority of Muhammad being a prophet, is Deuteronomy 18:15 – “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him (NASB). The NIV version states “from your fellow Israelites.” In context, the words “your countrymen” would obviously mean a Jew (Hebrew), not an Arab. While it is not the sole purpose of this paper to defend the historicity of scripture, which has been done authoritatively[20], it does point out a rather blaring mistake in terms of using scripture to support the prophet hood of Muhammad. The very purpose of prophecy in the Old Testament is consistently shown to establish the utter supremacy of God alone, never the prophet.[21] If Muhammad had not placed himself in the prophetic line of Old Testament prophets, then perhaps there would be no issue, but clearly he did. Muhammad’s claim to be a “messenger of God” based upon this Deuteronomy Old Testament text must be rejected since Muhammad was not an Israelite according to both Christian and Muslim alike.

Professor of Islamic Studies M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, a man born in Egypt and who had learned the Qur’an by heart since childhood states:

The Qur’an justifies its teachings using logical arguments, God’s creation and grace in nature, and reference to past history, the future and what will happen on the Day of Judgment. The employment of the histories of prophets previous to Muhammad is a salient feature of the Qur’anic discourse.[22]

Professor Haleem encourages the use of logical arguments and readily admits to the Qur’an’s use of past prophets and their histories. He goes on further to argue that all the prophets in the Qur’an were sent to promote the same fundamental beliefs; bearers of good news and a warning of the afterlife.[23] The function of prophetic stories in the Qur’an is to reinforce the very prophet hood of Muhammad, and to reassure (Islam) believers in their long and persistent struggles against persecution; because in the end “they will win.”[24] Yet, perhaps ironically, he concludes his article on the Qur’an’s repeated employment of the Story of Noah, not as biographies or even the histories of prophet hood, but rather specific moments or events which are to simply give lessons.[25] What is completely absent in Professor Haleem’s analysis, is the fact that the very first time the word covenant is used, is precisely with Noah (Genesis 9:9-17). The only possible condition of this covenant is found in verse six: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (ESV). Apparently, speaking of God’s historical covenants with Israel is not something deemed important to Professor Haleem, since it would seemingly impeach Muhammad for his divine revelation to use force in order to communicate the message of Islam. This is an absolutely foreign concept with the prophets of the Old Testament. God judged men with “war”; it was never employed in order to communicate His message. Furthermore, “war” was only justified for a particular group of people (Israel) at a particular time, and for a particular purpose; a purpose which has already been accomplished (Ephesians 6:12 and 2 Corinthians 10:4).

Perhaps the most serious problem for accepting Muhammad as a prophet is precisely his trustworthiness. Unfortunately, and perhaps generally speaking, the Muslim does not read the Qur’an and then conclude it is a divine work, rather they believe it is a divine work and then they read it.[26] When the Old Testament records the prophet’s words and historical accounts, they reflect reality, historical facts, and truth. If the historical details about the prophet’s words can be shown to be false, then the words of the prophet and their “books” themselves would have a clear credibility issue. This is specifically where Muhammad falls significantly short. For instance, the Qur’an records a story about Jesus as a young child (infant perhaps), breathing into a clay bird and the bird comes to life and fly’s away (Qur’an 5:110). This particular story is derived from the apocryphal Gospels that were circulated over a hundred years after the time of Jesus; none of which were ever accepted as the authentic Gospels. Dr. Caner argues that clearly Muhammad trusted the apocryphal gospel more than he did the authentic and canonical New Testament.[27] Perhaps even more ironic, who but “God” could breathe life into an inmate object (a hunk of clay)? Yet, Muhammad encourages both Jew and Christian during his lifetime to consult and obey their scriptures.[28] The problem with Muhammad’s understanding of scripture is further complicated by the fact that no Muslim theologian seriously contended that the Gospel texts were not authentic for the first four centuries after Muhammad (600-1000AD).[29] If the “employment of the histories of prophets previous to Muhammad is a salient feature of the Qur’anic discourse”, as argued by Professor Haleem, then surely as demonstrated here, there are key historical and factual deficiencies that exist in Muhammad’s message.

Since Muhammad used primary sources (the Old Testament prophetic texts) to directly link him to a tradition of truthfulness and authority, then his prophet hood must be compared in their context. Historically, and as evidenced in the Qur’an (42:13) Muhammad is argued to be a prophet of the “same” religion as Noah, Abraham, and Jesus etc.., and by the close of Muhammad’s ministry, no matter how one characterizes it, he alone is declared to have succeeded by divine favor (God’s last prophet) by perfecting a “religion” that has been declared to all past prophets and thus confirmed by what is now called Islam.[30] It is thus argued, given the unity and universal revelations sent by God to Israel (the Torah, Psalms and Gospel), any resistance to his prophet hood are the result of unbelief; not the scriptures’ testimony. Yet even today, some Muslims frequently use the Gospel of Barnabas to prove the superiority of Islam, specifically for its claim that Jesus speaks of Muhammad as being the Messiah.[31] The problem with the Muslim using such a “proof source,” is that the Gospel of Barnabas not only contradicts the Qur’an, it did not exist during Muhammad’s life time.[32] In essence, such an argument actually lends more support to the authenticity and historicity of the Christian Gospels; the very Gospels circulating during Muhammad’s life time.

V. The Testimony of Scripture (Qur’an included).

1 John 4:1 states “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (ESV). As previously argued, the Qur’anic view of the scriptures (both Jew and Christian) is one that confirms their authority and legitimacy. Qur’an 3:84 states:

Say [Muhammad], ‘We [Muslims] believe in God and in what has been sent down to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes. We believe in what has been given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make distinction between any of them. It is to Him that we devote ourselves.

The scriptures (that which has been sent down to us) did indeed exist in Muhammad’s day. Christian, Jew, and Muslim are exhorted to judge for themselves. In fact, Muhammad himself is told to follow their guidance and to substantiate his own message in light of them:[33]

Qur’an 10:94-95 – So if you [Prophet] are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who have been reading the scriptures before you. The Truth has come to you from your Lord, so be in no doubt and do not deny God’s signs – then you would become one of the losers.

Since both Muslim and Christian accept the fact that God has indeed sent prophets, testing them is our duty and responsibility. A true prophet’s message must be judged to be true or false in light of them. No man can be deemed a true prophet of God if what he proclaims contradicts scripture in any way. This is also clearly taught in Deuteronomy 18:15-22.

The Qur’an in many respects does indeed confirm some biblical testimony; specifically there is only one God, creator of the universe, and one day God will judge all mankind. However, there are many biblical contradictions found the in Qur’an. For instance, fighting for God; Jesus teaches to love one’s enemy (Matthew 5:39; 44), while the Qur’an teaches that the gospel says fighting for God is acceptable (Qur’an 9:111).[34] Perhaps the most important biblical contradiction found in the Qur’an, is the denial of Jesus’ death and resurrection (Qur’an 4:156-157). Matthew 16:21 clearly teaches that Jesus Himself, not only predicted His death, but also testified to His own resurrection on the third day. While some scholars may argue that the dispute isn’t over the content of the Bible, but rather an issue of interpretation,[35] clearly either the texts mean what they say, or they do not. The Qur’an itself, makes the claim to be the divine source for making the Bible more clear (Qur’an 10:37), and is also the divine source for explaining the differences between the Jew and Christian (Qur’an 27:76).[36] Since the Qur’an’s own compiling post dates all pervious divine revelation, how can it possibly be linked to the same prophetic tradition of the Bible while making polar opposite truth claims? The simple answer is it cannot, unless it [the Qur’an] forfeits its claim as being divine revelation and its claim to be incorruptible.

Lastly, the topic of the Qur’an abrogating itself must be addressed. Qur’an 2:106 states; “Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you [Prophet] not know that God has power over everything?” This does not mean that the Qur’an abrogates the Jewish or Christian scripture, simply because just six verses later (2:111) the Qur’an asks the Jew and Christian to bring forth their “proof”[37] as if their own scriptures will testify in Muhammad’s favor. Furthermore, in Qur’an 16:101 its states the abrogation has to do with the Qur’an, not Jewish or Christian scripture.[38] Therefore, the Qur’an never states the Bible has been corrupted; this includes both the Old Testament (Jews only and Christian) and New Testament (Christians only). 2 John 2:22-23 teaches:

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us – eternal life” (ESV).

In essence, the Bible is true and authoritative according to the Qur’an, yet the Qur’an may abrogate itself when God deems it necessary (Qur’an 16:101). Since the 2 John scripture quoted above is true according to the Qur’an, then any prophet [Muhammad included] that denies the son-ship of Jesus, would be a false prophet, or more specifically anti-Christ. Furthermore, since God’s word cannot be changed, and if Allah promised to guard his word from corruption as stated in Qur’an 15:9, how could mere men have corrupted it? No Muslim would argue man is greater than his creator; therefore, evidence of corruption becomes necessary. Lastly, how authoritative can a prophet’s revelation be, if the prophet [Muhammad] allows for divine consent to change or abrogate the message when needed? To make such a claim would be no different than any man (false prophet) claiming he is a messenger of God and proclaiming on behalf of God that - ‘my message may change if God tells me to change it’. This erratic sort of prophet hood simply does not measure up to any biblical standard for prophets, nor would it encourage both the biblical and Qur’anic mandate to judge the prophets according to their words in order to determine false prophets from true prophets of God.

VI. Conclusion

Dr. Jamal Badawi is an Islamic apologist and author of a pamphlet titled Muhammad in the Bible. One of his arguments is that Deuteronomy 18:18 speaks of the “prophet like unto Moses” as clearly being Muhammad; “There were hardly any two prophets who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad.”[39] The problem with Dr. Badawi’s argument using the Bible as a teaching tool to prove Muhammad’s prophet hood, is the Bible itself tells us who the “prophet like unto Moses is; Jesus Christ.[40] John 4:46 states - “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (ESV). In addition, Acts 13:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. ... Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people." (Acts 3:13-23, NIV)[41]

Clearly, Dr. Badawi excluded these biblical texts for a reason, they refute his own conclusions about using the Bible to “establish” Muhammad’s prophet hood. Every false religion in the world has mixed truth with error, usually to establish its authority.

The prophets of the Old Testament did not make new laws as Muhammad clearly did.[42] Furthermore, the prophets of the Old Testament never once justified or condoned anything outside of monogamy, unlike Muhammad. While it is true Muhammad called people to worship the one true God, the creator of the universe; when the Jews rejected his claim (message) to prophet hood in the same prophetic line of Moses etc... he was forced to make the charge that the scriptures had been corrupted by omitting references to him.[43] Professor and Islamic “expert” Hammudah Abdalati claims that:

Muhammad stands as the Last Messenger and the crowning glory of the foundation of prophethood. This is not an arbitrary attitude, nor is it a convenient belief…like all other Islamic beliefs, it is an authentic and logical truth.[44]

While it is good that the professor seems to value authentic and logical truth, the burden of proof lies upon him to give evidence that the scriptures (Old and New Testaments) have been corrupted or purposely altered to omit references to Muhammad. For the professor to make the claim that the Qur’an in his hand is complete and authentic[45] is not untrue. The problem he ignores, however, is the utter lack of evidence that “previous revelations” are incomplete, lost, forgotten, or neglected.[46]

The contradictions in the Qur’an are well documented, [47] and the “prophet” himself [Muhammad] confirms the scriptures truthfulness. In fact, not one Old Testament prophet came to establish a new religion,[48] and it was Jesus who said He was the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecies (Matthew 5:17). Perhaps the greatest obstacle for Islamic apologists to overcome in arguing for the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophet hood, is the Qur’an’s own teachings about the nature of scripture and God’s ability to keep it pure; it is after all God’s word and God is all powerful. In essence, claiming the scriptures have omitted references to Muhammad requires evidence; this evidence is precisely what is missing and therefore Muhammad cannot be considered a true prophet or “messenger of God”. Lastly, the scriptures themselves speak clearly on the validity of any future divine revelations: Revelation 22:18 (ESV) “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” The Christian faith is not the invention of men; it has been divinely delivered to all mankind, and has been historically and factually verified by God’s word and an empty tomb - Christ Jesus (God in flesh).

[1]All Qur’an citations are cited from translation: M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2010).

[2]See David Watson, Called & Committed: World-Changing Discipleship, (Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL; 1982), pp. 109-110. [article on-line] accessed 20 February 2011 available from http://bible.org/illustration/tests-prophecy. Internet.

[3]F. David Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today? Part 2 (of 4 parts)”; Bibliotheca sacra 149 no 596 (O-D 1992): 388.

[4]Ibid., 387.

[5]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

[6]This may have been a physical “deformity” more than a “sign” See More here (accessed 11 March 2001); http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/seal_of_prophethood.htm; Internet.

[7]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

[8]David Emmanuel Singh, “Muhammad, ‘The Prophet Like Moses’?”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 43:4 (Fall 2008): 546.

[9]David A. Kerr, “The Prophet Muhammad in Christian Theological Perspective”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 8 no 3 Jl 1984, 112.

[10]"The Prophethood of Muhammad." AFER, 22 no 1 F 1980: 38.

[11]Ibid., 37.

[12]David Emmanuel Singh, “Muhammad, ‘The Prophet Like Moses’?”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 43:4 (Fall 2008): 553.

[13]Ibid.

[14] George W. Braswell, Jr. Islam: Its Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 13.

[15]David Emmanuel Singh, “Muhammad, ‘The Prophet Like Moses’?”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 43:4 (Fall 2008): 555.

[16]Mehmet S. Aydin, “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman”, Dialogue & Alliance, 12 no 2 (Fall-Wint 1998):58.

[17]Mehmet S. Aydin, “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman”, Dialogue & Alliance, 12 no 2 (Fall-Wint 1998): 65.

[18]Ibid., 66.

[19]Ibid., 63.

[20]See F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove:Inter Varsity Press, 1988).

[21]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

[22]M.A.S. Adbel Haleem, “The Qur’anic Employment of the Story of Noah,” Journal of Qurʼanic Studies, 8 no 1 2006: 38.

[23]Ibid., 55.

[24]M.A.S. Adbel Haleem, “The Qur’anic Employment of the Story of Noah,” Journal of Qurʼanic Studies, 8 no 1 2006: 55..

[25]Ibid.

[26]George W. Braswell, Jr. Islam: Its Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 285.

[27]Emir Fethi Caner and Ergun Mehmet Caner, More Than a Prophet (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2003) 74.

[28]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

[29]Hans Wijngaards MHM, Can we trust the Gospels [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Text/wijngaards.html. Internet.

[30]David A. Kerr, “The Prophet Muhammad in Christian Theological Perspective”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 8 no 3 Jl 1984: 112.

[31]George W. Braswell, Jr. Islam: Its Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996): 265.

[32]Alano Perez, The Gospel of Barnabas: Why Muslims Shouldn’t Use It [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Perez/assumptions.html: Internet.

[33]Muhammad is not a true Prophet of God [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/Is_Muhammad_a_true_Prophet_of_God.html;Internet.

[34]Samuel Green, Test a Prophet [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/test.htm; Internet.

[35]Brannon Wheeler, “Arab Prophets of the Qur’an and Bible,” Journal of Qurʼanic Studies, 8 no 2 2006: 44.

[36]Samuel Green, Test a Prophet [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/test.htm; Internet.

[37]Samuel Green, WHAT DOES THE QUR'AN SAY ABOUT THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES?[article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm; Internet.

[38]Ibid.

[39]Samuel Green, MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE: A reply to Dr. Jamal Badawi [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011): available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/mhd_bible.htm; Internet.

[40]Ibid.

[41]Ibid.

[42]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

[43]Keith E. Swartley, ed., Encountering The World of Islam (Atlanta: Authentic Media, 2005) 21.

[44]Ibid., 100.

[45]Ibid., 101.

[46]Keith E. Swartley, ed., Encountering The World of Islam (Atlanta: Authentic Media, 2005); 101.

[47]Contradictions in the Qur'an [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011): available from http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html#purpose; Internet.

[48]Dr. Dallas M. Roark, Mohammed the prophet versus the prophets. [article on-line] (accessed 11 March 2011); available from http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/mo_vs_prophets.html Internet.

Sometimes questions are nothing more than rank unbelief.

2011-03-19T18:27:00.003-04:00

Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp's Underage Sex Ring

2011-02-02T15:25:00.000-05:00

“Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23)

2011-01-23T22:56:00.000-05:00

How many folks would respond to an altar call that said “Come follow Jesus - you'll probably lose most of your friends, some of your family, your reputation, money, career, and possibly even your life”?

Such a call is exactly what Jesus meant when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” - Not the ordinary burdens we ALL carry in our lives.

The Church Using Carnal Means to Attract Visitors

2011-01-07T12:19:00.002-05:00

Once Saved, always saved

2011-01-05T14:33:00.000-05:00

After a very long and tiered conversation with someone who thinks they can lose their salvation, I will post this list [shamelessly stolen from Melvin's Essays] Link is Here.

Here is what must happen every time you sin and LOSE your salvation.

1. I have to lose my eternal life – which, or course, isn’t eternal if I can lose it.
2. I have to cease to be the new creation and become an old creation again.
3. I have to cease to be a child of God – He has to disown me.
4. I have to again become a child of wrath.
5. I have to cease to be a child of Light and become a child of darkness again.
6. I have to be removed from the body of Christ – un-baptized as it were.
7. I have to come alive again, outside of Christ.
8. I have to get unburied and un-united in my burial with Christ.
9. I have to take myself out of Jesus’ hand.
10. I have to take myself out of the Father’s hand.
11. I have to be transferred back to the kingdom of darkness.
12. I have to be unsealed for the day of redemption.
13. I have to some how come alive again to the power of sin.

...and of course, after I have repented, God does it all over again! Yeh, ok...

The Truth:

Titus 3:5:
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but
according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Our actions are indicators of God's saving grace, not the reason [why] we are saved.

Romans 8:30 - And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

From the moment God choses us, we are as good as being in His presence in heaven.

Romans 8:38-39 - For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some may say - "But "I" can walk away from God". Unless man is not a "creation", then yes. The point of this verse is utter assurance in God's work.

What Does the Star of Bethleham Mean?

2010-12-22T12:46:00.002-05:00

KING DAVID SAID "THE STARS SPEAK." The starry events you have seen match the 9-point account in The Book of Matthew. A reasonable person could conclude that we have found the Biblical Star. If we have, then you have heard the stars speak. You have heard the celestial fanfare for the birth of a King. The Messiah. You have heard the hushed celestial dirge played out in the sky at his crucifixion. But, what do these things mean?

Read more here. You will be absolutely amazed!

Many have marveled at Jesus' statement—that God's "mind" is so great that it allows his complete familiarity with the creation in all of its detail. We can barely begin to contemplate it. But confronting the Star, we see the same message.

For if the Star wasn't magic or a special miracle from outside of the natural order, then it was something even more startling. It was a Clockwork Star. And that is overwhelming. The movement of the heavenly bodies is regular, like a great clock. The Clockwork Star finally means that from the very instant at which God flung the universe into existence, he also knew the moment he would enter human history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He marked it in the stars. And from before the beginning of time as we experience it, God knew the very moment when Messiah would breath his last on the cross.

Jesus is "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
Revelation 13:8