Monday, March 20, 2017

Mouw and Olsen Claim Mormonism Is Becoming Orthodox

Mouw continues to be a problem as he seeks to reconciles a demonic religion with Christianity. The first problem with Mormonism is that their God is an entirely different God and they reject the sole sufficiency of Scripture. Mouw wants to skip that part and move on with some sort of presumption it seems, that there's common ground somewhere. 2 Cor. 6:14-18 makes it clear that there is no such thing with LDS.

Notice the subtlety of using MUSIC to get people to hear and re-evaluate the demonic LDS--and they will because Evangelicals don't believe in biblical doctrine and are easily enamored with nice-sounding music. Folks, music MATTERS--the lyrics and the spirit from which it came. And just because someone sings a "right" song doesn't make him a "right" Christian.

According to his interview with "The Christian Post": "Mouw noted that there have been developments within Mormon churches that "should be seen as hopeful patterns for evangelicals," such as more sermons and hymns being sung that focus on the Bible rather than the Book of Mormon:

"Whether they mean that Mormons are moving toward Orthodoxy — I don't know. But my extensive contacts with Mormons tell me that many Mormons testify to their deep conviction that their salvation rests on the work of Christ, and that the gift of salvation comes by grace alone," continued Mouw.
"This is confirmed, not in doctrinal pronouncements, but — as I give evidence for in my essay — in the hymns they love to sing and the biblical texts they frequently cite."
Mouw is not alone in this assessment of a possible move by Mormons toward more traditional Christianity. Roger Olson, theology professor at Baylor University, wrote a blog post on Patheos last year arguing that the LDS Church was becoming "more biblical."

End quote.

The problem is that at the very foundation of Mormonism is everything that is false: a false book, a false gospel, a false Jesus, a false God, a false church, a false prophet, a false atonement, a false religion. There is no way to modify Mormonism and have biblical Christianity. Indeed to claim this, one might as well say there can be a more biblical Satanism or Hinduism. It's literally impossible because as 1John says, lies have nothing to do with Truth.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf; here it's bakery full of leavened bread. No, for Mormonism to become biblical, it would cease to be Mormon and cease to exist, with Mormons REPENTING of their pagan idolatry and deceptive cult and turning to the biblical Christ Jesus and His Gospel.

Here is a video that proves Mouw and some of the leaders he's listened to are lying. Mormon Leaks note: "This internal training video given to the General Authorities instructing them how to powerfully testify of Jesus Christ and other Mormon gospel topics. The video contains many examples of General Authorities past and present speaking in public about these topics and declaring their beliefs with authority."
The LDS leaders are continuing their demonic doctrines. Y
ou can hear the subtle use of truth with error--Moroni called Jesus "the author and finisher of our faith", not the apostle Paul, not the Triune God (as He is the Author of Scripture). They instruct people on the "atonement" and their desire to have Mormons grow in the atonement and in life in order to achieve "exaltation". Now, if you know anything about LDS doctrine, you know that refers to becoming a god. They mention the "saving ordinances" and all of this is just less than 5 minutes into the message.

2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. 18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty. 

Sunday, March 19, 2017

God Absolute, Unbounded, Unfettered, Unchanging

On the sovereignty of God in salvation:

And we say to all of you who gnash your teeth at this doctrine, whether you know it or not, you have a vast deal of enmity towards God in your hearts; for until you can be brought to know this doctrine, there is something which you have not yet discovered, which makes you opposed to the idea of God absolute, God unbounded, God unfettered, God unchanging, and God having a free will, which you are so fond of proving that the creature possesses. I am persuaded that the Sovereignty of God must be held by us if we would be in a healthy state of mind. "Salvation is of the Lord alone." Then give all the glory to his holy name, to whom all glory belongs.

~Spurgeon, "Divine Sovereignty"

Not All People Are Children of God

Suppose a father should have a certain number of children, and he should give to one all his favors, and consign the others to misery—should we not say that he was a very unkind and cruel father? I answer, yes. But the cases are not the same. You have not a father to deal with, but a judge. You say all men are God's children; I demand of you to prove that. I never read it in my Bible. I dare not say, "Our father which art in heaven," till I am regenerated. I cannot rejoice in the fatherhood of God towards me till I know that I am one with him, and a joint heir with Christ. I dare not claim the fatherhood of God as an unregenerated man. It is not father and child—for the child has a claim upon its father—but it is King and subject; and not even so high a relation as that, for there is a claim between subject and King.

~Spurgeon, "Divine Sovereignty"

1Jn 3:1  See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 

Eph 1:4  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5  He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6  to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7  In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8  which He lavished on us. I

Rom 8:8  and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 
Rom 8:9  However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 
Rom 8:10  If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 
Rom 8:11  But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 

Rom 8:13  for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 
Rom 8:14  For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 
Rom 8:15  For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 
Rom 8:16  The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 
Rom 8:17  and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. 

Friday, March 17, 2017

Al Mohler and Carl Truman: Reformers Obey Rome's Siren Call

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Al Mohler had an interview with Rod Dreher, author of "The Benedict Option". Dreher is a Romanist in the guise of EO:
" I came to Christ as an adult through the Roman Catholic Church in my mid-20s...I’m no longer Catholic; I’m an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and our churches are not necessarily any better. But I think it’s a temptation for intellectuals who love to talk about ideas and read books of theology and philosophy to think that this is what we’re going to encounter at the local church, and it’s just not so. That’s not to say that everybody needs to sit around and, you know, be at the Diet of Worms, you know, talking about theology and arguing about heresy and things like that. That’s not real life. But our pastors and teachers and we ourselves have starved ourselves for generations, and now we have given our kids stones when they need bread." - Dreher
Theology and arguing about heresy isn't real life? This IS the very heart of the problem with men like this. Doctrine is connected inseparably to life--if it's sound doctrine, one will have a sound life; if it's unsound doctrine, one will have an unsound life. What Dreher said is nothing but a satanic attack on the Truth.
The problem is that intellectuals might sit around and talk about doctrine but they don't believe the true biblical doctrine as absolute truth--to them it's a matter of personal opinion, not something that convicts them to the point of a changed heart, mind, and behavior, and a willingness to die on the hill for it. They treat doctrine trivially, blaspheming it as a result. It's the modern day version of phariseeism.

Dreher is promoting the original Benedict Monk and that is promotion of Roman Catholic's mysticism, despite Mohler trying to white wash it. Dreher went on with his goal of inter-faith: "What I call the Benedict Option is sort of a blanket term referring to Christians, the choice that we all have to make now to be countercultural, to quit trying to shore up the imperium and instead focus on building new forms of local community, churches, Christian schools, things like that that will thicken our relationship to each other and make our roots go deeper in the gospel, in the Christian tradition, so we can survive these dark ages to come...What I hope happens with the publication of this book is that serious Christians who can read the signs of the times, again Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, will come together within their own communities and even across denominational lines and say, “Hey, we’re in a bad situation. How can we build the structures now that will enable us to live out the faith even under persecution and not lose it, keep it alive until such time as the dark age we’re entering now is over?”"

The problem of course is that the RCC and EOC are not Christian at all, they are of the devil with a works-righteousness that can't save. Dreher looks to the flesh to save his religion. But for the true Christian, we know that Christ Himself preserves HIS church and it's not through a collaboration with other religions until the "dark age is over". The days are indeed growing darker because the end of all things is near. Christ is about to return to gather His own to Himself and then He will return as King and Judge. Things won't get better. They are getting worse as Scripture says they will. Revelation talks about this very thing.

Carl Trueman, another Reformer also embraces Dreher as a Christian:

I have been accused of defeatist and separatist views myself, within my small Reformed subculture. Certainly Rod and I share a number of convictions. We both believe that the culture war is over and that “our side” has lost. We both believe that it is pointless simply to shout Bible verses louder, or to base arguments on the private religious convictions of the Founding Fathers, or to huff and puff that we must be taken seriously because Christianity was important way back when. And we both believe that the language of exile is appropriate for the imminent condition of Christians in the USA. But these beliefs do not logically demand that we withdraw into the mountains, dress in animal skins, and live on locusts and wild honey. Rod and I both still believe that Christians should be involved in their communities, cast votes in elections, and be “in the world but not of it.” '

Roman Catholicism and it's daughter, Eastern Orthodox are not Christian. Why can't these intellectuals understand that? These are different religions entirely, antithetical to the one Gospel and one Christ Jesus and all His doctrine. What I said about Mohler goes for Trueman too. Considering Dreher's claims and statements in the Mohler interview, his desire for inter-faith cooperation--should be enough to realize that Truman (who purports to have read about Dreher and what he's written) has no discernment and is a traitor to Christ and HIS sheep.
2Co 6:14  Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 
2Co 6:15  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 
2Co 6:16  Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 
2Co 6:17  "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. 

Creation Versus Evolution

The sound doctrine of Creation is directly bound to God's attributes and His revealing of himself through Creation--His eternal power and divine nature., in a clear, plain way so that it is clearly perceived by all men and therefore without excuse. Evolution attacks these things and at the very least, makes these things about God unclear and not plainly perceptible by men so they are then without excuse. Evolution in all it's forms, even it's "integration" with the Bible (it can't be done but Evangelicals attempt it) is bound to: not honoring God as God and Creator, futile speculations, of foolish hearts/minds, and such people who hold to and teach these things claim to be wise but are fools.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Evangelical's "God"

The philosophic "Christian world" knows an effeminate, indiscriminate fatherhood, but not “the righteous Father.” It will not bow before the majesty of His justice. According to the tenor of its teaching, sin is a misfortune, transgression a mere trifle, and the souls that suffer for willful guilt are objects to be pitied, rather than to be blamed. 

~ CH Spurgeon

Friday, March 10, 2017

The Church And The World

"There are some, in these apostate days, who think that the church cannot do better than to come down to the world to learn her ways, follow her maxims, and acquire her "culture." In fact, the notion is that the world is to be conquered by our conforming to it. This is as contrary to Scripture as the light is to the darkness. The more distinct the line between him that feareth God and him that feareth him not, the better all round. It will be a black day when the sun itself is turned into darkness. When the salt has lost its savor, and no longer opposes putrefaction, the world will rot with a vengeance." 

~ CH Spurgeon John 17:17

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

TalkingTo Your Therapist

This is meant to be funny I guess, but it's the sad destruction by psychology (including the "biblical" counseling/integration hybrid which attempts to blend psychology with Scripture). Slander and tail-bearing, especially against a biblical Christian (when they tell the truth) is sinful and cannot help a person be sanctified. It is anti-biblical. Blessedly God avenges those who afflict and persecute His own, in His due time (2 Thes 1:5-7).

Eph 4:29  Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 
Eph 4:30  Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31  Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 
Eph 4:32  Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. 

The biblical way to deal with sin issues is simply to pray, read Scripture, and go to that person.

Mat 18:15  "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
Mat 18:16  "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17  "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If it's just a matter of a personal preference or quirk that isn't sin, we're to bear with them in love:

Eph 4:1  Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 
Eph 4:2  with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love
Eph 4:3  being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 

Of course all this is predicated upon the sound doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all things pertaining to life and godliness and its prohibition against psychology(Eph. 4:17-21, Col. 2-3, Rom. 12:2, Ps 1:1-3, Ps 119).

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Why Are "Christian" Bookstores Closing

The irony is, while Family Christian Stores has imploded, the carcass will simply remain for a while on the highway of “Christian” resources, and the road is well traveled. If books are no longer sold by Family Stores, they will be sold by Amazon, or Saddleback Church, or North Point, or Willow Creek. Et cetera.
You see, a dirty secret of the Evangelical world is that if heretical books no longer have a home in bankrupt retail stores, they live and thrive in conferences, mega-churches, and media.
Celebrity pastors don’t need no stinking Family Christian Retail. They have myriad platforms to rake in the cash.
Mystical, contemplative spirituality, weird experiential-driven claptrap, and social justice progressivism passes today for Christian resources. They all contribute to the biblical illiteracy in this country.
At the Family Christian Stores fire sale, one can find books by Jen Hatmaker (a Never-Trumper, socially progressive “evangelical”), Hillsong’s Brian Houston and William Paul Young, who wrote “The Shack.”
That’s just the tip of the iceberg that has rendered the Evangelical community just another glitzy, over-confident Titanic.
Family Christian Stores made a conscious decision years ago to make cash the only real priority. No vetting of books being peddled by publishers and salesmen who were, in some cases, more pagan than Baal. Anything labeling itself “Christian” was allowed in the door, more enthusiastically if the book sold like hotcakes as we used to say.
~ WorldNetDaily

Monday, February 27, 2017

Tim Keller Steps Down

Following in the footsteps of John Piper, Voddie Baucham, and Steve Lawson, Tim Keller has joined the new fad to leave the pulpit for a more influential ministry outside of the local church.

Keller responded, "I'm not retiring. Moving into a strategic role of raising up leaders and training the next generation."
Keller responded, "I'm not retiring. Moving into a strategic role of raising up leaders and training the next generation."
"Keller responded, "I'm not retiring. Moving into a strategic role of raising up leaders and training the next generation."

"Christianity Today" reported:

This move does not mean retirement for Manhattan’s most popular evangelical pastor and apologist; instead, Keller will work full-time teaching in a partner program with Reformed Theological Seminary and working with Redeemer’s City to City church planting network."

CT went on to report:

She said that her husband has been “so wired” to teach seminary courses already, and is excited to dedicate himself to teaching the next generation of pastors.
Because he won’t be preaching anymore, he’ll be involved with more mid-week events, including speaking at Redeemer’s “Questioning Christianity” series and this year’s fall retreats.
“He will probably be speaking the same volume of words as he does now,” Kathy Keller said.

"He noted that he drove around to all the services on Sunday."  - "The Christian Post"

Well, that's nice. I wonder when was the last time he did that?

The continuing goal of Keller's corrupt churches:

Among the things the church hopes to achieve with this move are: Long-term community development in NYC that transforms poor communities into prospering mixed income neighborhoods; new university graduates who receive training and mentoring in integrating their faith and work; affordable high quality day care and after school programs encouraging families to stay in the city long term; neighborhoods across the city openly welcoming and embracing the presence of Christian churches; churches that are resourced by world-class experts from agencies in faith and work, social justice, evangelism and community building and churches that are using gospel-based resources designed to change hearts and form new communities of believing individuals united in serving their cities with the love and hope of Christ."

Keller, like Rick Warren, designed his church specifically around God-haters after asking them what would it take to get them to come to church; in other words Keller is just a Reformed version of Rick Warren.


Of course when a "pastor" of 27 years leaves a church, one must wonder why? Why now? Claims of "this has been in the works for years" 

The Sound Doctrine of Creation Is Inseparable To A Myriad of Other Doctrines and Practices.

1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The sound doctrine of the Creation as taught in Scripture is bound to:
modest dressing
good works
fruit of the Spirit
waging the good warfare
apostolic authority of the apostles
sound doctrinal truth
the Gospel
the absolute sovereign rule and majesty of God
Deny one, you deny them all because they are inseparable in Scripture. Is it any wonder then, those who deny the absolute dogmatic truth of Creation also deny the absolute truth of the structure of the local church, modest dressing, submission of women, homosexuality as sin, etc?

Ordination and Titles

Confining ourselves to one branch of the subject, namely, matters concerning ministers, we shall, at the risk of fresh flagellation, pursue the same course in the same unambitious style, by asking a few questions. Whence comes the whole paraphernalia of ordination as observed among some Dissenters? Since there is no special gift to bestow, why in any case the laying on of empty hands? Since we cannot pretend that mystic succession so vaunted by Ritualists, why are men styled “regularly ordained ministers”? A man who has preached for years is Mr. Brown, but after his ordination or recognition he develops into the Rev. Mr. Brown; what important change has he undergone?

The Reverend Titus has met with a church which will insist upon an ordination, and he is ordained; but the President of his College, having never undergone such a process, nor even that imitation of it called a recognition, remains an unordained, unrecognized person to this day, and has not yet discovered the peculiar loss which he has sustained. We do not object to a recognition of the choice of the church by its neighbors and their ministers, on the contrary, we believe it to be a fraternal act, sanctioned by the very spirit of Christianity; but where it is supposed to be essential, is regarded as a ceremony, and is thought to be the crowning feature of the settlement, we demur. “The Reverend Theophilus Robinson offered up the ordination prayer” has a Babylonish sound in our ears, and it is not much improved when it takes the form of “the recognition prayer.” Is there, then, a ritual?

Are we as much bound by an unwritten extempore liturgy as others by the Common Prayer? Must there always be “usual questions”? And why “usual”? Is there some legendary rule for the address to the church and the address to the pastor? Mark well, that we do not object to any one of these things, but we do question the propriety of stereotyping them, and speaking of the whole affair as if it were a matter to be gone about according to a certain pattern seen in the holy mount, or an order given forth in trust to the saints. We see germs of evil in the usual parlance, and therefore meet it with a Quo Warranto? Is not the divine call the real ordination to preach, and the call of the church the only ordination to the pastorate?` The church is competent under the guidance or the Holy Spirit her own work, and if she calls in her sister churches, let her tell them what she has done, in such terms that they will never infer that they are called upon to complete the work. The ordination prayer should be prayed in the church meeting, and there and then the work should be done; for other churches to recognize the act is well and fitting, but not if it be viewed as needful to the completion of the act itself. We have noticed many signs of an error in this direction.

These few remarks touch only upon ministers, and leave other matters for another equally brief chapter; but we cannot lay down the pen without asking why so many brethren still retain the title of Reverend? We are willing to reverence the aged pastor, and we did not hesitate to give that title to our beloved friend George Rogers, just in the same way as we use the term “the venerable Bede,” or “the judicious Hooker,” but we are not prepared to reverence every stripling who ascends the pulpit; and, moreover, if we thought it due to others to call them reverend, we should still want some reason for their calling themselves so. It seems rather odd to us that a man should print upon his visiting card the fact that he is a reverend person. Why does he not occasionally vary the term, and call himself estimable, amiable, talented, or beloved? Would this seem odd? Is there any valid objection to such a use of adjectives after the fashion is once set by employing the word reverend? If a man were to assume the title of reverend for the first time in history it would look ridiculous, if not presumptuous or profane. Why does not the Sunday-school teacher call himself “the Respectable John Jones,” or the City Missionary dub himself “the Hard-working William Evans”? Why do we not, like members of secret orders and others, go in for Worthy Masterships and Past Grands, and the like? I hope that we can reply that we do not care for such honors, and are content to leave them to men of the world, or to the use of those who think they can do some good thereby. It may be said that the title of reverend is only one of courtesy, but then so was the title of Rabbi among the Jews, yet the disciples were not to be called Rabbi. It is, at any rate, a suspicious circumstance that among mankind no class of persons should so commonly describe themselves by a pretentious title as the professed ministers of the lowly Jesus. Peter and Paul were right reverend men, but they would have been the last to have called themselves so. No sensible person does reverence us one jot the more because we assume the title. It certainly is in some cases a flagrant misnomer, and its main use seems to be the pestilent one of keeping up the unscriptural distinction of clergy and laity. A lad fresh from college, who has just been placed in a pulpit, is the Reverend Smith, while his eminently godly grandfather, who has for fifty years walked with God, and is now ripe for heaven, has no such claim to reverence. A gentleman of ability, education, and eminent piety preaches in various places with much zeal and abundant success, but he is no reverend; while a man of meager gifts, whose principal success seems to lie in scattering the flock, wears the priestly prefix, having a name to be reverenced when he commands no esteem whatever. This may be a trifle, many no doubt so regard it; why, then, are they not prepared to abstain from it? The less the value of the epithet the less reason for continuing the use of it. It would be hard to say who has a right to it, for many use it who have not been pastors for years, and have not preached a sermon for many a day; what on earth are they to be reverenced for? Other men are always preaching, and yet no one calls them reverend, but why not ? The distribution of this wonderful honor is not fairly arranged. We suggest that, as the wife is to see that she reverence her husband, every married man has a degree of claim to the title of Rev., and the sooner all benedicts exercise the privilege, the sooner will the present clerical use of it pass out of fashion. We wonder when men first sought out this invention, and from whose original mind did the original sin emanate. We suspect that he lived in the Roman Row of Vanity Fair, although the Rev. John Bunyan does not mention him. One thing is pretty certain, he did not flourish in the days of the Rev. Paul, or the Rev. Apollos, or the Rev. Cephas.