Friday, July 19, 2019

Josh Harris, Author, Is Now Separated From His Wife

Josh Harris, author of "I kissed Dating Goodbye" is now separated from his wife.  He made the announcement on Instagram :

"We’re writing to share the news that we are separating and will continue our life together as friends. In recent years, some significant changes have taken place in both of us. It is with sincere love for one another and understanding of our unique story as a couple that we are moving forward with this decision. We hope to create a generous and supportive future for each other and for our three amazing children in the years ahead. Thank you for your understanding and for respecting our privacy during a difficult time."

The changes seem likely to have occurred perhaps in part, while he's been at Regent College. Besides having women teaching men things like the New Testament and also being Dean of Students, Regent College has one mighty heretic, N.T. Wright, on faculty there part-time. Wright is part of the unbiblical Anglican/Church of  England and teaches the heresy of works (which is in line with the COE) which is called New Perspective On Paul. Go here for the problems with both him and his heresy.

Additionally, they have Mark Noll as a part time professor there. He's a graduate of RCC's Notre Dame University. Noll is endorsed by John Piper.

That they have such men there proves they don't hold to sound doctrine (their Statement of Faith is pretty vague and for good reason).

While he's not currently a pastor because of his studies at Regent, he can never take the role of elder because of his violation of Scripture's requirements.

Upon looking at his wife Shannon's Instagram, it appears she's been in a dark place for a while, and she's heading into liberalism. It seems she's against "conservative churches" and is using #deconversion and #exevangelical. She's writing a musical about her break out of bondage of ...? Conservative churches? Biblical gender roles? Furher churches/marrriages? What? Cloak and dagger style nonsense on social media doesn't help especially when both Josh and Shannon claim to want to help others.   Also, why would anyone film a song in San Francisco--it's literally a dung dumping ground of human feces and the modern Sodom and Gomorrah.  Interesting what she says about church leaders and bullies here, here, here

It is something many of us have come out of--a church with illegitimate elders who are often overlords and/or do-nothings (yes they can be both--quiet those rocking the boat, pacify those in serious error) and who hold to doctrinal triage (which pushes their action/inaction). But there's a difference between coming out of that and thus finding a sound church that truly holds to all sound doctrine (not doctrinal triaging), and going down the road of liberalism and the world. In other words, the reason for leaving and how one deals with it is quite telling. This has to be part of the "changes in recent years" that the communication expert, Josh Harris, hinted at (he's also the one that said pastors should admit when they're wrong). Before trying to write about something that's lead one down a dark path while they're still very confused, is immature (some might say premature).

And now the world laughs even harder at Christians who hold to biblical purity and marriage.

Well done guys.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Review of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" - some key things to keep in mind and that reveal his sources

Very good review of Piper's "Christian Hedonism" by Michael Butler reprinted by The Real John Piper website.  If you only read two of the six articles, I would suggest the first and the third.

Here is where you can read all six:

Part 1: how Piper wrote his book and how to evaluate it; things to keep in mind. 

Part 3: where Piper got his notion of "love" and is it biblical? **

Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Of interest regarding Part 3 and Piper's source and definition of love:


First, Piper seeks to gain his reader’s acceptance of his idea by way of philosophy. Piper states that Agape and Eros love are both actively involved in the Godhead. Eros is the Greek word from which the English word ‘Erotic’ originated. Erotic love is sexually driven, man-centred, and Eros contains the same self-centred motives. Rather than citing the Bible as proof for the existence of Eros within the activity of God, Piper cites our human weakness as the reason why we cannot understand that God possesses Eros. In other words, Piper is saying, the reason why we do not ascribe Eros to God is because our weakness as fallen human beings gets in the way of imagining and understanding God’s love. Therefore, the argument goes, Eros must exist in God because we possess some form of Eros in our fallen nature, whether good or bad, and all of this must have come from God.
Second, once Piper has captured the mind of the audience, he denounces the biblical understanding of Agape and replaces it with a perverted love; namely, an Agape mixed with the human concept Eros. Once again, Piper cites his fallen human capability as his authority when he says about the biblical notion of pure Agape, ‘I do not think that such disinterested love exists’ (ibid). Piper’s authority comes strictly from the bedrock of his own thoughts, which are isolated in the sinful psyche processes of the human mind in a fallen world.
Third, in the footnotes on page 124 of Piper’s book Desiring God, Piper makes plain that his concept of love is an admixture of Eros with Agape that forms ‘one kind of love at the root’. Once again, Piper does not turn to the Bible as his sole authority on what he calls ‘a holy Eros’. Instead, Piper tears down the literal-grammatical understanding of Agape in Scripture by saying there is ‘no linguistic basis for such a distinction’ between Eros and Agape in the Bible (DG, p124, endnote).

Fourth, if Piper’s statement is true that there is no linguistic basis to make a distinction between Eros and Agape love, then the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is at risk of being lost. The Bible only speaks of God as having Agape love. In order for Piper to insert any idea of Eros into the love of God, he must philosophically develop it and then read it into the text (eisegesis). On the other hand, since the Bible only identifies God’s love as Agape, then the clarity of Scripture makes the point that there is no other love known in the Godhead other than Agape.

The Big Deal
Piper’s view of Agape love as a love united with a so-called heavenly Eros is nothing new. In its most refined form, a heavenly Eros is a Platonic idea. In other words, Piper is headed down the path of resurrecting Christian Platonism and bringing it into mainstream Evangelical Christianity....

The point is that the idea of a heavenly Eros is completely philosophical, not theological or biblical. In other words, Piper is using philosophy to prove the existence of his so-called ‘one kind of love at the root’. Piper is not at all interested in a biblical understanding of Agape love. The Eros love Piper promotes is, as Nygren states, ‘man’s way to God [whereas biblical] Agape is God’s way to man. Eros is egocentric, Agape is theocentric fellowship with God.’ (see footnote) Piper is interested in promoting a philosophy that has its roots in Christian Platonism, which is also the foundation of Catholicism and Arminianism.

John Piper’s ‘Christianized’ Eros is an old philosophical idea that originated with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine’s version of Agape love was also united with a heavenly Eros. The union eventually developed into what is called the Caritas synthesis (Nygren). Piper’s heavenly Eros is the same formulation as Augustine’s Caritas synthesis. During the Reformation, Martin Luther considered the Caritas synthesis to be one of the most important doctrines to correct in the Church.

End quote.

You can see the Neo-Platonic Augustinianism being resurrected. Piper is demonstrating Post-Modernism by redefining words and distinctions, thereby creating confusion and concealment of error by reusing biblical words to mask literal pagan ideas and practices. It is also worth noting that Snedes was a professor at Piper's seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary at the same time he was there.

** My only issue so far is that Butler's view is that God's love is not His "highest" attribute. All His perfections work simultaneously together and full capacity at all times (Ps 136 has examples). Not one is less than another. So God's wrath and love and justice for example, all work together in full capacity. We cannot triage God's attributes any more than we can triage doctrine or the Trinity. So just keep that in mind.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Acceptance of Homosexuals

The number of 18-34 year olds that are comfortable with the LBGT especially in personal situations has fallen by around 10% according to GLAAD. That's good news.

About that ban on plastic straws....

The ban on plastic straws is built upon unverified statistics from a child's little "straw free" project. That makes it junk science (not to mention the worldview behind it is a problem, not the least of which is how certain people deem themselves to be the determiners of how many straws is "too many"). Even USA Today had to admit it's a claim, not a FACT.

Besides being based on a guess of how many straws are used per year that was used in a 9 year old's little project, here's a few facts they aren't telling you as reported by Fortune :

*EPS products are significantly cheaper and less resource-intensive than similar products made of different materials. For example, manufacturing a disposable paper cup requires at least 20% more fossil fuel and almost 50% more electricity than a styrofoam cup does. Paper goods, the most likely alternative to EPS, create more waste and water and air pollution than EPS does.
There’s little difference between throwing away a styrofoam cup and a paper one, and paper products used for food handling are less recyclable than EPS products. They can’t be washed like EPS, and any food contamination makes them unrecyclable. Moreover, paper products frequently are thinly lined with plastic to make them sturdier and water-resistant.
* In fact, an MB Public Affairs study found that banning styrofoam in food service and drink containers in New York City would equate to a 94% tax. Since local eateries generate fewer sales than large chain restaurants, they have less wiggle room for compliance costs. As such, these bans are likely to have disproportionately negative consequences for small business owners.
*To address the problems caused by plastic pollution, it’s better to target its improper disposal than plastic itself. Most of the plastic waste in the oceans comes from countries that don’t have good systems for putting trash in landfills. Around 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from just 10 rivers: eight are in Asia and two are in Africa. So banning plastic here in America will have little measurable effect on pollution worldwide.

End quote. Go here for the full article. Links found in the article. 

Yet again, this shows that the worst polluters in the world isn't the US or UK. They are the poor or developing countries. It doesn't make sense to punish the US (straw dictators) consumer for something they aren't responsible for. This is unjust and frankly unreasonable. But these are the same that call for "social justice" and are pro-abortion, anti-guns, and pro-cannabis, who use fake science to manipulate people into behavior they approve of (global warming isn't a thing), not the least of which God promised in Gen 8:22  "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.") and to reject their notions is to be accused of hate speech. 

Business Financial has an article headlined:

"How green activists manipulated us into a pointless war on plastic: Instead of responding to turtle videos, it would be more useful to zero in on the real sources of floating waste" in which they discuss the manipulation of the environmentalists.
Even liberal NY Post's editorial board said it's a scam with an agenda, not about facts. You should also remember that Obama's environmental advisor, Van Jones, a self described Communist, subscribed to the mentality of "Green is the new Red" (and he was the one who started "The New Green Deal", not AOC) and that sure is true. This is how the Left wants to control every aspect of our lives, from thoughts to how we live. It is actually a religion and they get fanatical about it. That building homes is often stopped or delayed for years because of a fly or other insect, or water stopped flowing to ranches to water crops because of a useless sucker fish, should tell you their priority. This is against the Creation order of things on many levels.

Sunday, June 23, 2019

The Master's Seminary: surrender to all

The Master's Seminary is pumping out more error, this time in it's cry of "surrender all" to God-hating "authority". Worse, they are hypocrites. They have not submitted to WASC with all the "reverence and joy" that they are telling everyone else to do. 


As believers, we surrender to every governing authority over us.
The battle cry of every believer is, “I surrender. I submit to your authority.” I want you to notice the comprehensive nature of this command. Peter says to every human institution, and then he refers to the king – which speaks of national authority, and then he speaks of the governor – which refers to local authorities.
As the government rages against believers at every level, whether it be at the national level, the state level, the local level, or the municipal level, we are to surrender to every manifestation of institutional authority placed over us. Thus, we are to surrender, submit to, and honor President Trump, President Obama before him, President Bush before him, and President Clinton before him.
We are to honor Governor Jerry Brown the first time he was in office, and the second time he was in office. We are to submit to the Supreme Court’s rulings, whether they lean to the left or whether they lean to the right. We are to obey every law that is passed by the legislature, whether we like it or not. Thus, whatever the government’s attitude toward believers, the one thing that the government should be able to count on of all believers is our total submission and deep reverence toward their authority.
The only time we are free to disobey the institutional authorities is when they command us to disobey our Lord and Master, but short of that, we are to be exemplary citizens, submissive and reverential to the authorities over us. That’s because every authority has been placed there by God Himself. This is what Pastor MacArthur refers to as evangelistic citizenship.
But our surrender is not limited to the political level, it applies to the societal level as well.....

End quote. 
~ Carlos Chung, The Master's Seminary blog

It's pretty hard to take TMC seriously anymore, given their abject rebellion against Christ the King and His own sheep. Moreover, their history of not submitting to WASC shows their hypocrisy.

TMC is using an historic and personal event (Daniel & the kings) to try and create an emotional attachment between God-hating employers and Christian employees, while ignoring the hostility between them. What he doesn't address is MacArthur's compromise of willingly surrendering to LGBGT's demand of equality in marriage via Christians baking a cake for their "weddings" which seeks to legitimize such wicked unnatural things. And that's where this seminary is going--submit to the thinking that then drives the "orders" or "suggestions". Our fight is a spiritual one that starts with doctrine and never, ever, are we to submit to anything contrary to sound doctrine.
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

Btw, if all this abject submission, which is actually surrendering to (to surrender is entirely different than submission, btw. Surrender has the connotation of bowing to authority in defeat and having a mindset of giving up, waving the white flag for peace. We aren't at peace w/ those who are outside of Christ. But honestly, Chung is right even for the wrong reasons--he is calling for a surrender to that which is hostile against Christ and HIS sheep--NOT submitting to the government God placed in society) to the government and society authorities is without qualification save one: outright order to disobey God--but again, unsound doctrine is, itself, disobedience, is for "the sake of the gospel", pray tell, where is all the evangelizing going on? Where is his own proclamation of the Gospel? That in itself would cause many to be fired. Or is he of the error that the world will "see your good works and glorify God" --ie, become pro-Christ and pro-Christian or at the very least, become neutral? But I digress a tad.
Herein lies the rub: the claim to surrender to all authority for the Gospel is ONLY the surrendering to keep the job. This is just another friendship (employee? citizenship?) evangelism where attachments are made and the Gospel (the right Gospel) is never given. It is a way to religiously justify the sins of our government and society and claim "it's for the gospel!" so that they don't lose their jobs or tax exemption. This is exactly the pragmatism that these men will indeed claim when they are told to take the number of the Beast. Chung revealed this mindset: "Just recently, we had LGBT training at the superior court where I work. They wanted the name of every judge who refused to attend. It is no secret that private companies oftentimes are monitoring employees’ social media posts to decide who they will hire or fire, who they will promote or not based on what the social view is of those individual employees."  His job is at stake. Pragmatism will keep him surrendering to anti-biblical philosophies and practices while claiming to do it "for the Gospel". The problem is that the Gospel isn't proclaimed in one's works. That is to say, there is no silent witness of the Gospel. There is to be, however, integrity between one's practice and one's practice (which is indeed what we see with Daniel--but I can't say TMS is filled with Daniels since there's but one historic one and today's Evangelical leaders are compromisers). 

God didn't institute employer/employee as such. He instituted three things: government, marriage, and the church. TMC is blurring the lines and saying basically all things, all institutions, are God's vessels for managing order on earth. Chung ignores that slavery was part of the governmental system. That's not an institution God created as good;government, marriage, and church are. Moreover, employment is not the same as slavery. Slavery isn't a choice for most people. That is to say, for nearly all of slavery's history worldwide, it was not the same as being an employee where you could leave if you wanted to and it wasn't indentured service either. Again, once the debt was paid, the indentured servant was free and clear. And I'm not saying we aren't to be good citizens and employees. We are, but we are for the sake of the biblical Lord Jesus Christ. Integrity to the King of kings, however begins with living out sound doctrine. Therefore if you have false doctrine, your already in violation of His commands because Truth is not simply ideas to give intellectual ascent to, but is to be convicted of, believed, treasured, loved and thus practiced because they come from the Holy One of Israel. Chung continues this blurring when he says it's all the same submission (surrendering) whether to the government officials or to an unsaved husband or how to love the wife of the husband. Yet in his trivial treatment of the context, doctrines, and issues he touches on, he fails to acknowledge the spiritual issue of marriage which has no correspondence of a citizen with the government. The result will be a wrong ecclessiology and thus fuehrer elders.

In fact, Al Mohler's offence at being questioned on his stances on homosexuality, etc and then immediately following that, MacArthur's refusal to fight his friends on error seems to show a friendship fuehrer that holds men in contempt of King Jesus' commands and fidelity to Him in order to appease one's influential friends. Ironically, MacArthur's excuse was he "doesn't want to become an island" but that's exactly where all this is headed---exclusion from society and Evangelicalism and the Good Old Boys' Club (conferences, speaking engagements, book tours, publishers, seminary appointments) because of fighting error wherever it's found (and it being among his friends who are supposedly "experts" on all things Bible by position his friends are more treacherous for their error than the "lower class" Christian who IS faithful to Christ but has zero benefit to any of these men for advancement and power) is costly.
It seems to me that this is setting up Evangelical leaders and churches to turn in Christians who in their minds are poor employees, rebels who won't "surrender" to the changing and wicked dictates and the corresponding philosophies that drive them, of the world. They surrender so that they can keep their tax exemption (love of money), accreditation (applause and approval of the world), and avoid persecution. That never worked out well for Israel when she set up alliances and allegiances with Egypt for protection (Is. 30).

Pro 29:25  The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.

Dan 2:21  He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings;

Isa 30:1  "Ah, stubborn children," declares the LORD, "who carry out a plan, but not mine, and who make an alliance, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; :2  who set out to go down to Egypt, without asking for my direction, to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt! 

Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! 2 And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity.

Prov.16: 8  Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues without justice.
Truth is simple. Scripture tells us to what and how we're to submit to the authorities God has established for us (not ones made up by the whim of man). It tells us how to practice sound doctrine in a corrupt world. We don't need hypocrites telling us their version of authority (lo and behold, they want to be part of that authority) and demand we surrender to them. Integrity and submission must be to King Jesus first and foremost.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The Preserving Action of the Living Word

"Nothing else will preserve from the infections of this world, deliver from the temptations of Satan, and be so effective a preservative against sin, as the Word of God received into the affections, 'The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide' (Psalm 37:31). As long as the Truth is active within us, stirring the conscience, and is really loved by us, we shall be kept from falling."
~ Arthur Pink, "Profiting from the Word"

Sunday, May 12, 2019

Alistair Begg Joins Gnostic Feminist Beth Moore To Preach To Preachers This Fall

Alistair Begg joins the liberal Truitt seminary (of once-upon-a-time Baptist Baylor University) in the fall, as he pulpit fellowships with heretics like feminist gnostic Beth Moore and Tony Evans. Moore is now speaking at preachers' conferences with pastors as she teaches men. Remember, she's never been just a woman's teacher. She's been teaching men for decades, as I reported years ago.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Simplicity of Exegeting Scripture

"Ezra...simply read the Scriptures & gave a straightforward exegesis. That was enough to enable the people to understand, & this brought repentance, confession, & worship. No emotional appeals, no gimmicks, no technology, just the Scriptures—taken naturally & literally."

~HM Morris

Absolutely the biblical way. Methods reveal one's true doctrine. Evangelicalism is cluttered and distracted by all the frivolous bells and whistles to make Scripture more appealing, which means they are appealing to the flesh and they doubt the absolute and sole power of God's Word to change a life. They believe then, they must help God out. That never, ever worked out well in Scripture.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

There Is No Gap Theory In Genesis

Some are using celebrity Evangelicals to justify their Gap theory or Old Age theory and then say that there's a gap of time in Gen. 1:1-2 (by absence I guess--which how do you prove then, that's it's there?). The problem is that the source of the theories are unbelievers who value "science" as the standard of interpreting Scripture, not Scripture as the standard nor it's Author. In other words, they value the world's silly views and accreditation over that of the King of king's and Lord of lord's --who was the One Who was actually there in the Beginning.

Here are some excellent articles and excerpts:


Another often-repeated claim is that Genesis 1:2 should read, "the earth became without form and void," as opposed to the traditional understanding that when God first created the earth in verse 3, it "was without form (i.e., not yet in completed form) and void (i.e., not yet inhabited)." The verb's normal meaning, however, is simply "was," and while it may be translated "become," the context does not warrant it, and all accepted versions of the Bible use "was."
Each verse in Genesis 1, except verse 1, begins with the conjunction "and," thereby connecting each verse sequentially to those before and after. There is no hint of the passing of millions or billions of years of time between verses 1 and 2.
Gap advocates frequently turn to other portions of Scripture for support, particularly those which use the words "without form" and "void" (Jeremiah 4:23Isaiah 24:1, and 45:18 are most important). In each case, the prophet refers to a wasted state due to the judgment of sin, thereby implying that Genesis 1:2 likewise implies a condition brought about by judgment. But in each case, the context regards the land of Israel not the original earth. There is no justification for postulating long ages present in a supposed gap in Genesis.

~Dr. John Morris, ICR

Additional info here:

Some do criticize and reject Darwinian evolution, but then will still allow some other form of evolution--"creative evolution," "pantheistic evolution," "punctuational evolution," or something. Some still resort to the unscientific "gap theory" which seeks to insert the "ages" between the first two verses of Genesis. Every such group must turn to either the "local flood theory" or the "tranquil flood theory" if they are going to hold to the geologic ages, since a global cataclysm such as the Bible describes would have destroyed all evidence for the geologic ages...
The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.
Is the Bible God's Inerrant Word?
It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18)...

"But science has proved the earth is old," they still insist, "and we dare not alienate the academic community by insisting on a literal Genesis." No, "science" has not proved the earth is old! The oldest written records we have, apart from the Bible, are in Egypt and Sumeria, and these only go back a few thousand years.

End quote. 


Why The Gap Theory Won't Work by Dr. Henry Morris.

Gap theorists use this verse to establish their interpretation back into Gen. 1:1-2

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).

Morris explains:


Actually, the meaning of tohu is very flexible; it occurs 20 times and is translated 10 different ways, depending on context. In our text above, Isaiah was not writing about the initial state of the creation, but the purpose of the creation, that purpose being to provide a beautiful and appropriate home for mankind. 

The translation “in vain” was required by Isaiah’s context, just as “without form” best fits the context in Genesis 1:2. There is no conflict, since the two passages are dealing with two different subjects, and Isaiah’s message simply extols God’s ultimate and certain goal for His creation

When God first created the space/time universe, only the basic elements of the earth (Genesis 1:1) were created, with neither structure nor inhabitant, but that was not its full purpose. God had merely “created” the heavens according to this verse. But then, with great care, He formed the earth, made the earth and established the earth, and all this was done to make it ready to be inhabited by men and women who would share His image and know His love.

End quote. Bold, my emphasis.
In some cases, a sentence using hayah can make sense whether it is translated as a form of “to be” or a form of “to become,” but it still appears that a form of “to be” makes better theological or historical sense in those contexts (e.g., Genesis 13:8Judges 18:192 Samuel 7:24).
As noted above, gap theory advocates say that the earth described in Genesis 1 clashes with Isaiah’s earth, positing Isaiah 45:18 as a proof text. In effect, they say Isaiah 45:18 clashes with the history reported in Genesis 1:2. This is the question they often pose:
In Isaiah 45:18 we are told that God created the world to not be formless (lô’ tohû), yet in Genesis 1:2 we are told that the world was formless (tohû). Likewise, we read in Genesis 1:2 that earth was “void” (bohû, meaning “empty,” i.e., empty of inhabitants), yet in Isaiah 45:18 it says God created the earth “to be inhabited” (a form of yashab, meaning “to inhabit”). How can both verses be true, unless they are describing different times in earth history?
Answer: These really are two different times. Genesis 1:2 describes Day OneIsaiah 45:18 describes (the “very good”) Day Six or thereafter.
Genesis is a chronological narrative reporting how and when God created stuff and what God did with it, sequentially, to implement His intentions for creation. Isaiah, however, emphasizes why God created stuff and later developed it: Because God wanted an inhabited, orderly world....

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis.)

Other info: 
Besides the above mentioned evidence that Jesus took Genesis 1-11 as straightforward reliable history, the gospel writers record several statements that Jesus made, which are relevant to the age of the earth. Those verses, hereafter collectively referred to as the “Jesus AGE verses,” show that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. They are:
  1. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
  2. For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.” (Mark 13:19–20)
  3. . . . so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:50–51)
The key phrases that will attract our attention in these verses are “from (or since) the beginning of creation” and “since the foundation of the world.” Old-earth advocates who interact with these verses contend that in them Jesus is not referring to the beginning of the whole creation but only to the beginning of the human race, which they believe was millions of years after the creation of the universe, earth, trilobites, dinosaurs, etc. In what follows I will first present my exegetical arguments for concluding that Jesus is referring to the beginning of the world (Gen 1:1) in these verses. Then later I will come back to these texts as I interact with the writings of the few old-earth proponents who have addressed these verses with respect to the age of the earth.

End quote. Go to the link above for the whole treatment of men who hold to something other than a biblical Creation view and how they do not rightly deal with Jesus' own teaching on the age of the earth.
Scriptural Geology :Abstract:The scriptural geology (SG) movement is described by historians as a reaction among both scientists and theologians to the long-ages models being proposed by geologists in the early nineteenth centurySpecifically, it occupied the period of 1820 to 1860 after which time the movement essentially died out until revived by George McCready Price and the modern creationist movement of the twentieth centuryPossible reasons for the precipitous decline of scriptural geology after the 1850s are exploredHistorians have noted remarkable similarities between scriptural geology (SG) and the modern creationist movement (popularly known as young-earth creationism or YEC)Most of the basic issues have not dramatically changed in the last 150 years and moreA review of the more important issues in the SG movement can prove very helpful in resolving parallel issues being grappled with by YEC scholars todayOne issue that caused the most diverse opinions among SG was where to place the biblical Flood in the geological recordThis remains one of the most hotly debated issues among creationist geologists today....

End quote. Italics, original.  See the whole article linked above.
Info on Old Age theory origins here.

Insights on the Gap Theory and eschatology.

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Observations of Today's Evangelicals In Light of Scripture

Mat 5:17  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 
Mat 5:18  "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. 
Mat 5:19  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20  "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus continually taught and upheld the Law and the Prophets (Matt 1:22-23;2:3,5-6,15,23:3 4:4,7,10,14-16;5:17,21,27,33,38; 8:26-27; 9:1311:4-512:3-8,17-21;13:14-15,35;). The apostles did as well. The entire Word of God is a corpus, a body, a unit of Truth. They cannot be disconnected. But it's interesting to see Evangelicals try to do so.

The prophets and the law continue to be upheld in Matthew by Jesus yet most Evangelicals ignore them. They are a unity because Jesus taught them even as He revealed more truth and enacted the New Covenant.

Evangelicals will spend two years in the Gospel of Matthew while ignoring the very things it teaches regarding the Law and Prophets starting with the sound doctrine of Creation in six literal days. Many will eisogete the parables and they all claim that the parables can have various interpretations (thus proving Jesus' point that those who don't understand the parables are under judgment--Matt. 13:16).

It's like they think His Kingdom (which is the theme of Jesus and Matthew), is merely theoretical, as they also see Creation as theoretical, but not actual. They however, war a physical/political one but it's not according  to His laws and under His rule. They deny the Millennial kingdom while trying to create a political one right now, as they attach their names to it with their rules, laws, standards, and judgments determining who's in and who's out in their man-made kingdom. Oh, they will slap on the name of Jesus to what they've created, in order to get people to follow them, but it has nothing to do with HIS holy kingdom at all. In fact, they are just modern day Pharisees. But worse, today they don't even attempt to "venerate" or "idolize" Jesus, but they do indeed venerate and idolize their own men (professors, theologians, speakers, writers, pastors).  In fact, Jesus is always competing with the rule of their celebrity theologians, traditions, coalitions, etc. Basically they are no different than the RCC which really is to say, they are no different than the Pharisees.

For today's Evangelical leaders, Scripture is too burdensome to them; too precise; too ridged. And so they use pragmatism. God's commands aren't burdensome to those in Christ nor is His rule over them a thing to fight--rather they joyfully and gratefully submit to His dominance and commands. Evangelicals instead fight both.

1Jn 5:2  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3  For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

The methods of the Evangelicals (which come by their pragmatism, not Scripture as these two are antithetical) become the standard of judging others' spirituality. Coalitions, conferences,music, programs, books, book studies (which they call "bible studies"), favoring famous Christian, etc are their measure of whether one is to be considered on a higher spiritual plane by them. But these things are all fleshly and fall short of God's precise standard of holiness.

Ironically these same Evangelicals, who find God's commands and standard to be too precise (and thus they judge most of them to be "non-essential" and therefore "agree to disagree" on them), are also the ones who will take one verse and turn it into a doctrine, or worse, claim a teaching is actually in Scripture when it isn't. For example they take David's hope of seeing his dead baby again as a proof text of all babies going to Heaven, when in fact Scripture only states that those who have repented of their sins and turned to Christ go to Heaven (what happens to babies is not taught). The other is that no where in all of Scripture do we see infant sprinkling (sprinkling is not baptizing by the way), but many claim "infant baptism"  is biblical. Yet these are the same people who will deny multiple verses that speak of God creating all things by the power of His Word, in six literal days. They also deny multiple verses about the Millennial Kingdom. These are quite the rebels and do not speak according to Scripture but merely of men.

By way of clarification, biblical salvation is by faith and trust in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ alone and repenting of all of one's sins. The result is that a truly saved person will bear HIS fruit (1 John 1). Ironically, Evangelicals have attached good works to salvation and now determine a person's salvation by whether or not they are part of "social justice", which is actually injustice and stems from Rome's Liberation Theology and Marxism.

Saturday, March 30, 2019

TGC Pushing The Same-Sex Christian Apostasy Both To The Young and Adults

Excellent article. Makes many of the same points I have made, so I'm very thankful for that! Makes some good additional points as well. Time well spent if you read this.  

TGC and The Same-Sex Attracted Christian Apostasy  by Chuck O'Neal.

This is just a few excerpts of the article, but please read the whole thing.

The leadership of TGC, T4G, and 9Marks are homophobic. When you fear being called a “homophobic bigot” by a homosexual crazed world to the point you’re willing to exchange God’s Biblical moral terms (abomination, vile passion, against nature, shameful, etc.) for the world’s amoral terms (same-sex attracted, gay, LBGBTQI, etc.) you are in fact homophobic. Homophobic men systematically exchange God’s sin condemning terms for the world’s noncondemning terms because they fear homosexuals and our perverse, God-hating, Romans 1:18-32 culture’s wrath — more than they fear God.
By their own confession, the homophobic men behind TGC believe Sam Allberry and Jackie Hill Perry to be the “most credible” evangelical voices to speak our message to the unbelieving “world where Christians are seen as homophobic bigots.” Having forgotten the fear of God, TGC’s homophobic leaders are trembling before homosexual activists and a world gone mad in its embrace and celebration of all the things Romans 1:18-32 condemns with incredibly descriptive terminology.
Their intense fear of being “seen as homophobic bigots” for believing the Bible and using God’s Biblical terms has transformed them into homophobic leaders who are actively, habitually, and dogmatically exchanging the truth of God for the same-sex attracted Christian lies Sam Allberry and Jackie Hill Perry are selling in their books and through their conference speaking fees. In full homophobic panic, TGC and much of Evangelicalism have thrown off God’s Biblical vocabulary terms as unnecessary, distasteful, divisive, unloving — even hateful.
You need only listen to Ligon Duncan’s Ligonier Conference Q&A commentary, do a quick survey of Sam Allberry’s website, or read Jackie Hill Perry’s Gay Girl, Good God to see how God’s truth, moral terms, and holy commands are being exchanged for the world’s lies, amoral terms, and perverse counsel. TGC, T4G, and 9Marks’ esteemed leaders need to be warned that homophobia is a form of cowardice and “coward” is another unpopular Biblical term found very near “abominable” in Revelation 21:8....
They boast the perverse acting out and unholy feeding of their vile passions through supposedly “non-sexual” hand-holding, hugging, cuddling, and kissing within live-in or casual relationships with other men and women who identify as same-sex attracted Christians. That’s right — Sam Allberry’s website encourages sodomy attracted “Christian” men to live with sodomy attracted “Christian” men, to hold hands, to hug, to cuddle, to kiss, and to raise children together (more on that below).
Those of us who still hold fast to the Biblical definition of repentance found in 2 Corinthians 7:11 must reject TGC’s false repentance that leaves men and women perpetually enslaved to vile passions. Those of us who still believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ saves sinners from both the eternal penalty and indwelling power of sin must reject TGC’s false gospel that leaves men and women enslaved to perversion and acting it out under the guise of sanctified same-sex attracted Christian affection....
It’s long past time to take a stand against their Same-Sex Attracted Christian Apostasy. It’s long past time to stop commending these men, their ministries, and their books until such a time as they Biblically repent with clear, unnuanced, public renunciation. It’s long past time to put these men out of our pulpits and their books out of our bookstores. Call them friends and brothers if you’re still convinced they are erring friends and brothers, but don’t stubbornly let your friends and brothers ravage Christ’s Church with their abominable doctrine like the unfaithful elders in Pergamos and Thyatira.
Faithful men of God don’t knowingly put unfaithful friends in the pulpit for the sake of maintaining fellowship and friendships — or for the sake of maintaining or extending the width and breadth of their ministry. Faithful men of God don’t knowingly lend credibility to dangerous teachers of dangerous doctrines and help draw a crowd to sit beneath their teaching by having their picture alongside and sharing a pulpit with unfaithful Balaams and rebel egalitarian Jezebels at compromised conferences that undermine “the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
Faithful men of God love and protect the purity of Christ’s Church and the purity of Christ’s Gospel even when it costs them their fellowship and friendship with erring friends. Sometimes the best message you can preach when invited to speak at a conference is a public Jude 3-like explanation of why you can’t and won’t speak, can’t and won’t lend credibility, and can’t and won’t help gather a crowd to sit beneath dangerous teachers of dangerous doctrines.
End excerpt. (bold, red original emphasis)

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Augustine was not a biblical Christian, but a Roman Catholic monk.

In his writings outside of his speculations on predestination, St. Augustine was generally reflecting the catholic consensus of the time, and the beliefs which he held as the catholic bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Here are some of the catholic beliefs of Aurelius Augustine, catholic Bishop of Hippo:
1. The canon of Scripture includes the Septuagint OT canon (deuterocanonicals, Apocrypha)
2. Authoritative Tradition
3. Baptismal regeneration and grace
4. Necessity of baptism for salvation
5. Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lord's Supper)
6. The Mass is a sacrifice
7. Necessity of the Lord's Supper for salvation
8. Purgatory and praying for the departed
9. The communion of saints and saintly intercession
10. Authority of the Catholic Church
11. Apostolic Succession
12. Possibility of falling from grace
13. The sacrament of penance
14. Mary was ever virgin

~ Source (more in the article with statements and sources cited).