Friday, February 24, 2012

Greed, Immorality, And Cover-Ups Listed In Lawsuit Against TBN and the Crouchs

It appears the dirty deeds of TBN and its god, Money, is being revealed.  The Crouches and TBN are being outted by their granddaughter and her husband, and as typical of the Crouches, in turn being threated with the hand of God against them. Guess what? God's hand is actually against TBN and the Crouches.  They blaspheme God and His name, are full of greed,  and teach damnable doctrine. Their fear tactics are powerless and frankly, tiresome.

1Ti 6:3  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,4  he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in
controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive
language, evil suspicions,5  and constant friction between men of depraved mind and
deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have
God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.10  If anyone comes to you
and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 
for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

 Mar 12:38  And in His teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long
robes and like greetings in the marketplaces 39  and have the best seats in the synagogues and the
places of honor at feasts,

Yosef Nadarkhani Pastor of Modalist Church, Not A Christian Church

It appears that Iranian pastor Yosef Nadarkhani, who is being held for execution for apostacizing from Islam, is himself not a Christian, but a modalist. He is a teacher in a small modalist home church group. It also appears no Christian church over there considers his church as valid.

First up is this article on the fact that Yosef is not a Christian and how and why its damaging to the real churches in Iran:

"Youcef Nadarkhani has been reported in both the secular and Christian media and periodicals to be under a death sentence for his conversion from Islam to evangelical Christianity. He was arrested on 12th October 2009, in the city of Rasht in the northern part of Iran, where he had been the pastor of the underground church there. He is reported to be the evangelical pastor of “the Church of Iran”. However, what might come as a shock to many evangelical believers is that "Pastor" Nadarkhani is actually one of the leaders in a growing cult in Iran, which is linked with the Oneness Pentecostalism (Jesus Only) cult, which is non-Trinitarian, believes in baptismal regeneration, and is very closely linked and supported by the United Pentecostal Churches outside of Iran. They greatly admire and follow the teachings of an American preacher, William M. Branham, who claimed to be the last of God's prophets on earth, that the doctrine of the Trinity is from the devil, and only those who are baptised in Jesus' name are saved...
 For the past number of years, these anti-Trinitarian cult teachers, including Youcef Nadarkhani have been militant in their proselytising and recruiting of individuals, especially in Rasht and Shiraz. Pastor [name withheld for security] (as well as many other of our Christian contacts), who is the evangelical pastor of a truly evangelical church in Rasht, confirmed to us personally that Mr Nadarkhani, and his colleagues reject all other protestant churches as not being true churches. Moreover they teach, other classic errors of the Jesus Only cult, including speaking in tongues as the main sign of true salvation. In a recent TV interview by Press TV, Mr Nadarkhani confirmed some of his doctrinal beliefs, which clearly show that he is not an evangelical Christian, even though he speaks about trusting Jesus Christ. He clearly denies the evangelical doctrine of the Trinity."

Here's the video with Yosef saying he is not a Trinitarian.

This is probably why the other churches are not considering them within the faith, and rightly so (more links on this below).

Here is a like-minded website that admits the non-Trinitarian view of the Church of Iran. Wrongly Jason Demars says its not modalist, but it definitely is.

Here and here it is also stated that the Church of Iran is not Trinitarian and that others consider it more of a cult.

This could be 1) showing the world how intolerant REAL Islam is of non-Islamic religions, and 2) God sifting those who claim to be HIS but are not.

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. 

Gal. 1: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 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! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Rom 16:17  I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create
obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; AVOID THEM. 

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does
not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.10  If anyone
comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him
any greeting, 11  for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012


‎"Write down the advice of him who loves you, though you like it not at present."

English Proverb

Sunday, February 19, 2012

If The World Loves Your Church, Its Sure Christ Doesn't

“That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors.”   

~C.H. Spurgeon

Joh 15:19  "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 

Jas 4:4  You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Christians Should Not Sing Worship Songs of Allah

Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exo 20:6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 

Heb. 1: 6 And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Is. 42: 8 “I am the LORD [Jehovah]; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. 

Here is the song that James Harper, the High School student in CO refused to sing in the choir because it went against his faith in Jesus Christ.

Now remember, Allah is not the Triune God, He has no Son, he is unholy, mutable. Allah is "the greatest of deceivers", had to add light and mercy to himself, promotes sexual immorality, along with wife beating and honor killings. Within this song is part of the Shahadah, a one line prayer that if prayed, makes one a Muslim.

This song is translated from Pakistani Urdu, by A. R. Rahman:

those who are addicted to problems in heart,the essence of allaah calls you!
there is no implementation superior to zikr,is the decree ofthe prophet of allaah!pbuh
those who do zikr of allaah from the the heart are indeed freed!
the ego of the soul gets chopped off by doing zikr, zikr undoubtedly is allaah's sword
zikr is peace zikr is victory zikr is healing zikr is the cure
allaah is the only one who is eternal and immortal and rest are perishable and will be destroyed by allah
apart from the greatness of allaah, apologize from the hearts for anything else
light of mohammad, may peace be upon him, there is no other god except allaah
in every flower, in every fragrance, in everything is the light of allaah
in every heart every moment, may the zikr of allaah's stay
o, the first one, who was there before anything else
o, the last one, who will be there after everything else is gone
o, the beneficent, o, the praiseworthy
o, the lord of majesty of bounty  

Notice the line, "light of mohammad, may peace be upon him, there is no other god except allaah" which is a type of the Shahadah:
La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah. translated: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah."
"The shahadah is a set statement normally recited in Arabic: ašhadu an la ilaha illá l-Lahu (wa ashhadu 'anna) Mu?ammadan rasulu l-Lahi " there is no god except ALLAH and Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH." Also, it is said that when dying one should recite this declaration of faith. In Azaan (call to prayer) it is recited. Reciting this statement is a key part in a person's conversion to Islam."
Note as well that "god" is "ilaha" which is the generic term for God in Arabic. "Allah" is Allah, the personal name for the god of Islam, and previous to that the god of pre-Islamic times--one of hundreds of pagan deities. Allah was the Moon god. He is the corresponding god of Baal back in the Old Testament from that same area.

Allah is not the God of Scripture for several reasons:
Jehovah of Scripture:

He is the God of Truth, He won’t do wicked, impossible for Him to lie, is perfect and is light: Job 34:12; Ps. 18:28; Is. 65:16; Heb. 6:18; Matt. 5:48; James 1:17; Hebrews 6:17-18; Rev. 22:5.
Job 34:12 "Surely, God will not act wickedly, And the Almighty will not pervert justice. Heb 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who 
have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
Jehovah does not change- Mal. 3:6; Hebrews 6:17-18; There are no shadows in Jehovah: James 1:17.

God is Triune, meaning that within the one being that is God, there eternally exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.: John 14; Gen.1:26; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1Peter 1:2; Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 1:31-35;Eph. 3:14-17; Eph. 4:4-5; Eph. 5:18-20. Jesus is God the Son, second Person in the Trinity (John 1:1-4;17, Heb. 1:1-8; John 8:58, Romans 1, for just a few examples).


Quran says Allah had to add mercy and light to himself (he was incomplete, not perfect): S. 6:12,18,54;9:32.
Allah is the BEST of schemers and most crafty as a DECEIVER: S. 3:54, 8:30.
Allah has no son. He is not triune, nor did God the Son die on the cross and raise again to life on the third 
day even though Scripture proclaimed this as well as foretold it, thousands of years ago (Islam came to be in the 600's AD, centuries AFTER the completion of Scripture and the coming of Jesus Christ).

Scripture pre-dates Islam and the quran.
Allah is a different name than Jevhoah. They have different characteristics, different abilities, different books, different authority, different worship, and different fruit. "Allah" is not called Yahweh once in the quran, nor is Jesus Christ called God or Messiah in the quran. Moreover the quran denies Jesus died on the cross when this is a historical figure. Issa, the Muslim version of Jesus, is not even a historical figure. You won't find him 
anywhere in all of history because he's a figment of Muhammad's mind. Allah, however, corresponds to the Baal god of the pagans in the Old Testament that God forbids us to worship.
1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who 
denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who 
confesses the Son has the Father also.
2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the 
one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
John 8: 58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!
Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'
John 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as hewalked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

Rev.5:13b "To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honorand glory and might forever and ever!" 14 And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Rev 22:3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, 
and his servants will worship him.

Phi 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

1Ti 6:14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Ti 6:15 which He will display at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only  
Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness
with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with 
Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 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
17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no 
unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
By the way, the Author of Scripture, the Triune God, Yahweh, is eternal, and Scripture trumps all people for all time. Adam and Eve were the first people, btw. We can see the progression of people groups in Scripture. The issue is who is God and what is His name, after all He has already revealed His name and His name reflects His nature.
For more on "Allah" and how its not the name of God go to Let Us Reason. Also another helpful article is

Monday, February 13, 2012

Driscoll, Chandler, Warren, and Acts 29

Lovefest with the heretics continues :

Excerpts from Apprising Ministries' article:


 It would seem that ER2 co-host Mark Driscoll will be increasing his direct involvement with A29:
Now, it’s no secret I’ve been critical of A29, e.g. Mark Driscoll, Acts 29 Network, & The Emerging Church. That noted, I’ve also talked to dear Reformed brothers in A29 who’re not involved with its quasi-contemplative leanings, a growing charismania, and who aren’t pleased with Mark Driscoll’s drift.

However, just the same as I’ll have to do if the SBC doesn’t discipline protholics like Rick Warren and Beth Moore, these brothers are going to have to leave A29 if those problems aren’t cleaned up by it’s leadership. Speaking of leadership, the aforementioned Matt Chandler joins the A-29 board:
So, now we see that Matt Chandler is making a stronger connection with A29 and Mark Driscoll. The next item of interest in Driscoll’s letter actually dovetails into the final concern. Among the “list of items” he wants “focused on this year and would appreciate prayer for” is:
Gospel-centered theology sounds good; but we now have to ask, which Gospel? Here’s where we start to actually derail as Mark Driscoll goes on to tell us of upcoming events:
My point here is more to just make you aware of further cross pollinating going on within SD/A and YR&R. Like interlocking concentric circles, note the same names which keep showing up together since ER1, through COD, and then through ER2. Only it’s growing progressively worse now to include Rick Warren.
As I close this piece out, I’ll leave aside the obvious ecumenical drift of former Gospel Coalition member James MacDonald, who actually resigned from what Steve Camp calls the “Gospel Compromise” so he could invite T.D. Jakes to ER2, There’s More To The Resignation Of James MacDonald From Gospel Coalition.
End quote.

2Co 11:4  For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11  for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 

General Revelation and Truth

The issue, then, is not whether it is possible that truth might be discovered by human investigation of the natural and moral universe; rather, the issue is whether truth thus discovered can be assigned to the category of general revelation, and to prove that such material discovery can effect spiritual change.

My contention is that by reason of the proper definition of the theological category "general revelation" and by reason of the intrinsic and divine integrity and authority that must be granted to any truth-claim that is placed under that category, it is erroneous and misleading to assign to that category humanly deduced or discovered facts and theories. The issue is larger than appropriate taxonomy. In fact, to assign such humanly determined truths to the category of general revelation introduces a twofold fallacy into the argument when it is used as a rationale for the integrationist position.

First, there is the fallacy that might be termed falsely perceived validity. Revelation is from God; thus it is by definition true and authoritative. To assign human discoveries to the category of general revelation is to imbue them with an aura of validity and consequent authority that they do not, indeed, they cannot merit. Thus, to assign a concept to the category of general revelation when that concept is in fact a theory concocted by a person is, in effect, to lend God’s name to a person’s ideas. That is fallacious, no matter the intrinsic truth or falsehood of the theory under consideration.

The second fallacy might be called crippled accountability. That is, once it is acknowledged that these theories are revelatory in nature, the issue of challenging them becomes moot. Much may be said about testing the ideas thus derived before acknowledging them as part of that august body of truth that God has communicated in the natural order of things, or about honoring the distinction in intrinsic authority between general and special revelations, but to craft an argument for integration based upon the equal merits and authority of general revelation and special revelation is functionally to short-circuit such efforts and to deny such distinctions. Very simply, if it is revelation, then God said it; if God said it, then it is true; when God speaks truth, mankind’s responsibility is not to test that truth but to obey it. It is self-contradictory to insist that general revelation can include truths that must be "studied and examined for their trustworthiness."

In summary, then, the integrationist rationale that arises from the claim that perceived truths established by human research constitute a subset of the category general revelation, and thus possess the authority and dependability native to revelation, is flawed first of all in its misdefinition of the term revelation. Inherent to the biblical concept of revelation is the idea of nondiscoverability.

End quote.

Soft Words For Deceivers

This is a rebuke of those who continue to call false teachers "brothers in the Lord":

"I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, "He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator." Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration. I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.
According to modern efficiency he ought to have said, "Let him be kindly spoken with in private, but pray make no stir. No doubt the thought was original, and we must not question his liberty. Doubtless, he believes the same as we do, only there is some little difference as to terms."

~ Spurgeon from "Under Constraint," Sunday morning 28 April 1878 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London

1Th 2:5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed--God is witness. 6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

2Co 11:4  For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 
10  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 
11  for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 

Its That Time Of Year: Being Hit Up For Money For "Missions"

If I want to go on vacation, should I ask for money from my church and people I hardly  talk to for months or even years? Should I expect them to finance my trip? Do I think I'm entitled?

I don't think so.

It takes planning ahead, budgeting and saving money, in order to pay for a trip.

Same with a mission trip.

I mean, you planned, went to the meetings, talked with your missions committee, pastor, parents (in some cases as with young people), friends, and yet you didn't take the time to PLAN and SAVE for this trip, and NOW you expect everyone else to chip in? Is that right? Is that ethical? Is that selfish?

In rethinking how the American churches does things, this is certainly one we should reconsider.

First of all Paul did not want to be a burden on the local church, so he had a job as a tent maker.

1Th 2:9  For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.

Indeed he did get support from other churches at times. But let's remember, "need" was a real need back then. Today, how do we as Christians define a "need"? And Paul did real mission work.

Can we do better than the way we've been doing things in this modern age of "missions"? I think so.

Are you really called to the mission field?

One thing that might help is to see if you are really called  to be on the mission field even for short-term, is that you should be  evangelizing right here at home. Here in Southern California, there's never a shortage of local evangelism with a plethora of cultures. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars to share the Gospel of another culture.

Define what a mission is.

It should include evangelizing the lost with the Gospel. This is seen throughout Acts. Its not babysitting a "missionary" couple's kids so they can have a date night. Sorry, but that's not what missions is. And yes, I was at a church that actually did this. Talk about expensive babysitting! 

Going on sight-seeing tours is not a missions trip; that's called a vacation. And I'm not going to pay for your vacation even though you slap "to the glory of God" on to it. If you are going on a REAL missions trip, if your passion is for the lost, then spend your time and the money given to you for that sole purpose. Time is  of the essence especially if you are on a short-term trip. A conference is a conference for professing Christians (even pastors) and not a mission (otherwise think of the countless "missions" everyone goes on here in America annually). If a conference is canceled (which was the point in going to that country as a "mission"), then don't spend the money and go sight-seeing, instead go to the streets and preach the gospel! And yes, I know of few who have done this too when they went to Uganda.

Construction work is not necessarily a mission either. Be very careful about this. What is being built and why? Is this something that could employ the "native" people there? Wouldn't that actually be far less expensive and more helpful to those who need a job there? If construction is truly needed, when do you spend time evangelizing? A hammer in hand is  not proclaiming the Gospel. When is the Person and work of Jesus Christ proclaimed by you  if you go to help construct a building?

Plan Ahead.

If  a person wants to go on a missions trip, plan ahead. For the young person, take a Summer job and save that for your trip the following year. Work during the year to save money. Ask your parents for help. For the adults, same thing. PLAN AHEAD so you won't be a burden to your church or friends. They should be giving to their local churches anyway. The church directory is not a list to hit up people for money, especially if you are putting kids through a private college and both mom and dad work. Contacting people you don't even talk to and haven't seen for years, just to finance your trip---I'll be honest, it smacks of using others. That's how I feel anyway. Literally.  There's no investment in the relationship for years and years, then suddenly after a few FB exhanges, we're good to hit up for money when you make a good wage? Really? That's what I'm good for? Never mind ever talking about spiritual things, but boy I look like a possible money giver to you? Ouch.

Be Equipped: Do you know the Gospel?

What gospel will be preached, IF one is preached at all? Are those asking for money, equipped with the knowledge of the Gospel? I don't mean the "Jesus loves you and just ask Him into your heart" "gospel" which is NO gospel at all. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is offensive because it tells the sinner he IS a sinner, wicked before the holy God and must give an account. It declares the Lordship of the Lord, counting the cost, the wrath of God as well as the peace of God. God's love is not part of the Gospel proclamation, nor is one's will.

Last year we were happily surprised to find some friends of our's wrote us about their missions trip and they said they were not asking for any money, but rather for prayer. Wow! And that's how it should be. Perhaps that's the way to do it and if God leads some to give, they can give without being asked.

Have we as Christians fallen for the entitlement mentality? That we are entitled to having others pay our way to something we know we want to do months in advance? Why is it an automatic notion that the church will pay for your trip?

These are some things I think we need to consider, especially in this season of asking for summer missions money.

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Beware of Balaam

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Shittim unto Gilgal; that ye may know the righteousness of the LORD." (Micah 6:5)
Three New Testament writers have left us sober warnings concerning Balaam. Peter warned against "the way of Balaam"; Jude, against "the error of Balaam"; and John, against "the doctrine of Balaam" (2 Peter 2:15Jude 11Revelation 2:14). God evidently considers these warnings necessary and appropriate for Christians even today. Yet Balaam, in his day, was a genuine prophet (note 2 Peter 2:16), possessed great knowledge concerning God, and even received direct revelations from God. What, therefore, were his way, his error, and his doctrine?
"The way of Balaam" was a readiness to prostitute his high spiritual gifts and privileges for "the wages of unrighteousness" (v. 15); being willing to preach something contrary to God's word for personal gain.
"The error of Balaam" was evidently his willingness to compromise his own standards of morality and truth in order "greedily" to accommodate those of his pagan patrons (Jude 11). Finally, "the doctrine of Balaam," which even in John's day was already infiltrating the church, was to use his own teaching authority to persuade God's people that it was all right for them also to compromise their standards, even "to commit fornication" (Revelation 2:14) with their idolworshiping enemies.
The notoriously corrupt state of much that is counterfeiting true Christian ministry today is clear evidence that those warnings against "Balaam-ism" are still urgently needed. No wonder Micah (the faithful prophet) urged God's people to "remember" Balaam and his tragic end (Numbers 31:8). HMM
End quote.
This is true of many of today's famous "Christian" teachers/pastors/authors/speakers. 
Act 20:29  "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30  and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31  "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 

2Pe 2:1  But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2  Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned3  and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Going Heretical Is Gradual

People don’t often go heretical all at once. It is gradual. And they do
not do so intentionally most of the time. They slip into it through
shoddiness and laziness in handling the word of truth… All it takes to
start the road to heresy is a craving for something new and different,
a flashy new idea, along with a little laziness or carelessness or lack
of precision in handling the truth of God. All around us today are
startling reminders of doctrinal slippage and outright failure. In case
after case someone who should have known the truth of God better failed
in upholding that truth.

Robert Thomas
Precision as God’s Will for My Life, pamphlet, The Master’s Seminary,

Do not be afraid!

"So do not be afraid--for I am with you;
do not be dismayed--for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with My righteous right hand!"
Isaiah 41:10

God has arranged all our concerns with consummate wisdom, in the very best possible manner.

He overrules all events by His omnipotent power.

He directs all things by His paternal love.

If infinite wisdom, omnipotent power, and paternal love, are engaged for our present and eternal welfare--then our fears must be groundless, and our anxiety folly. Our fears only . . .
dishonor God,
distress the mind,
please Satan,
and grieve the godly.

(James Smith, "The Believer's Companion in Seasons of Affliction and Trouble" 1842)

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Piper Endorses Sex Book By Divorced Emergent Priest

John Piper endorses a feminist Emergent who's got a book on sex (as if we need MORE).She is not only Emergent, she's a divorced woman (2009) and was ordained into the Episcopal church in 2011. Her name is Lauren Winner. Desiring "God" is giving this book away, he love it that much. Here is what's wrong with Winner, as if the above isn't enough.

So you can be divorced, convert from Orthodox Judaism to the false  Episcopalian church (daughter of Rome), promote Contemplative Spirituality,and be a priest in a false church.

Piper continues to promote enemies of the cross, violating 2 John 9-11.

Monday, February 06, 2012

Emergents, The Elephant Room, The "Gospel" Coalition: consider the Jesus of Scripture That You Can't Ignore

"The Jesus You Can't Ignore" by John MacArthur


Men and women who lack a biblical worldview tend to think of religion as the noblest expression of the human character. Popular opinion in the world at large has generally regarded religion as something inherently admirable, honorable, and beneficial.

In reality, no other field of the humanities—philosophy, literature, the arts, or whatever—holds quite as much potential for mischief as religion. Nothing is more thoroughly evil than false religion, and the more false teachers try to cloak themselves in the robes of biblical truth, the more truly Satanic they are.

Nevertheless, benign ....looking, suavely ....religious emissaries of Satan are ordinary, not extraordinary. Redemptive history is full of them, and the Bible continually warns about such false teachers—savage wolves in sheep’s clothing, “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:13–15). Delivering his farewell speech at Ephesus, the apostle Paul told the elders of that young but already beleaguered church, “I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the f lock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29–30, emphasis added). He was warning them that false teachers would arise not only from within the church, but that they would creep unnoticed into the leadership of the church (cf. Jude 4). It undoubtedly happened in Ephesus, and it has happened again and again in every phase of church history. False teachers robe themselves in the garments of God. They want people to believe that they represent God, that they know God, that they have special insight into divine truth and wisdom, even though they are emissaries of hell itself. In 1 Timothy 4:1–3, Paul prophesied that the church of the last days would be assaulted by false teachers with a Pharisaical approach to asceticism, which they would use as a cloak for licentiousness: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

Notice how Scripture emphatically says false teachers who like to wear a cloak of self ....righteousness and hide under the pretense of orthodoxy are evil, envoys of the devil, teachers of demonic doctrines. Again, nothing is more thoroughly diabolical than false religion, and we are warned repeatedly and explicitly not to take false teaching lightly because of its close resemblance to the truth...

Any literal shepherd tasked with feeding and leading a flock of lambs would be thought deranged if he regarded wolves as potential pets to be domesticated and amalgamated into the fold. Suppose he actively sought and tried to befriend young wolves, presuming he could teach them to mingle with his sheep—insisting against all wise counsel that his experiment might succeed, and if it does, the wolves will acquire the sheep’s gentleness and the sheep will learn things from the wolves, too. Such a shepherd would be worse than useless; he himself would pose an extreme danger to the flock.

Nearly as bad would be a shepherd whose vision is myopic. He has never seen a wolf clearly with his own eyes. He therefore believes the threat of wolves is grossly exaggerated. Even though his sheep keep disappearing or getting torn to shreds by something, he refuses to believe it is wolves that are harming his flock. He declares that he is tired of hearing shrill wolf ....warnings from others. He begins telling the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf ” to everyone who will listen. Finally concluding that other people’s “negativity” toward wolves poses a greater danger to his flock than the wolves themselves, he takes out his reed and plays a gentle tune to lull the lambs to sleep. Then, of course, there is the “hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep.” He “sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and f lees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling f lees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep” (John 10:12–13).

Self seeking hirelings, myopic shepherds, and 
wannabe wolf tamers are all too prevalent in the church today. So are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Frankly, some of the postmodern lambswool costumes aren’t even the least bit convincing. But some pastors seem to have no hesitancy about unleashing these eager wolves among their flocks. Many are like the near ....sighted shepherd in my parable—convinced that warnings about the threat of wolves are potentially more dangerous than actual wolves.

Contemporary evangelicalism in general seems to have no taste whatsoever for any kind of doctrinal friction—much less open conflict with spiritual wolves. The Evangelical Manifesto I cited in the introduction to this book clearly reflects that point of view, expressing many more words of concern about evangelical public relations than it ever does for evangelical doctrinal soundness. The document confidently asserts that “the Evangelical message, ‘good news’ by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative.”14 That’s a considerable overstatement—especially given the fact that Paul’s systematic outline of the gospel in Romans begins with the words, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Romans 1:18) and then goes on for almost three full chapters expounding on the depth and universality of human “ungodliness and unrighteousness,” which is what unleashed God’s wrath in the first place. Only after he has made the bad news inescapable does Paul introduce the gospel’s good news. He follows the very same pattern in abbreviated form in Ephesians 2:1–10.

As we are going to see, Jesus Himself was not always positive before being negative. 
Some of His longest discourses, including all of Matthew 23, were entirely negative.

The recent Evangelical Manifesto gives a nod of commendation to “those in the past for their worthy desire to be true to the fundamentals of faith,”
 but then it seems to suggest that militancy in defense of the core truths of Christianity is always to be avoided. In fact, the main reason the manifesto gives for listing “conservative fundamentalism” as one of two opposite corruptions of the true Protestant spirit (the other being “liberal revisionism”) is that certain fundamentalists have resisted the liberalizing tendency with “styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub ....Christian.”15.....

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41–44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (Matthew 23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus an resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and postmodern evangelicals—the neo evangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus words about the Pharisees and His treatment of them are breathtakingly severe. Let’s turn back to the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry and observe how this hostility between Him and the Pharisees began and how it developed.

I think many readers will be surprised to discover that it was Jesus who fired the first shot. And it was a shockingly powerful broadside.

End quote.