Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Elyse Fitzpatrick Teaches Men And Promotes Heretics

It's not just Beth Moore that teaches men. It's also Elyse Fitspatrick. Anyone who is part of The "Gospel" Coalition as she is, must be rejected because that group is founded by heretic Tim Keller and promotes heresies. 

Who she endorses are some of the worst, immoral people in Evangelicalism. Here are some examples:

On TBN with Tullian Tchividjian (fired from two churches for sexual immorality and lying): (info on him here and here)

Promoting liberal, pro-abortion feminist liberal Karen Swallow

Promoting gay Anglican priest Sam Allberry (more info here)(Revoice infamy):


🚨 New Episode 🚨 our friend Preston Sprinkle joins us to talk about the intersection of faith and sexuality. This is such an important topic and I learned so much from Preston. Please listen in. Find us on iTunes (Front Porch with the Fitzes) or the link is in my profile

Friday, October 18, 2019

Adam Tyson's Church Uses Feminist Jen Wilkin for Their Women's Group

So on the one hand there's John MacArthur in his Truth Matter's Q & A earlier today, repudiating Beth Moore (rightly so), but on the other hand TMS graducation and TMU adjunct professor and Kanye West mentor/spokesman/pastor Adam Tyler's church, is teaching their women (including his wife or his wife is the leader, it is unclear) through Jen Wilkin's book on Exodus. He was in an interview about his role with Kanye West and he talked about discussing things with his wife as things progressed with West (his wife seems enamored with celebrity) (time mark 33:00). She even used her study of Wilkin to encourage him to be like Moses (huh?) and do the leading/"preaching" at the Sunday Services.

Go here to find out why Wilkin is dangerous:

Jen Wilkin is the egalitarian feminist who works at The Village Church under Matt Chandler. Wilkin advocates for the destruction of biblical gender roles and is a regular speaker in the evangelical preaching circuit.
Wilkin, like Beth Moore, is staunchly opposed to God’s design for women and is rebellious against God’s Word. Wilkin has advocated for homosexual inclusion and teaches that God’s Word “whispers” about homosexuality while it “shouts” about other sins.

End quote.
This church proclaims Wilkin teaching men and women about parenting:

At Tyson's church as of today:

You need to know that the way they entice people is by claiming their brand of complimentarism which is just a slightly more subtle version of feminism cloaked in Christian talk. In other words, Village Church says only men can be elders, but like all Reformergents, they believe women can teach men--it's just not in the role of elder. Village has a statement that says women can co-lead with men in a mixed group.

Wilkins teaching men at TGC 19 pre-conference on training children to be future evangelists:

Wilkin admits that there are men in her audience at this conference:

Also, MacArthur continues to share the platform with feminists (women teaching men spiritual things, using Scripture, etc) like at the Sing! conferences, Strange Fire conference, Proclaim 19 conference.

This is the hypocrisy and double mindedness God warns AGAINST and will be their downfall (I have dealt with women teaching men on this blog, particularly regarding Moore, Shirer, and Kay Arthur)--so all the verses about this issue are treated there).

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Village Church Promotes Submission To Islam Although They Claim It's "Engaging" Them

Sara Long from Chandler's Village Church wrote an article about engaging Muslims. It's more like how to let the Muslims reach gullible Western Christians and they know this VERY well. 

Visit your local mosque.

Be sensitive to where the “Christian West” has failed to look like Jesus.

Ask questions about their families and their background.

Talk about Jesus, but carry no agenda. Human souls are not projects, and it takes time to build trust in any relationship.

Follow the Spirit’s lead, not your agenda. New relationships are not the place to debate in-depth theology. For example, God coming to us in the form of a man is essential to Christianity but very offensive to Muslims, and thus, not a good place to begin a relationship.

End quote.

First of all, don't visit a mosque. They are demonic strongholds. There's no reason to go inside Satan's domain. We aren't called to go in  and it's far wiser to stay out of such things. To enter is to willingly submit to Satan and his religion of Islam. 

We ARE in the West and real Christians in the West don't worry about the failures of Evangelicals who are frauds. Starting of in the apology mode is typical for liberals and Long is no exception. What she means by how the "Christian West has failed to look like Jesus", she doesn't say. What she considers "Christian" also is unknown (Muslims think Roman Catholics are Christians, but they are not).

The whole point is supposed to be reaching the Muslims for Christ, right? That's an agenda. She's being dishonest. Frankly that's a key to Islam: dishonesty. The false dichotomy of having an agenda to proclaim the Gospel to the Muslims and care about their souls is also dishonest: people share the gospel BECAUSE they care. Also, she's promoting "friendship evangelism" that is a failure especially using her "tips" because she's trying to not offend at all and do that over time (see below about where she says friendships are more important than being right). Basically this whole diatribe is about submitting to Muslims and their demonic religion, something the Christian isn't supposed to do. We serve Yahweh. Allah is satan. But she sure wants to silence Christians or at least try to remove the sharp double edged sword of the Word.

Long goes on:

Don’t criticize Muhammad, the Qur’an, or anything about the Islamic faith.

Respect their fasting during Ramadan by not eating or drinking around your Muslim friends during the holiday.

Don’t be afraid to visibly practice your faith and pray in the name of Jesus. It will not be a surprise that you and your Muslim friends disagree theologically, and they will appreciate your authenticity.

Treat God’s Word with respect by not placing your Bible on the ground. Muslims show a great deal of respect for the Qur’an.

We must be more committed to our relationships than to being right.

Again, more avoidance of offense even though she's talking to American "Christians". She would do well to remember that Muslims demand all respect, but they don't care about respecting Christians. In fact their quran says to kill us. So there's that.

One must tell the Muslim that their quran isn't true and that their view of Jesus is not according to Scripture nor fact ("Isa" is not a historical person--its a Muslimfied version of Jesus and they deny he was crucified). Their entire worldview is built upon the quran and hadiths, so it is impossible to preach the Truth without exposing their error.

She uses the Muslims as the standard of respect  and proper behavior which is unbiblical. More Sharia.

Worst of all she says relationships trump Truth. She doesn't care what is right in Yahweh's eyes. She cares about not offending Muslim "friends". Wasting time to build up a friendship and then never tell them the truth because it will offend, while submitting to their religion, is anti-biblical.

She also calls for submission to Sharia (but her ignorance has no idea this is what it is):
Don’t initiate a handshake with someone of the opposite sex. Women should approach women, and men should approach men.
If you have adequate time to prepare a meal for Muslims, research markets in your area that sell Halal meat. Don’t serve pork or alcohol.

A few things to note that Long didn't tell people:

Silence in Islam is agreement or permission:

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet said: "A non-virgin woman may not be married without her command, and a virgin may not be married without her permission; and it is permission enough for her to remain silent (because of her natural shyness)." [Al-Bukhari:6455, Muslim & Others]

Even during Ramadan, their "holy" fast, they will break it for the sake of deceiving Westerners:

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan;Renounce belief in Allahl Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah;Utter insincere oaths. 
~Clarion Project

Muslims are called to not take Christians or Jews as friends, but will in deception, for the sake of promoting Islam:

Surah 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends.

Quran (53:29) - "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."

Quran (3:85) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."

Quran (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Befriending unbelievers is one sign that a Muslim is bound for Hell.

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28  (Al-Takeyya  - lying.)

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

~The Religion of Peace 

Even this shows they won't take Christians on as friends:
Surah 98.6 - Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

Gullible Westerners like Long should realize that Islam is a religion of violence and lies. It's father is the father of lies, a murderer from the beginning, so it's no surprise that Islam is built and promotes and has a culture of lies.
Different types of lies allowed by Islam:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are several forms:
• Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda'rat (Sunni):
tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
• Kitman: deceit by omission.
• Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
• Taysir: deceit through facilitation
(not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
• Darura: deceit through necessity
(to engage in something "Haram" or forbidden).
• Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear "moderate".

~The Religion of Peace

While the biblical Christian does live in this world, one must be very careful who his friends are. No friendship is worth the price of truth and the soul of another.
Psa 26:4  I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.5  I hate the assembly of
evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked. 

To submit to Sharia is to submit to demons. Jesus not only didn't care about offending the Pharisees, He deliberately did so in order to demonstrate how they were solidly opposed to Him and the Father.  If you preach the biblical Christ and His Gospel to a Muslim they will indeed be offended because their quran denies the Triune Godhead.  If they're not offended, you didn't preach the biblical Christ. 

We are to be honest, not underhanded. Don't pretend to not have an agenda if your goal is to preach the Gospel of the biblical Christ:
2Co 4:2  but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
When Paul was taken to Mars Hill to expand on the gospel he was preaching in the marketplace in Athens, he told the philosophers of the day they were ignoramuses even though they considered themselves quite learned. They were ignorant of the one thing that matters: the true and living God. He actually went on the offensive here:
Act 17:24  "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 
Act 17:25  neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things;
Act 17:29  "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Yes, he did offend them, but in order to show them their error of idolatry and who the true God is. We should do no less with Muslims, Roman Catholics, or any other religion.
While I've touched on some issues here, this isn't a full treatment--it's a brief overview.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Historian Who Popularized Gender As A Social Construct for Power, Retracts

A Canadian historian who popularized the notion that gender was a social construct is regretting he ever said that.

LifeSiteNews reports:

Christopher Dummitt is an associate professor at Trent University’s School for the Study of Canada. On September 17, Quillette published an essay in which he explains his past conviction that “sex was wholly a social construct” “all about power,” admits that his “big idea” has run roughshod over biological common sense and freedom of speech, and offers a “mea culpa for my own role in all of this....”

By his own admission, he could “cherry pick” details because “history is a big place. And so there was always something to find....”
Dummitt maintains he was on “safe ground” to the extent that he “stuck to the documents, and reconstructed how people talked in the past,” but the conclusions he drew from them were “intellectually bankrupt” because they “came from my ideological beliefs — even if, at the time, I wouldn’t have described this as ideology....”
“And that’s why I was so angry and assertive about what I thought I knew. It was to hide the fact that, at a very basic level, I didn’t have proof for part of what I was saying. So I stuck to the arguments with fervor, and denounced alternative points of view. Intellectually, it wasn’t pretty. And that’s what makes it so disappointing to see that the viewpoints I used to argue for so fervently — and so baselessly — have now been accepted by so many in the wider society.”

~End quote. LifeSiteNews
Cherry picking from history to fit one's presuppositions and ideology, or suppressing study findings, happens all the time  in "science". It happens with the global warming "scientists" too. They throw numbers at you, but you have to ask some critical questions and do some digging to find out the context and truth. For example:

In 2015 the mythical "97% of the world's scientists agree global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous", except that's not true. According to Ian Tuttle:
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” 
Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
~End quote.  National Review

Or how about global warming's emailgate as I reported:
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."


The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models -  20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
End quote.

Bold, red are my emphasis.

Thursday, September 05, 2019

Christ On The Cross: dealing with some errors

The Father did not abandon His Son, in whom He was well pleased, at the cross. Jesus was always pleasing to the Father because He is part of the Triune Godhead,  and this is also why there could never be any abandonment or separation between any of them.

This article by Doron Gladden goes into detail on this topic. He also deals with Thabibi Anyabile's claims and error as well as a bit of Austin Duncan's (on Ps 22 where he states "Jesus is evil incarnate").

I looked up the Greek word for "in" in 1 Peter 2:24 which is what Duncan refers to at the 18:25 time mark as listed below, and the Greek word is the preposition "en" which can (and here, should) be translated "on":

1Pe 2:24  and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 

Just as the bull did not have sin put into it as a temporary atonement for the sins of Israel (it could never take away sin), Jesus too, did not have sin put into Him; both had sin imputed to them (counted as if they had), but it was not actual. It was substitutionary. Neither had a sin nature. Yet Duncan clearly believes Jesus had sin inside Himself while on the cross. This is blasphemy (and it's gnostic too, I believe, because it alludes to a different Jesus on the cross versus the One who prior to the crucifixion was sinless).

Some of Duncan's claims about Jesus on the cross:

Time mark  41:40 "His distress, pain,  trouble, misery,  wretchedness, misfortune, sorrow, adversity, torment, and tribulation, is not ultimate."

Time Mark 43:58 - he says "Jesus was evil incarnate".  

Jesus is abandoned by God: 15:40 - 19:00

God could not look upon sin especially in His own Son 17:38

Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross 18:25

No Christian should ever use the terms "wretchedness" and "misfortune" in describing Christ Jesus on the cross. Neither of those words are biblical and promote sin and happenstance, which clearly is impossible with the God of Scripture.  And to accuse Christ as having sin "in" Him, and that He was "evil incarnate" is absolute blasphemy. He was without sin, a perfect and pleasing sacrifice on the cross in the place of elect sinners. Is. 53 as well as the New Testament say that the Father was well pleased with Him and that He is without sin. 

Psa 22:24  For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Neither has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard. 

Isa 53:10  But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Mark Dever To Be Professor At SBTS

Capstone reported:

Mark Dever was just named a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Al “Look at Who I Platform” Mohler made the announcement August 27. Dever is pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. At Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s Christians and Government Core Seminar (their name for Sunday School Adult Education), a church elder taught a course on Justice. Or, more specifically Social Justice. The series of classes began June 9 and concluded September 1. Our source provided the handout for the Week 10 class. It promoted Identity Politics and the Social Justice agenda. The class was taught by a church elder, according to our source who attended.

End quote.

They went on to say:

Viewing justice through the lens of group identity is dangerous. Justice should be concerned about individual actions. We are culpable for our sins, and not the sins of our fathers, grandfathers or children and grandchildren. As it is written, “The soul who sins shall die.”
As we previously reported, a Sunday School class at Capitol Hill Baptist Church promoted Identity Politics. At that time, a leading member of the congregation who taught seminary classes at one Southern Baptist institution and sat on the board of trustees for another Southern Baptist seminary, promoted Identity Politics.
End quote.

Photos of the hand out and more info here.

Dever said in 2015 (I deal with why he is totally wrong and this is actually a false doctrine):
"Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture."  (italics, original)
"So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation." (italics, original, bold, my emphasis)

Enemies Within the Church website reports (along with video) that SBTS (connected to the SBC) of which Mohler is president, has three professors "Jarvis Williams and Curtis Woods, along with provost Matthew Hall, are shown clearly promoting Neo-Marxist ideas at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and in internet videos." Apparently Moss took over for Obama's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright--it's a church that promotes Black Liberation theory and helped indoctrinate Obama's hatred of whites in America.

The SBC and men like Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever have embraced the sodomite Anglican priest Sam Allberry.

And who they conference with includes  I-Will-Fight-Error-But-Not-My-Friends-John MacArthur:

At the Gettys' Sing 2019 conference

At 2019 Shepherds Conference:

Mohler infamously said recently at the Shepherd's Conference
“You look at who I invite to my campus, you look at who I cite, you look at who I platform — I feel pretty good about the message.” -Albert Mohler

Monday, August 26, 2019

The Amazon Fires Aren't A Crisis

Like so many of the environmental scare stories which grip the world’s media periodically, it is a panic which has been deliberately and cynically stoked by left-leaning eco-activist groups for a number of purposes:

To generate public hysteria in order to precipitate expensive and unnecessary government action which no sober cost benefit analysis could ever justify
To raise ‘awareness’ — and, by extension, money — for the green cause
To discredit conservatives, especially those who are properly sceptical of the green agenda, such as President Trump and his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro
To reinforce in the popular imagination the notion that economic growth and expressions of national sovereignty — in this case the interests of Brazilian farmers — are intrinsically bad for the environment
To promulgate the common received idea that the Amazon is the ‘lungs of the planet’ and therefore sacrosanct and inviolable in much the same manner as polar bears, glaciers, Pacific islands, the Great Barrier Reef, etc.
To lend false credibility to the global left’s claim that the planet is experiencing a #ClimateEmergency
To invoke the spectre of the Green New Deal and, by extension, to rain on the parade of Trump 2020
To exploit the mainstream media’s insatiable demand for environmental scare stories, especially in the August “silly season” when there’s a shortage of real news

Here is the truth about the Amazon fires:

The fires are mainly on agricultural land – not virgin rain forest…
It wasn’t always rainforest…
There is nothing abnormal about this fire season
Even NASA admits this…
Deforestation is getting better, not worse
The Amazon rainforest does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen
From a 2008 article ‘Brazil: Ancient Amazon Actually Highly Urbanised’

A quote from NYT of all places:
From a 2014 New York Times article by Nadine Unger, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at Yale:
Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent.
The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet.

In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night.
In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.
End quote. (bold, my emphasis)

It shows graphs, tweets, NASA stuff.