If you wanted a great example of the genesis for all the errors that we have presently slithering around under the umbrella of Christianity claiming to be truth, look no further than this video from a Bible society. This is heresy at it’s finest: Did God really say . . . ?
You can almost hear the hiss as this woman speaks.
So why do Catholics think we are bashing them when we are demonstrating a compelling love to show them how to escape the eternal lake of fire? It appears to be a pathetically weak defensive ploy to hide their lack of biblical understanding. By calling someone a name, they are released from any obligation to consider Scripture and evaluate truth. In this way, they can proudly dismiss any further confrontation or correction.
– Mike Gendron
Here’s a great question from Jessica over at I Love Mormons:
I have a hypothetical scenario I want to run by you. What would happen if a 14-yr-old LDS kid from Mississippi suddenly showed up on the scene claiming he had received personal revelation from God that the LDS church became apostate after the death of Joseph Smith? This young boy (we’ll call him Joe) claims God revealed to him that the King Follett Discourse never happened the way the history books have it. Rather, after the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others changed many historical documents to try to make it appear like Joseph Smith taught polygamy and polytheism. Joe says Joseph Smith never believed in a plurality of gods; rather, he believed in and taught the Trinity as evidenced by the Book of Mormon. Joe claims Brigham Young edited the D&C and PofGP to add the teachings on polygamy and plurality of gods. Joe starts admonishing LDS that God views the current teachings of the modern-day LDS church as an abomination.
Question: How would you decide whether the 14-yr-old was trustworthy and believable?
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. – Luke 6:45
In the past DefCon has taken issue with Mark Driscoll on several concerns including his gutter mouth, lack of reverence for God, and even his mocking of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Most of the time I’ve played a less-than-active role in these matters as other contributors have mainly been on the front lines. Well today I’m getting in the trenches because I’m furious at Mark Driscoll and Pilgrim Radio for what transpired yesterday. Here’s the story:
My wife told me about a sermon Pilgrim Radio was playing on the radio as she was returning home from the grocery store with our young children in the car. She said that the man preaching (she had no clue who he was so there were no preconceived notions or expectations) was talking about “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “lesbians” and that he kept using these expressions as if trying to be shocking.
My wife who knows very little—if anything—about Mark Driscoll hit the nail on the head in her evaluation of him.
She then told me that this same man began talking about wives in submission to their husbands and how oftentimes men abuse this. Instead of using an innocuous example to make his point he chose to expound on such abuse by illustrating an example in which men misuse their wives’ submission by making them watch porn!
Seriously? Are you kidding me? That’s the best example he could come up with? For crying out loud, my kids were in the car and heard this trash before their mother turned it off. Does this guy’s mind ever come up out of the gutter for air?
Consider, if you will, all the images that were conjured in the minds of those who heard this man go on about porn yet again (he was talking about porn in another sermon just a few weeks ago on Pilgrim Radio). Does he not care about all those who are struggling with pornography who listened to this pastor expecting to hear the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in reverence, only to their minds drawn back to the gutter? How many men and women at that moment had impure thoughts rush into the battlefields of their minds because of Mark Driscoll’s seemingly insatiable appetite for discussing all things sexual in a public forum?
How dare he stand in a pulpit spewing such juvenile, perverse, and debase ideas under the guise of preaching? And how dare Pilgrim Radio air such filth from the ever-flowing open sewer of the mouth of Mark Driscoll?
When my wife described this to me I immediately knew who she was referring to because during the same hour of the morning that this sermon was oozing across the airwaves, I also had turned on Pilgrim Radio and heard Mark Driscoll talking about men liking noisy power tools because it drowns out the constant yapping of the wives they hate. Are you kidding me? This was coming from the pulpit and Pilgrim Radio thought this was acceptable? What an obnoxious thing to say!
Needless to say I immediately turned off the radio. Little did I know, fifty miles away my wife and little children were about to have their minds polluted with the whimsical handling of the matters of “prostitutes,” “whores,” “lesbians,” and “porn.” These are not matters that my children should have to be exposed to in such a flippant manner, especially by one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel and on a radio station that claims to be Christian.
My wife had no idea who this profane man on the radio was but she had enough sense and discernment (which seems to be lacking in so many others) to reject him and change the radio station.
Now let me clarify something to avoid any confusion, I am not opposed to such words (and dealing with such subjects) as “prostitution” and “whores.” They are real sins, and they are addressed within Scripture. What I am opposed to is the use of these subject (ad nauseum I might add) by Driscoll (or anyone else for that matter) to make people laugh or to be shocking. There is a way to handle sensitive and weighty issues such as these without reverting to a juvenile mentality.
It’s the same as the expression “Oh my God.” The words themselves are not the problem, but the spirit behind them and how they’re being delivered. The way the Psalmist cries out “Oh my God” is completely different than the way a thirteen-year-old girl shrieks “Oh my God” when the boy she has a crush on invites her to prom. If you cannot see the difference, then I don’t expect you to understand the point of this post.
As a result of this, I have done the following three things:
1). I’ve removed Pilgrim Radio from this blog as they will no longer be endorsed by DefCon.
2). I wrote to the once trusted Pilgrim Radio a lengthy letter detailing my disappointment of them for allowing this type of material to be aired. Unfortunately their entire response was:
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks on Pilgrim Radio’s programming. We were, of course, sorry to learn that you no longer feel comfortable in endorsing our ministry which is aimed at a very broad segment of the Christian community. We do appreciate your enthusiastic past support. God bless you.
3). All the Driscollite defenders who patrol the internet and swarm blogs such as this to offer excuses for their Golden Calf will have to find another soundboard for their approval of and winking at sin as their comments will no longer be welcome here. I refuse to provide a platform for their calling evil good and good evil.
Our family strives to be holy in spite of being surrounded by the world, the culture–and now even the professing church which is indistinguishable from the world and culture–where holiness is a strange and foreign concept, and oftentimes openly mocked by those who should know better (those who claim to be Christians while still practicing lawlessness). So when the wickedness of the world sneaks in via a Christian radio station you can imagine my surprise, anger, and disgust. My kids should have never been subjected to this filth and as their father it’s my responsibility to protect them and keep them pure.
Shame on Mark Driscoll for using the pulpit to advance his agenda, and shame on Pilgrim Radio for giving this purveyor of perversity a platform to poison my precious children with his toxic, man-centered, flesh-pleasing oratory.
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate. -Proverbs 8:13
________________________________________________________________
I do not stand alone in my concern of Driscoll’s pornification of the pulpit. See related:
Sound Doctrine; Sound Speech (A sermon by Phil Johnson delivered at the 2009 Shepherd’s Conference)
John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll (Part 1)
John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll (Part 2)
As reported at KSL News:
SOUTH JORDAN — There were some 6,000 to 8,000 lightning strikes in the Salt Lake Valley Saturday, and it appears one of them struck the new Oquirrh Mountain temple.
Witnesses say the lightning blackened the arm, trumpet and face of the Moroni statue that sits on top of the temple’s steeple.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not confirmed the lightning strike.
And if the LDS organization never confirms the lightning strike, then it never really happened.
In the realm of subjective confirmations, a lightning strike trumps a “burning in the bosom” any day.
HT: Christian Research Council
_____________________________________________________________________
See related: Let the idols hit the floor!
One expects to see Osteen, Warren, Jakes, Meyers, Bell, Driscoll, and Schuller on the shelves of their local Christian bookstore because they will sell whatever people will buy (regardless if it’s damaging to the soul, detrimental to the Christian’s walk or out right heretical). But I was shocked to discover what my local “Christian” bookstore was selling now .
I walked into the bookstore and (once I passed all the Jesus trinkets) lo and behold staring at me from the bookshelf was none other than The Shack. This tome of doctrines of demons was prominently displayed eye-level in the number one spot on the best seller’s bookshelf.
This, if you recall, is the same bookstore I previously posted about in regards to the owner’s reasons for selling books steeped in rank heresy. In that post (you can read it here) I asked the question if Christian bookstore owners are responsible for what they sell? In a post prior to that on the same topic I inquired of whether or not the readers of DefCon support their local Christian bookstore? You can read it here.
There is absolutely no excuse (other than the desire to make money) for any supposedly Christian bookstore to sell The Shack. And claiming ignorance will not suffice.
For those wondering what the stink about The Shack is all about, allow me to quote a description of the book from the January 2009 Writer’s Digest magazine (a secular periodical) who wrote a favorable piece on William Young’s book:
In Young’s story, Jesus is a dark-skinned Middle Eastern Jewish man who thwarts Mack’s expectation of a hunky blonde Jesus. God isn’t a white-haired wizard figure, but rather a matronly black woman who calls herself “Papa” in an attempt to challenge Mack’s preconceived notions. The Holy Spirit is a transparent creature named Sarayu who can’t be seen directly.
What business does a “Christian” bookstore have selling this rank heresy?
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock . . . – Acts 20:29
Source: Africa Center for Apologetics Research
____________________________________________________________
See related posts:
Charismania unrestrained: Africa’s witch children
The Hell-bound false prophetess Helen Ukpabio of Liberty Gospel Church in Nigeria
Your sermon of the week is Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: Catholic Dogma by John MacArthur. This is a great examination of the unholy worship of a false goddess advanced by the Romish religious system. You can download both parts below.
Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship (Part One)
Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship (Part Two)
If you want more information, I recommend listening to anohter of John MacArthur’s sermons on Roman Catholicism found on this post. I also suggest checking out the post It’s All About Mary where I answer the fifteen most commonly heard justifications for the veneration (worship) or Mary.
Most Catholics would disagree with the title of this post. They would cite their veneration of the cross in images, sculptures, and jewelry as proof positive that they not only adore the cross, but in fact even idolize it.
However, the issue I wish to address is not in regards to the Catholics’ adoration of the physical symbol of the cross itself, nor their devotion to that physical symbol. The issue at hand—where the cross is an offense to Roman Catholics—is in its preaching.
The Romish religion has long been antithetical not to the symbol, but to the meaning and purpose of the cross. The Biblical view of the cross is that this was where the Father caused all of our iniquity to fall upon Him, and it was where the the perfect, spotless, unblemished, Lamb of God stood in our place taking the very punishment and wrath of God that we so rightly and justly deserve, and where it pleased the Father to crush His Son and put him to grief.
Paramount to the true preaching of the cross is the fact that Christ uttered “it is finished.” But paramount to Roman Catholicism (and necessary for its continued existence), is the heretical idea that “it is not finished.” This keeps its people in subjection to the organization (and with that subjection of course comes money and power).
Roman Catholicism teaches that you must do some part on your own to merit God’s favor, that your redemption was not purchased complete and in-full on the cross. Not only is this in stark opposition to the Scriptures, but it renders the Savior’s sacrifice as being insufficient. It is because of this that Romanism rejects the true Gospel of the cross of Christ; exchanging the once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:24-28, 10:10-12) for a false doctrine of an imagined (and wholly unattainable) righteousness based on man’s efforts. This is why the preaching of the cross is foolishness to Roman Catholics.
Would God be a just and righteous judge if He can be bribed with our measly works? What self-righteous works can fallen man possibly offer to a holy and righteous God anyway?
Your effort to offer God what you think are righteous enough works is equivalent to standing before a judge facing the charge of murder and telling the judge, “I gave money to a charity once, I haven’t shoplifted since high school, I helped my neighbor pull weeds in his yard, and I always leave my waitress a big tip.” None of these niceties will satisfy the required punishment for your guilt of murder anymore than your church attendance, reciting of a rosary, the lighting of a candle, being baptized, or even wearing a crucifix will satisfy God’s requirement for the punishment that you and I deserve for sinning against an infinitely holy God. All of your “righteous” works are filthy rags!
What do you possibly think you can offer God that was not already provided in the death of His only begotten Son upon the cross?
The Vatican’s continued proclamation of such things as the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is simply another gospel and thus is anathema.
The Apostle Paul dealt with this matter already when he wrote to the Church in Galatia rebuking the Judaizers who sought to preach another gospel. They said salvation came from Christ and circumcision. Beware of the one who says it’s Christ and anything else that saves. If something–anything–other than Christ’s shed blood is necessary to save you, then the death of Christ was insufficient and God’s own blood was not enough.
Yet the Romish system today not only says salvation comes from Christ and something else, but that the “and” consists of numerous conditions and requirements added to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ–far beyond what the Judaizers ever proposed!
How in the world, if the Judaizers were wrong for adding just one work to Christ’s sacrifice, can Rome justify adding numerous works to Christ’s sacrifice? Because the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing; foolishness because they believe redemption can’t be that simple.
Let’s look at just one example of why I say that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to the Romish religious system: Purgatory.
***** UPDATE *****
Review of Driscoll’s sermon at the Crystal Cathedral can be found here.
Lighthouse Trails, Church Solutions, Thinking Out Loud, Slice of Laodicea, and even Mark Driscoll’s calendar on his website are announcing the upcoming June 14th event.
Apparently this isn’t the first time he’s been featured there. He spoke at Schuller’s 2004 conference and his messages are still available for purchase from the Crystal Cathedral online bookstore.
It shall be interesting to see how this plays out.
On a side note, while not too shocked to see Driscoll appear at this rank heretic’s church, I was disappointed to see Joni Eareckson Tada there. They’re even selling her book. Is there no longer any discernment in the body of Christ?
Who said the following?
If you would please, turn with me to the Song of Solomon. One of the great books of the Bible. Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way.
A). Paul Crouch
B). Marilyn Manson
C). Rob Bell
D). Joel Osteen
E). Rick Warren
F). John MacArthur
G). Robert Schuller
H). Benjamin Dunn
I). John Piper
J). Mark Driscoll
K). Tammy Faye Bakker
L). Jay Bakker
M). Doug Pagitt
N). Richard Dawkins
For the answer, click below:
The following two quotes come from a FoxNews report from January. You can read the whole article here.
By lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding the tribunal’s work, the Vatican hopes to emphasize the fundamental role the sacrament plays in saving souls, the Vatican’s No. 2, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said in a paper delivered at the conference.
“We cannot hide that the sacrament of penance is threatened in this time of secularization,” Girotti said. But he stressed that it remained “fundamental for salvation and the sanctification of souls.”
But what saith the Scripture?
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Catholics who believe in Purgatory need to be asked: “Who is in charge of releasing souls from the purging fire?” It cannot be God because of His promise to believers. “Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more” (Heb. 10:17). After conversion, God no longer counts sins against His children (2 Cor. 5:19).
– Mike Gendron
John MacArthur completely obliterates the erroneous doctrine of infant baptism in this week’s sermon of the week: A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism. This can be considered a follow-up to Coram Deo’s original posting (the transcript of this sermon) found here.
If you are curious about the doctrine of infant baptism: why it’s practiced in so many churches (even in Reformed Churches), and why many others don’t practice it at all, then you must listen to this sermon.
The Mormon organization has no problem with Masonic symbols, occultic symbols, and even inverted pentagrams adorning their temples, but they draw the line when it comes to that offensive cross. The two most common ‘excuses’ they provide for their aversion to the cross are:
1). “The cross is a pagan symbol.”
And the pagan symbols in Mormonism are not pagan? Not to mention the pagan practices that go on inside.
2). “We wish to focus on Jesus’ life, not His death.”
Ah, in this one statement Mormons reveal that they have absolutely no idea the true purpose of Christ’s coming to earth nor what it meant for Him to become a propitiation for the believer’s sins. Neither do they understand the fundamentals of the Christian faith or the very Gospel itself. For the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. How can you possibly “focus on His life” at the exclusion of His death . . . the very reason He came to earth (Mark 10:45)?
The preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile (1 Corinthians 1:23) but it appears to be both to the Mormon.
Mormons not only have an aversion to the symbol of the cross like a vampire to a crucifix, but Mormons have an aversion to what the cross represents. Just like Satan who desires nothing more than to avert the sinner’s gaze away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Mormons attempt to direct the attention of their followers away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross as well. For example:
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ took upon himself the sins of all mankind.
Gospel Principles
Page 70
1997
The night preceding His crucifixion, Jesus Christ . . . . took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.
Milton R. Hunter
The Gospel Through The Ages
Page 182
1945
Jesus, therefore, preceding crucifixion, had His last great struggle, while in mortality, with Satan and with death and came forth victorious.
Milton R. Hunter
The Gospel Through The Ages
Page 183
1945
If you’re believing in a “savior” that bore your sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, then you’re believing in one of the many false Christs that the True Christ warned us about, and you are still dead in your sins and will face the righteous, holy, and eternal wrath of God when you die.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), but Mormonism would have you believe that the Garden of Gethsemane was where Jesus bore our sins and that His ‘sweating’ (not ‘shedding’) of blood had something to do with our redemption. The context of ‘shedding of blood’ is not an expelling of some blood in your sweat, but that of death. I am in no way diminishing the suffering of Christ in the Garden, but it was not the place where He atoned for our sins.
The foreshadow of Christ throughout the Old Testament was of the death (shedding of blood) of a worthy substitute (e.g. the animals killed to ‘cover’ Adam and Eve’s nakedness, the ram in the thicket in place of Isaac on the alter, the blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt, etc.). All of these required the death of an animal, not merely the loss of a little of its blood.
If this corrupt doctrine of LDS were true, then the Mormon “Jesus” could have essentially atoned for the sins of mankind the first time He scraped His knee playing as a child, or the first time He cut His hand while working as a carpenter.
Although nowhere in Scripture can even the idea be found that Christ paid for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, this doesn’t stop Mormonism from teaching this heresy.
But what saith the Scripture?
And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. – 1 Peter 2:24
But Mormonism is not content with diverting your attention away from the finished work of Christ on the cross; they also blasphemously attack the very efficacy of the sacrifice of our precious Savior!
Are you aware that there are certain sins that a man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does no avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?
Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation
Volume 1 Page 133
Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine and taught in all the standard works of the Church.
Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation
Volume 1 Page 135
But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment.
Bruce R. McConkie
Mormon Doctrine
Page 92
1966 Edition
We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ, although its effects we still see in the diseases, tempers and every species of wickedness with which the human family is afflicted.
Brigham Young
Journal of Discourses
Volume 13 Page 143
1869
It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in [the] future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets.
Joseph Smith
History of the Church
Volume 4 Page 211
It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time?
Joseph Smith
History of the Church
Volume 4 Page 212
Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective in our lives, we must strive to obey him and repent of our sins.
Gospel Principles
Page 75
1997
Christ’s atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.
Gospel Principles
Page 75
1997
It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.
Brigham Young
Journal of Discourses
Volume 4 Page 54
1856
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not destroy them.
Brigham Young
Journal of Discourses
Volume 4 Page 53
1856
I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did under the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
Brigham Young
Journal of Discourses
Volume 4 Pages 53-54
1856
No matter how current LDS apologists try to spin it, the fact is they do not believe that Christ’s sacrifice (in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross) was sufficient to cleanse you from all of your sins. They continue to believe the blasphemous doctrine that you must still do something on your behalf to merit God’s favor. Former LDS prophets have even gone so far as to teach that the shedding of your own blood is required for remission of sins. This is known as the Doctrine of Blood Atonement and is one of the many LDS doctrines that modern-day Mormons have tried desperately to distance themselves from (you can find out more about this utterly Satanic doctrine here and here).
However, one only needs to look as far as Holy Scripture to see the error and folly of this false gospel of Mormonism. The same God who can redeem Israel from all her iniquities (Psalm 130:8) can surely redeem sinners from all of their iniquities. In spite of Mormonism’s claim that there are “some sins” that men can commit that the blood of Christ cannot atone for, the inspired Word of God tells us the exact opposite:
But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. – 1 John 1:7
Jesus gave Himself to redeem us from every lawless deed (Titus 2:14) as we are justified and saved from the wrath of God by His blood (Romans 5:9). Reconciliation was accomplished by the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross (Colossians 1:20) and we are redeemed not by perishable things, but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19).
In spite of what the false teachers of LDS would have you believe, Christ’s sacrifice was not only sufficient to put away sin (Hebrews 9:26) and obtain eternal redemption through His blood (Hebrews 9:11-12), but it was done once and for all (Hebrews 7:26-27).
So when a Mormon comes to you bringing their long laundry list of things you must do to be saved, remember that Jesus paid the debt, it was sufficient, it is finished, and “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:10-18)!
Jesus came in order to take away sins (1 John 3:5) and yet Mormons say He did not accomplish this. Who are you going to believe? A false organization led by false prophets, rife with false prophecies all pointing to a false “Jesus” and a false “gospel,” or the holy and inspired Word of God that has stood the test of time?
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. – 1 Corinthians 1:18
See related: The preaching of the Gospel is foolishness . . . to Roman Catholics
Anyone who tries sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ with a Mormon will eventually (if they haven’t already) run into the tried and true LDS tactic of pulling the victim card. They’ll say, “We have never attacked anyone’s religion, why are you attacking us?”
Well, not only has this claim by Mormons been proven to be an outright lie (see the post What Mormons Really Believe About Christians), but here’s a video showing just how sensitive to other people’s faith some of them are, and with some questionable racial overtones too.
Maranatha Chapel is planning their Man Retreat 2009 for this May, and they needed a really cool theme. I can only imagine the planning went something like this:
(The following exchange is purely fictional, but sadly, the end result is not)
Hip and Relevant Pastor: We need something to attract the men to our summer retreat. Something manly that men like. Any ideas?
Church Marketing Team: Football? Powertools? Cars? Wrestling? Cable television? Action movies? Lawnmow–
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Wait, what did you say?
Church Marketing Team: Lawn mowers?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: No, before that?
Church Marketing Team: Action movies?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Before that.
Church Marketing Team: Cable tv?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Um, no, I believe it was before that too.
Church Marketing Team: Wrestling?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Bingo!
Church Marketing Team: I think the Catholics have the market cornered with Bingo, sir, and besides that only attracts old people who like hymns and stuffy stuff.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: No, I meant ‘bingo’ as in that’s it!
Church Marketing Team: What’s it?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Wrestling!
Church Marketing Team: Wrestling?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Yes. Men love wrestling.
Church Marketing Team: Uh, sir, with all do respect, many men are not fond of wrestling.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: This is true, but the kind of men that we want to attract and keep do.
Church Marketing Team: True.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: So we need to somehow incorporate ‘wrestling’ into our theme for our upcoming men’s retreat.
Church Marketing Team: How about we slap a scripture verse on it somewhere?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Excellent idea! Quick, someone get a concordance and look up the word “wrestling.”
Church Marketing Team: Here! Ephesians 6:12.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Perfect fit. Now we need to provide a whole array of fun things to do because after all, men who are attracted to wrestling can’t possibly have depth to their personality nor that long of an attention span.
Church Marketing Team: Uh, you do realize that you just insulted the very core group our marketing strategy is targeted at, don’t you?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: I’m just making a point that if we’re going to keep these men we have to feed them with what we baited them with, mainly shallow entertainment.
Church Marketing Team: Point taken. Do you have any ideas of what activities we can have at our church men’s retreat to keep them entertained?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: How about wrestling.
Church Marketing Team: Duh, why didn’t we think of that one?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: And food, gotta have lots of food ’cause men like to eat.
Church Marketing Team: Archery?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Good idea. What about horseback riding?
Church Marketing Team: Are you serious?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: I’m the pastor.
Church Marketing Team: Copy, horseback riding it is.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Men like shooting stuff don’t they?
Church Marketing Team: They certainly do. Let’s have paintball!
Hip and Relevant Pastor: I was thinking more along the lines of skeet shooting.
Church Marketing Team: Who says we can’t have both? After all, it’s our church isn’t it?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Right you are.
Church Marketing Team: Well I think that this will be great. We’ll slap some image of a wrestler on the ad (preferably from a popular Hollywood movie) and our church men’s retreat ad will be perfect.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Well, as a pastor, I think we need to Christianize the ad just a little more.
Church Marketing Team: What do you suggest?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: How about something that has to do with church?
Church Marketing Team: Hmmmm.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: [Silence]
Church Marketing Team: [Silence]
Hip and Relevant Pastor: How about something along the lines of salvation?
Church Marketing Team: Good idea.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: But nothing too preachy.
Church Marketing Team: How about “Come learn about God’s salvation, found in none other than Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross.”
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Are you kidding? Do you not want people to show up to this retreat or not? Do you wanna lose church members and watch attendance go down?
Church Marketing Team: Uh, no.
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Than don’t suggest such and narrow, close-minded, uncool idea.
Church Marketing Team: Ok, how about “Because we wanna talk about salvation ‘n’ stuff“?
Hip and Relevant Pastor: Now you’re talking. Don’t make that part too big either.
And there you have it.
1
(Also for JWs)
2
(Also for JWs)
3
4
5
6
7
8
(Also for JWs)
9
10
The late Christian Apologist Dr. Walter Martin takes on the heretic Bishop Spong in this fifteen part debate on the topic of morality, homosexuality, and other sexual ethics. The first four videos set the tone for the debate as Spong denies the physical resurrection of Christ and His deity.
Christ Alone Wyoming 