It’s that time of year again when the shameful marketing of Christ gets into full swing. Do you see anything wrong with this Christmas nativity decoration being sold by Christian Book Distributors, or is it just me?
heresy
The more Rome changes, the more it stays the same.
You can tell a man by the friends he keeps and likewise you can tell a church by the associations it keeps. So this Reformation Day, let us take a stroll through the halls of Roman Catholicism’s past and present as a simple reminder why true Biblical Christianity will never be at peace with the false religious system and counterfeit Christian organization of Rome.
The immaculate deception.
The following is an article by James Swan refuting an attempted defense of Roman Catholicism’s great heresy: The Immaculate Conception. I found the timing of this to be highly apropos in light of a continued discussion that is taking place on this very subject on the comment thread from this post.
How To Prove The Immaculate Conception Without Biblical Proof
10/04/2009 – James Swan
The constant dilemma of the Roman Catholic apologist is to insert doctrines into the Bible that aren’t there to begin with. Their argumentation of meandering logic seeks to demonstrate: a) The Bible doesn’t contradict the doctrine being inserted; b)There are indirect Bible passages that if interpreted by first granting the validity of the extra-biblical doctrine, actually support the extra biblical doctrine. Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s most recent newsletter is a perfect example. He presents “Challenge/Response/Strategy” in defending Mary’s immaculate conception. This argumentation is for his upcoming book on basic Roman Catholic apologetics.
In Martignoni’s argumentation, the immaculate conception must first be brought to the biblical text. That is, by a plain reading of the Bible, one would not read from Genesis to Revelation and conclude Mary was born sinless and remained free of sin her entire life. Martignoni’s apologetic then is to prove the immaculate conception is not disproved by anything the Bible states, and that certain texts can be utilized as indirect proofs. I outlined Martignoni’s hypothetical challenges and his responses in the order he presented them. My counter responses are in red.
Argument 1: The Bible doesn’t use the words immaculate conception. Therefore it is an unbiblical concept.
Martignoni’s Response: The words Trinity and Incarnation are not found in the Bible either.
Swan’s Counter: I know of no serious Protestant apologist that actually uses such an argument. The question is not whether the phrase is found in the Bible, but are there specific direct passages that substantiate such a concept? To substantiate such a concept as a clear teaching of scripture one needs direct passages, not a few vague inference passages.
Argument 2: Trinity and Incarnation are concepts supported by the Bible, the immaculate conception has no such support.
Martignoni’s response: There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s counter: Aside from the fact this response doesn’t follow from the argument, this type of argument can [be] applied to many individuals within the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say Priscilla was conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived, yet we don’t assume she was. A lack of evidence does not bolster or further an argument.
Argument 3: Romans 3:9-12 and 3:22-23 says all are under the power of sin and that all have sinned, therefore Mary sinned.
Martignoni’s response (four points):
A. Such an argument does not address Mary being immaculately conceived, it addresses whether or not she was sinless her entire life, which is a different question.
Swan’s Counter: Under the heading of “The Immaculate Conception,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (CCC 493), so it is not a different question.
B. There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s Counter: Luke 1:35 positively says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. There is no such verse about Mary’s conception. There is no verse that states Mary must be sinless in order to bear the Son of God. Martignoni offers no similar positive evidence that would separate her from the rest of humanity described in Romans 3.
C. Some Protestants believe things not found in the Bible. Catholics likewise should be allowed to believe things not directly stated in the Bible. Example: The Bible nowhere says contraception is okay, yet most protestants believe it is.
Swan’s Counter: Martignoni’s argument would not work against Protestants who deny both the immaculate conception and contraception. To prove some Protestants may believe something not found in the Bible does nothing more than prove an inconsistency. To prove such offers no positive support for an extra-biblical belief in the immaculate conception.
D. Some Scripture passages indirectly support the Immaculate Conception, like Genesis 3:14-15. Mary is the woman described. Enmity exists between Satan and the woman. Martignoni says, “If you have sin in you, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan?” Only a sinless being can be at enmity with Satan. Therefore Mary was not conceived in sin, and did not commit personal sin.
Swan’s counter: This is Martignoni’s only attempt to present positive argumentation. He candidly admits his Biblical proof is indirect. The argument has an unproven assumption: only a sinless person can be an enemy of Satan, at war with Satan. But, there has always been enmity between believers and Satan. One does not have to be sinless to be at war with Satan. Why would Paul exhort the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God “so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes“? Wouldn’t he first clarify that in order to put on the armor, one must be entirely sinless? Similarly, why would Peter exhort Christians to resist the Devil (1 Peter 5:8), or James to resist the devil (James 4:7)? Here we have direct proof that all Christians are enemies of Satan, at war with Satan. John warns us that “if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves.” Christians are sinners, and they are at war with Satan. Nothing could be clearer.
Martignoni states that he was limited with the amount of time he had to put into this argumentation. Then again, he states this argumentation is for a book (as if the world needs yet another book repeating arguments already put forth by other writers). If he’s going to continue with a similar line of reasoning, perhaps he should back up a bit and explain his proofs are not proofs, but inferences. He claims to be presenting “biblical, historical, and logical perspectives” as to the immaculate conception. His reasoning though amounts to inferences and leaps of logic read into the text.
HT: Isaiah
Quotes (626)
Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again.
– J.C. Ryle
1816 – 1900
Truer words were never spoken by false prophets.
“When they can get rid of me, the Devil will also go.”
Joseph Smith (First false prophet of the Mormon organization)
History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 409
“The Christian God is the Mormon’s Devil.”
Brigham Young (Second false prophet of the Mormon organization)
Journal of Discourses,Volume 5 Page 331
The Papal Curse
The anathema of the Pope, words that would strike moral terror in the hearts of men and women throughout time who lived under the tyranical rule of the self-professed Vicar of Christ. One who not only took upon himself the power to kill men in body, but one who also brazenly claimed the power to destroy men’s souls. Thereby in effect making himself equal with God (see Mt 10:28).
Below we will read the curse pronounced by Pope Pius IX upon Victor Emmanuel, where in Grover’s “Romanism The Danger Ahead”, it is written:
Victor Emmanuel and his patriotic countrymen wrested the temporal power from Pius IX., and liberated the Italian people from the power of the Church of Rome forever, so far as civil government is concerned. Being otherwise powerless, the pope strikes back, with a curse, which is here given, as printed in the Philadelphia Morning Post. It is the perfection of pious swearing by the Vicegerent of God, who said “swear not at all.” (1)
It is also said that this curse was pronounced on the Rev. Wm. Hogan, (a converted Roman Catholic priest), in Philadelphia. (2) One might also image that less explicit curses and anathemas as found in pronouncements from councils like Trent, carry with them the same underlying intent. So when you read of the papal curses still on the books, which have never been revoked by Rome, keep these words in mind that flow forth from lips of the man who dresses like an angel but speaks like a dragon.
Let us now read the words of the Pope:
“Pronounced on all who leave the Church of Rome. By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of our Saviour, and of all celestial virtues, Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Cherubim and Seraphim, and of all the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and Evangelists, of the holy innocents, who in the sight of the holy Lamb are found worthy to sing the new song of the Holy Martyrs and Holy Confessors, and of all the Holy Virgins, and of all the Saints, together with the Holy Elect of God,–MAY HE BE DAMNED. We excommunicate and anathematize him, from the threshold of the holy church of God Almighty. We sequester him, that he may be tormented, disposed, and be delivered over with Datham and Abiram, and with those who say unto the Lord, ‘Depart from us, we desire none of thy ways;’ as a fire is quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out forevermore, unless it shall repent him, and make satisfaction. Amen.
“May the Father who creates man, curse him. May the Son, who suffered for us, curse him! May the Holy Ghost who is poured out in baptism, curse him! May the Holy Cross, which Christ for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse him!
“May the Holy Mary, ever Virgin and Mother of God, curse him! May all the Angels, Principalities, and Powers, and all heavenly Armies curse him! May the glorious band of the Patriarchs and Prophets curse him! “May St. John the Precursor, and St John the Baptist, and St. Peter and St Paul, and St. Andrew and all other of Christ’s Apostles together curse him and may the rest of the Disciples and Evangelists who by their preaching converted the universe, and the Holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and Confessors, who by their works are found pleasing to God Almighty; may the holy choir of the Holy Virgins, who for the honor of God have despised the things of the world, damn him. May all the Saints from the beginning of the world to everlasting ages, who are found to be beloved of God, damn him!
“May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house or in the alley, in the woods or in the water, or in the church! May he be cursed in living or dying!
“May he be cursed in eating and drinking, in being hungry, in being thirsty, in fasting and sleeping, in slumbering, and in sitting, in living, in working, in resting, and in blood letting! May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body!
“May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly. May he be cursed in his hair; cursed be he in his brains, and his vertex, in his temples, in his eyebrows, in his cheeks, in his jaw-bones, in his nostrils, in his teeth, and grinders, in his lips, in his shoulders, in his arms, and in his fingers.
“May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart, and purtenances, down to the very stomach!
“May he be cursed in his reins and groins, in his thighs and his hips, and in his knees, his legs and his feet, and his toe-nails!
“May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the members; from the crown of the head to the soles of his feet, may there be no soundness!
“May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of his majesty, CURSE HIM! And may Heaven, with all the powers that move therein, rise up against him, and curse and damn him; unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen! So be it. Be it so. Amen.” (3)
Endnotes
1 Ray, D. B. The Papal Controversy Involving The Claim Of The Roman Catholic Church To Be The Church Of God Between “American Baptist” and “Church Progress”. St. Louis, MO.: National Baptist Publishing Company, 1892. Online at: Source.
2 Richardson, Sarah J. Life In The Grey Nunnery. Boston: Edward P. Hood, 1857. Online at: Source.
3 Ray, D. B. 1892.
One who gets it . . . one who doesn’t.
Will the Mormon church be able to stop NASA’s attack on the moon people?
With NASA’s planned bombing of the moon this Friday (see the news article here), I have to ask again (as I did last year when the announcement was first made), Will the Mormon church be able to stop NASA’s planned assault of the moon?
Since Mormon leaders have taught that the moon is populated (along with the sun), I anticipate that the LDS church will vehemently protest this planned attack on the moon. I expect to see the LDS church publicly confront NASA on their disregard for human life and their insensitivity to the inhabitants of the moon.
This NASA experiment has the potential to not only harm the human inhabitants of the moon, but if the moon dwellers are growing any of those spiritual LDS vegetables, those crops and their entire agricultural infrastructure are sure to be decimated as well.
Can the LDS save the moon people and spiritual veggies in time? If they don’t take a stand here and now Kolob may be next!
Are we supposed to pray for the wolves?
Imagine if you will, the following scenario:
A shepherd guarding his sheep observes a wolf among the flock cloaked in sheepskin. He stands up and yells “Wolf! Wolf! Run! Run!” And immediately the sheep begin to scatter, but not all. A small group turn to the sheep dog and, with an arrogant smirk plastered across their faces, respond, “But did you pray for the wolf?”
Bewildered as to why these sheep were ignoring his warning, the shepherd reiterates the danger of the wolf’s presence with an even more impassioned plea for the sheep to escape the impending doom that’s about to befall them. However, they stand firm and go back to their grazing on the plush green grass beneath their feet.
Mumblings of,”Who is he to judge?” and, “As for me I’ll be praying for the wolf” can be heard among them as they reassure themselves of their peace and safety while the wolf takes them out one by one until there are none left.
There are many one-liners regurgitated by ‘wolf defenders’ designed to silence those who would try to warn the flock. If you’ve ever exercised your discernment regarding a false prophet, there’s no doubt you’ve encountered the all famous “judge not” defense ripped and twisted from its context.
However, there’s another less popular but equally insidious argument used by wolf defenders that’s designed to put shepherds, sheep dogs, and watchmen on the defense. The diversionary tactic I speak of is “Are you praying for _________?”
This trite platitude is usually employed in the context that we’re not supposed to expose the wolves but only pray for them, and if we have not prayed for them then we are somehow committing a greater wickedness than the wolves themselves if we dare criticize them (woe to those who call evil good and good evil).
This often-used excuse to avoid defending truth and to–conversely–help further the advance of those devouring the flock got me wondering; are we supposed to pray for the wolves?
First of all I want to say up front that I do not believe praying for a wolf is wrong, a sin, nor am I saying that you shouldn’t do it. Furthermore, this post is not intended to discourage you from doing so, but only to raise the question are we supposed to pray for the wolves?
I would also like to preface this thesis by clarifying that when I speak of wolves in this post, I am not referring to the rank and file who have fallen under the spell of their leaders, but the leaders themselves (Think: Helen Ukbato, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Gloria Copeland, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, et al).
With that said, allow me to present some thoughts on this matter.
Quotes (620)
We are called to make judgments, to test the spirits and discern truth from error (2 Thess. 3:6; 1 John 4:1). Both Jesus and Paul warned us “Do not be deceived.” How can we heed their warnings if we do not make judgments? Benny Hinn has made numerous false prophecies that are well documented . . . . Joel Osteen has denied the exclusivity of the Gospel on the Larry King Live Show and consistently gives people what they want (psychology) instead of what they need (sound biblical doctrine).
– Mike Gendron
Quotes (618)
But the man Christ can be but in one place, and he is now at the right hand of the Majesty on high. It is absurd, it is horrible, both to faith and to reason, to say that Christ’s body is eaten, and that his blood is drunk in tens of thousands of places wherever priests choose to offer what they call “the mass.” A “Mass” of profanity, indeed, it is!
– Charles Spurgeon
1834 – 1892
And we wonder why the world mocks.
I wonder what the world thinks of Christ, His Gospel, and His Bride when they see videos like this.
It’s not that they’re necessarily teaching heresy, but they sure do make you wonder if Christians are supposed to “entertain.” Is there any instruction or example in the New Testament Church in which Christians are called to entertain people? Whenever Christians try to keep in step with the culture in the venue of entertainment they usually end up looking pretty hokey.
Warning: If you watch this entire video please be aware that it will be five minutes of your life that you’ll never get back. Oh, and the song may get stuck in your head for the rest of the day.
What do Mormons think about Islam?
We’ve already seen what Mormonism has historically taught and believed about Christians (in spite of their current ecumenical, seeker-friendly image presented to the public). But what is the Mormon position on Islam, the religion of the sword? The following quotes may surprise you.
There had been men, doubtless many men in the various ages of the world, who had light and who had a degree of the Spirit of God. I believe myself that Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets—I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land, and in the nations surrounding. George Q. Cannon, 1883, Journal of Discourses, Volume 24 Page 371
The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers . . . received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. . . . Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. In an original letter From the First Presidency, Reference: Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, C. Wilfred Griggs (editor), February 15, 1978, Page 29
Latter-day Saints accept all truth, wherever it may be found, as part of our religion—whether in the Quran or in other good books. David Stewart, 2003, Message of Friendship: Muslims and Latter-day Saints, Page 1
Latter-day Saints recognize Muslims as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father, with whom we can find much common ground. LDS Prophet and Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “we value our Muslim neighbors across the world.” Latter-day Saints respect the strong family values and moral accomplishments of Muslims as well as Islamic contributions to science, literature, history, philosophy, medicine, and the arts. David Stewart, 2003, A Message of Friendship: Muslims and Latter-day Saints, Page 1
Latter-day Saints recognize the terms God and Allah to refer to the same being in different languages. David Stewart, 2003, A Message of Friendship: Muslims and Latter-day Saints, Pages 1-2
Similarities can be found between the “Five Pillars of Islam” and LDS beliefs. David Stewart, 2003, A Message of Friendship: Muslims and Latter-day Saints, Page 2
Muslims strive to perform a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one’s lifetime. The travels of the early Latter-day Saint pioneers are in many ways comparable to those of devout Muslims. The sacrifices made by many LDS families to attend the temple at least once in a lifetime, and much more frequently, if opportunities allow, are in many ways similar to the sacrifices made by Muslim pilgrims to Mecca. David Stewart, 2003, A Message of Friendship: Muslims and Latter-day Saints, Pages 3-4
When one considers who the source of these two false religions is, it’s no wonder that Islam and Mormonism would have many striking similarities.
Sermons not suitable for children?
Just when you thought the hirelings were done with the “sex sermons,” here comes Eagle Pointe Church and their stab at being relevant to the world. In fact, they’re so relevant to the world that their upcoming sermon series is on the topic of sex and comes with the following disclaimer:
We’re kicking off a new teaching series called “God – Love – Sex” – where we’re going to have a very open, honest, and blunt talk about Love, Relationships, Dating, Marriage, & Sex. BTW: Parents – some material may be inappropriate for younger audiences – parental discretion is advised.
Wow. A “sermon” that is not suitable for children. Search the Scriptures as much as you want, you won’t find Jesus or the Apostles having to give a warning that their message may not be suitable for children. But we do find the exact opposite, don’t we?
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matt. 18:6)
I wonder how the Church survived the last 2,000 years without sex sermons. Try as I might, I cannot find this type of nonsense anywhere in Church history.
Seriously guys, it’s time to move onto exploiting some other lust, the sex sermons are so yesterday.
More Charismatic foolishness: God’s Top Gun of deliverance.
HT: A Little Leaven
The 60 Worst Christian T-Shirts Ever.
You’ve seen the shameless marketing of Christianity through Christian sunglasses, you’ve been disgusted with the Christian socks and shoe inserts, and you’ve endured the horrendous attempt to “spread the gospel” via trampy Christian jeans; now I present for your perusal The 60 Worst Christian T-Shirts Ever.
All of these shirts are marketed for professing Christians and gobbled up by professing Christians.
The following 60 Christian t-shirts only scratches the surface. I could have easily reached 100 but why waste any more of your time?
To view the rest, click below.
Me Bibles.
The following quote comes from an article from the More Books and Things blog:
A regular Bible (the living Word) is obviously no longer enough to satisfy our spiritual hunger. We want the pretty one that is relevant to ME! The one that gives us SELF esteem. The cool one that LOOKS the nicest. The one that will help US! The one that entertains US. In a nutshell, we want the ME version, when the whole reason God gave us His Word in the first place was to reveal HIMSELF to us.
It hits nail on the head, doesn’t it?
See related:
Sour fruit of Perry Noble.
An interesting post from the David J. Horn blog:
The love of the world runs deep within the inner workings of NewSpring Church in SC. It’s really disturbing to know that NewSpring Church’s Greenville Campus Children’s Minister Pudge Huckaby openly defends listening to filthy language (See the picture) and justifies it by making it an outreach to hurting people. Where is the discernment from right and wrong? How can such worldly filth be used to reach people when God clearly said in His Word to be separate? 2 Corinthians 6:16-18
Read the entire post here.
See also When The World’s Your Mistress.
When the world’s your mistress.
But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. Jude 1:17-19
For every form of wickedness under the sun there’s always someone out there who will find a way to excuse it and justify it. But it’s downright scandalous when that someone claims to be a brother or sister in Christ. We expect the world to act and behave like they do because it’s their nature as sons and daughters of Adam, but Christians are supposed to have a different nature as children of God.
The church is designed to be in the world like a boat is designed to be in the water. However, the boat is in trouble when the water gets into it as much as the church is in trouble when the world gets into it. Well, like water in a boat, the world has been seeping into the visible church for quite awhile now, and it’s sinking.
If this is not troubling enough, what is even more troubling to behold are those people in the boat (fellow Christians) who are upset at those who are trying to bail the water out of the boat.
I’ve noticed an increasing trend within Christendom of those who not only enjoy the water being in the boat, but are actively engaged in fighting against those who are desperately trying to get the water out of the boat.
There’s a special breed of proud and haughty sin-defenders within the church that’s arisen and they’re getting more vocal (and oftentimes very nasty) in their verbal assaults against anyone who dares to address the sin and worldliness rampant within the church.
Has anyone else noticed how most of the people who disagree with what we say on DefCon are walking lockstep with the seductive mistress known as “the world?” Has anyone else noticed that those who are most ardently opposed to what we do on this blog are those most friendly with the world and all of its lusts?
Do they not realize that their adulteress friendship with the world is evidence that they’re enemies of God?
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. James 4:4
You’ve seen them. They swoop in anytime someone on DefCon (or other blogs for that matter) dares to raise legitimate concerns over the way Christianity is displayed by those who profess to be Christians. Anytime Perry Noble, Mark Driscoll, Gary Lamb, or the likes are exposed, the usual gaggle of professing Christians charge into the blogosphere to attack us in defense of their sacred idols.
But their crusades don’t end with their defense of Noble, Lamb, and Driscoll; they also defend whatever is lowbrow, juvenile, culturally hip, culturally cool, and culturally relevant, no matter how antithetical to Christianity these passing fads are.
When anyone speaks of holiness, turning from sin, and untangling oneself from the world (as the Bible so clearly teaches) these soldiers of pragmatism are found front and center with swords drawn to advance their jihad of carnal Christianity via the sly spreading of seeds of doubt (did God really say that?), their endless word games, and their vitriolic attacks that are so condescending, and so vicious that they make attacks from Atheists look mild in comparison.
If you take the time to check out the blogs and websites of those professing Christians who most vehemently oppose us you’ll notice that almost every single one of them reveals their veiled hostility toward God and the fact that “the love of the Father is not in them” by virtue of their love of the world. This is not my standard of judgment, but God’s.
Do not love the world nor the things in the world If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 1 John 2:15-16
What part of “do not love the world” do they not understand?
They set filthy shows and blasphemous movies before their eyes. They set God-dishonoring music before their ears. And instead of these being secret sins, they not only have the audacity to boast about their ways, but they even encourage others to defile themselves with these fleshly lusts as well. And they’re even so proud of their mingling with the world that they wear their affairs with their mistress like badges of honor.
They talk like the world, they walk like the world, they dress like the world, and they act like the world, and yet we’re supposedly the crazy one’s if we assume they’re still part of the world. In spite of all their outward expressions and actions, we’re supposed to believe they’re not actually of this world merely because they have Jesus on their lips. Essentially they’re telling us to listen to their words and pay no attention to their actions. But even their words betray them!
John MacArthur hit the nail on the head when he said:
Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.
So what exactly is the kind of stuff these Christians who are in love with the world defending? It’s what you’ll see if you walk into the average church in America in the 21st century. Brace yourself:
– Elvis impersonator-led worship singing.
– The Cotton Patch Gospel.
– “God” wants you to party and mess you up.
– Pastor Perry Noble having a beer drinking song played by the “worship” band before their “worship” service.
– Pastor Perry Noble having the “worship” band play AC/DC’s Hell’s Bells for their Easter service.
– Dancing to Michael Jackson’s Thriller in church.
– Pastor Mark Driscoll’s mockery Jesus Christ on his t-shirt.
– Pastor Mark Driscoll’s profane and blasphemous speech from the pulpit mocking our Lord.
– Using regurgitation to give a “testimony.”
– Girls dancing to NSync in church under an illuminated cross.
– Rudeness and vulgarity during church announcements.
– Pastor Ed Young’s 7-day sex challenge.
– Pastor Paul Wirth’s 30-day sex challenge.
– Double entendres with the “Christian” book Going All the Way.
– The mockery of the ordinance of baptism by churches.
– Singing a worldly 80’s song as a worship song while swinging your socks in the air.
– Pastor Ed Young acting like he’s on MTV.
– The gospel according to Bruce Springsteen.
– The gospel according to The Beatles.
– Ultimate “Christian” wrestling.
– “Christian” man retreats.
– “Christianity” is all about music.
– “Christianity” is about Potty humor.
– The American church’s insatiable appetite for sex in their sermons and advertising.
– All manner of church advertising and gimmicks.
– Likening the Christianity to drug induced wickedness.
– A video aimed at youth involving injured clowns and evil chickens.
– A church for those who like hot rods.
– Las Vegas-style church and “Christian” gambling paraphernalia.
– Church poker games.
And these are just the tip of the iceberg amongst the myriad of other examples that leaves most people unable to tell the difference between the “church” and the world.
Sadly not only is this worldly entanglement rampant among those professing to be Christians, as I said before, it’s actually encouraged! See examples 2, 39, and 93 in the post who’s pastoring our youth pastors?.
Righteousness, sanctification, and holiness are now taboo words with many who want their “Jesus” icing on top of their worldly cake. They want to keep one foot in the world and one foot in the church and they come unglued when anyone suggests that this is possibly evidence of a false conversion.
But this all begs the question: When the world looks at the “church” aren’t they supposed to see a difference between them and the church, and not feel as if they’re just looking into a mirror?
This reminds me of the old bumper sticker that reads: “If you’re a Christian then act like one.” I couldn’t agree more.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. James 1:27
So with all of this in mind, I put forward this question: If Christianity became illegal in this country, and you were arrested and charged with being a Christian, would there actually be enough evidence to convict you?
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age . . . Titus 2:11-12
Introducing A.C.E.
We are unveiling a new feature on DefCon: Answering Common Errors.
This will be a quick reference apologetics page that answers many of the falsehoods and errors levied against the Christian faith.
It features a common error with a link to a previous DefCon post with the answer.
New entries will be added regularly so check back often. If you know of any past posts featured on DefCon that you think should be included in this list, let us know.
You can check out the new A.C.E. page by clicking here, or access it later from the tab above the header of the DefCon blog between About Us and Rules of Engagement.
Christ Alone Wyoming 