Friday, January 31, 2014

A Letter to Harry Knox

First of all, there is no such thing as "homophobia." That is a term concocted by homosexuals in order to try and make those who disagree with their choice feel shame. It is an emotional manipulation tactic, like calling someone a "rat" because they do the right thing by pointing out the wrong that someone else has done. A phobia is an illogical and irrational fear of something. Nobody jumps up on a chair when a homosexual enters into a room and shrieks, "Eek! A homosexual!"

Second of all, homosexuals choose to be marginalized, ostracized, and ridiculed by society in the exact the same way that rapists, murderers, and child molesters choose to be marginalized, ostracized, and ridiculed by society. It may be inadvertently, but they still choose it. You can choose to be offended when homosexuality is likened to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia, however, it is a false sense of offense. Homosexuality is like pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. It is an unnatural sexual perversion, whether you like it or not.

Third of all, there is no scientific evidence that people are born homosexual. Homosexuals cite rare cases where, (1) with identical twins, both are homosexual, (2) with identical triplets, all are homosexual, or (3) with identical triplets where one is female and the other two are male (or vice versa), either all are homosexual or just the two of the same gender. This so-called "evidence" is called Stacking the Deck. They cherry-pick their cases in order to try and manipulate the data. In other words, they lie through their teeth, which is not surprising in the least given their character. If we examine the cases correctly and honestly, we will find cases where, (1) with identical twins, only one is homosexual while the other is not, (2) with identical triplets, only one is homosexual while the other two are not, or (3) with identical triplets where one is female and the other two are male (or vice versa), only one of the three is homosexual while the others are not, or one of the two with the same gender is homosexual while the other is not. They all share the same genes, the same DNA, yet the results are completely different. Why? Because nobody is born homosexual; they choose to be homosexual. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that lends any credibility to a proposed and supposed "gay gene." It does not exist!

Fourth of all, the Bible, nature, science, biology, conscience, logic, and common sense all inform us that homosexuality is wrong. It is a perversion of both human and sexual nature. I can love my dog with the greatest love in the world; it doesn't mean I have a relationship with my dog and sleep with my dog. For the record, homosexuality is not seen in nature. When you see another dog mount another dog, he is not penetrating him. He does the same thing he would do if he mounted your leg. Furthermore, even if we did see homosexual tendencies in nature, we, as human beings, do not get our morality from what animals do or do not.

Fifth of all, your false sense of offense at the fact you cannot procreate does not change the facts whatsoever. Regardless of the obstacles that prevent opposite-sex couples from having children, or regardless of their age, the fact is that they can have children together. Homosexuals can never and will never have children together. If you throw all the homosexual men on one island and all the homosexual women on another, they will die out in their own generation without having produced any subsequent progeny. The Genesis account is God's standard for all human beings and relationships. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31). Jesus re-iterated this, as did Paul, bringing their hearers/readers back to the beginning, and upholding God's standard for all human beings and relationships. You might take note of the fact that Paul said "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). On every page of the Bible, it re-affirms God's standard and upholds heterosexuality. There are not only the 9 negative prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, but there are thousands of positive affirmations for heterosexuality that, by necessity, prohibit homosexuality, as well. If I love babies, then by necessity I must be against abortion.

Sixth of all, homosexuals are not "oppressed" nor have they had any of their rights stolen from them. Comparing homosexuality to slavery is a false comparison. Homosexuality is not an ethnic minority. Homosexuals have never been bought and sold in America; they have never been denied the right to vote; there are no and have never been gay and straight classrooms; there are no and have never been gay and straight drinking fountains; and they have always had the right to hold property and participate in the political process. Homosexuals have always had the same rights all Americans have had. The same sure cannot be said about African-Americans. The only right they are trying to claim, which is a right that does not belong to them, is the right to marry, which is only permissible between a man and a woman. The reason your mother was able to get your father's pension (or whatever it was) is because that is what women deserve for staying at home with the children and raising them, taking care of the home. You're just trying to abuse the system by manipulating it for your own gain. If you want to talk about who is being oppressed by whom, I suggest you look at the fact that a less than 2% world population of professing homosexuals is telling the other 98% of the world's population what they can and cannot think, believe, and/or do.

Seventh of all, marriage is a divine institution and its parameters were defined very clearly by God Almighty when He created man and woman: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31), "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, man cannot separate" (Matt. 19:6). This is the only acceptable form of sexuality and the only acceptable expression of sexuality. The family has been given certain roles; the husband is the head of the home, the wife is to be subject to him, and children are to obey their father and mother. You cannot achieve this "hierarchy" (if you want to call it that) with homosexuals who have adopted children immorally. Essentially, they struggle for the same role. However, what we tend to see is one of them trying to act the part of the other role, demonstrating, yet again, how every couple needs one man and one woman to be complete. Even their sexual acts prove they need one man and one woman.

Eighth of all, the Bible has not been re-interpreted in regard to slavery and women. Comparing the slavery that took place in England and the USA to that of the Bible reveals a sheer canyon of ignorance. In the Old Testament, we find that dignity was afforded to slaves (unlike what would have happened in surrounding nations, which could be likened to England and the USA). When we get to the New Testament, slavery is never said to be wrong. In fact, Paul tells Christian slaves and masters how they need to treat and respond to each other. If it was in fact wrong, it would have been stated as such. For more information in regard to the issue of slavery, see For more information in regard to women's roles within the church, see, because women are not allowed to be pastors. The church, like family, has been given certain roles to be followed, not because one is better than the other but because that is how God ordained it to be. If you have issues with how God ordained it, then you need to take that up with Him.

Ninth of all, you keep saying, "If we look at it in context" and "If we keep it in context" regarding Leviticus 18 and 20, yet you fail to do precisely this. If you want to see the exact context of Leviticus 18 and 20, I suggest you educate yourself and read Your interpretations of the passages that prohibit homosexuality say nothing of what you are trying to manipulate them and malign them into saying. There is nothing about war (or this imaginary concept that in war they used to humiliate their opponents by doing these things to them) in the context of Genesis 19. Your reading this into it is called eisegesis. There is also no pederasty in view in Romans 1:26-27. The Hebrew and Greek languages had words for men and boys, and the words they use in all of these passages do not suggest pederasty. Furthermore, homosexuality is the act of any same-sex engagement; it does not matter whether it is rape, idolatrous practices, pederasty, or so-called "loving, faithful, monogamous" relationships, homosexuality is homosexuality and it is all condemned. The fact that Romans 1:26-27 is not talking about pederasty is prevalent in Paul's condemnation of women with women. Men with younger men was a known fact historically, but women with younger women was never an issue. That kind of thing never took place until recently in modern day where homosexual women go after younger women to build their ranks (the same way homosexual men go after younger men to build their ranks). They attempt to confuse the younger generation by manipulating them and drawing them into their "lifestyle."

Tenth of all, you claim that you "know manipulation when you hear it," yet you fail to hear your own manipulation and lies coming out of your mouth through your teeth. Your arguments utilize faulty logic and appeal to the emotions. Why? Because you know if you attempted to engage people intellectually that you would lose. Like the Charismatic cults who emotionally manipulate their congregations for their own gain, homosexuals do the same thing. They try to make people feel sorry for them and to support them. Sorry, but the only way I feel sorry for homosexuals is because they choose to embrace their sin and try to justify it while heading to hell on a greased pole. I feel sorry that they are so self-deceived.

Eleventh of all, there is no such thing as a "loving, faithful, monogamous" homosexual couple. Even if there were, it is less than 1% of all homosexuals (because homosexuals are well-known for their many and fleeting "romances," including their orgies and such) and it would still be wrong. There are many books out there written by people who were raised by one or more homosexual parents as well as by ex-homosexuals that take a stand against homosexuality and expose it for what it really is. One such book that exposes what homosexual parenting is like is called Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting by Dawn Stefanowicz.

Twelfth of all, disagreeing with homosexuals and telling them they are wrong and what they are doing is a perversion is not a "hate crime." Someone attacking a homosexual and inciting someone that said it was wrong does not make what that person said a "hate crime" either. The person who did the attacking owns the responsibility for the crime. Homosexuals do not want to send a "clear message" in regard to "hate crimes;" they want to be a special class of citizen untouchable by anyone else and unaccountable for their own actions. If a homosexual attacks and brutally beats someone for disagreeing and saying homosexuality is wrong, nothing happens to him; he is not charged for his crime. But if the person being attacked swings once in self-defense, that person will be charged to the full extent and put in jail. You talk about justice and yet you know nothing of justice. You talk about honesty and yet you are blatantly dishonest. You lie through your teeth like every other homosexual and you attempt to manipulate everything around you: people, your situation, the system, etc. If you want to see who is really guilty of hate crimes, look no further than the homosexual community. If you want to see the facts about homosexuality, I suggest you read,, and

Thirteenth of all, if you want to talk about suppression, I suggest you look to yourself. You ridicule ex-gays and claim there is evidence that they are suppressing who they are, unwilling to take their testimony seriously. Sorry, but it is you who is doing the suppression; you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Furthermore, your turning to Romans 2 and claiming we should not judge is taken out of context. Try reading the entire New Testament some time and you'll see that Christians are to judge. 1 Corinthians 5, in point of fact, Paul says he has already judged the person. The Greek word used here is krino, which means to condemn in a legal sense. Romans 2 follows hot on the heels of Romans 1:28-32. In context, he is saying those who do the same things are not to judge. Try reading its words some time. Romans 1:32 and Romans 2 do not refer back to Romans 1:26-27 because in judging homosexuality we sure as heck do not do the same thing! Learn correct exegesis and what it means to actually keep something in context. The fact you ignore and suppress the vast numbers of homosexuals who openly admit that the passages in the Bible do indeed condemn homosexuality demonstrates just how dishonest you really are.

Fourteenth of all, Christians are to obey, from a loving heart, all the commands found in the New Testament, including those repeated from the Old Testament. In case you never noticed, 9 of the 10 commandments were repeated in the New Testament. The prohibition against homosexuality was also repeated in the New Testament. However, it was accompanied by change, as were many other commands from the Law. These changes were built on love and grace. What were these changes? In the Old Testament, you were to stone anyone caught in adultery. In the New Testament, what changes do we see in regard to this Law? Jesus challenges the crowd that the person without sin may cast the first stone. Why? Because dead people cannot repent. Jesus knows there is a lot at stake. What does He say to her afterward? "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). The only other place where Jesus says this, He attaches something terrifying and profound: "sin no more, so that nothing worse may happen to you" (John 5:14). What could be worse than being stoned in this life? Being separated from the presence of God for eternity. We don't stone disobedient children any more because they would have no opportunity to repent. Likewise, we don't stone homosexuals any more because they, too, would have no opportunity to repent.

Last of all, you are not a Christian. It is a contradiction of terms and is impossible to be a gay "Christian." You might try reading Matthew 7:21-23, because that is the category you, and other professing homosexual "Christians," fit into. The Bible says that we must renounce all sin and rid ourselves of it. Yet you, and those like you, want to continually dwell in your sin and seek justification for your sin. You may claim you have peace about it, and falsely attribute that so-called peace to the Holy Spirit, but have you never read where the Bible informs us that "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9)? What you and Mike do is not called love. Have you never read where the Bible informs us that "Love...does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor. 13:4-8a)? It is not love to encourage someone to do what is biblically, morally, naturally, scientifically, physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually wrong. Homosexuality is a perversion of both human and sexual natures, whether you want to admit it or not and whether you like it or not. Jonathan and David were not homosexual, nor were they bi-sexual. They were two friends who had a great love for each other, and many people have that today. It does not equal sexual attraction or sexual union. It is sad you have to manipulate the text and disregard it in order to try and affirm your sinful behaviour. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I love murderers, but I hate their murderous actions; I love rapists, but I hate their raping actions; I love child molesters, but hate their molesting actions; I love homosexuals, but I hate their homosexual actions. Homosexuality is not innate nor is it immutable. A person is not born homosexual, they become homosexual after committing homosexuality, in the same way a person becomes a murderer after they murder and a person becomes a rapist after they rape and a person becomes a child molester or pedophile after they molest a child. The same illogical arguments used to garner support for homosexuality are being used to garner support for every other sexually deviant perversion as well. Pedophiles are using the same homosexual arguments to try and claim they can't help the way they are:

For a thorough and sound refutation of the arguments presented by a professing gay "Christian," see this article:

Thursday, January 30, 2014

God Could Never Forgive Me

"You don't know the wicked things I've done. God could never forgive someone like me."

In the Bible, the most wicked king in Judah's history was Manasseh. It says that he was so wicked that he shed enough blood that it filled Jerusalem with the blood of the innocent up to bridals of the horses. In other words, this is a vivid picture to inform us that there was a blood bath. Let us see what the Bible has to say about this:
2 Kings 21:1-18
1Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Hephzibah. 2And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel. 3For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. 4And he built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, "In Jerusalem I will put My name." 5For he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6And he made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking [Him to anger.] 7Then he set the carved image of Asherah that he had made, in the house of which the LORD said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever. 8"And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them." 9But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced them to do evil more than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel.
10Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, 11"Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who [were] before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; 12therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing [such] calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears shall tingle. 13'And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14'And I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they shall become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; 15because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger, since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" 16Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD. 17Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did and his sin which he committed, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 18And Manasseh slept with his fathers and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza, and Amon his son became king in his place.

2 Chronicles 33:1-20
1Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. 2And he did evil in the sight of the LORD according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel. 3For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he also erected altars for the Baals and made Asherim, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. 4And he built altars in the house of the LORD of which the LORD had said, "My name shall be in Jerusalem forever." 5For he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6And he made his sons pass through the fire in the valley of Ben-hinnom; and he practiced witchcraft, used divination, practiced sorcery, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him [to anger.] 7Then he put the carved image of the idol which he had made in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, "In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever; 8and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers, if only they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to all the law, the statutes, and the ordinances [given] through Moses." 9Thus Manasseh misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. 10And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they paid no attention.
11Therefore the LORD brought the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze [chains,] and took him to Babylon. 12And when he was in distress, he entreated the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. 13When he prayed to Him, He was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD [was] God. 14Now after this he built the outer wall of the city of David on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entrance of the Fish Gate; and he encircled the Ophel [with it] and made it very high. Then he put army commanders in all the fortified cities of Judah. 15He also removed the foreign gods and the idol from the house of the LORD, as well as all the altars which he had built on the mountain of the house of the LORD and in Jerusalem, and he threw [them] outside the city. 16And he set up the altar of the LORD and sacrificed peace offerings and thank offerings on it; and he ordered Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel. 17Nevertheless the people still sacrificed in the high places, [although] only to the LORD their God. 18Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh even his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the LORD God of Israel, behold, they are among the records of the kings of Israel. 19His prayer also and [how God] was entreated by him, and all his sin, his unfaithfulness, and the sites on which he built high places and erected the Asherim and the carved images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the records of the Hozai. 20So Manasseh slept with his fathers, and they buried him in his own house. And Amon his son became king in his place.
You see, you may have done many wicked things in your life, but God is able to forgive you if you humble yourself before Him like Naaman. Let us look at what the Bible has to say about this:
2 Kings 5:1-27
1Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the LORD had given victory to Aram. The man was also a valiant warrior, [but he was] a leper. 2Now the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had taken captive a little girl from the land of Israel; and she waited on Naaman's wife. 3And she said to her mistress, "I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy." 4And Naaman went in and told his master, saying, "Thus and thus spoke the girl who is from the land of Israel." 5Then the king of Aram said, "Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel." And he departed and took with him ten talents of silver and six thousand [shekels] of gold and ten changes of clothes. 6And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, "And now as this letter comes to you, behold, I have sent Naaman my servant to you, that you may cure him of his leprosy." 7And it came about when the king of Israel read the letter, that he tore his clothes and said, "Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man is sending [word] to me to cure a man of his leprosy? But consider now, and see how he is seeking a quarrel against me." 8And it happened when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, that he sent [word] to the king, saying, "Why have you torn your clothes? Now let him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel."
9So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots, and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha. 10And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you and [you shall] be clean." 11But Naaman was furious and went away and said, "Behold, I thought, 'He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper.' 12"Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, "My father, had the prophet told you [to do some] great thing, would you not have done [it]? How much more [then,] when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?" 14So he went down and dipped [himself] seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
15When he returned to the man of God with all his company, and came and stood before him, he said, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; so please take a present from your servant now." 16But he said, "As the LORD lives, before whom I stand, I will take nothing." And he urged him to take [it,] but he refused. 17And Naaman said, "If not, please let your servant at least be given two mules' load of earth; for your servant will no more offer burnt offering nor will he sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD. 18"In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter." 19And he said to him, "Go in peace." So he departed from him some distance.
20But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, thought, "Behold, my master has spared this Naaman the Aramean, by not receiving from his hands what he brought. As the LORD lives, I will run after him and take something from him." 21So Gehazi pursued Naaman. When Naaman saw one running after him, he came down from the chariot to meet him and said, "Is all well?" 22And he said, "All is well. My master has sent me, saying, 'Behold, just now two young men of the sons of the prophets have come to me from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothes.'" 23And Naaman said, "Be pleased to take two talents." And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags with two changes of clothes, and gave them to two of his servants; and they carried [them] before him. 24When he came to the hill, he took them from their hand and deposited them in the house, and he sent the men away, and they departed. 25But he went in and stood before his master. And Elisha said to him, "Where have you been, Gehazi?" And he said, "Your servant went nowhere." 26Then he said to him, "Did not my heart go [with you,] when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to receive money and to receive clothes and olive groves and vineyards and sheep and oxen and male and female servants? 27"Therefore, the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your descendants forever." So he went out from his presence a leper [as white] as snow.
You need to repent, to change your mind, and agree with God in regard to what He says about you. You need to stop doing the wicked things that you have been doing and trust Jesus to help you to change, to be transformed. "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5; cf. Ps. 138:6; Prov. 3:34; Matt. 23:12). As long as you continue trying to justify yourself and your sins, God will resist you and be opposed to you. But as soon as you humble yourself and agree with what He says about you and your lifestyle, then God will forgive you and save and adopt you as His child. This is good news, that even the most hardened, most wicked among us is able to be forgiven of their sins and made righteous before God. Why? How? Because Jesus took your sin upon Himself when He was crucified and died on the cross at Calvary. Then He rose again three days later, demonstrating that He defeated sin, death, and the grave. Today is the day of salvation. Do not put it off only to find out that it is too late.

Monday, January 20, 2014

The Requirement for Going to Heaven

If a person does not have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus, they will spend a conscious eternity in the Lake of Fire, which is away from the presence of God. There are not a lot of religions in the world; there are merely many names for religion, but they all fall into the same category. Every religion except biblical Christianity teaches that you can be saved by your own merit, by being good or doing certain rituals. The Bible says that no one can be right in God's eyes by doing good works (Rom. 3:20), and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). We must realize that the biblical standard to get into heaven is that you must be perfect. Totally sinless; or righteous, as the Bible calls it.

This is why both you and I need Christ Jesus. We all do. While Jesus was on this Earth, He lived a totally perfect life. He never sinned because He was God. He died for us on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and rose on the third day, and God allowed Christ back into heaven. Why? It was not because He was a good guy, but that He met the requirement of being perfect. Jesus is righteous and only the righteous will inherit heaven. If God did not lower His standard for even His Son, what makes you think He will do so for us? Millions of people walk around and they think they will get into heaven by leading what they think is a good life, and they are in for a big shock because it is not enough. God has a standard of absolute perfection, and because only Jesus is perfect it is only when we commit and receive Him as our Lord and believe what He did for us on the cross that cleanses us from all our sins. That is why He deserves all the credit, and that is why you and I both need Christ Jesus.

Our eternity depends on what we do with Christ Jesus. If we reject Him, then He will reject us; but if we humbly receive Him, then we will live with Him in heaven for eternity.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014


In the 1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language, the word "dinosaur" does not exist. Why? Because the word was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. So what were the bones and fossils of these creatures called prior to the creation of the word "dinosaur," considering the first dinosaur bone ever discovered was in 1676 (some sources say 1685)?

Interestingly enough, ancient people from all over the world spoke about unusual, reptile-like creatures (large and small) that once roamed the Earth. The people from Europe called them "dragons," and their descriptions sounded awfully familiar to what we know today as "dinosaurs." Dragon pictures are found in Africa, India, Europe, the Middle East, the Orient, and every other part of the world. Dinosaur-like animals have been drawn and written about since the beginning of recorded history.

Scientists agree that legends are almost always based on facts—not just imagination. We have recorded accounts from historians and the like who described, in their travels, creatures they called "dragons." Alexander the Great talked about a giant lizard that frightened his army. Marco Polo recorded having seen dragons when he was in China. Herodotus heard rumours of winged creatures and, showing the mettle of a true historian, went to check it out for himself and recorded it in his work. Flavius Josephus writes about dragons. Many historians recorded these facts but modern humans brush it aside as fables (because of modern sensationalism attached to it). These respectable historians have wrote in their books, "This is what I have seen; this is what I have witnessed." The descriptions in their records sound just like dinosaurs, yet were clearly labeled as "dragons." The words of these reliable historians should be taken at face value. What reason would they have to lie? Why would they make it up? What would it benefit them?

Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before man walked the Earth. However, think of the world's legends regarding dragons. Dragons are drawn on cave walls; written about in ancient literature (including scientific literature); and described in the Bible. There are dinosaur fossils that have been discovered along with human footprints and remains that add proof to the ancient people's history of dragons.

In the 1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language, it describes the word "dragon" thus:
A kind of winged serpent, much celebrated in the romances of the middle ages. Johnson.

A genus of animals, the Draco. They have four legs, a cylindrical tail, and membranaceous wings, radiated like the fins of a flying-fish. Encyc.
Even in 1828 we see the ignorance of mankind due to his forgetting of the past and things once known fading out of memory into myth or legend. It demonstrates how our worldview merely consists of the knowledge available to us at that moment. For example: A child is born to elderly parents. In his worldview, all children have elderly parents. Then one day he meets some children whose parents are very young. All of a sudden his worldview must expand to include this new information. Adults are no different. We think we know a thing but all of the evidence may not be available to us. That is definitely the case regarding the falsified over-exposed information regarding evolution. Over time, information once known can be lost. Noah Webster's definition of the word "dragon" demonstrates this amply because in 1840, one year before the word "dinosaur" was coined, there was a book written by Thomas Hawkins called The Book of the Great Sea Dragons. It talked about "dinosaurs," such as the Plesiosaurus, yet called them "dragons." Below is its table of contents:

Clearly, this information was not available to Noah Webster at the time or else his dictionary might have included definitions in-line with the scientific talk from England. In his time, people were already starting to look at the ancient history of dragons as mere "romanticism." Modern-day depictions of so-called "dragons," like that of modern-day depictions of so-called "unicorns," cannot be used to determine what these creatures truly were. Definitions change. Information is lost. We must know what these words meant to the people of the time before we can attempt to apply our modern understanding to them.

The English language contains amelioration and pejoration. Amelioration is words that used to have a negative meaning that now how a positive one, such as the word "brave." Pejoration is words that used to have a positive meaning that now have a negative one, such as the word "silly." If we pick up an ancient book and read it with our modern understanding of what these words mean today, what are we going to gather from that reading? Our information is going to be skewed. We need to know what certain words meant to the people using them at the time. We cannot use our modern understanding and then conclude they must have been off their rocker. How are 21st century children and beyond going to understand early to mid 20th century usage of the words "gay" and "queer"? Understand?

In 1865, twenty-four years after the word "dinosaur" was coined, Lady Emily Tennyson wrote:
July 23rd [1865]
Farringford. Professor Owen arrived. A[lfred] went with him to Brightstone. They spread out their luncheon on Mr. Foxe's lawn and looked at the great dragon (a Saurian reptile dug up at Brooke) which was new to the Professor, and which quite answered his expectations. He never saw one so sheathed in armour, and thought of calling it Euacanthus Vectanius.
Lady Emily Tennyson, wife of Lord Alfred Tennyson
In a letter written to Sir Richard Owen, William Foxe wrote:
"I cannot leave this place while I have any money left to live on, I take such deep [sic] in hunting for old dragons."
Foxe did not move to the Isle of Wight until 1862. He died 19 years later. The earliest his correspondence with Sir Richard Owen could have taken place was 1862. He used the scientific name "dragon" 20-some years after the term "dinosaur" had already been coined.

After the flood, often referred to as Noah's flood, the Earth's climate changed. There was no longer a greenhouse effect, which enabled reptiles to live longer. Also, the ice age came, and since reptiles are cold-blooded creatures that need warm temperatures, many died off. In addition to climate changes reducing the population of dinosaurs, people hunted those that remained because of the menacing behaviour of the large creatures. Even not-so-large dinosaurs were menacing and were hunted.
'dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllyn in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllyn Castle. As Marie Trevelyan tells us: 'The woods around Penllyn Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyn, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful... He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and culverts".'
"After the Flood", Bill Cooper
There is plenty more scientific and historical literature out there wherein, referring to what we know today as "dinosaurs," they call these creatures "dragons." Dinosaurs and dragons are the exact same creature. The historical and archaeological evidence demonstrates that man and dragons/dinosaurs have always lived together. Do not believe the force-fed evolutionary nonsense over-broadcasted. Do your own research, looking honestly at all the data—including that which evolutionists do not want you to know.

If you take an Iguana and place it in a warm, moist climate with plenty of food, allowing it to grow to a few tons, the result will be a dinosaur.

Here is a bit of information you were probably never told. Scientists are broken into three main groups: Creationists, Intelligent Designists, and Evolutionists. Evolutionists are in the minority; they make the most noise, publishing and broadcasting their erroneous and falsified information heavily (repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough...), but they are still the minority. Most scientists following where their research leads them believe in intelligent design, but do not necessarily believe in a god or the God of the Bible. These scientists are at least honest with their research. If you want to learn more about the two groups working to destroy the pseudoscience of evolution, pick up The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Illogical Homosexual Arguments

I am getting extremely fed up with having to answer the silly and illogical foolish arguments of homosexuals and homosexual proponents. These people fail to think before they open their mouths and spew their mindless ignorance.
Argument #1: Segregation
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that homosexuals did not and would not choose to be marginalized, ostracized, ridiculed, and "hated" by society. That is the exact argument they attempt to stump people with. Inadvertently, yes, you did choose to be marginalized, ostracized, and ridiculed by society, in the exact same way that a pedophile, rapist, murderer, etc., chose to be marginalized, ostracized, and ridiculed by society, because you chose to revel in your sin. Are you going to attempt to argue that pedophiles, rapists, and murderers are born that way and cannot help themselves? That they cannot change or choose otherwise? The same illogical argument must be applied to them as well. Did pedophiles, rapists, and murderers choose to be marginalized, ostracized, and ridiculed by society? Inadvertently, yes. Sorry, but homosexuality is not innate nor is it immutable. It is a choice, as hundreds of ex-homosexuals who have repented and come to Christ will testify to.

Argument #2: Science
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue for so-called "scientific" evidence that homosexuals are born that way by citing rare cases where, (1) with identical twins, both are homosexual, (2) with identical triplets, all are homosexual, or (3) with identical triplets where one is female and the other two are male (or vice versa), either all are homosexual or just the two of the same gender. This so-called "evidence" is called Stacking the Deck. They cherry-pick their cases in order to try and manipulate the data. In other words, they lie through their teeth, which is not surprising in the least given their character. If we examine the cases correctly and honestly, we will find cases where, (1) with identical twins, only one is homosexual while the other is not, (2) with identical triplets, only one is homosexual while the other two are not, or (3) with identical triplets where one is female and the other two are male (or vice versa), only one of the three is homosexual while the others are not, or one of the two with the same gender is homosexual while the other is not. They all share the same genes, the same DNA, yet the results are completely different. Why? Because nobody is born homosexual; they choose to be homosexual. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that lends any credibility to a proposed and supposed "gay gene." It does not exist!

Argument #3: Nature
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that we see homosexuality in nature, but that is not the case. When a male dog mounts another male dog, there is no penetration. It is like when a male dog mounts your leg. He is not penetrating your leg, is he? No, of course he is not! Even if we did see acts of homosexuality in nature, we do not get our morality from animals. Otherwise, if homosexuals and homosexual proponents are going to try and justify homosexuality based on the morality of animals, then we need to change our laws to allow polygamy and incestuous marriages (brother and sister, son and mother, daughter and father, niece and uncle, nephew and aunt, grandson and grandmother, granddaughter and grandfather—ALL who are of consenting age). Let us face it, if a female dog has puppies, when those puppies reach a certain age, not only will the male and female puppies have sex with each other, but the male puppies with have sex with their mother and the father with have sex with the female puppies. So if we are going to allow homosexuality based on this ignorant argument, then we should also allow polygamy and incestuous marriage for the same reason.

Argument #4: Comparison to Slavery
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue and compare homosexuals to slaves, claiming that they have had rights stolen from them. Homosexuals have never had any rights stolen from them. Comparing homosexuality to slavery is a false comparison. Homosexuality is not an ethnic minority. Homosexuals have never been bought and sold in America; they have never been denied the right to vote; there are no and have never been gay and straight classrooms; there are no and have never been gay and straight drinking fountains; and they have always had the right to hold property and participate in the political process. Homosexuals have always had the same rights all Americans have had. The same sure cannot be said about African-Americans. The only right they are trying to claim, which is a right that does not belong to them, is the right to marry, which is only permissible between a man and a woman. Marriage is a divine institution and its parameters were defined very clearly by God Almighty when He created man and woman: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31), "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, man cannot separate" (Matt. 19:6). This is the only acceptable form of sexuality and the only acceptable expression of sexuality.

Argument #5: "Consenting Adults"
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue acceptance of homosexuality based on the "consenting adults" argument. By logical conclusion of this argument, that means it is perfectly okay for a brother and a sister to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for a father and daughter to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for a mother and son to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for an uncle and niece to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for an aunt and a nephew to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for a grandfather and a granddaughter to hook up; that means it is perfectly okay for a grandmother and grandson to hook up; and that means it is perfectly okay for near cousins to hook up. In fact, it also means it is perfectly okay for the queer variations of these scenarios to hook up as well. All of these were condemned alongside homosexuality in the Bible (Lev. 18 and 20; 1 Cor. 5), yet their ridiculous, illogical, and asinine argument says all of these scenarios should be allowed because, after all, they are "consenting adults." Likewise, polygamy should be allowed because they are all "consenting adults."

Argument #6: Progeny
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to use inabilities for heterosexual couples to have children as support for homosexuality. The fact remains, if a heterosexual couple did not have the obstacles in their way that prevent them from having children—regardless of their age, the fact is that they could have children together. However, homosexual couples can never and will never have children together. Period! They have to rely on sperm donors and surrogates because of the impossibility for them to produce anything on their own, which only demonstrates to prove that it takes one man and one woman in order to create life. It will never happen with two men or two women. Heterosexual couples having to rely on sperm donors or surrogates offers no support for homosexuality; they are doing what is naturally required: one man and one woman. I will repeat once more for those hard of paying attention: remove the obstacles that prevent heterosexuals from being able to conceive and they could have children together; however, homosexuals have no such obstacles. The only obstacle in the way of homosexuals being able to reproduce is each other; replace it with the correct counterpart and they will have no issue conceiving because God designed it to require one man and one woman.

Argument #7: Interpretations of the Church
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that the church was wrong about "interracial" marriage and that they had to reinterpret Bible passages. First of all, the Bible has never contained any such verses to prohibit "interracial" marriage, so it is a blatant lie to claim reinterpretation of verses that do not exist. Second of all, the church was never wrong because you cannot be wrong about something that never existed in the first place. Certain individuals and/or denominations might have taught such things, derived from erroneously misinterpreted passages, but it is a false statement to claim the entire universal church taught such things. Finally, the verses often quoted and misapplied are commandments to Israel not to marry the people from the surrounding nations. This had nothing to do with "interracial" marriage. It had to do with spiritual purity. As God's chosen people, the reason Israel was commanded not to marry people from the surrounding nations is the same reason why Christians are commanded not to marry unbelievers. This argument, like their argument regarding slavery and women preachers, is an argument based on willful ignorance.

Argument #8: Ancient Terminology
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that the term "homosexual" as we understand it did not exist in ancient times. To say that the term "homosexuality" did not exist in ancient times is a stunningly irrelevant point, even if, for argument's sake, we grant that the word did not exist. So what if Hebrew had no word that precisely parallels our word "homosexuality"? When other words combine to describe (and condemn) homosexual acts, the presence or absence of any particular word is moot. Their argument here is a deceptive piece of psycholinguistic sleight-of-hand. Only a mentally blind partisan with an ax to grind could fail to find homosexual behavior in words as plain as those found in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27. A description is exactly the same as a precise word. Anyone who denies this denies the reality of any language.

Argument #9: Intolerance and "Hate Speech"
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to accuse Christians of being intolerant. What is tolerance? Tolerance is the right to disagree with another person and tell them they are wrong while allowing them to do what they choose to do. Christians are not allowed to disagree with homosexuals; they are not allowed to hold their own "opinion." So who are the intolerant ones? Homosexuals! Furthermore, Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to accuse Christians of "hate speech" merely for disagreeing with them and telling them that what they are doing is wrong. How is that "hate speech"? When a Christian disagrees with homosexuality, the homosexual community, and those who support them, start attacking and threatening the Christian who disagreed with homosexuality. So who is guilty of hate speech? The intolerant homosexuals! It would be nice if people would start using their God-given brain to spot illogical inconsistencies like these, but unfortunately most people do not know how to think for themselves, let alone how to think period. They allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated by the lies of homosexuals. Common sense really is not very common these days.

Argument #10: "Orientation" (read Disorientation)
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that they cannot change their sexual "orientation." Orientation is "the relative physical position or direction of something." In other words, orientation is direction, which can be changed. Have you ever heard people say, "I'm feeling disoriented"? Disorientation is "the loss of one's sense of direction, position, or relationship with one's surroundings." Therefore, homosexuals are disoriented because their direction is wrong. What they are experiencing is a sexual disorientation. Their "orientation" can be changed, as is evidenced by hundreds of former homosexuals who have come to faith in the Lord Jesus, repenting of the sins of their former lives. If a person has strong and/or frequent temptations toward bestiality, where his/her thoughts seem to be dominated by it, does he/she have a sexual "orientation" toward animals? No! The temptations we experience do not determine who or what we are. If a person has strong and/or frequent temptations toward pedophilia, where his/her thoughts seem to be dominated by it, does he/she have a sexual "orientation" toward children? No! The temptations we experience do not determine who or what we are. Likewise, if a person has strong and/or frequent temptations toward the same sex, where his/her thoughts seem to be dominated by it, he/she does not have a sexual "orientation" toward homosexuality. Just because such thoughts seem to dominate your mind does not mean that is who or what you are. It is a false conclusion and assumptions made from a false conclusion. In other words, it is a logical fallacy. Homosexuals need to be reoriented from their disorientation.

Argument #11: Contradictory Oxymoron
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that there is such a thing as a gay "Christian." Aside from the fact that such is an oxymoron, a complete contradiction in terms, the truth of the matter is that a person cannot be a gay "Christian." Have you ever noticed how the emphasis is placed on "gay"? For a genuine Christian, the emphasis is always placed on Christ. Now, apart from all the passages in Scripture that condemn homosexual union and behaviour, the Bible makes it clear that, "If we say that we have fellowship with [Jesus] and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 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 1:6-7). Homosexuals walk in the darkness of their sin, embracing their sin, defining themselves according to their sin. To claim they are gay "Christians" exposes themselves as liars because they do not practice the truth (the most obvious being repentance, a complete change in direction, not merely a change of mind). The evidence that a homosexual has truly come to saving faith will be seen in the fact that, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). If this has happened, the former homosexual cannot and will not continue to walk in darkness but will crucify their flesh and kill sin in their life. "Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24). "If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (Rom. 8:13). See 1 John 3:4-10. For those Christians who have been deceived into supporting this perverse abomination, I want you to pay close attention to this command from Scripture: "And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11).

Argument #12: "Love" So-Called
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that "homosexuals should be allowed to love whomever they choose," because, after all, "it's not hurting anybody else." If that is the case, then if I want to "love" some female member of my family (my grandmother, my mother, my aunt, my sister, my daughter), I should be allowed to because "it's not hurting anybody else." Or, if I give in to homosexual temptations, if I want to "love" some male member of my family (my grandfather, my father, my uncle, my brother, my son), I should be allowed to because "it's not hurting anybody else." Or, in the case of polygamy, if I want to "love" multiple women and they want to "love" me, we should be allowed to because "it's not hurting anybody else." This argument pretty much goes hand-in-hand with the "consenting adults" argument. Likewise, even though consent is impossible, if I want to "love" my dog or some other pet or animal, I should be allowed to because "it's not hurting anybody else." (Apparently bestiality/zoophilia was recently legalized in Canada, and is already legal in certain States in the USA.) These people mistakenly associate their lusts, desires, infatuations, and the heat of the moment with the word "love," tossing it around loosely and carelessly. It is not loving to embrace sin, make room for sin, excuse sin, or cause another person to sin. There is nothing "loving" about homosexual relationships.

Argument #13: Unwanted Homosexuality
Homosexuals and homosexual proponents attempt to argue that homosexuals "didn't want/choose to be gay." Sorry, but, yes, you did. You were not born that way, and God certainly did not create you that way. Let us examine the logic here. If you were born gay, that means that you have been dealt the worst hand possible in the universe. If God created you to be gay, that means He played the cruelest trick in the universe on you. Why? Two reasons: (1) If you were born gay, if God created you to be gay, you were born with a deliberately shorter life expectancy, having an imminent death sentence hanging over you. If you engage in homosexual behaviour, you are pretty much guaranteed to become diseased by contracting AIDS, the average homosexual having a life expectancy of less than half of that of the average heterosexual. (2) If you were born gay, if God created you to be gay, you were born without a possible future, having nothing to look forward to or hope in. Since you cannot reproduce, your family line ends with you. There will be no one to carry on your name or your legacy. If you did not want to be gay or choose to be gay, then you should not be embracing it and practicing it, you should be angry that you are not going to live as long as the average heterosexual or see yourself in the face and life of another being created in your image. The fact is, you did choose to be gay, and those rewards are still yours: shorter life expectancy and the end of your family line as you know it. By saying that you "didn't want/choose to be gay," you are admitting that you have a choice, because if you never wanted to be gay, guess what, you do not have to be!
Things are designed to be united a specific way and a specific way only. Nothing will happen if you try to put two light bulbs together; a light bulb needs a socket. Nothing will happen if you try to put two plugs together; a plug needs an outlet. Nothing will happen if you try to put two bolts together; a bolt needs a nut. Likewise, nothing will happen if you try to put two of the same genitalia together; the penis needs the vagina and vice versa. They were created specifically for each other. Genitalia is a part of the entire argument and cannot be left out. Homosexuals will attempt to argue that it is not a matter of genitalia, but a matter of love. Once again, their argument lacks intelligent logic. No matter how you dice it, eventually genitalia comes into play because of their lustful desires. No matter how much I love my dog or my sibling, it is wrong for me to pursue a "loving" relationship with either of them. It is even more wrong for me to engage in sexual activity with either of them. Pedophiles have already started using the same arguments that the homosexuals have been using (see article here).

I wish more people had discernment, wisdom, and understanding so they could think logically and spot the homosexual's fallacious arguments as if they were illuminated by flood lights. Nothing disturbs me more than people who do not possess the ability to think rationally and logically for themselves but instead mindlessly follow the ignorant masses. Love the homosexual, yes. Live out the Gospel before them, being the salt and the light, absolutely. But do not condone or support their sinful behaviour and lifestyle.

Monday, January 6, 2014

What is "Science" and "Scientific Method"?

What is “Science”?
Apart from its general definition, which means “knowledge” or “to know,” this is what science is:
science: noun
a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on...experiment and observation
American Dictionary of the English Language

science: noun
a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiments with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe”
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary

science: noun
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

science: noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

“Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.”
What is “Scientific Method”?
scientific method: noun
a method of procedure consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary

scientific method: noun
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
True and genuine science consists of the use of the scientific method, which is:
  1. Making observations and gathering evidence.
  2. Formulating an hypothesis.
  3. Performing repeated—and repeatable—experiments that test that hypothesis.
  4. Observing the results of those repeated experiments.
  5. Either,
    1. Modifying the original hypothesis for further testing (the result of which will eventually and inevitably be a final conclusion [you can only modify your hypothesis so many times before you are merely prolonging the inevitable; eventually you need to accept the truth and draw a conclusion based on all the observations]), or
    2. Drawing a conclusion one way or the other based on the observations, which results in scientific facts (e.g.; H2O is a scientific fact; it cannot and does not change. H3O or H2O2 would no longer be water.).
If you cannot apply all of these, it is not science! If you cannot test it or observe it, it is not science! It is conjecture, it is speculation, it is imagination, it is inference, it is theory, but it is not science! If the scientific method cannot be “reliably applied” and “rationally explained” with adequate “reasoning,” it is not science! (e.g.; The cross-section of Earth ends at the hypothesis. The rest of the scientific method has been deliberately ignored. Ergo, it is not a scientific fact. It holds no science whatsoever.) Here are some quotes to back me and the above definitions:
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ―Galileo Galilei

"Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go." ―Agatha Christie

"When the scientific method came into being, it gave us a new window on the truth; namely, a method by laboratory-controlled experiments to winnow true hypotheses from false ones." ―Huston Smith

"Look ... first and foremost, I'm a scientist. That means it's my responsibility to make observations and gather evidence before forming a hypothesis, not vice versa." ―Allen Steele

"Any chemist reading this book can see, in some detail, how I have spent most of my mature life. They can become familiar with the quality of my mind and imagination. They can make judgements about my research abilities. They can tell how well I have documented my claims of experimental results. Any scientist can redo my experiments to see if they still work—and this has happened! I know of no other field in which contributions to world culture are so clearly on exhibit, so cumulative, and so subject to verification." —Donald J. Cram

"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another." ―Robert M. Pirsig

"Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth." ―Jules Verne

"Scientists are human—they're as biased as any other group. But they do have one great advantage in that science is a self-correcting process." ―Cyril Ponnamperuma

"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age." ―Carl Sagan

"We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature, and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural road of experiment and observation." ―Antoine Lavoisier
Your average proponent of evolution, being ignorant and never having graduated with a degree from any field of science (but merely believing all the lies and nonsense they are fed through various unscientific books), likes to attempt to argue using "consensus." They try and claim that all scientists are agreed on the subject of evolution, which is a fallacious lie! They should pay attention to the following:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." ―Michael Crichton

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." ―Michael Crichton
The following words should be meditated upon deeply because their truth will help an individual to recognize the false from the true. One could also say, "If the Bible doesn't stand up to experimentation, it must be rejected." Anyone who has honestly allowed the Bible to speak for itself and compared it with science, archaeology, and history has found it to be a reliable and trustworthy book. The only reason people do not like it and do not want to accept it, is not because it is not true (because the evidence informs us that it is), but because of the demands it places upon us to repent and trust in the Saviour, Christ Jesus. We are too stubborn and proud and do not want to submit to an authority Who is higher than we are.
"We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected." ―Dalai Lama XIV
Scientists who are honest in the least with their information should be able to agree with and accept the following, because they hold entirely true.
"When things are in order, if the cause of the orderliness cannot be deduced from the motion of the elements or from the composition of matter, it is quite possibly a cause possessing a mind." ―Johannes Kepler

"Things that look like they were designed, probably were... If intelligence is an operative component of the universe, a science that methodologically excludes its existence will be susceptible to being trapped in an endless chase for materialistic causes that do not exist... Where there are sufficient grounds for inferring intelligent causation, based on evidence of "specified complexity," it should be considered as a component of scientific theories.
Inclusion of intelligent causation in the scientific equation is not novel and has not impeded the practice of science in the past, e.g. Newton and Kepler, in an age when science was not constrained by a philosophical materialism, and by many current scientists who have remained open to following the evidence where it leads." ―Donald L. Ewert

"For God to prove himself on demand, physically, would be a grave disappointment, and the strongest Christians should be considerably grateful that he chooses not to do so. The skeptic endlessly demands proof, yet God refuses to insult the true intelligence of man, the '6th sense', the chief quality, the acumen which distinguishes man from the rest of creation, faith." ―Criss Jami

"It is debatable whether blind faith is truly faith at all. Faith is the perceptive gray area where scientific facts meet an individual's experiential truths - the extreme of the former is left feeling in the dark whereas the latter is caught blinded by the light. By proper scientific method, it is intellectually dishonest for me to declare the existence of God with utmost certainty, but to my individual spirit, I would be intellectually dishonest to deny the existence of God even for a second. This leaves the best of both worlds, as the believer is called to be able to give reasons for his faith, a deviation from mere fantasy." ―Criss Jami
Recognizing Bad Science
“Science” claims that stalactites and petrification take “millions of years” to form/occur, yet modern-day observable evidence suggests otherwise. This can be tested and observed, ergo, it is scientific fact it takes less than “millions of years” to form/occur. As in the past, science is wrong yet again, but continues pressing the same erroneous disproven information.

"Science" shows us images of a dinosaur they call Deinocheirus in our textbooks, yet the only skeletal remains that have ever been retrieved have been two fore-limbs and some bits of vertebrae. In other words, their depictions of this so-called dinosaur are made up fiction (as with much of their other so-called "science"). Brontosaurus was a made up dinosaur, too. The skeletal remains did not consist of a head. Yet somehow it ended up with the skull of a Camarasaurus, which scientists refer to as a "mistake" rather than what it truly is—a deliberate falsification of the evidence. The body itself was that of an Apatosaurus. Let us be realistic here. The most complete skeleton of any dinosaur that has ever been discovered has been only 90% complete. If you are smart, that should inform you as to the fictional representations of most of the dinosaurs presented to us. As Palaeontologists admit, complete skeletons are rare—isolated bones and teeth are more common. A Tyrannosaurus Rex nicknamed "SUE" has been discovered to be 80% complete. Previous T. Rex skeletons were usually missing over half their bones. We now have about 15 good skeletons of T. Rex, including two that are nearly complete. That is a lot compared to most dinosaurs, which consist of nothing more than a single tooth or bone. But we still do not have a complete T. Rex.
Let us perform a bit of logical science. If we have never seen a human being before, or a complete human skeleton, and we uncover three vertebrae, two wrist bones, and four toes, it is impossible for us to construct anything legitimately looking the way it ought. If you have a handful of bones and you construct a complete image of a creature from that, you are not performing science—you are merely using your imagination and then inferring that it is somehow "science." Anything we construct based on those few bones alone is speculation, imagination, inference, and theory. It is not science!

With regard to the Tyrannosaurus Rex, we are told that as long as you stood still it could not see you; it could only see you if you moved. How do they know this? Did they find a T. Rex eyeball and test it? Did they stand in front of a living T. Rex and test this theory out? This is not science! This is speculation, imagination, inference, and theory. It cannot be tested or observed, therefore it is not science! How about when they tell us what a particular dinosaur's diet consisted of. Unless you found a well-preserved dinosaur and examined the contents of its stomach, you cannot know this for certain. In fact, even the contents of its stomach would not tell you what its actual diet consisted of. Those things could just be a part of its diet. The type of teeth it had does not determine whether it was a carnivore or a herbivore. Pandas have sharp teeth but only eat bamboo. Humans have flat teeth yet eat meat. There are so many animals that this theory does not apply to that you cannot use it with any degree of accuracy.

Much of the information we are told about dinosaurs is purely conjecture. All we can tell from fossils is that these animals once lived and are now dead. You do not know what its skin looked like. You do not know its behaviour. You do not know whether is was a loner or moved in packs. You do not know if it was intelligent or not. You do not know its entire diet. Unless you witness one face-to-face and see all these things, drawing these conclusions from a fossil is nothing more than conjecture, speculation, imagination, inference, and theory.

Do not misunderstand me. I love science—true and genuine science that follows the scientific method. If you cannot test it or observe it, it is not science! The only thing that goes "beyond science" is imagination, but imagination is not science. If your so-called "science" does not follow the scientific method, then all it is is conjecture, it is speculation, imagination, inference, and/or theory. You need to be able to perform repeated and repeatable tests and to observe the results of those tests in order for it to be science. Again, if you cannot test it or observe it, it is not science!

*I could include many more quotes in regard to what "science" and the "scientific method" are, all of which agree with everything I have already provided here, but doing so would be overkill. Certain individuals and so-called "scientists" (like Richard Dawkins) like to ignore and deny the definitions and practices of "science" and the "scientific method," claiming you can "go beyond" science. For the lay person, "go beyond" means substituting speculation, imagination, inference, and theory for real, true, and genuine science.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

29 Ways to Identify a Fool

People have often asked me why I reject the option for comments on this blog. The answer is simple. If I allowed comments, I would have to moderate them and reject most people's attempts to have a voice due to their foolishness. In so doing, these people would protest by charging me with "censorship," "discrimination," etc. The words of fools are like airborne infections, and I deal with fools enough as it is on the day-to-day without having to constantly address them here. The primary purpose of this blog is two-fold: (1) to glorify God and honour His Son (Rom. 15:6; Col. 1:18), and (2) to educate the body of Christ regarding truth (2 Tim. 2:15; 3:16; Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 2:13). I do not need people's words of affirmation or congratulation in regard to the things I write. If an individual, whether saved or unsaved, visits my site and learns something new (or in the case of the unsaved, comes to salvation), that is more than enough for me. I use this blog to lead people to the truth—not to hear people's opinions in contrast to the truth (see my article Opinions).

The Bible warns us not to answer a fool according to his folly. In other words, you cannot reason with a person infected with a foolish mind. "30 Ways to Identify a Fool" was penned by Dr. Matthew Stephenson in regard to recognizing a fool—biblical style, and a fool should be properly labeled. However, the copies I have come across only have 29, skipping from 10 to 12, so I have adjusted it accordingly.
  1. A Fool is anyone who despises wisdom, instruction or correction from a mentor or teacher.
    Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
  2. A Fool is anyone that uses slander through lying and misrepresentation.
    Proverbs 10:18b "He who spreads slander is a FOOL"
  3. A Fool is anyone who refuses to depart from evil, even when corrected.
    Proverbs 13:19b "But it is an abomination to Fools to turn away from evil."
  4. A Fool is anyone who does not take the dangers of sin seriously.
    Proverbs 14:9 "Fools mock at sin, but among the righteous there is good favor of God."
  5. A Fool is anyone who does not use discretion, with matters that should be private.
    Proverbs 14:33 "Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding, but in the hearts of Fools it is made known."
  6. A Fool is anyone that disregards the wisdom of a godly father.
    Proverbs 15:5 "A FOOL rejects his father's discipline, but he who regards reproof is sensible."
  7. A Fool is anyone whose conduct does not change even after experiencing painful consequences from it.
    Proverbs 17:10 "A rebuke goes deeper into  one who has understanding than one hundred blows into a Fool."
  8. A Fool is anyone who considers pursuing wisdom as a waste of time.
    Proverbs 17:16 "Why is there a price in the hand of a Fool to buy wisdom, when he has no sense?"
  9. A Fool is anyone who calls himself mad at God.
    Proverbs 19:3 "The Foolish of man ruins his way, and his heart rages against the Lord."
  10. A Fool is someone who is always involved in strife.
    Proverbs 20:3 "Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, but any Fool will quarrel."
  11. A Fool is any man who spends more money that he is able to earn for his family.
    Proverbs 21:20 "There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a Foolish man swallows it up."
  12. A Fool is anyone who creates his own belief system contrary to the word of God.
    Proverbs 28:26 "He who trusts in his own heart IS A FOOL, but he who walks wisely will be delivered."
  13. A Fool is anyone who refuses to pay his debts!
    Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 "When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in FOOLS."
  14. A Fool is anyone who makes money, riches or money-making his god.
    Luke 12:20-21 "But God said to him, 'You Fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?' So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
  15. A Fool's lips are ALWAYS at the center of division, strife and contention.
    Proverbs 18:6-7 "A Fool's lips bring strife, and his mouth calls for blows. A Fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are the snare of his soul."
  16. A FRIEND of Fools will be destroyed.
    Proverbs 13:20 "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm."
  17. LIARS are fools.
    Proverbs 10:18a "He who conceals hatred with lying a Fool."
  18. Foolishness and Fool-like behavior will reveal the spiritual and mental age of a person. It must be BEAT out of him.
    Proverbs 22:15 "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him."
  19. A Fool can't be changed through counsel.
    Proverbs 23:9 "Do not speak in the hearing of a Fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words."
  20. A Fool should NEVER be in any form of leadership.
    Proverbs 24:7 "Wisdom is TOO exalted for a fool, he does not open his mouth in the gate."
  21. A Fool is destructive to all that trust Him.
    Proverbs 26:6 "He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence who sends a message by the hand of a Fool."
  22. A Fool won't change, irrespective of him saying wise things.
    Proverbs 26:7 "Like the legs which are useless to the lame, so is a proverb in the mouth of Fools."
  23. A Fool who gets honor is deadly to those around him.
    Proverbs 26:8 "Like one who binds a stone in a sling, so is he who gives honor to a Fool."
  24. A Fool is someone who makes the same mistakes repeatedly.
    Proverbs 26:11 "Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a Fool who repeats his folly."
  25. Meeting a BEAR is safer than encountering a Fool.
    Proverbs 17:12 "Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, rather than a Fool in his folly."
  26. There is no PEACE in relationship with a Fool.
    Proverbs 29:9 "When a wise man has controversy with a Foolish man, the Foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest."
  27. An atheist is a Fool.
    Psalms 14:1 "The FOOL has said in his heart, "There is no God.""
  28. Conversations with Fools may turn you into one.
    Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a Fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him."
  29. A Fool TALKS TOO MUCH!
    Ecclesiastes 5:3 "The voice of a fool [is known] through many words."

95 Theses Against Dispensationalism


What follows should not be interpreted to mean that nor the historic Bible believing church would place every dispensationalist outside of the Christian faith. We acknowledge that most are dedicated to the foundational orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Unlike the sixteenth century dispute over the doctrine of justification, this is an in-house discussion, a debate among evangelical Christians. We recognize and treasure all born again believers who operate within a dispensational framework as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, we must remember that Paul loved his fellow apostle Peter and esteemed him the senior and more honored of the two of them. Nevertheless, when it came to a point of theology that had profound implications for the purity and health of the Church, Paul was constrained by his love for Christ and the Truth publicly to withstand Peter to his face. (Galatians 2:11)

Therefore, because we believe that dispensationalism has at least crippled the Church in her duty of proclaiming the gospel and discipling the nations, and out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed in a series of videos written and produced by under the title The Late Great Planet Church. And as iron sharpens iron we request that every Christian, congregation, and denomination discuss and debate these issues. By the grace of our great Sovereign let us engage in this debate with an open mind and an open Bible. Like the Bereans nearly two thousand years ago, let us “search the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so.

  1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.
  2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward.  (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).
  3. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ attempt to link its history to that of early premillennial Church Fathers, those ancient premillennialists held positions that are fundamentally out of accord with the very foundational principles of dispensationalism, foundations which Ryrie calls “the linchpin of dispensationalism”, such as (1) a distinction between the Church and Israel (i.e., the Church is true Israel, “the true Israelitic race” (Justin Martyr) and (2) that “Judaism … has now come to an end” (Justin Martyr).
  4. Despite dispensationalism’s claim of antiquity through its association with historic premillennialism, it radically breaks with historic premillennialism by promoting a millennium that is fundamentally Judaic rather than Christian.
  5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.”  Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.
  6. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ assertion that the early Church was premillennial in its eschatology, “none of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements” (R.P. Lightner), even though the millennium is supposedly God’s plan for Israel and the very goal of history, which we should expect would make its way into our creeds.
  7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as: (1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years; (2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost; and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct judgments separated by one thousand years.
  8. Despite the dispensationalists’ general unconcern regarding the ecumenical Church creeds, we must understand that God gave the Bible to the Church, not to individuals, because “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
  9. Despite the dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational parts with two redemptive programs—one for Israel and one for the Church—and have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and coherence of Scripture.
  10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” (Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).
  11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant … has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).
  12. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim 2:15, “rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately” (NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.
  13. Because the dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to 1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” by structuring history that way implies that no one until then had “rightly divided” God’s word.
  14. Dispensationalism’s argument that “the understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies” (Charles Ryrie) is an example of the circular fallacy in logic:  for it requires understanding the distinctive character of a dispensation before one can understand the revelation in that dispensation, though one cannot know what that dispensation is without first understanding the unique nature of the revelation that gives that dispensation its distinctive character.
  15. Despite the dispensationalists’ popular presentation of seven distinct dispensations as necessary for properly understanding Scripture, scholars within dispensationalism admit that “one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist” (Charles Ryrie) so that the proper structuring of the dispensations is inconsequential.
  16. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing history into distinct dispensations, wherein each “dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” and includes a “distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), recent dispensational scholars, such as Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, admit that the features of the dispensations merge from one dispensation into the next, so that the earlier dispensation carries the seeds of the following dispensation.
  17. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of God’s grace in the Church Age, early forms of dispensationalism (and many populist forms even today) deny that grace characterized the Mosaic dispensation of law, as when C. I. Scofield stated that with the coming of Christ “the point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” (cf. John 1:17), even though the Ten Commandments themselves open with a statement of God’s grace to Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:1).
  18. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of law and grace as “antithetical concepts” (Charles Ryrie) with the result that “the doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels” (Scofield Reference Bible – SRB, p. 989), the Gospels do declare the doctrines of grace, as we read in John 1:17, “For the law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” and in the Bible’s most famous verse: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
  19. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace” (SRB, p. 989), historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12), calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13), urging us to build our house on a rock (Matt 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.
  20. Despite the dispensationalists’ vigorous assertion that their system never has taught two ways of salvation (Couch), one by law-keeping and one by grace alone, the original Scofield Reference Bible, for instance, declared that the Abrahamic and new covenants differed from the Mosaic covenant regarding “salvation” in that “they impose but one condition, faith” (SRB, see note at Ex. 19:6).
  21. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ central affirmation of the  “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) employing (alleged) literalism, the depth of Scripture is such that it can perplex angels (1 Pet 1:12), the Apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15-16), and potential converts (Acts 8:30-35); requires growth in grace to understand (Heb 5:11-14) and special teachers to explain (2 Tim 2:2); and is susceptible to false teachers distorting it (1 Tim 1:7).
  22. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to be following “the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), they have redefined the method in a way that is rejected by the majority of non-dispensational evangelicals (and even “progressive dispensationalists”) who see that the Bible, while true in all its parts, often speaks in figures and types—e.g., most evangelicals interpret the prophecy in Isaiah and Micah of “the mountain of the house of the Lord being established as the chief of the mountains” (Isa 2:2b, Mic. 4:1b) to refer to the exaltation of God’s people; whereas dispensationalism claims this text is referring to actual geological, tectonic, and volcanic mountain-building whereby “the Temple mount would be lifted up and exalted over all the other mountains” (John Sailhammer) during the millennium.
  23. Despite the dispensationalists’ conviction that their “plain interpretation” necessarily “gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage” (Charles Ryrie) and is the only proper and defensible method for interpreting Scripture, by adopting this method they are denying the practice of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, as when the Lord points to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah’s return (Matt 10:13-14) and the Apostles apply the prophecy of the rebuilding of “the tabernacle of David” to the spiritual building of the Church (Acts 15:14-17), and many other such passages.
  24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.
  25. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).
  26. Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Elliot Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that  many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).
  27. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ … were all fulfilled ‘literally’” (Charles Ryrie), many such prophecies were not fulfilled in a “plain” (Ryrie) literal fashion, such as the famous Psalm 22 prophecy that speaks of bulls and dogs surrounding Christ at his crucifixion (Psa 22:12, 16), and the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy regarding the virgin, that “she will call His name Immanuel” (cp. Luke 2:21), and others.
  28. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument that “prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ … were all fulfilled ‘literally’” (Charles Ryrie), they can defend their argument only by special pleading and circular reasoning in that they (1) put off to the Second Advent all those prophecies of his coming as a king, though most non-dispensational evangelicals apply these to Christ’s first coming in that He declared his kingdom “near” (Mark 1:15); and they (2) overlook the fact that his followers preached him as a king (Acts 17:7) and declared him to be the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5) in the first century.
  29. Despite the dispensationalists’ central affirmation of the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) by which their so-called literalism provides “a coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), it ends up with one of the most ornate and complex systems in all of evangelical theology, with differing peoples, principles, plans, programs, and destinies because interpreting Scripture is not so “plain” (despite Charles Ryrie).
  30. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument for the “literal” fulfillment of prophecy, when confronted with obvious New Testament, non-literal fulfillments, they will either (1) declare that the original prophecy had “figures of speech” in them (Scofield), or (2) call these “applications” of the Old Testament rather than fulfillments (Paul Tan)—which means that they try to make it impossible to bring any contrary evidence against their system by re-interpreting any such evidence in one of these two directions.
  31. Despite the dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy Weeks (490 year) period.
  32. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the non-contradictory integrity of Scripture, their holding to both a convoluted form of literalism and separate and distinct dispensations produces a dialectical tension between the “last trumpet” of 1 Cor. 15:51-53, which is held to be the signal for the Rapture at the end of the Church Age, and the trumpet in Matt. 24:31, which gathers elect Jews out of the Tribulation at the Second Coming (Walvoord).  Dispensationalists, who allegedly are ‘literalists,’ posit that this latter trumpet is seven years after the “last” trumpet.
  33. Despite the dispensationalists’ desire to promote the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, their habit of calling it the “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) leads the average reader not to look at ancient biblical texts in terms of their original setting, but in terms of their contemporary, Western setting and what they have been taught by others — since it is so “plain.
  34. Despite the dispensationalists’ confidence that they have a strong Bible-affirming hermeneutic in “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), their so-called literalism is inconsistently employed, and their more scholarly writings lead lay dispensationalists and populist proponents simplistically to write off other evangelical interpretations of Scripture with a naive call for “literalism!
  35. Despite the dispensationalists’ attempts to defend their definition of literalism by claiming that it fits into “the received laws of language” (Ryrie), However, subsequent to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s studies in linguistic analysis, there is no general agreement among philosophers regarding the “laws” of language or the proper philosophy of language (Crenshaw).
  36. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to interpret all of the Bible “literally”, Dr. O.T. Allis correctly observed, “While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers.
  37. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim regarding “the unconditional character of the [Abrahamic] covenant” (J. Dwight Pentecost), which claim is essential for maintaining separate programs for Israel and the Church, the Bible in Deuteronomy 30 and other passages presents it as conditional; consequently not all of Abraham’s descendants possess the land and the covenantal blessings but only those who, by having the same faith as Abraham, become heirs through Christ.
  38. Despite the dispensationalists’ necessary claim that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, they inconsistently teach that Esau is not included in the inheritance of Canaan and Abraham’s blessings, even though he was as much the son of Isaac (Abraham’s son) as was Jacob, his twin (Gen 25:21-25), because he sold his birthright and thus was excluded from the allegedly “unconditional” term of the inheritance.
  39. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the Abrahamic covenant involved an unconditional land promise, which serves as one of the bases for the future hope of a millennium, the Bible teaches that Abraham “was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10), and that the city, the “new Jerusalem,” will “descend from God, out of Heaven” (Rev. 21:2).
  40. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the “holy land” as a “perpetual title to the land of promise” for Israel (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament expands the promises of the land to include the whole world, involving the expanded people of God, for Paul speaks of “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world” (Rom 4:13a).
  41. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the descendents of the patriarchs never inhabited all the land promised to them in the Abrahamic covenant and therefore, since God cannot lie, the possession of the land by the Jews is still in the future; on the contrary, Joshua wrote, “So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it… Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass” (Joshua 21:43,45).
  42. Despite the dispensationalists’ so-called literalism demanding that Jerusalem and Mt. Zion must once again become central to God’s work in history, in that “Jerusalem will be the center of the millennial government” (Walvoord), the new covenant sees these places as typological pointers to spiritual realities that come to pass in the new covenant Church, beginning in the first century, as when we read that “you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22; cp. Gal 4:22-31).
  43. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between “Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the New Testament sees two “Israels” (Rom. 9:6-8)—one of the flesh, and one of the spirit—with the only true Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in the Church.  (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it is the New Testament expansion.) This is why the New Testament calls members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church itself “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
  44. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Jews are to be eternally distinct from Gentiles in the plan of God, because “throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes” with “one related to the earth” while “the other is related to heaven” (Chafer and Ryrie), the New Testament speaks of the permanent union of Jew and Gentile into one body “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity” that “in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15), Accordingly, with the finished work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28).
  45. Contrary to dispensationalism’s implication of race-based salvation for Jewish people (salvation by race instead of salvation by grace), Christ and the New Testament writers warn against assuming that genealogy or race insures salvation, saying to the Jews: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt 3:9) because “children of God” are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12b-13; 3:3).
  46. Contrary to dispensationalism’s claim that “the Church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament” (J. D. Pentecost), the New Testament writers look to the Old Testament for its divine purpose and role in the history of redemption and declare only that the mystery was not known “to the sons of men” at large, and was not known to the same degree “as” it is now revealed to all men in the New Testament (Eph 3:4-6), even noting that it fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Hos 1:10 / Rom 9:22-26), including even the beginning of the new covenant phase of the Church (Joel 2:28-32 / Acts 2:16-19).
  47. Despite dispensationalism’s presentation of the Church as a “parenthesis” (J. F. Walvoord)  in the major plan of God in history (which focuses on racial Israel), the New Testament teaches that the Church is the God-ordained result of God’s Old Testament plan, so that the Church is not simply a temporary aside in God’s plan but is the institution over which Christ is the head so that He may “put all things in subjection under His feet” (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).
  48. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching that Jeremiah’s “New Covenant was expressly for the house of Israel … and the house of Judah” (Bible Knowledge Commentary)—a teaching that is due to its man-made view of literalism as documented by former dispensationalist (Curtis Crenshaw) and the centrality of Israel in its theological system—the New Testament shows that the new covenant includes Gentiles and actually establishes the new covenant Church as the continuation of Israel (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6).
  49. Contrary to dispensationalism’s claim that Christ sincerely offered “the covenanted kingdom to Israel” as a political reality in literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (J. D. Pentecost), the Gospels tell us that when his Jewish followers were “intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king” that he “withdrew” from them (John 6:15), and that he stated that “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36).
  50. Despite the dispensationalists’ belief that Christ sincerely offered a political kingdom to Israel while he was on earth (J. D. Pentecost), Israel could not have accepted the offer, since God sent Christ to die for sin (John 12:27); and His death was prophesied so clearly that those who missed the point are called “foolish” (Luke 24:25-27).  Christ frequently informed His hearers that He came to die, as when He said that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28) and Scripture clearly teaches that His death was by the decree of God (Acts 2:23) before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).  Thus, dispensationalism’s claim about this offer implicitly involves God in duplicity and Christ in deception.
  51. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ belief that Christ “withdrew the offer of the kingdom” and postponed it until He returns (J. D. Pentecost), Christ tells Israel, “I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (Matt 21:43) and “I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).
  52. Despite dispensationalism’s commitment to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, their doctrine legally justifies the crucifixion by declaring that he really did offer a political kingdom that would compete with Rome and made him guilty of revolting against Rome, even though Christ specifically informed Pilate that his type of kingship simply was “to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37), leading this Roman-appointed procurator to declare “I find no guilt in Him” (John 18:38).
  53. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ urging Christians to live their lives expecting Christ’s return at any moment, “like people who don’t expect to be around much longer” (Hal Lindsey), Christ characterizes those who expect his soon return as “foolish” (Matt 25:1-9), telling us to “occupy until He comes,” (Luke 19:13) and even discouraging his disciples’ hope in Israel’s conversion “now” by noting that they will have to experience “times or epochs” of waiting which “the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:6-7).
  54. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine that Christ’s return always has been “imminent” and could occur “at any moment” (J. D. Pentecost) since his ascension in the first century, the New Testament speaks of his coming as being after a period of “delaying” (Matt 25:5) and after a “long” time (Matt 24:48; 25:19; 2 Pet. 3:1-15).
  55. Contrary to dispensationalists’ tendency to date-setting and excited predictions of the Rapture, as found in their books with titles like 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive, Scripture teaches that “the son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt 24:44), “at an hour which you do not know” (Matt 24:50).
  56. Despite the dispensationalists’ frequent warning of the signs of the times indicating the near coming of Christ (Lindsey), their doctrine of imminency holds that no intervening prophecies remain to be fulfilled.  Consequently, there can be no possibility of signs (John Walvoord); and as “there was nothing that needed to take place during Paul’s life before the Rapture, so it is today for us” (Tim LaHaye).  Christ himself warned us that “of that day and hour no one knows” (Matt 24:36a).
  57. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that Christ could return at any minute because “there is no teaching of any intervening event” (John Walvoord), many of their leading spokesmen hold that the seven churches in Rev 2-3 “outline the present age in reference to the program in the church,” including “the Reformation” and our own age (J. D. Pentecost).
  58. Despite the dispensationalists’ widespread belief that we have been living in the “last days” only since the founding of Israel as a nation in 1948, the New Testament clearly and repeatedly teach that the “last days” began in the first century and cover the whole period of the Christian Church (Acts 2:16-17; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 1:1-2; 9:26)
  59. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that the expectation of the imminent Rapture and other eschatological matters are important tools for godly living, dispensationalism’s founders were often at odds with each other and divisive regarding other believers, so that, for instance, of the Plymouth Brethren it could be said that “never has one body of Christians split so often, in such a short period of time, over such minute points” (John Gerstner) and that “this was but the first of several ruptures arising from [Darby’s] teachings” (Dictionary of Evangelical Biography).
  60. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ creation of a unique double coming of Christ—the Rapture being separated from the Second Advent—which are so different that it makes “any harmony of these two events an impossibility” (Walvoord), the Bible mentions only one future coming of Christ, the parousia, or epiphany, or revelation (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; Jas. 5:7; 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jn. 2:28), and states that He “shall appear a second time” (Heb 9:28a), not that He shall appear “again and again” or for a third time.
  61. Despite the dispensationalists’ teaching that “Jesus will come in the air secretly to rapture His Church” (Tim LaHaye), their key proof-text for this “secret” coming, 1 Thess 4:16, makes the event as publicly verifiable as can be, declaring that he will come “with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
  62. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible presents the resurrection of believers as occurring on “the last day” (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24), not centuries before the last day.
  63. Contrary to dispensationalism’s doctrine of two resurrections, the first one being of believers at the Rapture and the second one of unbelievers at the end of the millennium 1007 years after the Rapture, the Bible speaks of the resurrection of unbelievers as occurring before that of believers (though as a part of the same complex of events), when the angels “first gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up” at the end of the age (Matt 13:30b).
  64. Despite dispensationalism’s commitment to the secret Rapture of the Church by which Christians are removed from the world to leave only non-Christians in the world, Jesus teaches that the wheat and the tares are to remain in the world to the end (Matt 13:40), and he even prays that the Father not take his people out of the world (John 17:15).
  65. Despite the dispensationalists’ emphasis on the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24, admitting that Christ was pointing to the stones of the first century temple when He declared that “not one will be left upon another” (Matt 23:37-24:2), they also admit inconsistently that when the disciples asked “when shall these things be?” (Matt 24:3), Matthew records Christ’s answer in such a way that He presents matters that are totally unrelated to that event and that occur thousands of years after it (Bible Knowledge Commentary).
  66. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to so-called literalism in prophecy and their strong emphasis on the Great Tribulation passage in Matthew 24, they perform a sleight of hand by claiming that when Jesus stated that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34), He did so in a way inconsistent with every other usage of “this generation” in Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., Matt 11:16; 12:41, 42) and even in the immediate context (Matt 23:36), so that “this generation” can somehow point thousands of years into the future “instead of referring this to the time in which Christ lived” (Walvoord).
  67. Dispensationalism’s teaching of the rapid “national regeneration of Israel” during the latter part of the seven-year Tribulation period (Fruchtenbaum) is incomprehensible and unbiblical because the alleged regeneration occurs only after the Church and the Holy Spirit have been removed from the earth, even though they were the only agents who could cause that regeneration:  the institution of evangelism on the one hand and the agent of conversion on the other.
  68. Contrary to dispensationalists’ view of the mark of the beast, most of them seeing in the beast’s number a series of three sixes, the Bible presents it not as three numbers (6-6-6) but one singular number (666) with the total numerical value of  “six hundred and sixty-six” (Rev 13:18b).
  69. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ expectation that the mark of the beast is to be some sort of “microchip implant” (Timothy Demy), Revelation 13 states that it is a mark, not an instrument of some kind.
  70. Contrary to dispensationalists’ belief in a still-future geo-political kingdom which shall be catastrophically imposed on the world by war at the Battle of Armageddon, the Scriptures teach that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom that does not come with signs, and was already present in the first century, as when Jesus stated, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:20-21).
  71. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that their so-called literalistic premillennialism is superior to the other evangelical millennial views because Revelation 20:1-6 is one text that clearly sets forth their system, this view imposes the literalistic system unjustifiably and inconsistently on the most symbolic book in all the Bible, a book containing references to scorpions with faces like men and teeth like lions (Rev 9:7), fire-breathing prophets (Rev 11:5), a seven-headed beast (Rev 13:1), and more.
  72. Dispensationalism’s claim that Revelation 20:1-6 is a clear text that establishes literalistic premillennialism has an inconsistency that is overlooked:  it also precludes Christians who live in the dispensation of the Church from taking part in the millennium, since Revelation 20:4 limits the millennium to those who are beheaded and who resist the Beast, which are actions that occur (on their view) during the Great Tribulation, after the Church is raptured out of the world.
  73. Despite the dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and his people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in Herman Hoyt’s statement that “the redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of the earth…. So he exalts them above the Gentile nations…. On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.
  74. Despite dispensationalism’s claim that the Jews will be dominant over all peoples in the eschatological future, the Scripture teaches that “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’” (Isa. 19:23-25).
  75. Despite dispensationalism’s “plain and simple” method that undergirds its millennial views, it leads to the bizarre teaching that for 1000 years the earth will be inhabited by a mixed population of resurrected saints who return from heaven with Jesus living side-by-side with non-resurrected people, who will consist of unbelievers who allegedly but unaccountably survive the Second Coming as well as those who enter the millennium from the Great Tribulation as “a new generation of believers” (Walvoord).
  76. Despite dispensationalists’ claim to reasonableness for their views, they hold the bizarre teaching that after 1000 years of dwelling side-by-side with resurrected saints who never get ill or die, a vast multitude of unresurrected sinners whose number is “like the sand of the seashore,” will dare to revolt against the glorified Christ and His millions of glorified saints (Rev 20:7-9).
  77. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).
  78. Despite the dispensationalists’ production of many adherents who “are excited about the very real potential for the rebuilding of Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem” (Randall Price) and who give funds for it, they do not understand that the whole idea of the temple system was associated with the old covenant which was “growing old” and was “ready to disappear” in the first century (Heb 8:13).
  79. Contrary to dispensationalists’ expectation of a future physical temple in the millennium, wherein will be offered literal animal blood sacrifices, the New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Passover and the Old Testament sacrificial system, so that Christ’s sacrifice was final, being “once for all” (Heb 10:10b), and that the new covenant causes the old covenant with its sacrifices to be “obsolete” (Heb 8:13).
  80. Contrary to dispensationalism’s teaching that a physical temple will be rebuilt, the New Testament speaks of the building of the temple as the building of the Church in Christ, so that “the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph 2:21); the only temple seen in the book of Revelation is in Heaven, which is the real and eternal temple of which the earthly temporary temple was, according to the book of Hebrews, only a “shadow” or “copy” (Heb 8:5; 9:24).
  81. Despite the dispensationalists’ attempt to re-interpret Ezekiel’s prophecies of a future sacrificial system by declaring that they are only “memorial” in character, and are therefore like the Lord’s Supper, the prophecies of that temple which they see as being physically “rebuilt” speak of sacrifices that effect “atonement” (Ezek. 43:20; 45:15, 17, 20); whereas the Lord’s Supper is a non-bloody memorial that recognizes Christ as the final blood-letting sacrifice.
  82. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to the Jews as important for the fulfillment of prophecy and their charge of “anti-Semitism” against evangelicals who do not see an exalted future for Israel (Hal Lindsey), they are presently urging Jews to return to Israel even though their understanding of the prophecy of Zech 13:8 teaches that “two-thirds of the children of Israel will perish” (Walvoord) once their return is completed.
  83. Contrary to dispensationalism’s populist argument for “unconditional support” for Israel, the Bible views it as a form of Judeaolotry in that only God can demand our unconditional obligation; for “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and God even expressly warns Israel of her destruction “if you do not obey the Lord your God” (Deut 28:15, 63).
  84. Contrary to dispensationalism’s structuring of history based on a negative principle wherein each dispensation involves “the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), so that each dispensation ends in failure and judgment, the Bible establishes a positive purpose in redemptive history, wherein “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:17) and “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” (2 Cor 5:19a).
  85. Despite dispensationalism’s pessimism regarding the future, which expects that “the present age will end in apostasy and divine judgment” (Walvoord) and that “almost unbelievably hard times lie ahead” (Charles Ryrie), Christ declares that He has “all authority in heaven and on earth” and on that basis calls us actually to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt 28:18-20).
  86. Despite the tendency of some dispensationalist scholars to interpret the Kingdom Parables negatively, so that they view the movement from hundredfold to sixty to thirty in Matt 13:8 as marking “the course of the age,” and in Matt 13:31-33 “the mustard seed refers to the perversion of God’s purpose in this age, while the leaven refers to the corruption of the divine agency” (J. D. Pentecost), Christ presents these parables as signifying “the kingdom of heaven” which He came to establish and which in other parables he presents as a treasure.
  87. Despite dispensationalism’s historic argument for cultural withdrawal by claiming that we should not “polish brass on a sinking ship” (J. V. McGee) and that “God sent us to be fishers of men, not to clean up the fish bowl” (Hal Lindsey), the New Testament calls Christians to full cultural engagement in “exposing the works of darkness” (Eph 5:11) and bringing “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5).
  88. Despite dispensationalism’s practical attempts to oppose social and moral evils, by its very nature it cannot develop a long-term view of social engagement nor articulate a coherent worldview because it removes God’s law from consideration which speaks to political and cultural issues.
  89. Despite the dispensationalists’ charge that every non-dispensational system “lends itself to liberalism with only minor adjustments” (John Walvoord), it is dispensationalism itself which was considered modernism at the beginning of the twentieth century.
  90. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of the gospel as the means of salvation, their evangelistic method and their foundational theology, both, encourage a presumptive faith (which is no faith at all) that can lead people into a false assurance of salvation when they are not truly converted, not recognizing that Christ did not so quickly accept professions of faith (e.g., when even though “many believed in His name,” Jesus, on His part, “was not entrusting Himself to them.”—John 2:23b-24a).
  91. Despite the dispensationalists’ declaration that “genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living” (Charles Ryrie), their theology actually encourages unrighteous living by teaching that Christians can simply declare Christ as Savior and then live any way they desire. Similarly, dispensationalism teaches that “God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding requirements attached at all” (Zane Hodges), even though the Gospel teaches that Jesus “was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31) and that he declared “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27).
  92. Despite the early versions of dispensationalism and the more popular contemporary variety of dispensationalism today teaching that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (L. S. Chafer and Zane Hodges), the Apostle Paul “solemnly testifies to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).
  93. Contrary to dispensationalism’s tendency to distinguish receiving Christ as Savior and receiving him as Lord as two separate actions, so that saving faith involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (Zane Hodges), the Bible presents both realities as aspects of the one act of saving faith; for the New Testament calls men to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; James 2:14-20).
  94. Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of “genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation.  Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19).
  95. Despite dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9).
“Dispensationalism has thrown down the gauntlet: and it is high time that Covenant theologians take up the challenge and respond Biblically.” – Dr. Robert L. Reymond, author, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith