Dishonest and Deceptive Christians

If you are going to speak against or debate a position different from your own, you need to represent that position honestly and convey it truthfully with integrity. In other words, you need to study that position to make sure you understand correctly what it is they teach and believe in order to ensure you represent their position truthfully and honestly. If you are merely going to make statements that condemn a position based on your dislike thereof, and make those statements in ignorance and dishonesty, misrepresenting the other position, then you are merely lying to your hearers and leading them astray by your deceptions. I will give you an example:

"A hyper-Calvinist believes that everything is predestined and thus God, they have no problem saying, is the author of sin. A hyper-Calvinist believes that predestination and foreknowledge are the same thing; what God predestines He divinely decrees and thus they believe in what we call double predestination. That God has elect and chosen some to be saved, and others He has chosen to be damned, and God gets the glory. A hyper-Calvinist believes that invitations are an insult to God. That predestination is the highest of all doctrine."

—Ergun Caner

This is typical of how cults and most Arminianist-based faiths debate, how they attack positions different from their own. Without a correct and proper understanding of what the other position believes, they just make up a bunch of absurd nonsense in order to deceive their hearers into thinking they are teaching the truth. They demonize the other positions without dealing with them fairly, justly, honestly, or truthfully. Cults are well known for doing this so that they can keep their numbers up and their members confused. The above quote is chock full of fallacious statements deliberately meant to misrepresent his concept of Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism.

Not only is everything Mr. Caner says above incorrect, proving he knows nothing about hyper-Calvinism and could not be bothered to study it, but he interchanges Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism throughout his entire sermon. Not only that, but his attempts at explaining the Greek deliberately avoid and ignore the context as well as other passages of Scripture that use the same words. He attempts the typical ignorance in explaining the word "all," the word "world," and the word "whosoever," all the while making fallacious accusations in regard to those who exegete and interpret these words correctly according to their contexts. Dave Hunt plays the same fast and loose games with the texts, making the same fallacious accusations.

People like Ergun Caner and Dave Hunt would do well to educate themselves by reading this blog entry and this blog entry, two letters to two different groups of people.

Arminianists and non-Reformed (people who do not fit the full definition of Arminianism) like to camp out on certain verses that use "all," "world," and "whosoever." If they were true students of the Word, they would look those words up in their original Greek to see what precisely they mean, while also looking up their occurrence elsewhere in Scripture. These people like to say that "all means all and that's all that all means," and that the word "world" is inclusive of "each and every individual without exclusion." What do these people do with Romans 5:18? "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Unless you are a Universalist, the second "all" cannot mean "each and every individual without exception."

Let us look at some other problems for these people. Romans 7:8a: "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness." There is a limitation on the word "all." Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" Does this mean God is going to give us divine powers? I mean, if all means all... Romans 11:32: "For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all." Again, unless you are a Universalist, all cannot mean "each and every individual without exception." Romans 14:2: "One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only." Can he eat a rock? 1 Timothy 4:10: "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." A very Arminianist commentary, by I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, had this to say: "Adoption of the traditional translation of malista (μαλιστα) as 'especially' leads to some strange exegesis. These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation: 'to be precise, namely, I mean.' 'All' is thus limited here to believers."¹ 1 Timothy 4:15: "Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to all." Did each and every individual on this planet without exception see Timothy's progress? Of course not!

Emotional ignorance is no excuse for poor exegesis and bad study habits. In fact, villainizing the other position as Ergun Caner has done, and as Dispensationalists frequently do, whether intentionally through deception or out of sheer ignorance and laziness, is not only dishonest but cowardly. Whatever our presuppositions, we need to approach Scripture openly, honestly, and with great humility, so that if it teaches something contrary to what we believe we might humble ourselves and conform our beliefs to the truth of the text. If one says, "Yeah, that's what the text teaches, but I don't accept it," that is fine. At least they are being honest. But when they purposefully ignore what the text says and lie about it, that is an entirely other matter. Misrepresenting the other position by setting them up so you can easily knock them down is dishonest. Unfortunately, and sadly, there are many professing Christians who will deliberately lie about certain information in order to try and make their case. If you have to be dishonest, then you have won nothing and proven nothing. You have only proven you are a liar who cannot play fair. I do not like it when professing atheists do it, and I like it even less coming from those who profess to know Christ Jesus.

---

¹ This quote was not copied directly from the book, but written down by my own hand from hearing the reading of the quote from the book by James R. White. Exact rendition thereof may appear entirely different.

Questions For Potential Suitors

from Wretched

We are not barbarians. Dads should not threaten a potential suitor with a fire-arm. At least not a loaded fire-arm. But that doesn’t mean a Dad shouldn’t put the young man on the hot seat.

Below are some questions that may help you determine if a young man will have access to your daughter. Your mileage may vary. Start with #30.

1. Share your salvation testimony.
2. What is the Gospel?
3. Share the most recent Bible verse you have memorized.
4. Can you recite all 66 books of the Bible in order? Try.
5. How often do you read your Bible?
6. When was the last time you read your Bible?
7. Tell me about your participation in your local church.
8. Can you recite the Nicene Creed for me?
9. If you are a virgin, why? If you are not a virgin, tell me what you have learned.
10. Tell me everything you know about the Protestant Reformation.
11. What is your approach to protect your sexual purity as well as my child's?
12. What Scripture verses guide your interactions with the opposite sex?
13. Explain your doctrinal views on the Bible, the Trinity, salvation, the Church.
14. What Bible verses are presently the most challenging in your personal walk with Christ?
15. Where is he convicting you now?
16. How has God grown you as a Christian over the last year?
17. Do you agree with that plan? Are you following that plan?  
18. What do you believe is God's plan for premarital relationships with the opposite sex?
19. Is your conscience clean before the Lord in your dealing with my child?
20. Have you crossed those boundaries in your relationship with my child?
21. What are the boundaries that you have set in order to maintain purity?
22. How would you describe the role of the husband in marital relationships?
23. Do you see issues or concerns in this area?
24. What is the role of your parents after marriage?
25. Have you discussed this area with my child?
26. What are your thoughts regarding children?
27. When was the last time you looked at pornography?
28. Do you have the ability to provide for my daughter? If not, what is your plan?
29. What is your theology of financial stewardship?
30. Tell me about your little brothers and sisters.

User-Friendly Nonsense

Even though it is not my intention to offend anyone with this article, I know that I am going to step on some toes. It is unavoidable. But I am in no way attempting to judge anyone. The purpose of this article is meant to have people look at the bigger picture and to have them examine themselves to see what kind of insignificant things they have placed as concerns and/or priorities in life and/or ministry that really have no importance at all. We live in a time of convenience and comfort and sometimes get sucked into it, having unreal expectations. Read on and you will see what I mean.

Since when did the pulpit one preaches the Gospel from become an inconvenience? Since when did it require comfort for the preacher? Since when was it a necessity to be user-friendly? Last I checked, the mandate was to preach the Gospel. There was nothing in there about comfort and user-friendliness.

Do we ever read or hear of anything where Martin Luther complained that his pulpit was not "user friendly"? Did John Calvin ever complain that his pulpit was not "user friendly"? How about John Wesley? What about George Whitefield? Jonathan Edwards? Surely Charles Spurgeon complained that his pulpit was not "user friendly." No? So why is that an issue with preachers today?

If these great preachers of the past were alive today, and heard about preachers complaining that their pulpit was not user friendly for all who spoke from it, what do you suppose they would have to say about it? I am certain that I do not have to tell you because I think you already know...

Where Does Morality Come From?

A man I work with, after telling him that we do not get our morality from animals, in a conversation regarding homosexuality, said that we do not get it from a book written two thousand years ago either. This is an area that is a huge problem for fools like him. People like him want to think and/or believe that morals are relative. If that is the case, if morals are determined by you and I, then what is right and wrong? If morals are relative, determined by the individual, then what if my morals say it is okay to rape and murder your daughter? If morals are something we determine ourselves and do not come from a book written two thousand years ago, or from someone outside of us, then by what right can you judge me and say I did wrong by raping and murdering your daughter? You cannot!

This is what post-modern stupidity looks like, saying that there is no absolute truth and that truth is just relative to the individual.

The fact of reality is that morality comes from Someone outside of us. That Someone is God, and He wrote that morality down for us in a book. That book is called the Bible. Without the morality contained in that book, we would be left to ourselves and we would do whatever seemed right in our own eyes: raping and murdering someone's daughter, for example. Morality did not come from evolution. It did not come from society getting together and agreeing on certain things. Morality is intrinsically written upon our hearts by the Creator. We know what is right and wrong, what is true and false, but choose to suppress it in unrighteousness. We do not want to be caught having done something we know we should not have done, so we lie, even though we know intrinsically that lying is morally wrong.

So, yes, morality does come from the Bible, which was given to us by the Creator. Because He is holy and perfect, He determines what is or is not moral. We had no say in the matter and we have no say in the matter. If God did not set the standards of morality, then mankind would be left to themselves and men would do whatever was right in their own eyes. The system of right and wrong would be determined by each individual, which means if you sneezed in my direction I could lawfully kill you for it. Be thankful the Bible makes morality clearly known to men, because without it we would be more wicked than we already are.

Pa-Rum-Pa-Pum-Pum

Once again, Christmas time is upon us. As per usual, millions of people will be celebrating this day with numerous theological errors. Let us face it, most Christmas carols are rooted in tradition rather than theological accuracy. While there is nothing wrong with listening to and enjoying these songs, we need to remember that we do not receive our theological beliefs from Christmas carols, Christmas pageants, or any other such things. Our theological beliefs must come from Scripture alone. Traditions and inaccuracies do not take away from our enjoyment of these songs, but we do need to be aware of them and make sure they do not creep into our theology and the practical application thereof. Let us face it, we can say we believe one thing, but our actions demonstrate what it is that we truly believe.

The ironic thing here is that while the world hates Christ Jesus and wants nothing to do with Him or His children, they sing along with these songs on the radio without paying a single piece of mind to what the lyrics are saying and what they mean. They have never given it any thought. Probably because they are incapable of such thought, but I digress. So, let us observe a few of the inaccuracies that exist in our Christmas carols.

1. Scripture says absolutely nothing about there being only three wise men; it merely mentions three gifts, all of which had to do with burial rites (Matt. 2:1-12). Not to mention that the wise men were not at the nativity scene; they showed up when the child was around two years of age (Matt. 2:11, 16).
2. The herald angels did not sing anything; one angel made a proclamation and then a host of angels spoke, "Glory to God in the highest" (Luke 2:8-14).
3. It is extremely doubtful that the nativity scene was silent; "No crying He makes?" Really?!? One wonders if the author had ever been around a newborn baby before. Maybe the author presumed that because He was God, He would not cry. Whatever the reason, Scripture tells us that He was like us (Heb. 2:17; 4:15) and that He cried (John 11:35).
4. There was no little boy with a drum—anywhere in the narrative.
5. "Joy To the World" is actually about the return of Christ at the end of the age to usher in eternity—not about His birth.

Christmas time is celebrated incorrectly every year by millions of Christians. While we have the freedom in Christ to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas however we choose, there is consistently one prevailing thing missing from both sides of this pendulum: the true meaning of Christmas, and Who and what it is we ought to be celebrating. God Almighty sent His only begotten Son in the form of human flesh to dwell among us in order that He might save His people from their sins. That is the true meaning of Christmas. The Gospel of Christ Jesus. If we are not celebrating this fact, we might as well not be celebrating anything at all because we have become like the heathen.

The true meaning of Christmas: God Almighty sent His only begotten Son in the form of human flesh to dwell among us in order that He might save His people from their sins.

While Jesus was not born on December 25, and while we should be celebrating this every day of the year, when we celebrate it on December 25 it should be that much more special to us and hold that much more of a place in our hearts and minds than it currently does. In light of the true meaning of Christmas, perhaps many of us would like to re-think how we celebrate it each year and make sure we are actually doing so in remembrance of His birth, life, death, and resurrection. Let us remove the idolatry and adultery from our celebration and center our celebration around the true meaning of Christmas—the Gospel. Whether or not you have a tree, hang decorations, or exchange gifts is secondary to what you need to be doing. Let us celebrate Christmas right!

Deitiphobia

Simply put, homosexuals are Deitiphobes. Not only them, but also those who accept and support them. Deitiphobia is the fear of God. Not the fear they should have, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever" (Psalm 111:10), "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" (Proverbs 9:10), but the fear of knowing precisely Who He is, what He wants from us, and submitting and conforming to His will.

Realistically, however, every non-believer is Deitiphobic. You try to talk to them about God and they will have none of it. Yet, they will try and treat "science" as if it is a god. Science this, science that. Even though it is a fact that science cannot explain everything. There are hundreds of things science cannot explain and never will be able to. Science is not the end-all be-all. Science is only science if it adheres to the scientific method. The moment it goes beyond that, it ceases to be science. Period!

I had one guy at work tell me he will not believe anything regarding natural medicine until he has seen the scientific data in support for it based on the scientific method. (I am not talking about those Old Wives' Tales "Home Remedies," but about actual Natural Medicine.) I was tempted to point out the hypocrisy in his statement by asking him if he has ever seen the scientific data in support of all "modern medicine" based on the scientific method. The answer is clearly "No," but he has a bias. He is exercising blind faith in "modern medicine" because it professes "science" behind it. There is a place for doctors and medicine, just as there is a place for natural medicine. One needs to be wise and do their research to know when which is which. It is not good to rely solely on natural medicine and it is not good to rely solely on "modern medicine." "Modern medicine" is not all it is cracked up to be. People would do well to open their eyes and pay attention to the sordid past that "science" and medicine have. There is a reason it is called "practicing medicine," because what they think they know today will be proven wrong tomorrow. Even today, "modern medicine" does as much harm as it does good. But we are off topic.

Homosexuals and those who support them like to try and call Christians and anyone who disagrees with their choice a "homophobe." Likewise, many people will try and call anyone who exposes the truth regarding Islam an "Islamophobe." I think it is high time we cast the die back at their own teeth by correctly identifying them as Deitiphobes. Of the three terms, the only one that holds any truth behind it is Deitiphobia. The other two are merely manipulative terms concocted as a means to try and silence the truth from those opposed to them.

It is rather ironic how the people behind both fallacious terms, "homophobe" and "Islamophobe," have the exact same character, mentality, and agenda against Christians: "Convert! Or lose everything!" In the Middle East, that is the ultimatum from Islam toward Christians. In North America, that is the ultimatum from the LGBT toward Christians. And who is falsely accused of being guilty of "hate" crimes? People need to wake up and open their eyes and take a closer look at the behaviour and actions of the homosexual community if they want to see what real hate crimes look like. Unfortunately, a great number of people in society have been emotionally manipulated and brainwashed into ignoring their common sense and logic in order to support the fallacious and illogical arguments of the LGBT community. Demonstrates how much of their brain they actually put to use...

Rules For Bible Study

The first rule when reading/studying/interpreting the Bible is:

     Context, context, context!

The second rule when reading/studying/interpreting the Bible is:

     Compare Scripture with Scripture! (Examine the whole counsel of the Word of God.)

The third rule when reading/studying/interpreting the Bible is:

     Wrestle with and submit to what the text actually says, and conform your beliefs accordingly.

When a preacher/teacher preaches/teaches the Bible expositorily verse-by-verse, they need to remember these three rules. As they go verse-by-verse, the tendency is to isolate the current verse or passage from its immediate (surrounding verses), sectional (surrounding chapters), and/or canonical (other passages) contexts. This can lead to false interpretations and doctrinal errors that can have grave consequences. Preaching/teaching the Bible expositorily is the best method, but the above three rules must remain in tact the entire time.

So, when you are preaching through Matthew and you arrive at 5:31-32 or 19:3-9, or you are preaching through Mark and you arrive at 10:2-12, Rule #2 ensures that you consider the whole counsel of God's Word on the matter, which includes Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, 39; Hebrews 13:4; Malachi 2:13-16; Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 24:1-4; and the narrative of Jesus' birth regarding the state of His parents. Remember, there is no room for experiential interpretation. All your work must be exegetical. Do not force the text to say something it does not, just because that is what you desire it to say even though you have just been confronted with the fact it says something completely different.

Rule #3 acknowledges that if you are doing proper Bible study, you are going to encounter things that go against how you have been raised and/or what you have been taught, whether by your parents, your pastor at your church, or professors at Bible schools. At this point, you seriously need to wrestle with what the text has just revealed and then you need to submit to it and conform your beliefs in accordance to what the text actually says. To do anything less is rebellion. Remember, children of the King delight in the truth. Better to swallow your pride and correct your beliefs than to proudly and stubbornly continue preaching/teaching false doctrines and lies.

Adhere to those three rules and you should never go wrong.

Salvation After the Rapture?

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way." 2 Thessalonians 2:7

If you are not familiar with it, the Christian Zionist, or Dispensationalist, uses this verse to teach that after the "Rapture" the Holy Spirit will be removed from the Earth and that He will no longer indwell or influence men. Among the hundreds (if not thousands) of nonsensical and illogical beliefs bound up in this bankrupt system of theology, this one has got to be the most astounding.

The Dispensational system of theology teaches that even after the "Rapture" people will be getting saved. There are a couple monumental problems with this.

First, if all the Christians were removed from Earth at the "Rapture," who could possibly tell the remaining people about Jesus? Who could disciple them properly? Who could tell them about sin, repentance and faith? That is right... No one! "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). All the Christians have been removed. Who is going to preach to the lost? If someone could miraculously believe, they would then be a Christian, which, logically, would "rapture" them out of the world since, according to Dispensational theology, Christians are not supposed to experience the wrath of God poured out on the world. If you are a believer, you are a Christian and you belong to the Church. Simple as that.

Second, if the Holy Spirit is removed from the Earth and no longer indwells or influences men, how could the remaining people possibly get saved? You cannot exercise something that has not been given to you. Read your Bible! Faith is a gift from God. If God does not grant you faith, you cannot and will not believe. Every change that must accompany salvation is brought about by the Holy Spirit. If He does not first make you born again from above, giving you a new heart with new desires and granting you faith so that you may believe, then you remain dead in your sins. You can only exercise faith once the Holy Spirit has changed you in order that you will exercise faith. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit" (Matt. 7:18). An unregenerate person with a heart of stone (bad tree) cannot choose to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They cannot regenerate themselves nor give themselves a heart of flesh. Likewise, a regenerate person with a heart of flesh (good tree) cannot choose to reject Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They cannot unregenerate themselves nor give themselves a heart of stone. If the Spirit has regenerated you and given you salvation through faith, you will exercise the faith you have been granted because you can do nothing less. If the Holy Spirit has not regenerated you and given you salvation through faith, you cannot exercise a faith you do not possess.

Jesus has been reduced merely to an object by the Dispensational system of theology. All you need to do is exercise something you do not possess (faith) and you can save yourself. Their system of theology teaches that your salvation is in your hands; that you can choose to accept or reject Christ Jesus. Jesus is the object and you and/or your faith are the source.

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is both the object and the source of our salvation. If you do not believe, it is because you do not belong to Him. What do John 3:18 and 3:36 say? What does John 10:26 say (see also John 8:47; 18:37; 1 John 4:6)?

The Book of God

by Unknown Author

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness—that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

This book contains:

    the mind of God,

    the state of man,

    the way of salvation,

    the doom of lost sinners, and

    the happiness of believers.

Its doctrine is holy,

its precepts are binding,

its histories are true, and

its decisions are immutable.

It contains . . .

    light to direct you,

    food to support you, and

    comfort to cheer you.

This book is . . .

    the traveler's map,

    the pilgrim's staff,

    the pilot's compass,

    the soldier's sword, and

    the Christian's charter.

Here Heaven is open—and the gates of Hell are disclosed. Christ is the grand subject,

our good is its design, and

the glory of God is its end.

This book should . . .

    fill the memory,

    rule the heart,

    and guide the feet.

It is . . .

    a mine of wealth,

    health to the soul,

    and a river of pleasure.

It . . .

    involves the highest responsibility,

    will reward the greatest labor, and

    condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

Read it to be wise,

believe it to be safe,

and practice it to be holy.

Read it . . .

    slowly,

    frequently,

    and prayerfully.

This Book—the Book of Books, the Book of God, the Bible—is the revelation of God to man!