The Purpose of First John

"Now John's going to tell us the reason he wrote his epistle. He says, verse 13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life." Why did John write this letter? He wrote it to a group of people who were professing faith in Christ so that reading the letter they would know whether or not they were truly saved. That's the purpose of this letter. And this was well-known in the old days of old preaching. If you want to know whether you've been saved or not, you don't go to some little magical formula; if you want to know whether you're saved, you go to First John, because the whole thing is a series of tests that are given so that the Spirit of God might reveal to your heart that you truly are saved and give you a biblical assurance instead of an emotional one. But at the same time, maybe give you biblical assurance that you're lost, no matter what the profession that comes out of your mouth." —Paul Washer

Is that really why John wrote his letter? Was that really the purpose of his letter? I greatly respect Paul Washer, but unfortunately he is completely and entirely wrong here. John was not writing to administer a series of tests for people to determine whether or not they were genuine believers. Pay close attention to what John says in the verse quoted by Mr. Washer, and not to what he does not say: "These things I have written to YOU WHO BELIEVE in the name of the Son of God." He was not writing to a bunch of professing believers to help them determine whether they are truly saved or not. He was writing to believers. Why? "So that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."

John's letter has two purposes. The first purpose is to warn believers about false teaching: "These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you" (2:26). The second purpose is to help believers know that they have eternal life—assurance: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life." (5:13). (Can John be divided into two sections? One that deals with those who are trying to deceive them, and the other to deal with the assurance of them having eternal life?) What John does in this letter is repeatedly emphasize the marks of a true believer and how these counter the false teachings. He contrasts obedience to God against licentiousness; loving one another against arrogance; and correct Christology against the idea that the body is evil. John was contrasting Christians with other groups—like the Gnostics and Docetists—who teach a different gospel and live very different lives. John is informing his audience that despite what those groups preach and teach, they should cling to what Jesus did, said, and promised. This is why at the very beginning of his letter (1 John 1:3) John reminds them of the Word he and the apostles have seen and preach to them. This is the only true Word and promise that they should cling to.

According to The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, the outline for First John looks like this:

• Prologue (1:1-4)
• Obeying God #1 (1:5-2:6)
• Loving One Another #1 (2:7-17)
• Correct Christology #1 (2:18-27)
• Obeying God #2 (2:28-3:10)
• Loving One Another #2 (3:11-24)
• Correct Christology #2 (4:1-6)
• Loving One Another #3 (4:7-21)
• Correct Christology #3 (5:1-15)
• Obeying God #3 (5:16-21)
  

The Ryken's Bible Handbook also errs in its understanding of the purpose of John's writing: "IMPLIED PURPOSES. To offer doctrinal and moral touchstones by which Christians can know if their profession of faith is genuine and active; to encourage Christians to live up to God's high standards in their spiritual and moral lives." Nothing is ever mentioned about proto-Gnosticism and the heresies John wrote to confront and correct; the actual purpose of John's writing.

Let us see what the intended purpose of John's writing this epistle actually was:

"First John tackles a strange heresy that claimed Jesus had been on earth only in spirit, not in body: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist" (4:3). John wrote that he knew Jesus personally, as one "which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1:1), and that knowledge leads to a saving belief in Jesus. Saving belief leads to obedience, but even when we sin, we know that God "is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" when we confess (1:9)." —Know Your Bible

"From the beginning [this Epistle] has been recognized as a Circular Letter of the Apostle John to the Churches around Ephesus, to emphasize the Main Essentials of the Gospel, and to warn against incipient Heresies which later produced a Corrupt and Paganized Form of Christianity. ... Christianity had been in the world some sixty or seventy years, and in many parts of the Roman Empire had become an important religion and a powerful influence. Naturally there came to be all sorts of efforts to amalgamate the gospel with prevailing philosophies and systems of thought.
A form of Gnosticism which was disrupting the Churches in John's day taught that there is in human nature an irreconcilable principle of Dualism: that Spirit and Body are two separate entities: that Sin resided in the Flesh only: that the Spirit could have its raptures, and the Body could do as it pleased: that lofty mental mystical Piety was entirely consistent with voluptuous sensual life. They denied the Incarnation, that God had in Christ actually become Flesh, and maintained that Christ was a Phantom, a Man in Appearance Only.
In Ephesus a man named Cerinthus was leader of this cult. He claimed for himself inner mystic experiences and exalted knowledge of God, but was a Voluptuary. Throughout this Epistle it seems that John must have had these heretics in mind, in insisting that Jesus was the Actual, Material, Authentic Manifestation of God in the Flesh, and that Genuine Knowledge of God must result in Moral Transformation." —H. H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook

"Many false teachers had gone out from Ephesus to surrounding cities, teaching erroneous views about Christ. John wrote his Gospel to convince his readers that "Jesus is the Messiah" (John 20:30-31). He wrote this letter to reassure them that through Jesus they have eternal life (5:13) and can enjoy fellowship with God and with fellow believers (1:3-4)." —Harold L. Willmington, Willmington's Bible Handbook

"We gather from Irenaeus that [this epistle] was occasioned by the invasion of several errors. One was associated with moral laxity and the Nicolaitans, whom Irenaeus tenuously connects with Nicolas (Acts 6:5; cf. Rev. 2:14-15). The other was an error concerning the person and work of Christ, attributed to Cerinthus, who taught a form of Gnosticism." —Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger's Bible Handbook

"After the Pauline battle for freedom from the law, Gnosticism was the most dangerous heresy that threatened the church during the first 3 centuries.
Most likely, John was combating the beginning of this virulent heresy that threatened to destroy the fundamentals of the faith and the churches. Gnosticism, influenced by such philosophers as Plato, advocated a dualism asserting that matter was inherently evil and spirit was good. As a result of this presupposition, these false teachers, although attributing some form of deity to Christ, denied His true humanity to preserve Him from evil. It also claimed elevated knowledge, a higher truth known only to those in on the deep things. Only the initiated had the mystical knowledge of truth that was higher even than Scripture.
...
A lack of love for fellow believers characterizes false teachers, especially as they react against anyone rejecting their new way of thinking (3:10-18). They separated their deceived followers from the fellowship of those who remained faithful to apostolic teaching, leading John to reply that such separation outwardly manifested that those who followed false teachers lacked genuine salvation (2:19). Their departure left the other believers, who remained faithful to apostolic doctrine, shaken. Responding to this crisis, the aged apostle wrote to reassure those remaining faithful and to combat this grave threat to the church. Since the heresy was so acutely dangerous and the time period was so critical for the church in danger of being overwhelmed by false teaching, John gently, lovingly, but with unquestionable apostolic authority, sent this letter to churches in his sphere of influence to stem this spreading plague of false doctrine." —John F. MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible

The Rykens write, "2:19, 26 hint at a church split, and on the basis of this some infer that John writes to a shaken church in which members wondered about whether they were on the right track in their beliefs and Christian walk."

While you may find evidences within First John of what a genuine believer looks like, nevertheless the purpose of John's writing was not to give a series of tests with which to determine if you are genuinely saved or not. His purpose in writing was to combat proto-Gnostic heresies and to encourage genuine believers in their faith, giving them assurance.

Furthermore, when Paul wrote, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test," he did not have First John in mind as a series of tests with which to test yourself. First John had not even been written yet! So what was Paul referring to when he said this? Do not separate this verse from the rest of the surrounding context of what Paul is discussing. This verse is not in isolation from what Paul had been writing. Stop ripping verses from their immediate context and forcing them to have your agenda rather than saying what they were intended to say. We are to examine ourselves in light of what Scripture says concerning the Christian. If we are missing the mark on everything, it is quite possibly an indication that we have never been saved. If we are missing the mark on the odd thing here and there, then we are probably most likely saved and just need educating in the areas we are missing the mark and to strive to do better. After all, according to Peter, "His divine power has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and virtue." We lack nothing! See my Bible Study, How Can We, Like Enoch, Walk With God?, for more information.

Christ In Christmas?

"Jesus did not come to create a holiday. He was born to die for sinners."
—Steven Lawson

Exactly! Jesus has nothing—zero, zilch, nada—to do with the Christmas holiday or season. The idea of "keeping Christ is Christmas" is just ludicrous; He was never in Christmas to begin with! He was not born on December 25. He was born either on Tishrei 1 (the Feast of Trumpets), Tishrei 10 (the Day of Atonement), or Tishrei 15 (the Feast of Tabernacles).

Some people believe He was born on Tishrei 15 because "the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14), but I believe that is a severe case of reaching.

The ridiculous argument that 'Christ' is in the word 'Christmas'? It is also in the names 'Christopher' and 'Christine.' Would you like to read something into those as well?

Understanding A Cheerful Giver Biblically

"Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7

A great many churches, preachers, and individuals cite this verse in support of "tithing" or giving every Sunday so that the preacher and the building might be taken care of. But is this what this verse is actually saying? No, no it is not! Each and every single one of these people are eisegeting this verse, ripping it out of its context, and twisting it for their own sordid gain.

Let us examine the context of this verse, shall we.

What is this giving intended for? Where is it going? It is intended to pay for a preacher to deliver a message and to line his pocket, allowing him to purchase a million-dollar home or a jet? Is it intended to pay for the construction of, the bills for, and the maintenance of a building that predominantly sits empty most of the week? No! Both these cases are the gravest errors of poor stewardship! So where, contextually, is this giving that Paul is talking about going to? Observe:

"For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, [the churches of Macedonia] gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints." (8:3-4)

"at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality." (8:14)

"For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God." (9:12)

"Because of the proof given by this ministry, they will glorify God...for your liberality of your contribution to them and to all." (9:13)

The giving that Paul is speaking of is going to supply the needs of the saints. Plural. It is not going into Paul's pocket to pay for his "services"; it is not going into Titus' pocket to pay for his "services"; and it is not going into the "local preacher's" pocket to pay for his "services."

Just as with 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, this giving is going to support the needs of the saints. Plural. This collection is going for the relief of those who are enduring through a famine, who may have lost their job due to converting to Christianity, etc. Nowhere in this passage (or any other) does it specify that this giving involves or is reduced to money! Every Old Testament passage dealing with "tithing" (Israel's taxation system) is concerned with food. Every New Testament passage eisegeted and twisted in support of giving your money to your local church to pay for the preacher and the building (face it, that is where 90% of your giving ends up) is concerned with food. What need do widows, orphans, sick, and imprisoned have with money? None! They need food; they need clothing; they need shelter.

No local preacher or local church is receiving these "bountiful gifts." They are relief efforts to supply the needs of the struggling Jerusalem church. Does your expository preacher explain these things to you? Or does he twist these passages for his own sordid gain? Christians are not supposed to give their hard-earned money in order to support a preacher. Let him follow the apostle Paul's example and support himself by getting a job. Christians are only supposed to give in order to support the needs of the saints; and there is nothing in Scripture that limits this to just those members of your own building or your own denomination! Go ahead, read the entire New Testament. I dare you! You will find no example of such shallow "love" in the New Testament. These genuine Christians had a love for all the saints, whether they agreed on every single doctrinal detail or not.

What does your love for the saints look like? Do you even care if a brother or sister in the faith is struggling? Do you bother to lift your finger? Or shrug it off as "not my concern"? Giving to support the needs of the saints involves your time, talent, and treasure. It is not merely about money. It never was. Are you gifted in an area that can help a struggling saint? Perhaps their eaves troughs need cleaned out. Perhaps they need repairing. Perhaps their windows are drafty. Where can you help? How can you help?

A believer's giving is meant to supply the needs of the saints. Plural. It is not meant to line the pockets of the preacher, paying for him to deliver a message like the Sophists before him (on which his practice is based), and it is not meant to pay for and support a building! I am sorry, but that is the epitome of being a poor steward of the things which God has blessed you with, and you are being robbed by lying preachers who are nothing more than hirelings, who only want to be preachers for the money and for the control they can wield over others. Bibilical leaders in Christ's Church are to be like the youngest member of a family and like servants (Luke 22:25-26). What authority does the youngest member of a family have? What authority does a servant have?

The Macedonian churches went beyond their ability in their desire to help the struggling Christians in Jerusalem and other locations. The Corinthians partook in this ministry. These Christians found it a joy to gives of themselves (in whatever capacity they could) to supply the needs of the struggling saints. If they were ever in need, other saints found it a joy to supply their needs. This is how the Christian life is supposed to function; a genuine love for all the saints in need, not just those who agree with you or are in your clique or inner circle of friends.

Ponder these things promptly.

Pulpit & Pen's False Criteria

Pulpit & Pen wrote a small article in 2016 that utilizes the fallacy of Poisoning the Well.  In an attempt to defend their unbiblical beliefs and practices, they decided to label anyone who adheres to and obeys God's Word as a "Sectarian Minimalist," which they then falsely identify as a "heresy."

Pulpit & Pen claims that these people "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church." First of all (and this is embarrassing that it even needs to be explained), house churches are local churches! So how do house church members "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church"? This is a fallacious statement made by Pulpit & Pen. Second, Pulpit & Pen obviously quite clearly does not have a clue what a biblical church looks like. It is abundantly clear that Pulpit & Pen have no clue what a church is because they think that a family unit cannot be a church. Perhaps they missed the verse that says, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." If they are missionaries to some foreign country surrounded by heathen, if they are not a church, then when do they become a church? The ignorance of those at Pulpit & Pen betrays them. Third, they are attributing their experience of a "church" as being a biblical church. They are not allowing the Bible to dictate what a biblical church ought to look like and how it ought to function. Their "experience" does not mesh with the New Testament.

Pulpit & Pen also accuses these people of "a minimalist approach to ecclesiology that both insults and rejects the organized church." The organized church is an insult! Perhaps the writers at Pulpit & Pen would care to read more and learn how to research and study correctly. The organized church is no church at all! The early church was a living organism, not an organization. The "organized church" Pulpit & Pen speaks about is a business, designed to fleece the flock by lying to them and manipulating them. If you doubt me, read my book The Biblical Truth About Tithing and see how they lie and twist Scripture in order to line their pockets with your money instead of it going where it should! Every verse they try to twist for their sordid gain is dealt with, exposing them as no better than the charlatans in the Charismatic movement.

Here are some of the things that Pulpit & Pen falsely claim are "Sectarian Minimalist," but which are actually and truly biblical teachings, traditions, and practices:

• The offices of elder and deacon are unofficial. These were never titles or offices, but functions. Shepherds are sheep, too. The people at Pulpit & Pen would benefit greatly from actually reading their Bibles instead of blindly following the traditions of men that make void the Word of God. Jesus said not to give yourselves titles or offices. Jesus said that leaders are to be like children and servants. What kind of authority does a child have? What kind of authority does a servant have? These are not leaders like the world has! Pulpit & Pen ought to know better.
  
• Taking advantage of charitable tax-status makes you a hypocritical liar and a thief. Your "business" rakes in free money that you pocket without paying taxes? That money is not supposed to go to your pocket or to the building! Read your Bible!!! You are worse than a tax collector and a heathen. "Tithing" just to get something back on taxes is hypocritical, too. That is not sacrificial giving, nor is it charitable giving; your motive is tainted by sin. Giving is supposed to be voluntary, without wanting anything in return! You do not help the poor and needy because you will get something back out of doing so. You can explain it away all you want, but we both know it is sin. If you did not receive a tax slip at the end of the year, would you be giving at all? Most likely not!
• Preaching (a monologue of exposition in an authoritative oration), especially for monetary gain, is pagan-influenced and unbiblical. Read the well-documented book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Whether you like the book or not, or agree with it or not, the burden of explanation for your denial of the historically factual sources cited falls on you. New Testament church meetings were open, spontaneous, and every-member participatory (1 Cor. 14:26, 29-31).
• Church membership is unbiblical. In the early church, the only requirement to be a member of the Church was to have a life transformed by the Holy Spirit. There were zero hoops to jump through. Memberships today resemble country clubs, with courses, waiting periods, approval committees, etc. There is zero justification for these legalistic nonsenses!
  
• The liturgy or "order of service" is also unbiblical, having its roots in the Roman senate and the pagan religions. Again, the people at Pulpit & Pen should read a book (or two or three or a dozen). What they adhere to and believe to be "church" practice was largely installed under Emperor Constantine. That is not how New Testament churches looked! It is certainly not what they practiced! It does not matter what the early fathers said and did; they are not God! They do not get to say how God should be worshipped.
  
• The doctrine of the "Priesthood of All Believers" is twisted by people and groups like Pulpit & Pen to deny that which the Bible supports, and to support that which the Bible does not even acknowledge. They talk about the "Priesthood of All Believers," but then do not practice it. They fail to grasp the meaning of the doctrine.
  
• Religious education in organized settings like Bible College and Seminary are unbiblical and are not necessary or needed. Even Charles Spurgeon did not believe in ordination. Martin Lloyd-Jones had some very scathing things to say about such organized religious institutions. Both of whom, by the way, had no formal training. Neither did John Bunyan, of whom John Owen said he "would gladly give in exchange all [his] learning" if he "could possess this tinker's ability to grip men's hearts." Perhaps if Pulpit & Pen read more instead of blindly following the traditions of men, submitting themselves to Popes of their own making instead of subjecting themselves to the full and complete authority of the Bible and nothing else, they would be less prone to such blunders.

 Pulpit & Pen makes other grave erroneous assumptions as well:

• They place a greater value on historical theology above and beyond that of biblical theology (that which is taught in the Bible, by Jesus and His apostles). Their argument is that these church fathers said these things, therefore we are to obey them, even though they oppose and contradict the teachings and traditions of Jesus and His apostles. The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern; not on those who desire to follow it.
• Their ignorance believes that the ordinances can only be observed with a "duly constituted biblical authority," which is not how the New Testament church functioned. If Pulpit & Pen bothered to read historical books, they would see that this practice eventually crept into the church via authoritarian dictators by use of the heresy of apostolic succession. Any mature Christian may administer the ordinances. The false idea that only a priest/pastor can administer them cannot be substantiated in, from, or by the Bible. A non-clergy administering them is only blasphemous and condemned under these men's judgment; the Bible does not support their argument of it being so under God's judgment.
• Their ignorance confuses what does and does not fit the qualifications or marks of a biblical church. House churches predominantly fit the qualifications of a biblical church to the letter (ones that follow the institutionalized hierarchy do not). Organized institutions falsely called "churches," patterned after the Roman senate and pagan religions, do not! Again, the folks at Pulpit & Pen would not be able to identify a biblical church if they crossed paths with one.
  

Pulpit & Pen have a disinterest, contempt, and repudiation for well-documented books like Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, of which they cannot refute. The information in that book is historically factual, and yet Pulpit & Pen, in their ignorance and contempt, reject its facts in favour of the practically-Catholic traditions their denomination has spoon-fed them. Forget thinking for yourself and studying history and the facts; Pulpit & Pen would rather keep their eyes covered, their head stuck in the sand, and blindly follow the false traditions they have been handed. Their authority is not the Scriptures, but rather their denomination, their system of theology, etc. Like the Catholics, they will turn to what early fathers said and make that authoritative rather than turning to the Bible and letting it be authoritative without them twisting the context and forcing Scripture to support their unbiblical hierarchical organizations.

What Pulpit & Pen attempts to do with their article is badmouth, demean, and demoralize biblical house churches. They claim that if you are not part of a "local church" (their idea of what constitutes a local church), then you must be a rebellious apostate who is not really a Christian at all. I would love to see them try to answer such local churches as Atlanta Reformation Fellowship. The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern; not on those who desire to follow it. Without twisting random, isolated verses of Scripture and ripping them out of their immediate context, they need to prove that the Bible—not historic man-made traditions—supports their model of "church" and "church government." It does not! The Bible supports the house church model. If Pulpit & Pen bothered to do their homework (on a number of levels), they would know that in countries where the Gospel is prohibited, the Church flourishes by means of house churches. They cannot get permits to build such useless buildings as we use in the West, that predominantly sit empty and suck up people's hard-earned money in order to sustain them. God gave patterns and commands for the Tabernacle and worship under the Old Covenant. What Pulpit & Pen fails to grasp is that He also gave patterns and commands for His Church and worship under the New Covenant. God decides how He is to be worshipped; not men! Adhering to the traditions set down by Jesus and His apostles better allows the Spirit to create love, unity, community, and commitment in a body of believers.

Why does Pulpit & Pen blindly attack biblical Christians and call them names, like "Sectarian Minimalists"? Because they are greedy hirelings who want the hard-earned money of other people, which they themselves did not work for or earn. Would Pulpit & Pen be willing to do what they do without receiving money from their congregants? Not in the least! You can be assured that they would head for the door in two seconds if the congregation told them their money was now going to the poor and needy (like it is supposed to) instead of to the preacher's pocket and the building. Yet, they know that they are willfully twisting Scripture, ripping it out of its immediate context and eisegeting it, in order to support themselves being paid by your giving. There is not one single verse that exegetically and contextually supports preachers being paid through the giving of the flock (or to pay for the construction, bills, and upkeep of a building). Their two favourite verses to twist and pervert are Malachi 3:8-12 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Yet, what is the context? There is no command given anywhere in Scripture for Christians to "tithe" (let alone 10%) or give money in order to support a preacher or a building.

Pulpit & Pen can engage in ad hominem and the use of logical fallacies all they want. They can sling all the mud they want and try to sully the names of good Christians. Let them; it is all they have. They cannot defend their position or their beliefs. If they want to be part of an institutional organization instead of an actual local congregational body of Christ, then that is their choice. I am absolutely certain that the heathen at Pulpit & Pen will instantly label me a so-called "Sectarian Minimalist," despite being unable to answer or refute my position and arguments. That is fine by me. Wisdom is vindicated by her children. The Bible teaches what it teaches, and history reveals what it reveals. Authority only resides with one of these, and it is not history and those things spoken by the church fathers, nor with the Reformers and the errors they held onto from the Catholic system as well as those errors they introduced themselves.

Pulpit & Pen has an odd measure as to what "the most discerning men in evangelicalism" looks like, demonstrating that they quite obviously lack discernment themselves. While I respect several of the men Pulpit & Pen is referring to by this statement, nevertheless I have witnessed them botch actual discernment in their own lives. I could direct you to the videos they uploaded in which they demonstrate the absolute lack of a single ounce of discernment. But guess what? They are only human. If their lack of discernment becomes something of a constant consistent issue, then we have a problem. My blog article on ministers who do not know how to lose is spot on regarding each and every single man Pulpit & Pen has in mind with their statement. It does not mean I respect these men any less; they are sinful men like any other, imperfect and prone to error. But the fact they do not know how to lose, coupled with their prideful arrogance and stubborn ego, demonstrates that they have not learned the lessons that need to be learned for such a position and that they are disqualified from such positions. I will reiterate:

Many ministers in ministry today do not know how to lose; they do not know how to lay their lives down; they do not know how to die. They have never been broken; they have never been crushed. They are dangerous. They will defend themselves at the drop of a hat. They do not know what it means to be silent. They do not know how divinity reacts to pressure. They will attack those who sleight them at the drop of a hat. They are unbroken, they do not know how to lose, they do not know how to die, and they are out there serving the kingdom of God with one hand and destroying God's people with the other hand. None of these ministers were ever in community long enough for the Lord to temper, adjust, break, or transform them. Some of them, when things got hot, they left, they ran away. This is not how we have learned Christ Jesus. These ministers are full of ego and full of pride, and when they are under pressure the flesh gets exposed.

So, go ahead, Pulpit & Pen, call me a "Sectarian Minimalist" and falsely accuse me of "heresy," despite the fact you cannot defend your own position except by twisting random isolated verses of Scripture eisegetically out of their immediate contexts and making things outside of the Bible authoritative (such as the words and actions of church fathers). You and I both know you are wrong.

Just to inform those who may be reading this, during the early Church, the Gnostics went around claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit with their "special" knowledge and revelations. The early fathers, aware that claiming what they were doing was actually the leading of the Holy Spirit, knew that would not work. If someone claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit, who is to say that they are not? Well, that is extremely easy to answer: one's conformity to Scripture. But instead of making Scripture their authority, they came up with the heresy of apostolic succession, which is how and why they said and did the things they did that derailed the Church. Though I am sure Pulpit & Pen would reject apostolic succession, nevertheless they prove they support this heresy by turning to what the fathers said and did in defense of their model and understanding of church and church government. It is like rejecting Universalism only to argue that God is drawing all men and that He is not willing that anyone should perish, which means you agree with and support Universalism because that is what your argument leads to.

How A Biblical Church Functioned In the New Testament

According to God's Word, how does a biblical congregation function? What does a biblical congregation look like? I have previously used Scripture to reveal and explain this, but now I shall use the "experts" and "scholars" to prove it, to demonstrate that it is not my own personal interpretation. This is what God's Word teaches, and anyone who professes to be spiritual will recognize the truth therein. Those who reject this truth are stubborn and rebellious, desiring to hold to the traditions of men rather than to the Word of God, because the truth is not in them!

The New Testament Congregation met in the homes of those in the Congregation:

"The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament." Dr. Colin J. Hemer, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.58.

New Testament Congregations were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory; with no one leading from the front:

"Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part... [this] changed from being 'a corporate action of the whole church' into 'a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.'" Dr. Henry R. Sefton, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.151.

"In the earliest days... their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all... There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.402.

"The very essence of church organization and Christian life and worship... was simplicity... Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion." A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.22-23.

When New Testament Congregations met, they partook of the Lord's Supper as a full meal:

"In the early day the Lord's Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.594.

"Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death... the Lord's Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord's Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord's Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony." Dr. John Drane, The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p.173.

""[1 Corinthians 11]... reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food." Canon Leon Morris, Commentary on 1 Corinthians for the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p.158.

"[The Lord's Supper]... was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday." I. Howard Marshall, Christian Beliefs, p.80.

Each New Testament Congregation practiced non-hierarchical, plural male leadership that had arisen from among the people in the Congregation. These men were known as watchmen (overseers) and elders. This was a function, not a title or office. Decision making was on the basis of the consensus of everyone in the Congregation:

"It was Paul's practice to appoint several elders (the same thing as bishops) to take charge of each church." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.620.

"The churches were living organisms rather than organizations... When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simply the officials." Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p.741.

"When we come to consider the permanent officers of the Church we find that in the days of the Apostles elders and deacons were appointed and their duties defined. The office of elder is variously described in the New Testament as bishop, pastor, teacher, preacher, minister and steward. The various terms mentioned referred to the same officer, but each presented a different aspect of their work. Thus 'pastor' indicated their duty to 'shepherd the flock' of Christ. Bishop, a word used to translate the Greek 'episkopos,' indicated that was 'overseers' they had to 'feed the Church of God' (Acts 20). That the 'presbuteros' and 'episkopos' (elder and bishop) were the same is shown by many facts... Furthermore, the qualifications for bishop and elder were the same. Scarcely any scholar today would dispute the words of the late Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and an undoubted authority: 'It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same Officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop, and elder or presbyter.'"" A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.20-21.

"Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit's direct guidance it was controlled by an hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church 'membership' at all... But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different. Now the key to membership of the Church was not found in inspiration by the Spirit, but in acceptance of ecclesiastical dogma and discipline. And to make sure that all new members had a good grasp of what that meant, baptism itself was no longer the spontaneous expression of faith in Jesus as it had originally been. Now it was the culmination of a more or less extended period of formal instruction and teaching about the Christian faith. And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organized ecclesiastical machinery." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.397.

"It is important to realize that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit it was important for the mainstream church to have it's own clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church's leaders to claim -- even if it may have been true -- that they, rather than their opponents, were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that, and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period, supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognized authority in the church must be succeeding to the position held by the apostles. They were the Apostle's successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an apostolic succession." Ibid, 403.

The dominating factor of the early Congregation was the guidance of the Holy Spirit, something vastly missing from today's denominations that have effectively strangled the Headship of Christ and rendered Him silent as the Congregation's Head.

Shepherds are sheep, too. Were any of the epistles written to Congregational leaders? No, they were not! They were written to a specific congregation (as in the letters to the Corinthians), or set of congregations (as in the letter to Galatia). Could you imagine how indignant church leaders today would get if someone like the apostles wrote a letter to the entire Congregation, rather than simply to its leaders, concerning their upcoming visit? If the Congregation was expected to submit to its elders, the way many church governments conduct themselves today, surely the place to mention it would have been in Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3-4 where Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, children to submit to their parents, and slaves to submit to their masters; or in 1 Peter 2-3 where Peter tells believers to submit to government, and wives to submit to their husbands.

Elders are a subset of the Congregation as a whole. There was no clergy/laity split! Nor should there be! This is an unbiblical practice. The epistles went to great lengths to influence all believers, not just the leaders. The apostles also did not bark orders in their epistles. They treated all believers as equals and appealed to them as such. Do the various denominational congregations today behave this way? Not in the least! Their leaders lord it over the assembly and demand they do nothing without the authority or approval of the leaders. An elder's primary responsibility is to influence with the truth.

The only consideration given to elders in the epistles is Hebrews 13:7. But what does it say? "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith." Many authoritarian church leaders run to Hebrews 13:17 and say, "See! You're to obey me/us!" Really? Are your skills as an elder that inept? The typical word for blind obedience is hupakouo. The word used here is peitho. It means "to persuade or convince." The typical word for submission is hupotasso. The word used here is hupeiko. It means "to yield or give way." So the passage is saying, "Be persuaded by your leaders and yield to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give account." It suggests that dialogue will take place; not a monologue. Teaching will be given and arguments will be made. Someone who is persuaded by something will act on it. It has nothing to do with authoritarian dictatorship or hierarchy!

God's flock must be open to persuasion by its shepherds, and shepherds must be committed to ongoing discussion and teaching. Congregations are made up of both mature and immature Christians; of those who walk in the Spirit and of those who do not; of those with the gift of discernment and those without it. After much persuasion and prayer, dissenters are called on to yield to the wisdom of the shepherds. This should only come about after dialogue, discussion, and reasoning. Elders must be committed to building Spirit-filled congregational consensus. The Congregation is not an authoritarian hierarchy. Eldership is not for men of ego who hunger after control over others. Jesus condemned this behaviour.

The Words of Jesus:

Jesus contrasted the authority of political leaders with congregational leaders: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant." Luke 22:25-26
How much authority does the youngest person in a family have? How much authority does a servant have? In harmony with Jesus, Peter later instructed elders to "shepherd the flock...[not] as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock." If you want God's blessing on you as a congregational elder, then do what Jesus modeled and wield your authority with a servant's heart.

Jesus condemned the use of titles and positions: "They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi [or Pastor, or Reverend]; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:6-12
How arrogant is it to affix the term 'Reverend' to your name and demand that others call you by such? Reverence belongs to Almighty God alone! By giving titles to yourselves and to others, you elevate them above everyone else, making them greater than all. There is no humility in that.

People today spout on about the "separation of Church and State," but the Greek word ekklesia outside of the New Testament was originally a government word, which meant a political assembly that was regularly convened for the purpose of making decisions. It was for full citizens only! You can see two secular uses of the word in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. The New Testament use of the word has the same weight. It is a gathering, an assembly, a congregation of those called out from the world and to God. There is a decision-making mandate involved. It is for members only, for citizens of Heaven only!

In Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus promised to build his ekklesia on the rock of Peter's confession. The "keys" spoken of represent the ability to open and to close something; "kingdom" is a political term; and "binding" and "loosing" involve authority to make decisions. In Acts 1:15-26, the Jerusalem congregation as a whole was charged with finding a replacement for Judas. In Acts 6:1-6, the apostles looked to the congregation as a whole to pick men to administer the congregation's food program. In Acts 14:23, the apostles appointed elders with the consensus of the local congregation. In Acts, 15, the apostles not only included the local Jerusalem elders, but also the entire congregation! Decision making was never relegated to a select few officials over the rest of the Body! This has been the practice of modern denominations and their authoritarian dictators with egos to fill.

The Unclean Spirit

"When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first." Luke 11:24-26

Here is a passage that many people do not understand. The reason for their lack of understanding? Failure to pay attention to the context surrounding it. In verse 14, Jesus was casting out a mute demon. After the mute man had spoke, some of the Jews accused Him of casting out the demon by the power of Satan. Jesus responds to them, "If I cast out demons by Satan, by whom do your sons cast them out?" The context of this passage is exorcism. So what is Jesus saying about the unclean spirit?

Jesus was exposing the work of phony exorcists, such as we read about in Acts 19:13-15. If such exorcisms could be accomplished via satanic power, then the pharisaical exorcists must be suspect as well. Clearly the sons of Sceva were charlatans and frauds. Jesus explains that what appears to be a true exorcism is nothing more than a temporary respite. Eventually the demon returns with seven others.

Here is a fact for our cultish Charismatic friends to learn: Christians cannot be possessed by demons! That is what Jesus' discussion of a strong man being plundered by a stronger man is teaching. The strong man is Satan. The stronger man is Jesus. When a demon is defeated by the power of Jesus, the soul is taken over by Jesus' spirit. When the Holy Spirit indwells a person, demons cannot indwell that person. The Holy Spirit is God Himself. Do Charismatics honestly think demons could reside and dwell in the same place as the thrice holy God?

This is why context is so important, and why you need a Bible that does not have the distractions of chapters and verses. Bibles with chapters and verses should only be used for reference tools, since that is why they were originally added in the first place. The Bible was originally intended to be read and did not contain chapters and verses. In order to understand it correctly, you should be reading and studying from a Bible without chapters and verses.

The Veneration of Mary

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." Luke 11:27-28

Not only does Mary's magnificat condemn the Catholic's veneration of her, acknowledging that she was just as in need of a Saviour as every other human being on this planet (Luke 1:47), but this passage absolutely condemns the Catholic's veneration of Mary. How, you ask? A woman in the crowd shouted, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed!" Catholics would agree with this sentiment, and argue for Mary's veneration from it. But pay very close attention to Jesus' response.

"On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

The phrase "on the contrary" has the sense of "Yes, but rather..." Jesus did not admit as possible any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of veneration. The only person who deserves reverence is Almighty God. Reverence belongs to Him alone, and not to preachers who falsely apply the title "Reverend" to themselves. Mary's relationship to Jesus as His physical mother did not bestow upon her any great honour than the blessedness of those who hear and obey the Word of God!

The heresy of Mary's immaculate conception falls apart at the seems, for those who understand the basic use of logic. If Mary had to be perfect in order to bear the Saviour, as Catholics argue, then so, too, did her mother have to be perfect in order to bear her. So, too, did Mary's grandmother have to be perfect in order to bear Mary's mother. Likewise for her great-grandmother. This argument must logically be followed all the way back to Eve, who was deceived by the serpent and ate of the forbidden tree. In other words, Eve would have to have been perfect, too. Mary was not sinless. She merely found favour in God's eyes, as did others before her who also were clearly not sinless. Noah. Moses. Samuel.

Mary is not a co- anything with Jesus. She does not participate in the act of redemption in the least. Catholics call her the "Queen of Heaven" and have turned her into a goddess that they worship because Catholicism is a cult that contains many idols. It does not matter what Church fathers said. They are not God. They are not inspired. They do not have the same inspiration as the biblical authors or the Word of God itself. Much of what they said and did brought error into the Church. If it is not said in Scripture, then what they said carries very little value.

Jesus did not afford veneration to His mother, and neither should we.

Did the Jews Kill Jesus?

Apparently most historians are extremely poorly educated. They claim that "Jews lacked a motive for killing Jesus," and that "it would be more accurate to blame the Romans for His death" since crucifixion was their specialty. Do these historians not read the Bible? The Jews had nothing but motives for killing Jesus (Matt. 26:3-5; Luke 22:1-2; John 5:16-18; 7:1, 19-20, 25; 8:37-44; 19:10-12; 18:36b; Acts 5:27-30). What was the single greatest motive for the Jews to kill Jesus?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:56-59

"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:30-31

Jesus identified Himself by the name that God had given to Moses in the desert—"I Am," and said that He and the Father were one. Unlike Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others cults, the Jews knew precisely what Jesus was saying. Look at their response: "You, being a man, claim Yourself to be God." Why else would they pick up stones to stone Him? Jesus was declaring that He was God. He declared His divinity even by giving Himself the title "Son of man." He was not acknowledging or declaring His humanity. (See this article.)

Did the Jews kill Jesus? Yes, they did! Did each and every single Jew alive at that time kill Jesus? No! Did Jews today, or each and every Jew today, kill Jesus? Of course not! That is not what the New Testament is saying, and it is quite possibly not what the biblical Congregation ever said. No doubt certain "Christian" groups have blamed the Jews entirely through all generations, such as the Catholics. Stating matter-of-factly that the Jews killed Jesus is not "anti-semitism." That is just another term that ignorant individuals sling around as a smokescreen to discussing the facts, as just laid out above.

Each and every single Jew is not to blame for the killing of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Jews killed Jesus! It is no "myth," as ignorant individuals like to argue. There is no "idea" being "perpetuated." The Jews killed Jesus! The apostle Paul even acknowledges that the Jews killed Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. As with the apostle John in his Gospel, the term "the Jews" refers to those who opposed Messiah Jesus and His message, which predominantly was the hypocritical Jewish leaders: the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. It never meant that each and every living Jew at that time, or since, is responsible for the death of Jesus.

Denying that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus is like denying that the holocaust ever occurred. God gave the nation of Israel many opportunities to repent and turn to Him. Yet, they rebelled in disobedience. That is what the prophecy in Isaiah 28 was about. God told Israel that some day He was going to speak to them through the languages of foreigners, which they deemed to be worthless in comparison to themselves, and that they would reject this and would subsequently be destroyed. On the day of Pentecost, part of this prophecy was fulfilled. As 1 Corinthians 14:22 says, "tongues are for a sign ... to unbelievers." They were a judgment sign upon unbelieving Israel. In A.D. 70, the rest of this prophecy was fulfilled.

To say that it would be more accurate to blame the Romans demonstrates a complete ignorance as to reality and truth. Open the Bible and read it! The Jews knew that they could not put someone to death of their own accord (John 18:31). This would bring the judgment of the Romans down upon them. They had to present their case to the Romans. Both Pontius Pilate and Herod questioned Jesus. Pilate found no fault with Him and wanted to let Him go. But what did the leaders of the Jews incite many of the Jews to do? They shouted all the more loudly, "Crucify Him!" (Matt. 27:22-23; Mark 15:13-14; Luke 23:21; John 19:15).

Realistically, we are all to blame for the killing of Jesus. The Jews pursued it; the Romans executed it; but it was our sin (all of us) that put Him there and drove the nails.

Attention Seekers Galore

What is happening to the human race? Human sensibilities have gotten flushed down the toilet. Not only do the disillusioned reject nature and science by denying the fact of two (2) genders/sexes (determined by XX or XY chromosomes), but they are also rejecting reality and pretending to be other-than-human trapped in human bodies. Is there something in the water? Is it demonic influence? Whatever the cause, there is without a doubt something severely wrong. Let us look with discernment at some of the different trans roles out there.

Trans-ethnic or Trans-racial: These people are attention seekers who are looking to cash in on ethnicity. Rachel Dolezal went as far as becoming President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) telling people she was black. Treasure Richards, a black woman, thinks she is a caucasian: "I just know that I am white. I can feel it through my veins." Apparently a mirror is not helping her face reality.

Trans-abled: These people are attention seekers who are looking to cash in on sympathy. Jewel Shuping actually blinded herself because she felt like she was meant to be born blind. Other people like her have actually amputated their own limbs. There is something severely psychologically wrong in your mind for you to do such things to yourself.

Trans-aged: These people are attention seekers looking to dodge responsibility. Paul Wolscht was a married man with 7 children, until he decided he wanted to be a 6-year-old girl. Now, instead of raising a family and being a responsible father, he is being raised by a delusional couple as a 6-year-old girl. They even let him play with their grandchildren alone. Pedophile, anyone? And, no, that is not a stretch. One man who was accused of sexually abusing several little girls used the defense of "identifying" as a 9-year-old boy so that his actions would not be seen as sick, demented, or illegal.
By the way, when these people reach retirement age, they should not be allowed to collect old age pension. If they "identify" as a 6-year-old girl, then they are not old enough to qualify for receiving it. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too!
Why is it that this trans role only goes one way? Where are the 12-year-olds who "identify" as 21-year-olds so that they can purchase cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol? Oh, that is right. They are only children and cannot make such decisions. Then why are parents letting children make the ultimate decision to choose to be a gender/sex of which they are not and will never be?

Trans-sexual or Trans-gender: The classic trans role, these people are attention seekers who are looking for attention. Their attention seeking is usually aimed directly at their parents and/or past partners. These people typically have a very high suicide rate, likely due to no longer receiving the attention that they initially got in the beginning. It is a scientific fact that children who have such thoughts, if you leave them alone, they eventually grow out of them. Adults who go through this have psychological issues that need to be dealt with.
These people sometimes seek the benefits of the other sex/gender. For example, women pay less for car insurance despite the fact that most women have lead feet (always speeding beyond posted rates) and are more likely to be involved in an accident. Certain men choose to do so because as men they suck at athletics, and by joining female athletics they can blow away the competition (because no woman will ever touch them).
By the way, trans-sexualism/trans-genderism is just another form of homosexuality. You are not "assigned" a sex/gender at birth; your sex/gender is discovered at birth (and sometimes via ultrasound). Your sex/gender is determined at conception when the male or female sperm first penetrates the ovum (egg). The XX chromosome determines female, and the XY chromosome determines male. The boy from the movie Kindergarten Cop said it wisely, intelligently, with discernment and understanding: "Boys have a penis; girls have a vagina." Like it or lump it, that is the way it is. Period!

Trans-species: These people are attention seekers who are trying to be "unique." This is trans on steroids. These people are so attention-deprived that they will seek attention not only from family and friends, but also from anyone within view. Their delusion knows no boundaries. Some of these people use the demonic practice of "guided meditation," and other New Age mumbo-jumbo, in order to "discover" the species they should have been born as. Many, though not all, of these individuals start out as trans-sexual/trans-gender, and their confusion continues to spin out of control.A woman from Oslo, Norway, calling herself "Nano," claims that she is a cat trapped in a human body. While she has not undergone any body modifications (last I heard), there are those who have. A woman from Chicago, Illinois, Kimberel Eventide, claims to be an elf trapped in a human body, and has had her ears modified to look the part. Others who claim to be vampires trapped in human bodies have had work done on their teeth to look the part. But these are not the worst of this trans role. Richard Hernandez first went through a trans-sexual/trans-gender phase, and is now going through a trans-species phase. Anthony Loffredo is also going through a trans-species phase. These two have chopped off parts of their bodies (ears, nose), split their tongues, had body modifications done to their faces, and tattooed their eyes (which has high risk of blindness).
By the way, what is to stop these people who "identify" as these non-human species from pursuing relationships with said species? All of a sudden you have a case in support of bestiality/zoophilia. "Oh, he/she 'identifies' as a dog? Then why shouldn't he/she be allowed to engage in sexual activity with his/her 'kind'?" Where does the crazy stop and our sensibilities kick in?
Modern society thinks that there is nothing wrong with this? That the rest of us should just "go along with" and "accept" their insane behaviour? This is the result of people not being rooted and grounded in reality! These people are clinically insane! They need help! They need to speak with a legitimate qualified psychiatrist and psychologist. There is nothing "loving" about you embracing their insanity and pretending that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. The most loving thing you could do for them is to tell them the truth!!!

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'  ... For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24

That is the crux of the issue. The entire homosexual and trans dysphoria is a direct attack on God. These people are saying that God was wrong and that they know better than God as to who and what they are. The majority, if not all, of trans individuals are mentally ill, suffering from one to several dysphorias. This is predominantly the result of extremely bad parenting or a lack thereof (meaning these people did not receive enough spankings when they were children and probably got away with murder). Such parents do their children, and society, no good. They are pathetic excuses for parents and should never have been parents to begin with! Parents who let their children choose to be something they are not are horrible parents and should have their children taken away from them. What they are doing by allowing their children to do such is child abuse!

We are being told to ignore biology, science, nature, and the reality before our eyes, and to acknowledge and elevate a person's feelings above biological reality. These people want us to view them as something other than what is biologically accurate. We need to stop pandering to and catering to these people's delusions. They are not and will never be what they are pretending to be. Yes, they are pretending because each and every single one of them knows that they are not these things they are choosing to be! There is something innately wrong with the wiring in these people's brains. They have not been rooted and grounded in reality. Some of these people have been so disconnected from reality, spending much of their time in cosplay and LARP (Live-Action Role-Play), that it has inevitably led to this point in their life. They cannot seem to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Now they are demanding that the rest of us cow-tow to their fantasy and give breath to their delusion. You are either a heterosexual human male or a heterosexual human female. Period! Anything less is a direct attack against Almighty God.

Likewise, people who feel the need to get all sorts of tattoos and/or piercings all over their body, and who stretch their earlobes (or other parts of their body) to look like uncivilized tribal people, are attention seekers, too. Again, their attention seeking is usually directed at their parents, but they are also attention deprived and will seek it from anyone within view. They try to argue that they are just trying to be "unique," but if everyone else looks just like you, how "unique" are you, really? You can be unique without doing stupid stuff to your body. You do not have to deface and mutilate your body in order to be unique. And doing it just to get attention only demonstrates how much of an idiot you are.

Why I Cannot Recommend the NIV 2011

by James T. Bartsch

The New International Version rests on laudable origins. It was published as a contemporary translation for the evangelical community. The New International Version New Testament was published in 1973.The complete Bible, containing both Old and New Testaments, was first published in 1978, and revised in 1984.

In the Preface to the 1978 version, one reads that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." Further, it was stated, "The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." In its Constitution, Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: "The purpose of the Committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars, and to pursue matters related thereto."

Article III Section 3 spoke of membership on the translation committee: "Only those shall be eligible for membership on the Committee who endorse the purpose for which the Committee exists, and who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement."

In its Preface to the 1984 edition, this assurance was given: " the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form."

On a personal level, I have enjoyed insights gleaned from reading my personal copy of the 1978 version of the NIV. I have studied Hebrew and Greek, but I do not consider myself an expert in either discipline. Nevertheless, there are times when I work rather closely with the original languages. The NIV is translated from a dynamic equivalence point of view, rather than from a more formal  word-for-word correspondence. For that reason, except for a brief time when I resided in Australia between 1978 and 1982, I have not preached from the NIV. There are certain passages in which the NIV is too periphrastic, too interpretive for me. I prefer a translation such as the NASB, which, in my judgment, renders the original languages more precisely. That being said, I have never, until now, actually attempted to dissuade others from using the NIV. What has brought about that change?

The 1984 revision of the NIV did not particularly generate controversy, but with subsequent editions, all bets were off. In fairness to the editors of the NIV, they did not and do not state that they had or have a feminist agenda. Their argument is that language in the Bible must conform to modern usage. But what, I ask, has driven the change in the English language as it relates to masculinity and femininity? It is the political agenda of feminism. Philosophically, the editors of the NIV are committed to the translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence. That means they are more committed to the reaction of the receptors of the translation (in this case, the English readers) than they are committed to representing with fidelity the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. So whether the NIV editors admit it or not, concessions to political feminism became, as codified in 1992, and remain a major goal in their translation work. They have become more concerned about appearing tolerant as defined by the feminist agenda than they are about "the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." What a tragedy. Let me illustrate with a brief history of the advance of the feminist agenda in the New International Version.

 Continue reading...

The Son of Man

Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of Man." Out of all the occurrences in the New Testament, 94% of them came from Jesus in reference to Himself. Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, and many cults will point to this and argue that Jesus was simply acknowledging his humanity, saying that He was just a man like any other man. However, that simply is not true. Here we have another instance where Jesus was calling Himself God without having to use the exact words: "I am God."

According to ancient Israelite and near-eastern literature, the only figures who "come on the clouds of heaven" are divine. By referring to Himself as the "Son of Man, Jesus was declaring Himself to be divine; He was declaring Himself to be God in the flesh.

"I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8

"The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all." Psalm 103:19

"For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm. God reigns over the nations, God sits on His holy throne." Psalm 47:7-8

"--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--" Exodus 34:14

"Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting." Psalm 93:2

"All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power; To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13

Anyone Who Does Not Provide For His Own

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8

This verse was thrown at me by an "elder" at a Reformed "church." In fact, most people have the idea that this verse is speaking about getting or having a job and supporting your family. Several even use it as a proof-text for the man being the sole breadwinner of the family. Let me ask you a simple question. What is the context of this verse? Go on, read it. I'll wait.

"Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed." 1 Timothy 5:1-16

You cannot lift a single verse out of its context and force it to say something that it does not say! *cough* Mr. de Boer! *cough* Reformed individuals are no better at paying attention to the context of Scripture than any other denomination. The main reason for the poor understanding and interpretation of Scripture across every denomination is due to the addition and existence of chapters and verses. I get that they help you reference smaller portions of Scripture (why they were created in the first place), and I get that they help you memorize Scripture (though frequently taken out of context and misapplied). However, when they are absent from the text, it is harder for you to mangle the text because you are forced to pay attention to the context of what is being said. You do not have distracting chapters and verses falsely telling you that this ends here and this starts here and this verse stands alone.

This entire passage of Scripture is speaking about widows and those who should take care of them. With that understanding, what precisely is verse 8 saying? Wow! Look at that! It takes on an entire different meaning when you actually pay attention to and understand the context. Mr. de Boer needs to take a good hard look at himself in the mirror. He is the kind of religious elitist and hypocrite that Jesus constantly confronted and mocked.

"White Privilege" and "Systemic Racism"

I generally do not like writing political articles on this blog because its primary purpose is for "[studying] . . . rightly dividing the word of truth." But sometimes certain subjects need to be addressed with complete seriousness. Far too many people in this world need to be woken up from their slumber and given a dose of reality and truth. So, here it goes...

"Endemic racism," "foundational racism," "institutional racism," "pernicious racism," or "systemic racism" do not exist! This is a fear-mongering tactic used by Liberals/Democrats to keep black people scared and under their thumbs so that they will continue to vote for them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evd_uwHgXeA). Liberals/Democrats are the ones who hate blacks, using them to further their own agenda. Liberals/Democrats know that if black people wake up and learn the truth, they have lost the vote . . . probably forever. Whether you are white or black, pull your head out of the sand, stop believing the false narrative, get educated and inform yourself as to the truth! Since nobody wants to listen to a white person when they discuss the facts, here are several videos of black people discussing this issue, dismantling it, and destroying it. STOP believing and peddling the LIE!!!

Larry Elder Challenges "Systemic Racism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

Larry Elder on "Systemic Racism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrfV-y_VC8

Candace Owens and Larry Elder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR2lK36Tc4M

Larry Elder: Where's the Proof of "Systemic Racism"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3nInyPuFE

David Webb: The USA is NOT Institutionally Racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7hsiUirUU

What Most "Experts" Aren't Telling You During Black History Month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwUbx6Y1Zgo

Let us call things by their proper names. Prejudice and discrimination exist. If you do not like fat people or extremely skinny people, that is prejudice and can be (but is not necessarily) discrimination. Guess what? You have the right to dislike whoever you want to dislike; you do not have the right to lay a hand on them, however. It does not matter who it is or what they look like.

Some people have this idea that if they see blacks and whites together, it is because of guilt or some underlying ulterior nonsense. That they could not possibly like each other and get along, or that they should not be married to one another. Sorry, but that is true of you alone. You are the one projecting your feelings and thoughts upon everyone else (whether you are white or black). You think and feel these things and therefore attempt to accuse others of thinking and feeling them also. Many blacks and whites genuinely get along without any guilt or underlining ulterior nonsense. Many genuinely love each other. (You idiots push "love is love" for gays but reject it for blacks and whites? Who is the real "racist" here, bub?) How can this be possible? Because they see each other as human beings and not as colours.

Take your argument and apply it to white people with different coloured hair: "There's no way that redhead could be friends with that blonde. There's no way that brunette could love that blonde. It's gotta be because of some guilt or underlying ulterior issue. There's systemic hate against blondes." Do you see how stupid that sounds? I have worked with many black people, and I get along famously with them. I have worked with Indians and Asians as well. I love them all. They are people just like I am a person. I do not see them as any different. If you are going to make a big deal out of their melanin, then it is you who has the problem. STOP projecting your guilt, feelings, thoughts, and prejudices upon everyone else!

"White privilege" also does not exist. Wealth-based privilege does; power-based privilege does; fame-based privilege does.

Black Man Accused of "White Privilege" by Black Woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAlig2jW7SA

"White Guilt": A Trend That Needs to Die
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0t53G3C7U

Tell me, what kind of "privilege" does a poor white person who grew up on Welfare living in a trailer park have compared to a black person whose parents are a doctor and a lawyer and pull in a six-figure income? Who is the privileged party in that scenario? Do not get duped by the "critical race theory" asininity. When people talk about "race relations," it never includes anything outside of black and white. It has to do with what black people feel about white people, and what white people feel about what black people feel about white people.

PRIV·I·LEGE n. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

According to that definition, who are privileged individuals? Visible minorities! Homosexuals. Trans_____ (fill in the blank). Muslims. The Left-wing SJW hypocrites determine that every "minority group" gets an automatic win on the basis of being "underdogs" (which will soon include bestiality/zoophilia and pedophilia). Look at Hollywood, big media, and big tech in their support of Islam. Big tech "guidelines" are one-sided, always favouring Muslims; the same argument never applies to any other religion. Muslims complain about "offensive" speech, and big tech removes the so-called "offense." If you quote the Qur'an and Islam's trusted commentaries and expose the hateful and offensive speech contained within, big tech removes your stuff for pointing out the hateful and offensive speech of Islam against everyone else. Amazon will remove items that "offend" Muslims, but if a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu contacts them about items that offend them, they are told to suck it up and the items remain for sale. Hypocrite much, Amazon? The same goes for eBay and other companies, too. Muslims are privileged because people are caving in to their demands and letting them have their way. When was the last time you saw restaurants and grocery stores having to provide kosher foods for Jews? And yet they have to provide halal foods for Muslims. Hmm... Seems the scales are unjustly tipped in someone's favour.

Here is a news flash concerning the black slave trade. In the 6th century, Muhammad bought, sold, and traded black slaves (Sahih al-Bukhari 6161, 7263; Sunan an-Nasai 4625). Muhammad called blacks "raisin head" (Hadith 1:663; 9:256) and valued them as half the worth of an Arab (Sunan an-Nasai 4625). Muslims were the first, and are the longest running, black slave traders on the planet. Muslim countries signed pieces of paper in the late 20th century (after the rest of the world) to stop their black slave trade, but it continues to occur to this day! By the way, Muhammad was white (too many references to list), so black people who embrace Islam are not only ignorant but they are also basically agreeing with the slave trade. Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. and Mike Tyson are two of the most famous black people to be duped by the lies of Islam.

When the Europeans got into the black slave trading market, white men did not attack and kidnap blacks. Do you honestly think that the blacks did not know how to fight, and that they could not defend themselves against a few white men on a boat? Black kings of various tribes sold their own people (usually those considered criminals) in exchange for arms in order to defend themselves against other black tribes. People are taught to blame the white man when it was the black man who sold his own brother into slavery. If you are going to attempt to claim that your ancestors were stolen from Africa, then how about you get a backbone, grow a pair, renounce your citizenship in North America, and hop the first flight back to Africa. If you had it so great there, then why do you not return? We all know that you will never do such a thing because you are full of nothing but hot air. We have called your bluff, now grow up!

The Regressive Left is nothing but an echo chamber for morons. If you do not include one or more blacks as part of something, they accuse you of "systematic racism"; if you do include one or more blacks as part of something, they accuse you of "minstrelsy." You cannot win for losing because the Regressive Left has no rules for the mindless games they play; they make it up as they go, and no matter what you do you lose. The Regressive Left are simple-minded anti-intellectual know-nothing half-wit idiots who cannot provide a single coherent argument for the stupid things they believe and argue over. They are a collective hive-mind whose combined IQ would barely be enough to toast a piece of bread . . . lightly. They are incapable of thinking for themselves, having to be told what they should believe. If any of them ever has an original thought, what little brains they have will likely explode. The Regressive Left pushes the idea of "systemic racism" because, as Candace Owens has said, "The people that are shouting 'racism' the loudest are the racists." The Regressive Left hates America; but even more than that, they hate people who do the right thing. They do not possess an ounce of honesty, integrity, decency, ethics, morals, honour, class, or character.

The Regressive Left is gaslighting people with fake news of "endemic racism," "foundational racism," "institutional racism," "pernicious racism," and "systemic racism." Yes, certain people are prejudiced against black people. Yes, certain people are also prejudiced against white people. You are allowed to dislike whomever you want, but you are not allowed to lay a hand on them. That is the law! Was Officer Chauvin to blame for the death of George Floyd? Absolutely! No doubt about it. If someone is resisting, you are allowed to use reasonable force to make them comply. The way Officer Chauvin was sitting on Floyd's neck was not "reasonable." It was dangerous. In fact, if this officer had any brains, his training (or at least common sense) would have informed him that Floyd was in trouble. He could see his face with his own eyes; he could hear his voice with his own ears; and he could feel his body beneath him. Hell, if I am goofing off and wrestling with another person and I apply too much strength, I sure as hell have the intelligence to discern it and back off. So what the hell was Officer Chauvin's excuse? With that said, one bad apple does not make the entire bushel bad. If you have a crooked officer, you get him fired. You do not blame every other officer out there, including black officers, and demand such stupidity as "defunding the police." Use your brains, people!

The Regressive Left is using this event as a smokescreen, gaslighting the ignorant who cannot tell when they are being manipulated and controlled into doing the Left's bidding. Their media coverage of the event is purposefully designed to instill fear and fuel hatred, inciting people to a mob mentality and violence. It is fake news. It is like this: If a homosexual harassed and physically assaulted a Christian, the Regressive Left would not report on it for even one second. They would ignore it, deny it, and rate it as factually false. But if a Christian struck a homosexual in self-defense, the Regressive Left would throw the book at him and report the hell out it, making the Christian to blame and accusing him of hatred and violence. The homosexual will be painted as an innocent bystander who was minding his own business. How many white men get killed by police officers every year? How many white men get killed by black police officers every year? Do you ever hear anything about this? No, you do not! But, if one black man gets killed by police officers, even if by a black police officer, you will never hear the end of it. The Regressive Left will use and abuse that story, exaggerate it, and report the hell out of it, milking it for all it is worth. You could have a single black man killed by a police officer once in five years, and the Regressive Left media will spin it as if it happens every single day. It is a fear-mongering tactic used by the Liberals/Democrats to keep black people under their thumb.

How is a single black man being killed by a police officer supposedly evidence of "perpetual" police brutality and supposed "systemic racism"? Please! Do yourself a favour and look up the statistics. This is why nobody wants to debate Larry Elder on this issue because he will bury them alive with facts and evidence. The incident with George Floyd is tragic, and Officer Chauvin is entirely at fault. But do not take one bad egg and create a false narrative that says all police officers step out on the job with the single thought in mind, "I need to kill me a black man today." That is sheer stupidity and blind ignorance. When dealing with police, regardless of your ethnicity or colour, when they tell you something, do as you are told. They have a job to do, which is often stressful enough without you adding to it, so let them do their job. Give them the benefit of the doubt; and if it is a crooked cop, or you feel you were wronged, get their name and badge number and you can deal with it later. How would you like to be shot at all the time and have people trying to knife you and everything else?

Now, as a point of fact for the fascists of the Regressive Left who like to name call and use ad hominem, who like to project what is true of themselves on everyone else, and who falsely accuse people of real and imagined crimes they never committed, listen closely... I do not have a "racist" bone in my body. I love and dislike all people equally. Nyakim Gatwech, known as The Queen of Dark, is one of the darkest women models in the world. While some idiot Uber driver told her she should bleach her incredibly dark skin (which would be "racist" [it is in quotes because the correct term is prejudiced]), there is nothing she needs to change. She is absolutely stunning. If she had green skin like Gomora from Guardians of the Galaxy or Garona from WarCraft, or even blue skin like Neytiri from Avatar, she would still be gorgeous. If she were the woman God intended me to be with, I would not hesitate for even one second. Regardless of and inclusive of her skin colour, she is a beautiful woman. Why do people think the below photo is not or cannot be genuine and sincere? That it is somehow "unnatural"? Why does there have to be guilt from any side? Why does there have to be some underlying ulterior nonsense? Sorry, but if you honestly think that way, then it is you who has the problem and you are projecting your own inadequacies upon the rest of human civilization. The rest of us see human beings; amazing people to be friends with, hang out with, and even love.

Who is guilty of fear-mongering black people and constantly feeding them a false narrative? The Regressive Left! Hollywood, the media, and academia. These people are pathological liars! They would not know the truth if it bit them in the derriere. If you know any such Left-wing nuts, cut these cancerous individuals out of your life until they grow up! Get educated; inform yourself! An educated mind cannot be enslaved.