Death Blow to the Abortion Debate

"If men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely . . . [and] if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Exodus 21:22-23

Abortion is not new, and it certainly is not a 20th century problem. Abortion has existed since at least the Roman Empire, and likely long before that. There are no new sins. Man has been dealing with them for his entire existence. These sins have merely taken on different names or attempted different arguments as justification for them. For example, the 20th century attempts to argue for "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" of homosexuals, but sodomy is sodomy and it is all condemned as a perversion and an abomination by Yahweh almighty (see Death Blow to the Homosexual Debate). A "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" does not change what it is. Would this argument be used to support every form of incest?

Tomi Lahren, a Republican, professes to be a Christian, but she also says, "I'm a pro-choice conservative." On May 16, 2019, she tweeted, "I will be attacked by fellow conservatives for saying this, but so be it, this Alabama abortion ban is too restrictive. It doesn't save life, it simply forces women into more dangerous methods, other states or countries. You don't encourage life via blanket government mandate!" In response to a woman who called her "anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-freedom," Tomi responded, "If you think banning abortion with no exception for rape or incest will stop women from terminating pregnancy, you're not being honest with yourself. P.S. you're not God so don't you dare evaluate my Christian faith based on your moral superiority complex." Sorry, Tomi, but your views on abortion are anything but "Christian faith."

Tomi needs to be honest with herself. Banning abortion will not prevent those who desire to terminate the infant life in their womb, but that does not mean we should legalize abortion. Should we legalize rape and murder, too? After all, laws that prohibit rape and murder do not prevent rapists and murderers from raping and murdering. Maybe we should eliminate all gun laws, too, since criminals do not obey them. Apparently, Tomi needs an education in logic and critical thinking. The lawless never obey the law, but that does not mean that we should become a lawless society. That is both ludicrous and asinine.

For a so-called "Christian," Tomi Lahren's views are completely contradictory to the Lord Jesus, Yahweh's Word, and early Christianity. Observe:

ABORTION:
"You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born." —Barnabas (c. 70-130, E)

"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born." —Didache (c. 80-140, E)

"They bear children, but they do not destroy their offspring." —Letter to Diognetus (c. 125-200)

"We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say they will have to give an account to God for the abortion. So on what basis could we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being (and therefore an object of God's care)—yet when he has passed into life, to kill him. We also teach that it is wrong to expose an infant [the practice of abandoning infant children along roadsides]. For those who expose them are guilty of child murder." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"Fathers, forgetting about their children who have been exposed, often unknowingly have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself and with daughters who are prostitutes." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"Although keeping parrots and curlews, the [pagans] do not adopt the orphan child. Rather, they expose children who are born at home. Yet, they take up the young of birds. So they prefer irrational creatures to rational ones!" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)
Gee! What does this sound like? This sounds like today, where Westerners cry a foul over the "rights" of animals and treat animals with more dignity than they do a child in the womb. "Save the animals! Kill the children!" is the mantra of the West today.

"What cause is there for the exposure of a child? The man who did not desire to beget children had no right to marry at all. He certainly does not have the right to become the murderer of his children, because of licentious indulgence." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"In our case, murder is once for all forbidden. Therefore, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier way to kill a human. It does not matter whether you take away a life that has been born, or destroy one that is not yet born." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"First of all, you [pagans] expose your children, so that they may be taken up by any compassionate passer-by, to whom they are quite unknown!" —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"Although you are forbidden by the laws to kill newborn infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety. And this is doe with the deliberate knowledge of the public." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"Among surgeons' tools there is a certain instrument that is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for first of all opening the uterus and then keeping it open. It also has a circular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with careful, but unflinching care. Its lasting appendage is a blunted or covered hook, by which the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is brought about in this treacherous robbery of life. From its infanticide function, they give it the name, "killer of the infant"—which infant, of course, had once been alive." —Tertullian (c. 210, W)

"Indeed, the Law of Moses punished with appropriate penalties the person who causes abortion. For there already exists the beginning stages of a human being. And even at this stage, [the fetus] is already acknowledged with having the condition of life and death, since he is already susceptible to both." —Tertullian (c. 210, W)

"Are you to dissolve the conception by aid of drugs? I believe it is no more lawful to hurt a child in process of birth, than to hurt one who is already born." —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"I behold a certain ceremony and circumstance of adultery. On the one hand, idolatry precedes it and leads the way. on the other hand, murder follows in company. . . . Witness the midwives, too! How many adulterous conceptions are slaughtered!" —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels. So they commit murder before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your gods." —Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

"Women who were reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility. They also girded themselves around, so as to expel what was being conceived. For they did not wish to have a child by either a slave or by any common fellow—out of concern for their family and their excessive wealth. See what a great impiety the lawless one has advanced! He teaches adultery and murder at the same time!" —Hippolytus (c. 225, W)

"The womb of his wife was hit by a blow of his heel. And, in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father's murder." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"I cannot find language to even speak of the infants who were burned to the same Saturn!" —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

[Speaking of Pagans:] "They either strangle the sons born from themselves, or if they are too "pious," they expose them." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"Let no one imagine that to strangle newborn children is allowable. For this is the greatest impiety! God breathes into their souls for life, not for death. Mean . . . deprive souls that are still innocent and simple, of the light that they themselves have not given. . . . Or can those persons be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as pray for dogs? As far as their participation is concerned, they have killed them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them! . . . Therefore, if anyone is unable to bring up children because of poverty, it is better to abstain from marriage than to mar the work of God with wicked hands." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"You shall not slay your child by cause abortion, nor kill the baby that is born. For "everything that is shaped and has received a soul from God, if it is slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" [Ezek. 21:23, LXX]." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

Infanticide—abortion, the murder of a child in the womb—is always wrong, Christian! It does not matter whether the child is the result of rape or incest, there is no excuse for obliterating the life of an innocent child! Punish the guilty party, not the child! Are you aware of just how many famous people the world over would never have existed if you aborted every child who was the result of rape or incest? Research it some time! Anyone who attempts to call themselves a "Christian" who argues in favour of abortion had best examine and re-evaluate themselves because they are opposed to Yahweh almighty; they have made themselves His enemies. Not only are Tomi Lahren's views inconsistent with the Republican Party's stance (historically), but they are also extremely inconsistent with Christianity. Again, sorry, Tomi, but your views on abortion are anything but "Christian faith."

If you profess to be a Christian, you need to start being counter-cultural just as the early Christians were! You need to evaluate your life and start living according to Jesus' words, and stop trying to make excuses for yourself! Christianity is not something that is "cool"; you need to consider the cost of what it means to follow Jesus (Luke 14:27-28; cf. Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 2 Tim. 3:12), and then surrender all to Him. Your life is forfeit for Christ: "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life [for My sake and the gospels] will preserve it" (Luke 17:33; cf. Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24). Many who profess Christ today have no clue what it means to actually be a Christian. They are looking for some sort of benefit in this world, because false teachers have sold them a lie. The early Christians had their eye on eternity, considering the present persecution to be nothing in comparison with eternity. If they were to suffer for 70 years for the name of Jesus, it was considered a short period of time compared with eternity, and they were willing to endure it.

The Death of Discernment 2

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?" And they said, "Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king." But Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not yet a prophet of Yahweh here that we may inquire of him?" And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of Yahweh, but I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. He is Micaiah son of Imlah." But Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so." Then the king of Israel called an officer and said, "Hasten to bring Micaiah son of Imlah." Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting each on his throne, clothed in their royal garments, at the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were prophesying before them. And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made horns of iron for himself and said, "Thus says Yahweh, 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are consumed.'" All the prophets were also prophesying thus, saying, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead and succeed, and Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king."
Now the messenger who went to summon Micaiah spoke to him saying, "Behold now, the words of the prophets, as if from one mouth, are good towards the king. Please let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good." But Micaiah said, "As Yahweh lives, what Yahweh says to me, that I shall speak."
Then he came to the king, and the king said to him, "Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?" And he said to him, "Go up and succeed, and Yahweh will give it into the hand of the king." Then the king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear that you will speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of Yahweh?" So he said,
"I saw all Israel
Scattered on the mountains,
Like sheep which have no shepherd.
And Yahweh said,
'These have no master.
Let each of them return to his house in peace.'"
Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Did I not say to you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"
Then Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh. I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. And Yahweh said, 'Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. Then a spirit came forward and stood before Yahweh and said, 'I will entice him.' And Yahweh said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You shall entice him and also prevail. Go out and do so.' So now, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; but Yahweh has spoken calamity against you."
Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, "How did the Spirit of Yahweh pass from me to speak to you?" And Micaiah said, "Behold, you will see on that day when you enter an inner room to hide." Then the king of Israel said, "Take Micaiah and return him to Amon the commander of the city and to Joash the king's son; and say, 'Thus says the king, "Put this man in prison and feed him sparingly with bread and water until I come back safely."'" And Micaiah said, "If you indeed return safely, Yahweh has not spoken by me." And he said, "Listen, all you people." 1 Kings 22:6-28

Four hundred lying mouths speaking pleasantries (what you want to hear), and one mouth speaking the truth (what you need to hear). When you do nothing but speak good of someone, because you do not love the truth, do not be surprised when Yahweh sees to it that you are deceived. These prophets presumed to speak in the name of Yahweh. These prophets may have been close friends of the king, and because they would only speak what he wanted to hear, Yahweh deceived them into thinking they were speaking for Him. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy" (Prov. 27:6).

Even if you are not a close friend, love from a stranger is better than apathy from a friend. "Better is reproof that is revealed than love that is hidden" (Prov. 27:5). Ahab showed partiality to those who spoke well of him. Micaiah was encouraged to "go along to get along." If this is how you behave with your brothers and sisters in the faith, with your partners in ministry, then you do not truly love them. You are a flatterer who does not love the truth. Because the king showed partiality, discernment died and deception was the only remaining option.

If you do not want to hear the truth being spoken about yourself, whether by a friend, a stranger, or an enemy, then Yahweh will put a lying spirit in the mouths of your so-called "friends" and partners. If you do not want to hear truth because it contradicts you in some way or another, discernment dies and deception is born.

Well-respected men, out of their pride, cannot stand to be corrected by those they deem to be lesser than themselves, whether in prestige, power, or position. They have a "How dare you try to rebuke or correct me" attitude. Out of their embarrassment, they will seek to destroy the person they deem to be lesser. This is the way of religious hypocrisy.

If any of these people (John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, Matt Slick, Chris Rosebrough, Jordan D. Hall, etc.) or these ministries (Bible Thumping Wingnut Network, Conversations That Matter, Fighting For the Faith, Justin Peters Ministries, No Compromise, Polite Leader, Pulpit & Pen, Protestia, ReformedWiki2.0, Right Response Ministries, Wretched, etc.) were to read my previous article or this article, because truth is not on their side, I have absolutely no doubt that they will lash out with their hatred against me by engaging in denial, deflection, projection, censorship, "cancelling," manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, intimidation, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality.

When you see ad hominem attack, when you see someone going after the individual in order to circumvent what they are saying, in order to dodge and evade the issues (often by way of obfuscation, technicalities, ambiguous language, and equivocation), being unable to argue the main point and never providing a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument (merely presenting subjective opinions and irrational feelings), that is a person speaking by way of the Devil and confession of intellectual bankruptcy. They do this because they are incapable of having a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation.

When you call these men and their ministries out, seeking to hold them accountable, because of their stubborn pride and egotistical arrogance, they will not give you the time of day. They will turn on you in an instant like a wild dog. These men are hypocrites. They call other men and women out for their sins, men and women who are not part of their clique, but when their friends and ministry partners commit the same sins, they are purposefully silent about it. One man unrelated to their group beats his wife and they are quick to talk about it and condemn it, but when a member of their group beats his wife they are silent and vague about it. Is this how they learned Christ?

I could provide endless quotes from the early Christians as to how Christians are to live and behave, and compare them to these men and their ministries, which would condemn them and disqualify them entirely from ministry, questioning whether they truly are genuine born again believers, and yet most of their followers would not even bat an eye. Christians who have truly encountered the Lord Jesus will have a permanent change in their character and life, and they will continue to grow in that character and life. The early Christians were entirely against violence and war, and yet American Christians entertain violence and are eager for war, even engaging in threats. Is this how American Christians have learned Christ?

Reading the early Christians has convicted me a number of times already, and no doubt will continue to do so. I know for a fact that they will condemn others, and yet these people will seek to make excuses for themselves. These people network closely together, being on the board of each other's ministries. They are no different than those in the Charismatic camp. They may not preach the false prosperity gospel, but they have certainly found another way of accomplishing the same end goal—fleecing the flock. How about doing these conferences and the like for FREE? The early Christians would have!

If you speak well of these people and encourage them, then you will be in good standing with them. If you stand up to them, call them out, and hold them to account, they will hate you for it, bad mouth you for it, and demonize you for it. They will accuse me of being "abrasive" in the tone of my writing, and yet they will behave in a much worse manner against me. That is okay. Let them hate me. Let them speak ill of me. It does not bother me. I do not seek validation from them. I am not being "persecuted" by them doing so (as some professing Christians would attempt to claim for themselves), however. I do not love these men any less, regardless of whether they hate me or not. I love them as Christ loved me and gave Himself for me.

We are commanded to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11), mark those evil and divisive men who deceive others (Rom. 16:17-18), and strongly reprove those who are "detestable and disobedient and unfit for any good work" (Titus 1:10-16). May the exposure of these sins bring repentance to evil men, purify the Congregation, and silence the mouths of foolish mockers. When you show partiality among your own network, discernment necessarily dies and you are being deceived at the behest of Yahweh. He who has ears let him hear. Learn the lessons taught in Scripture. Obey the commands and teachings of the Lord Jesus. Do not imitate these men and their ministries with their walking hypocritical contradictions. Imitate men who actually imitate Christ.

The Death of Discernment

"When partiality is present, discernment necessarily dies."

When you hitch your wagon to a particular team, you will inevitably end up defending everything they do to your own embarrassment and chastisement. You cannot show partiality or favour to anyone. You cannot use one standard to judge those you have hitched your wagon to, and use another standard to judge everyone else. That is known as hypocrisy. What was it Jesus said again?

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye, and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt. 7:1-5).

All these Christians who fancy themselves to be "Discernment Ministers" are nothing but frauds, lairs, and charlatans. They judge those who are not part of their particular circle according to their deeds, but their personal partners and friends in ministry who commit the same deeds they either ignore or attempt to make excuses for. These Christians are not loyal to Jesus the way the early Christians were. They are loyal to the sales of their products, their material possessions, and their money. Not to mention each other.

In order to serve as an elder in the early Congregation, a man had to be willing to lay down everything--beginning with material possessions--for Christ. Elders did not leave their secular occupations in exchange for a middle-class salary from their congregation. In fact, it was considered heretical for a congregation to pay any salary to its elders. Instead, congregations financially maintained their elders on the same basis as they supported widows, orphans, and the like. This meant that elders had the necessities of life and little else. (see Hermas The Shepherd bk. 2, comm. 11; Clement Miscellanies bk. 1, chap. 1; Apollonius Agaisnt Montanus; Tertullian Heretics, chap. 41.)

Do you think such individuals as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, or any of these other guys would ever elect to live according to such conditions? That would be a wager you would lose ten times over. These people commit sacrilege, sin, and error, and do you think any of them calls their friends and ministry partners out on it? Of course not. That would be bad for business. You would not be invited to the next godless conference. Why do I say these "Christian" conferences are godless? Because the early Christians believed it to be heretical to receive money for the gospel or the things of Christ. "Freely you received, freely give" (Matt. 10:8).

You cannot show partiality or favour to your own husband, wife, child(ren), families, friends, etc. You cannot judge them with one standard and everyone else with another standard. This is hypocritical. When family, friends, or colleagues do questionable things, you should be twice as quick to call them out on it and hold them accountable as you would be to a complete stranger. Especially if they profess to be Christians. When you point this egregious oversight out to such individuals, rather than apologize and repent in humility, they lash out at you using the same tactics employed by those who have no argument and cannot address the main point.

Someone obviously needs to explain to such individuals as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Todd Friel, Justin Peters, Chris Rosebrough, Jordan D. Hall, etc., that it is better to do the right thing and to lose friends, lose gigs, lose money, lose jobs, etc., than to willfully turn a blind eye to the corruption they are engaged in. I could pull up sermon after sermon and podcast after podcast from these people talking about this precise issue, and yet they are completely numb when they are committing it themselves. They profess to have discernment and yet are discernment handicapped. Irony and hypocrisy are lost on these people.

If you are showing partiality and favour to your friends and partners in ministry, then you lack wisdom. According to Scripture, you are a fool. Stop making excuses for those you have hitched your wagon to and start behaving the way Christ compels you to. Jesus was constantly torqued with the Pharisees and Sadducees because of their hypocrisy. How do you think He would feel about your hypocrisy?

Justin Peters calls out David Jeremiah and Beth Moore for collaborating with Matt and Laurie Crouch and fundraising for the godless TBN network, and yet he refuses to open his hypocritical mouth when his close pals Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham, etc., do the same thing. In fact, John MacArthur even shows up on TBN now. Mr. Peters fancies himself some kind of "Discernment Minister" and yet has zero discernment when it comes to those he has tossed his hat in with. If he does notice, he certainly does not open his mouth. Why? Because it would be bad for business and Mr. Peters cares more about himself than He does the character and likeness of Christ.

The early Christians were truly counter cultural. They were against divorce, abortion, R-rated entertainment, high fashion and low modesty, etc. They possessed character, honour, and integrity, unlike many professing Christians today. They were entirely loyal to Jesus, and their lives demonstrated it. They did not just talk the talk (like most professing Christians today), but they walked the walk (even unto death). They produced genuine fruit. Read the works of the early Christians from A.D. 70 to 300 and compare their words with the teachings of the "good guys," as Justin Peters calls them. Is Justin aware that many of the beliefs of the "good guys" were considered heretical by the early Christians? Yet these "good guys" attempt to label the beliefs of the early Christians, which they had received at the hands of the apostles, as "heretical."

By the way, these ministers are not the only hypocrites engaging in this godless behaviour. Hundreds of laymen engage in the same godless behaviour, attempting to come to the defense of their particular favourite race horse, exposing their own hypocrisy. They have blindly committed themselves and hitched their wagon to these people as well. The only person you should be committed to is Christ Jesus and His Word!

If the words out of your mouth are "John MacArthur this, John MacArthur that," or "Charles Spurgeon this, Charles Spurgeon that," or "John Calvin this, John Calvin that," or insert any other man's name there, you are an idolater. When such men are in error, or are committing error, and you attempt to make excuses for them or come to their defense, you expose yourself as a hypocrite. You are obviously not familiar with what the Bible teaches you, or you simply do not care. In the case of the former, you are ignorant, but in the case of the later, you are a heretic and a fraud.

Do not hitch your wagon to any minister or ministry. This includes me. Doing so will render you unable to exercise biblical discernment and to hold such individuals or ministries to account. You can follow particular men, but do not hitch your wagon to them. This is wisdom. By turning a blind eye or making excuses for them, you become a partaker in their sin. You need to be discerning in every moment. All it takes is one instance where you lack discernment and suddenly you have deviated from the straight and narrow.

Find individuals who are seeking for the truth and conforming themselves to that truth regardless of how they were raised, what they were taught, or what they might presently believe. Watch them grow in their faith as they reform and conform themselves to God's truth. But never blindly hitch yourself to them, because all it takes is that one instance. You should be able to spot their bad footing and catch them, keeping them on the right path. Christianity is not a solitary religion, it is a communal religion. Every member of the body needs every other member of the body. That is how the body functions. I am not perfect, nor will I ever be all by myself. I need others just as much as you do. We are not islands unto ourselves.

The sad state of reality is that the modern congregation, or "church," is extremely lacking in discernment. The so-called "Discernment Ministers" (Bible Thumping Wingnut Network, Conversations That Matter, Fighting For the Faith, Justin Peters Ministries, Polite Leader, Pulpit & Pen, ReformedWiki2.0, Right Response Ministries, Wretched, etc.) expose themselves regularly as not possessing any actual discernment. What they call "discernment" is nothing more than opinion. While some of their theologically dogmatic opinions are right, some of their theologically dogmatic opinions are entirely wrong. If you compared some of that John MacArthur believes and teaches with the the early Christians, do you think he would be humble enough to admit he is wrong and to correct those beliefs, conforming them with the Scriptures and the early Christians? Of course not! Mr. MacArthur thinks way too highly of himself. He may even believe his own press, that he is the Evangelical Pope, as Todd Friel frequently calls him.

All Christians are to exercise discernment. No Christians are to show partiality and favouritism to anybody, blindly hitching their wagon to them. By doing so, you make yourself to be a partaker in their sins. Basically, you are aiding and abetting their crimes, and then either turning a blind eye or attempting to make excuses for them. This is godless behaviour unbecoming of those who profess the name of Christ.

By the way, why is it that men who stand on idolatrous pedestals always tend to have a right-hand henchman to fire shots across the nose of anyone who attempts to call them out and hold them accountable? Tim LaHaye had Thomas Ice, James "Jacob" Prasch has David Lister, and John MacArthur has Phil Johnson. If you have ever listened to or read Mr. Johnson's responses to those who call Mr. MacArthur to task, he is less than charitable with his responses and always resorts to spewing ad hominem. He is incapable of being honest. He behaves exactly like the true heretics of the "church," Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. The early Christians would have labeled these men as heretics and liars, because all three have ignored, denied, and rejected the Words of Jesus, contradicting Him and teaching their own opinions instead.

Bible Publishers' Egregious Error

No matter how often you encourage and urge Christians to do so, most of them will not continue reading their New Testament. for very long. There is a reason for this. Most Christians who read the New Testament once never read it again. Those who keep reading it cannot understand what it says. Why do you suppose this is?

Imagine I were a marriage counselor. Throughout my career, I had written many letters to both groups of people and particular individuals. After I had died, only 9 letters written to groups could be found, and 4 letters written to individuals. Some time later, someone had the idea to add chapters to my letters and turn each sentence into verses. If you were to take one sentence from one of my letters and try to tie it together with another sentence from another one of my letters, unless the context surrounding the one agrees with the context surrounding the other, you have just made me say and teach something that i never said or taught. The two sentences are in no way, shape, or form related or complementary.

This is what Christians of every denomination have done with the Bible ever since the addition of chapters and verses. They continuously proof-text the Bible in order to support all sorts of ridiculous and unbiblical teachings.

The individual books of the Bible were not written with chapters and verses. The biblical authors intentionally wrote their works structured with natural sections. Most people are unaware that chapters and verses are 700 and 500 years old respectively, and serve no purpose to the average reader other than being distractions that suggest false starting and stopping points. Cardinal Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Cantebury, a professor at the University of Paris, created the chapter system that we are all familiar with in the 13th century (A.D. 1205). His reason? He was composing a Bible commentary. He required a way in which to reference more specific portions of Scripture. His contemporary, Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, also created a chapter system between A.D. 1244 and 1248. Robertus Stephanus (sometimes called Robert Estienne), a French printer and scholar, created the verse system that we are all familiar with in the 16th century (A.D. 1551). His reason? He was composing a Bible concordance. He required a way in which to reference smaller portions of biblical passages.

For the past 1,700 years, our Bibles have been incorrectly bound and printed. If you look at the works of Pliny, Socrates, Plato, etc., they were bound with their longest piece of work first and their shortest piece of work last, despite not being chronologically accurate. Our New Testament was bound in this exact same manner with all Paul’s letters lumped together in two different groupings: ecclesiastical letters first, personal letters second. Our Bible is so chaotically arranged that it is difficult to imagine how anyone could ever get a clear understanding of what it is saying. In fact, nobody has rightly understood the New Testament, let alone the entire Bible, for the past 1,700 years. Our commentaries reveal as much.

Are you aware that in reading Paul’s letters alone, you start in A.D. 58 with Romans, go back to A.D. 57 with 1&2 Corinthians, back to A.D. 50 with Galatians, forward to A.D. 63, back to A.D. 51, and ad nauseam. It is no wonder no one can understand what they are reading. It is a chronological mess.

Why do Bible publishers continue to print the Bible in such an archaic and chaotic manner? What superstitious traditions are they adhering to? I have news for them: God did not inspire the Bible to be published in this manner. Bible publishers have had long enough to start printing the Bible correctly so that people can finally start to understand it. Why do they refuse to do so? There is absolutely no logical reason or excuse as to why they continue printing the Bible in this out-dated and erroneous manner. It is time they corrected this egregious oversight. It is long overdue.

I would like to see a Reader's Bible printed without chapters, verses, or headings in its correct historical-chronological order.

OLD TESTAMENT

NEW TESTAMENT

Historical Writings: Genesis Job Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1&2 Samuel 1&2 Kings 1&2 Chronicles Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Ezra Esther Nehemiah Pre-Babylonian Captivity Prophets: Obadiah Joel Jonah Amos Hosea Isaiah Micah Nahum Zephaniah Jeremiah Lamentations Habakkuk Babylonian Captivity Prophets: Daniel Ezekiel Post-Babylonian Captivity Prophets: Zechariah Haggai Malachi Remainders: Psalms (Because Psalms spans several centuries, it is best placed last.)

Historical Writings: Mark Matthew Luke John Acts Letters: James Galatians 1&2 Thessalonians 1&2 Corinthians Romans Philemon Colossians Ephesians Philippians 1 Timothy 1 Peter Titus 2 Timothy 2 Peter Hebrews Jude 1, 2, 3 John Revelation

Death Blow to the Infant Baptism Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Baptists (and other Christians holding similar beliefs) today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,600 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Infant baptism has not only been taught for the majority of Christian history, but even today it is practiced by the majority of denominations. The first implication of infant baptism was during the life of Irenaeus (the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle John), who was born about A.D. 130. Origen, born about A.D. 155, asserted that infant baptism was apostolic. If the apostle John died sometime after A.D. 98, both of these men were within 50 years of his death. Remember the principle of time? Whose beliefs and practices are likely to be biblical, based entirely on Scripture? The Baptists? Or the early Christians?

Since Baptists want to argue the subject based upon silence for their position, let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

INFANT BAPTISM:
"He came to save all persons by means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, children, boys, youth, and old men." —Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W)

"And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors [Godparents] likewise should be thrust into danger? . . . Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are —while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? . . . If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation." —Tertullian (c. 198, W)

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." —Hippolytus (c. 225, W)

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." —Origen (c. 248, E).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." —Origen (c. 248, E)

"In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth—that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. however, we all thought very differently in our council. . . . Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. . . . As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once bee formed in the womb by the hand of God?" —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us that among all—whether infants or those who are older—there is the same equality of the divine gift. . . . Otherwise, it would seem that the very grace which is given to the baptized is given either more, or less, depending on the age of the receivers. However, the Holy Spirit is not given with measure. Rather, it is given alike to all, by the love and mercy of the Father. . . . For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that anyone should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Even to the greatest sinners and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe, remission of sins is granted. Nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace. How much more should we shrink from hindering an infant? For he, being lately born, has not sinned—other than, in being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth. For this reason, he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins. For to him are remitted—not his own sins—but the sins of another. Therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council that no one should be hindered by us from baptism and from the grace of God." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"Baptize your infants also and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For He says, "Allow the little children to come unto me and do not forbid them."" —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

GODPARENTS:
"For why is it necessary—if baptism itself is not so necessary—that the sponsors [Godparents] likewise should be thrust into danger? For, because of mortality, they may fail to fulfill their promises. Or they may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition in those for whom they stood." —Tertullian (c. 198, W)

Who are you going to listen to? The Baptists, who were 1,600 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Modern preachers, such as John MacArthur, etc., who are 1,900 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Or the early Christians (A.D. 70 to 300)?

As you can see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that infant baptism is "unscriptural" and that the apostles "taught no such thing." Any professing Christian who teaches this is in denial!

Death Blow to the Homosexual Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Since more and more denominations are buckling under, rejecting the Word of God, and succumbing to the opinions of the culture (because the Holy Spirit has long ago left their congregations), let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

HOMOSEXUALITY:
"You shall not commit adultery; you shall not commit pederasty." —Didache (c. 80-140, E)

"It is well that they should be cut off from the lusts of the world, since "every lust wars against the spirit" and "neither fornicators, nor homosexuals . . . will inherit the kingdom of God."" —Clement of Rome (c. 96, W)

"Some polluted themselves by lying with males." —Aristides (c. 125, E)

"The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males, or with mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet, they, in turn, impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians." —Aristides (c. 125, E)

"Paederasty is condemned by the barbarians. However, by the Romans it is honored with certain privileges. In fact, they try to collect herds of boys like grazing horses." —Tatian (c. 160, E)

"They do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"Show me yourself whether you are not an adulterer, a fornicator a thief, a robber, or a thief. Show me that you do not corrupt boys. . . . For God is not manifest to those who do these things." —Theophilus (c. 180, E)

"Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands. . . . O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct!" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans. These men detested effeminancy of conduct. The giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the most extreme penalty." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, and instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites had fallen into uncleanness through much luxury. They practiced adultery shamelessly, and they burned with insane love for boys." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The Christian man confines himself to the female sex." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"I find no dress cursed by God except a woman's dress on a man. For he says, "Cursed is every man who clothes himself in woman's attire."" —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing." —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"Such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate men, idolaters, and murderers." —Origen (c. 245, E)

"The sin of Sodom is contrary to nature." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

As you can clearly see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that homosexuality is acceptable and that Jesus has nothing to say about it.

Death Blow to the Divorce Debate

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith?

Since modern Christians refuse to listen to what God's Word has to say on the issue of divorce, let us look to what the early Christians taught on the issue:

DIVORCE:
"And I said to him, "Sir, if anyone has a wife who trust sin the Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin if he continues to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery."
And I said to him, "What if the woman who has been put away should repent, and wishes to return to her husband? Shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband does not take her back, he sins. And he brings a great sin upon himself. For he should take back the sinner who has repented. But not repeatedly. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband should not marry another after his wife has been put away. In this matter, man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but also by those who imitate the pagans in their actions. For that reason, if anyone persists in such deeds, and does not repent, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him, otherwise you are a sharer in his sin."" —Hermas (c. 150, W)

"All who have been twice married by human law, are sinners in the eye of our Master." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"She considered it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who tried to indulge in every kind of pleasure contrary to the law of natures. . . . So she desired to be divorced from him. But she changed her mind because of her [Christian] friends, who advised her to remain with him, with the thought that some time or other her husband might give some hope of change." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. . . . "He who takes a woman who has been put away commits adultery."" —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"Where is that happiness of married life, ever so desirable, that distinguished our earlier [Roman] manners? As the result of that, for about 600 years there was not among us [Romans] a single divorce. Now, [Roman] women have every member of their body heavy laden with gold; . . . and as for divorce, they long for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"The Lord holds it more pleasing that marriage should not be contracted, than that it should at all be dissolved. In short, He prohibits divorce, except for the cause of fornication." —Tertullian (c. 205, W)

"Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is put away from her husband also commits adultery." In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman who has been put away." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"Christ plainly forbids divorce; Moses unquestionably permits it. . . . Even Christ, however, when He commands, "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she departs, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce (which indeed he never absolutely prohibited) and confirmed marriage (by first prohibiting its dissolution). If separation had taken place, He wished the marriage bond to be resumed by reconciliation." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"The reason why He has abolished divorce, which "was not from the beginning," was in order to strengthen that thing which "was from the beginning"—the permanent joinder of two into one flesh. . . . So He permits divorce for no cause, except one. . . . So true is it that divorce "was not from the beginning," that among the Romans, it was not until after the six hundredth year from the building of the city [of Rome] that this type of "hard-heartedness" began to be permitted. . . . To us, even if we do divorce them [i.e., adulterous spouses], marriage will not be lawful." —Tertullian (c. 217, W)

"She must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce. Not that she would have been marriageable—even if she had been able to divorce him." —Tertullian (c. 217, W)

"We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all." —Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

"When being inquired of, Christ gave this judgment: He said that a wife must not be put away, except for the cause of adultery. . . . Laws are prescribed to married women, who are so bound that they cannot thence be separated." —Novatian (c. 235, W)

"Some of the laws were written—not as excellent—but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the Law was given. For something of this kind is indicated in the words, "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to put away your wives." —Origen (c. 245, E)

"A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried." —Cyprian (c. 250, W)

"He who marries a woman divorce from her husband is an adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other than adultery, in order to marry another." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"Do not let it be considered lawful after marriage to put her away who is without blame. For He says, "You will take care to your spirit and will not forsake the wife of your youth" [Mal. 2:14-15]. . . . And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." For the wife is the partner of life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one—he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence. Similarly, he who retains her who is corrupted [by adultery] is a transgressor of the law of nature. For "he who retains an adulteress is foolish and impious" [Prov. 18:22]. Also, He says, "Cut her off from your flesh" [Sir. 25:26]. For she is no longer a helpmate, but a snare, having turned her mind from you to another." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

REMARRIAGE:
"And I said, "If a wife or husband dies, and the widower or widow marries, does he or she commit sin?" "There is no sin in marrying again," he said. "However, if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honor and glory with the Lord. Still, if they marry, they do not sin."" —Hermas (c. 150, W)

"A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage. For a second marriage is only a specious adultery. Jesus says, "For whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery." He does not permit a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. A man who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she is dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God. For in the beginning, God made one man and one woman." —Athenagoras (c. 175, E)

"That erring Samaritan woman did not remain with one husband. Rather, she committed fornication by many marriages." —Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W)

"Being a heretic by his very nature, . . . he maintains repeated marriages." —Tertullian (c. 200, W)

"The Lord . . . hurdled His denunciation against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery. For he pronounced as an adulterer even the man who married a woman who had been put away by her husband. He said this in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt. For Herod had taken his brother's wife after she had been loosed from her husband—by death rather than by divorce. For he had been impelled thereto by his lust—not by the commandment of the Law. For his brother had left a daughter. Therefore, the marriage with his widow could not be lawful." —Tertullian (c. 207, W)

"But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry—even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written. For it is said, 'A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."" —Origen (c. 245, E)

"A woman is an adulteress—even though she seems to be married to a man—if the former husband is still living. Likewise, also, the man who seems to marry the woman who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her—according to the declaration of our Savior" —Origen (c. 245, E)

""To the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they can remain even as I am. But if they cannot contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn." Here Paul also persisted in giving the preference to continence. . . . He challenged his hearers to this state of life, teaching that it was better that a man who had been bound to one wife should from then on remain single, just as he did. on the other hand, . . . on account of the strength of animal passion, Paul allows "by permission" one who is in such a condition to contract a second marriage. . . . He allows a second marriage to those who are burdened with the disease of the passions, lest they should be wholly defiled by fornication." —Methodius (c. 290, E)

"Let not the younger widows be placed in the order of widows, lest . . . they come to a second marriage and become subjects to sin. . . . For you should know this, that marrying once according to the law is righteous, as being according to the will of God. But second marriages, made after the promise, are wicked—not because of the marriage itself, but because of the falsehood. Third marriages are indications of incontinency. But any marriages beyond the third are manifest fornication. . . . But to the younger women, let a second marriage be allowed after the death of their first husband." —Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E)

Who are you going to listen to? The Reformers, who were 1,500 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Modern preachers, such as John MacArthur, Jay Adams, etc., who are 1,900 years removed from the lives of the apostles? Or the early Christians (A.D. 70 to 300)?

As you can see, the teachings of the early Christians drive the final nail in the coffin on this issue, ending the discussion once and for all for all time. Only the disobedient and rebellious will continue to disregard their words, and the words of God's Word, and insist against all evidence and logic that Jesus and the apostle Paul made provisions for divorce. Any professing Christian who teaches that the Lord Jesus or the apostle Paul made provisions for divorce is a liar and a false teacher, putting lies in the mouths of both Jesus and the apostle!

Historical-Cultural Context

Is Background Information Ever Necessary to Understand the Bible?

Yes!

Wayne Grudem ignorantly answers, "No," writing in an article titled "The Perspicuity of Scripture":

"Historical background information can certainly enrich our understanding of individual passages of Scripture, making it more precise and more vivid. But I am unwilling to affirm that background information can ever be properly used to nullify or overturn something the text actually says. In addition, I am not reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

The problem with Mr. Grudem's argument is that without historical-cultural context of what was happening in the Roman Empire, in Israel, and in the Congregation at the time, you are likely to misrepresent the text and misinterpret it by turning it into mere verses to be ripped out of their immediate context at random and arbitrarily used in isolation of their context to say whatever your opinion of them is.

Galatians was Paul's very first letter written. It was arguably the first letter of the New Testament ever written, with the letter of James possibly pre-dating it. Romans was Paul's sixth letter written. There are eight years between these two letters. Paul was not writing doctrinal treatises with his letters. He was responding to precise issues. Unless you know what these issues were, you will inevitably misinterpret Scripture.

The early Christians experienced these things, and understood what the apostles were writing about. We are 1,900 years removed from their experiences. We need that historical-cultural background in order to properly understand their letters. Some of that information is provided in the book of Acts, but not everything. Reading the letters in their proper chronological context helps a little, but not completely. Any Christian who says that we do not need such information is putting his ignorance on full display for all to admire.

Paul had gathered several Christians from various congregations he had already planted and was sending them to Rome to establish a congregation there, since Jews had been banished only years earlier. Romans 16 is a list of the friends Paul had sent to Rome. This should be the first chapter you read, followed by chapters 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11, which give us the need of salvation for both Jews and Greeks, and lastly by chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which are about the Christian life. Chapters 12-15 list almost every problem Paul or the congregations ever experienced in community life. (A true dose of community life will be similar.) Paul is writing primarily to these Christians, and to any believers they convert.

Does Mr. Grudem understand any of this context? Does this context inform any of his beliefs as to what the letter to the Romans is actually saying? Not in the least. As a typical theologian, Mr. Grudem uses the typical two tactics the Jewish theologians had perfected in order to gaslight the "ordinary and uneducated" believer: (1) language bullying and (2) a claim to special status as the official interpreter of Scripture.

Mr. Grudem's interpretation is that the apostle Paul was discussing theological dogma, which simply is not true. You have to engage in a great many mental gymnastics in order to retain that erroneous and fallacious belief. Were the "ordinary and uneducated" twelve writing theological treatises with their letters, too? Highly unlikely. None of them, including the apostle Paul, wrote theological treatises. The first 300 years of Christianity are opposed to the last 1700 years.

The fact of reality is this: the further away from the time of writing you are, the more historical-cultural context you need to rightly interpret the text. Individual verses mean nothing. In fact, chapters and verses are 700 and 500 years old respectively. They were not put their by the original authors, and they are a distraction to reading Scripture accurately and correctly, paying attention to the natural breaks provided by the author. Christians need to come to terms with this quickly because they keep getting further and further away from the teachings, practices, and traditions of the apostles and the early Christians who were all loyal to Jesus.

What did the early Christians understand from these letters? How did they use/interpret them? If you ass-u-me that they were in error in their usage/interpretation, being only 50 years separated from the apostles, and that we are somehow correct, being 1,900 years separated from the apostles, then you have some serious issues to address in your thinking processes. Specifically, you need to study logic because yours is fallacious. I will reiterate Tertullian's argument:

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

If your interpretations are in the same vein as Augustine, Luther, or Calvin, then your interpretations are justifiably in error. If you do not know why that is, then you are not as intelligent as you suppose you are. You need to do more reading. These men had no qualms about willfully contradicting the Lord Jesus' teachings and insinuating that they were merely suggestions than actual commands. Interestingly enough, the early Christians for the first two and half centuries took Jesus' teachings literally. It was not until the fourth century that everything fell apart, and the Congregation has never recovered—not even with the Reformation!

This further exposes the logical fallacy committed by Paul Washer:

"Let's go back through 2000 years of Christian history. If the men and women who loved and cherished the Scriptures, and had a high view of Scriptures, are all in agreement with regard to a certain doctrine, and they don't agree with you, then who's probably wrong?"

The beliefs, practices, and traditions of the last 1,700 years of Christian history are opposed in many ways to the beliefs, practices, and traditions of the first 300 years of Christian history. Ergo, who is most definitely wrong? Clearly Mr. Washer with his several beliefs that originated with the Gnostics, such as: that man is totally depraved, that we are saved solely by grace, that works play no role in our salvation, and that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it. If our evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by "deceivers and antichrists," according to the apostle John, before it was taught by Luther, Calvin, and others. If this does not concern you, it should.

Lastly, historical-cultural context is of grave importance because the Bible is an eastern book. The Eastern mindset is based on collectivism and communal conformity, while the Western mindset is based on individualism and countercultural nonconformity. Westerners regularly eisegete the Bible by reading into it their own preferences and experiences. For example, we assume that on the night He was betrayed, Jesus went to a private place in the garden of Gethsemane to pray. But this is inaccurate. He merely separated Himself from the disciples. At Passover, the garden was most likely packed with people, making it not a good place to find privacy. Observe the following:

"The very nature of Scripture demands that the exegete have some skills in investigating the historical-cultural background of NT texts. The NT, after all, does not come in the form of timeless aphorisms; every text was written in a given first-century time/space framework. Indeed, the NT authors felt no need to explain what were for them and their readers common cultural assumptions. Only when provincial customs might not be understood in broader context are explanations given (e.g., Mark 7:3-4); but these instances are rare.
The lack of such help within the texts themselves is only to be expected, since most people who communicate with each other do so on the basis of shared assumptions that are seldom articulated. These shared assumptions have to do with common history (family or group stories), sociology (the relationships and social structures that determine everyday life), and culture (the values, often not articulated, that a group shares in order to function). Contemporary readers share very few of these assumptions, but at the same time we bring to the text another whole set of shared assumptions within our own culture(s).
These matters are the more complex for the reading of the New Testament because it is the product of two worlds: Jewish and Greco-Roman. This complexity can be seen simply by looking at its two primary figures, Jesus and Paul. While they shared a common history—the OT story of God and his people—which is assumed in everything they say and do, they were born and raised in quite different socio-cultural settings, evidenced first of all by their native tongues (Aramaic for Jesus, Greek for Paul) and then found in a whole variety of other, mostly sociological and cultural, differences.
When one turns to the communities to which the NT documents were written, one finds similar diversity in sociology and culture. The majority of NT documents were addressed to church communities in the Greco-Roman world, most of whose adherents would have been [non-Jewish]. By conversion these people now shared the common history of the people of God—indeed, from Paul's perspective they were integral to the completion of that story, in keeping with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2-3) as ti had been articulated eschatologically in the prophets, especially Isaiah. But their sociology (government, city/town structures, family structures, etc.) and their cultural assumptions on all sorts of deep-seated values (honor/shame, sexual morality, patron/client relationships, friendships, etc.) were of a considerably different kind from those shared by Jewish communities in Palestine who followed Jesus (just read James and 1 Corinthians side by side to sense the differences).
The problems that the modern exegete faces here are several. First, we have our own (mostly unrecognized) set of historical-social-cultural assumptions, which cause us unwittingly to read our ideas and customs back into the first century. So one of the difficulties lies in learning to become aware of what needs to be investigated, in overcoming the assumption that we know what the NT writers are saying. The second problem has to do with the immensity of the task of investigation and the paucity of material that is accessible. But even that which is available is mostly beyond the mastery of any one of us; thus we are dependent on others to do some of this work for us, and they will themselves be interpreters of the data. Third, part of the complexity of this issue is that, on the one hand, one needs to read widely on the larger historical-sociological-cultural issues that impact on these early Christian communities, while, on the other hand, there are specific matters that are related to the paragraph you are exegeting that need investigation. This leads to the questions, fourth, of how one goes about the process of investigation and, fifth, of how to evaluate the significance of what has been discovered. This is obviously the (off-and-on) work of a lifetime. Fortunately, the last two decades of the twentieth century saw a spate of studies that are designed to guide one through these matters." —Gordan D. Fee

Ignore historical-cultural context and you necessarily misinterpret God's Word.

The Real Separatists and Sectarians

One early congregation made the following comment in a letter to another congregation:

"You well understand, no doubt, that those who seek to set up any new doctrines have the habit of very readily perverting any proofs they desire to take from the Scriptures to conform to their own notions.... Consequently, a disciple of Christ ought to receive nothing new as doctrine that is in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles." —Archelaus Manes

The early Christian leaders had a sincere desire to avoid accidentally straying from the practices and traditions of the apostles:

"Suppose a dispute arises relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with whom the apostles had constant dealings and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the question?" —Irenaeus

The practice of these words was continued up until the time of Emperor Constantine. That is when the Congregation of the Lord veered drastically off course, to which she has never recovered—not even with the Reformation.

Contrary to the definitions provided by modern-day congregations and denominations, separatists and schismatics are those denominational religious groups that have separated from the Congregation of the Lord on non-Scriptural grounds, such as ecclesiastical customs, forms, usages, and the like (Oriental Orthodox Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.). While there is a difference between malicious separatism (caused by spite and uncharitableness) and non-malicious separatism (the result of ignorance or prejudice not joined with intentional disregard of the principle of brotherly love), schisms are opposed to God's Word and are sinful.

To apply the terms separatists and schismatics to persons who separate themselves from erring congregations on account of their unsound doctrine or unscriptural practice is unjustified.

Pulpit & Pen (Jordan D. Hall?) wrote a small article in 2016 that utilizes the fallacy of 'Poisoning the Well.' In an attempt to defend their unbiblical beliefs and practices, those they received at the hands of the Gnostics, who Luther and Calvin would later copycat, 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 such people "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church" and accuses such people of "a minimalist approach to ecclesiology that both insults and rejects the organized church." I hate to break it to you, Pulpit & Pen, but the organized church is the insult! It is an insult to Yahweh, it is an insult to Jesus, it is an insult to the Holy Spirit, it is an insult to the apostles, and it is an insult to the Word of God. You need to do your homework and research the writings of the early Christians, Pulpit & Pen, and educate yourself as to their beliefs and traditions. While you call many of their beliefs and traditions "heretical," they called your beliefs and traditions heretical. Who are the real heretics?

Pulpit & Pen also needs to learn not to impose their understanding of words upon the writings of the early Christians, because they will soon be embarrassed to learn that their usage of these words was vastly different from our usage and understanding. As Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith? The early Christians (A.D. 70-313), or modern evangelical Christians (beginning 500 years ago and being 1,900 years separated from the apostles)? Pulpit & Pen, along with all other modern-day Christians who share the same fallacious argumentation as them, might do well to learn from Tertullian's defense:

"It is absurd to claim that the apostles either were ignorant of the whole scope of the message they were given to declare or that they failed to teach the entire rule of faith. Let us see if perhaps the congregations, through their own fault, altered the faith delivered to them by the apostles.... Suppose, then, that all of the churches have erred and that the Holy Spirit did not have enough concern for even one congregation to lead it into truth, even though that is the reason Christ sent Him to us.... Suppose, too, that the Holy Spirit, the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ, neglected His office and permitted the congregations to understand incorrectly and to teach differently than what He Himself was teaching through the apostles.
If that is the case, is it likely that so many congregations would have gone astray and all still end up with one and the same faith? No random deviation by so many people could result in all of them coming to the same conclusion. If the congregations had fallen into doctrinal errors, they would have certainly ended up with varying teachings. However, when that which was deposited [i.e., the Christian faith] among many is still found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of long established custom."

Try as you might, modern-day "pastors," theologians, and scholars, engaging in all the mental gymnastics you can concoct, but you will never be able to circumvent Tertullian's argument. Examine every denomination in existence today and you will find they all drastically fall short of the biblical congregations of the early Christians with their beliefs, practices, and traditions. Who is right and who is wrong? All modern-day congregations and denominations are wrong! Period. The early Christians called your beliefs and traditions heresy. The early Christians did not have the governments each denomination has installed and adhered to for the past 1,700 years. The early Christians followed the interpretations and practices that Paul and the other apostles had taught them as they visited their congregations during their travels. The early Christians are the only true orthodox believers. Today, anyone who claims "orthodoxy" does not understand the word, let alone the early Congregation's beliefs, practices, and traditions.

Three hundred years after the death of Jesus, orthodox Christians were still one united body. Three hundred years after the Reformation, Christians were divided into hundreds of dissenting groups and sects. That should tell you something. However, pride, arrogance, and stubbornness refuse to pay attention to such colossal red flags.

For three hundred years, Satan tried to coerce Christians by force. He failed miserably. They were too loyal to Jesus. However, when Satan, through Emperor Constantine, rolled out the red carpet and showed gifts, praise, and honour upon the congregation, she capitulated almost instantly. With the things President Donald Trump was doing for the congregation, we were seeing a repeat of history. Yet the American congregation was none the wiser, instead worshiping Trump as some sort of "saviour."

American Christians are especially disconnected from reality when compared with the early Christians. American Christians are frequently identified as "war mongers," because their attitudes are swift to desire war, or to desire harm upon someone else. Compare what the early Christians said about war and harming others with the attitudes of the American Christian. The early Christians refused to return harm against their assailant, while American Christians are all too eager to "blow away" someone who breaks into their homes. The early Christians obeyed the words of the Lord Jesus literally, while American Christians follow the heretical teachings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, who denied Jesus' words and contradicted them.

Observe how the early Christians viewed war as morally wrong:

"We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war upon our enemies." —Justin Martyr

"Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that 'he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword'? And shall the son of peace take part in battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment, when he is not the avenger of his own wrongs?" —Tertullian

"Nowhere does He teach that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked. For He deemed the killing of any individual to be against His laws, which were divine in origin. If Christians had owed their origins to a rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. [These laws] do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep." —Origen

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood. Murder, which is admitted to be a crime when it is committed by an individual, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds [of war], not because they are guiltless, but because they cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." —Cyprian

"We have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil should not be repaid with evil [Rom. 12:17]. That it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. And that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. As a result, an ungrateful world has now for a long period been enjoying a benefit from Christ. For by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and the world has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature." —Arnobius

Now compare those teachings with the heretical teachings of Augustine and the Reformers who contradicted Jesus when He told us to turn the other cheek:

"We are not here precluded from inflicting such vengeance as serves for correction, and as compassion itself dictates. Nor does it stand in the way of that course proposed, where one is prepared to endure more from the hand of him whom he wishes to set right. But no one is suitable for inflicting this punishment except the man who, by the greatness of his love, has overcome that hatred that normally enflames those who wish to avenge themselves.
For it is not to be feared that parents would seem to hate a little son when, on committing an offence, he is beaten by them so that he may not go on offending. And certainly the perfection of love is set before us by the imitation of God the Father Himself. . . . "For whom the Lord loves He corrects. yes, He scourges every son whom He receives." The Lord also says, "The servant who knows not his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant who knows his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes." . . .
Form this source the most suitable example is drawn, in order that it may be sufficiently clear that sin can be punished in love rather than be left unpunished. Accordingly, one may actually wish that the person on whom he inflicts punishment not to be made miserable because of the punishment. Rather, he desires him to be happy by means of the correction." —Augustine

"Unquestionably, Christ did not intent to exhort his people to whet the malice of those whose propensity to injure others is sufficiently strong. And if they were to turn to them the other cheek, what would it be but holding out such an encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious commentator to eagerly seize on syllables, but to attend to the design of the speaker. And nothing is more unbecoming the disciples of Christ, than to spend time in nitpicking about words, where it is easy to see what the Master means." —John Calvin (copycatting Augustine, as he typically did)

Augustine, Luther, and Calvin had no qualms about skillfully wiping out the teachings of Jesus. Where Jesus and James said that you should not swear oaths, Augustine had no inhibitions about contradicting Jesus, insinuating that Jesus' words were a mere suggestion and that you should only swear if someone insists that you do. Jesus said to love our enemies, but what did John Calvin say?

"It is obvious, as I have already said, that Christ does not introduce new laws, but corrects the wicked commentary of the Scribes, by whom the purity of the divine law had been corrupted."

The ordinary, uneducated Christians of the first two centuries clearly understood that Jesus' teachings made a church-state combination impossible, and that Christians could not possibly kill non-Christians in war, let alone fellow citizens of the kingdom. Yet, Luther and Calvin saw no contradiction between their teachings and the teachings of Jesus. They set themselves up as the popes of their own denominations, creating their own church-states, and did not hesitate to war against Catholics and other Christian sects they deemed as "heretical." They even warred against their own denominations in different locations!

Look! Either Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said, or you follow a different Jesus. It is that simple. Repent of your unbiblical, godless beliefs and traditions, and reform and conform your beliefs and traditions to that of Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians. Start living that obedient love-faith relationship and bearing fruit that demonstrates and proves your life is found in Christ Jesus.

Time Reveals True Doctrine

This comes as a shock to me, and likely will to you as well. In the days of the early Congregation ("Church"), there was a religious group who strongly disputed the Congregation's stance on salvation and works. This religious group taught that man is totally depraved, that we are saved solely by grace, that works play no role in our salvation, and that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it. Sound familiar? Guess what? This religious group was labeled as heretics by the early Christians.

You might be thinking, "This group of 'heretics' were the real Christians while these 'orthodox' Christians were really heretics." However, such a conclusion is impossible. Who was this religious group?

The Gnostics!

If you think the Gnostics were "true Christians," observe what the apostle John said about them: "Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7).

If our evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by "deceivers and antichrists" before it was taught by Luther, Calvin, and others. I do not know about you, but this kind of revelation makes me draw closer to the Lord to search out His Scriptures more clearly.

The Bible says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). The Bible also says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Our doctrine of salvation accepts the former but essentially nullifies the latter. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gave equal weight to both.

I already came to terms with this fact a couple years ago through my personal studies, realizing that faith and works are two sides of the same coin. A gift is no less a gift simply because it is conditioned on obedience. The belief to the contrary is a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "False Dilemma," asserting that it is either one or the other.

Clement of Rome was personally taught by the apostle Paul. Polycarp was personally taught by the apostle John. Funny how these men supposedly "got it wrong" and we, 1500 years later with Luther and Calvin, being so far removed from both Paul and John, somehow "got it right." All I can say to stubborn Christians who pridefully assert their arrogance here is, Keep on dreaming!

Show humility and reform your beliefs by conforming them with the Scriptures. Whose interpretation is more likely to be correct? The early Christians, who lived in the same culture, spoke Greek natively and could read the New Testament in the original Greek of the apostles, and who were personally taught by the apostles? Or some theologian, scholar, or "pastor" today who has to study ancient Greek for years as part of his training, cannot speak it fluently, and has trouble understanding it without the aid of a Greek-English Lexicon, who even devoting their entire lives to studying the cultural and historical background of New Testament Christianity still will never understand it as well as people who actually lived in it, and who are nineteen hundred years removed from the apostles? Guess where I am going to bank my money?

Both the Congregation and the Gnostics claimed they had the true gospel. Tertullian wrote,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith? The early Christians (A.D. 70-313), or modern evangelical Christians (beginning 500 years ago)? Ignorance and arrogance suggests the early Christians were ignorant and that we Christians today are more wise, intelligent, and knowledgeable than they were and thus we have the more correct doctrine. Sorry, but that is logically false. Good luck with that!

Second century Christians were basically only one generation away from the apostles. We are nineteen centuries away! How reasonable it it for us to argue that, after nineteen hundred years, evangelical Christianity is basically unchanged from that of the apostles? Especially when claiming that orthodox Christianity had radically changed only 50 years after the apostles died? This requires some serious critical thinking.

Where our beliefs conflict and contradict theirs, it is wise for us to reform and conform our beliefs with theirs.