About this blog:

This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels when even one sinner repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site exists, just one sinner is led to repentance and belief in Christ with the aid of the material presented here, the purpose of this site has been served.


My photo

Married to @SueBirdChaplin, LaneCh on Youtube, Host of Rightly Divided, Reagan Conservative, J.D., Deacon at Christ Reformed of Anaheim (Rom.7:24-25a)




Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

*Buying from any of the ads below helps support future Youtube projects.

Go Stand Speak

Thank You Cards


Follow by Email

Popular Posts

Blog Archive


Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      Out With the New and In With the Old...

      Friday, November 30, 2007

      Here are two works that have been written. Read both of these and see which glorifies God, spreads the Gospel, and proclaims the truth and which is a self-centered:

      Did you see that I was hurt? Did you know that you had left me crying there? Now I'm holding all you words close till you feel this pain too, but you live on so unaware. While I thought somehow this hate would heal me, but this hate is never ending and it's only killing me. Oh sweet revenge, you've lied again. I find I can't get free till I release this vengeance that I seek. Forgive you the only thing I want to live. I'm ready to be free. Maybe you've been wounded too. Maybe all this is your self protection. All the hurts you thought were hidden are the ones now hurting me. So who will make the pattern end? I'm ready to break these chains. (I) Won't see this through because setting you free means my freedom too. I find I can't get free till I release this vengeance that I seek. Forgive you the only thing I want to live. I'm ready to be free.

      Here is the next work:

      Come you sinners, poor and wretched, weak and wounded, sick and sore. Jesus, ready, stands to save you, full of pity joined with power. He is able. He is willing. Doubt no more. Come you needy. Come and welcome. God's free bounty glorify: True belief and true repentance, every grace that brings you nigh. Without money, come to Jesus Christ and buy. Come you weary, heavy laden, bruised and broken by the fall. If you tarry till you're better, you will never come at all. Not the righteous... Sinners, Jesus came to call. Let not conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream. All the fitness He requires is to feel your need of Him. This He gives you, tis the Spirit's rising beam. Lo! The Incarnate God, ascended: pleads the merit of His blood. Venture on Him, venture wholly. let no other trust intrude. None but Jesus can do helpless sinners good.

      Which leads you to love the Lord Jesus Christ more, and which is looking to self either to glorify or pity it? The answer is obvious. I presented these in paragraph form deliberately so you would avoid the temptation to hum along and, instead, see what the words are saying, but both of these are actually song lyrics. The first is by a "Christian" contemporary girl band named Barlowgirl called "Sweet Revenge", and the second is by Joseph Hart (1712-1768) and is called "Come Ye Sinners". Does this not show how drastically we have been led astray from our Lord? Don't get me wrong, there are some out there in this present day who are still making great hymn-like music (those affiliated with Indelible Grace come to mind), but the majority is much like the first. The lyrics on the first could either win a CCM or CMT award based on lyircal content alone these days, and that is truly pathetic. Is it really sinning against the Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth to tell the people producing "lyrics" like those in the first work that their story really isn't that interesting, or is it actually being faithful to God and loving them by telling them the truth? I for one am saying, "Out with the new and in with the old..."


      Tests for Biblical Assurance
      (Paul Washer)

      Thursday, November 29, 2007

      You can download these here.


      Book of the Week Section?

      Some people have asked me about authors that I recommend. I started to think about it, and I have many books that I got for free online on pdf (legally). I am thinking about starting to post a book of the week section on this blog where I would post the book in Scribd format, and you could download it to read at your leisure if the Lord wills. Please let me know if there is interest for this because it does require a little effort. If even one person benefits from this, I'll keep it going, Lord willing. Just leave a comment at the bottom of this post to let me know. To start, I am going to post the first one by J. Gresham Machen called The Origin of Paul's Religion.

      (For those of you who are not familiar with Scribd, go to the lower part of this document to download this as a pdf or a Word document using the "right click/save as" method. You can zoom in and out using the slidebar and you can view this in full screen by pressing the button on the far right of the toolbar.)


      Atheism: Is there No Evidence that God Exists?
      (Doug Eaton)

      Wednesday, November 28, 2007

      I'll take sound teaching in a garage against being entertained in a colosseum any day, Lord willing.


      Faith in Faith and Faith in God
      (George Grant)

      Tuesday, November 27, 2007

      "Faith in God is personal and objective. Faith in faith is impersonal and subjective. Faith in God transcends self-interest and self-fulfillment. Faith in faith descends into self-reliance and self-assurance. Faith in God is a belief in Someone who has revealed Himself to man “at many times and in various ways” (Hebrews 1:1). Faith in faith is simply “a belief” in something or anything (James 2:19)."

      - George Grant


      The Importance of Logic
      (John Robbins)

      Since calling anyone who decides to sign a card or make a decision to attend a particular place of "worship" a Christian is so prevalent, I believe this article will be helpful to those who are caught in the disarray of the "What does believing in Jesus Christ mean to you?" mentality. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, and with so many people who take that for granted and deem serving mammon to be more worthy of themself, this article shows why words without definition is only considered to be effective by those who have ulterior motives. I'm thankful that John Robbins is "ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within him" (1Pet 3:15), "not take any part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Eph. 5:11), and not compromise the truth so he will be thought of well among men. (John 12:43) Apparently he didn't "happen to overlook" Jesus' commandment to "speak in light what He told him in darkness and preach upon the housetops which he heard in his ear." (Matt. 10:27)

      What do this law (of non-contradiction) and the rest of logic have to do with morality? Simply this: When the bible says, "You shall not covet," each word has a specific meaning. Attacking logic means attacking morality. If logic is disdained, then the distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, merciful and ruthless also disappear. Without logic, God's words, "You shall do no murder," really mean: "You shall murder daily" or "Stalin was Prince of Wales," or any of an infinite number of other things. That means, without logic, words are meaningless. The rejection of logic means the end of morality, for morality and ethics depend on understanding. Without understanding, there can be no morality. One must understand the Ten Commandments before one can obey them. If logic is irrelevant or irreligious, moral behavior is impossible, and the "practical" religion of those who belittle logic cannot be practiced at all.

      Something even worse, if anything could be worse, follows from rejecting logic. If logic does not govern all thought and expression, then one cannot tell true from false. If one rejects logic, then when the Bible says that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose again the third day, these words actually mean that Jesus did not suffer, was not crucified, did not die, was not buried, and did not rise again, as well as that Attila the Hun loved chocolate cake and played golf. The distinctions between true and false, right and wrong, all disappear, for there can be no distinctions made apart from using the law of contradiction. meaning itself disappears.

      The rejection of logic became very popular in the twentieth century. It appears that this rejection will continue into the twenty-first century. In matters of morality, one frequently hears that "There are no blacks and whites, only shades of gray." What this means is that there is neither good nor evil; all actions and alternatives are mixtures of good and evil. If one abandons logic, as many people have, then one cannot distinguish good from evil---and everything is permitted. The results of this rejection of logic---mass murder, war, government-caused famine, abortion, child abuse, destruction of families, crime of all sorts---are all around us. The rejection of logic has led---and must lead---to the abandonment of morality.

      In matters of knowledge, we are told that truth is relative; that what is "true" for your might not be "true" for me. So 2 plus 2 might be 4 for you and 7.7 for me. If logic is abandoned, then that also follows. Christianity is "true" for some---Buddhism is "true" for others. One result has been a growing antipathy toward Christianity, which claims that all men, not some, are sinners; and that there is only one way to God, through belief in Christ. Absolute truth---which is really a redundant phrase---has been replaced by relative truth, which is really a contradiction in terms, like the phrase square circle. But once logic is gone, truth is also.

      The use of logic is not optional. Logic is so fundamental, so basic, that those who attack it must use logic in order to attack logic. They intend the words they write, "Logic is invalid," to have specific meanings. The opponents of logic must use the law of (non)contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in. They cannot assault the object of their hatred without using it in the assault. They are in the position of the Roman soldier who arrested Christ, but they do not realize, as the soldier did, that their position and action are dependent upon rules that they reject. they must use the rules of logic in order to belittle logic; he had to be healed by Christ before he could proceed with the arrest.

      In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John worte, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom and Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is "the true Light" who lights every man that comes into the world. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictly speaking, there is no "mere human logic" as contrasted with a divine logic, as some would have us believe. The Logic of God and man think the same way---not exactly the same thoughts, since man is sinful and God is holy, but both God and man think that 2 plus 2 is 4 and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that the only substitutionary death of Christ can merit a sinner's entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic are the way God thinks. he makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted conclusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all our thoughts into captivity to "Christ. We ought to think as Christ does---logically.

      To return to our first question, Why study logic? Our first answer must be that we are commanded to by Scripture. Without learning how to think properly, we shall misunderstand Scripture. Peter warns against those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. A study of logic will help us avoid twisting the Scriptures and trying to make them imply something they do not imply. The Westminster Confession, written in England in the 1640's, says that all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down i Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. It is only through the study of logic that we can distinguish a "good and necessary" deduction from an invalid deduction.

      - John Robbins
      (from the Preface to Logic by Gordon Haddon Clark)

      Is Your Pastor a Bible Teacher or a Philosopher?

      "I Am Not Ashamed of the TRUE Gospel." (Paul Washer)

      "Jesus Christ is Not a Yuppie's Accessory." (Paul Washer)


      I'm Not Getting Any Commission For This, By the Way...

      Monday, November 26, 2007

      Several months ago, I heard of a new documentary that I'm sure many of you are aware of called Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism. Through buying that DVD, I had the privilege of meeting Eric Holmberg, the President of the Apologetics Group, the founder of Reel to Real Ministries, and the host of Amazing Grace along with the majority of the documentaries they have put out. Since then, we have kept up by email. He is a very cordial and God fearing man as I'm sure you can tell by watching the videos his company produces. He is not aware that I'm writing this post, but with the holiday season coming, I wanted to post this because I'm sure several of you will benefit with the links and information I am providing here concerning several of TAG's videos. Several of you may have seen these clips on Youtube and wondered what documentary they came from. You can now know for sure.

      He's offering the best prices for these videos that I've seen around the internet. May they be a blessing to you, as well.

      (Click on the picture to see how you can buy each video.)

      The first is the documentary Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism. Here are several clips from it:

      The next video is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It is called Hell's Bells 2. TAG takes practically every aspect of the secular music world and examines it in light of the Scriptures. This is one of those that are a must see. TAG has the lowest price I have seen on this video, as well.

      The Marks of a Cult is a 2 hour documentary that not only explains the differences between the cults that exist today as compared to Christianity, but it also better equips the person watching it with how to spot a cult by watching for the signs of one. Again, this is one of the best prices I've seen for it on the net.

      Another video they have produced is called Sounds of War. It is also looks at the secular music scene, but uses the Ten Commandments to critique several aspects of it.

      Shadows of the Supernatural explains why it seems that people have such an infatuation with ghosts, demons, etc. from a Biblical perspective.

      Finally, God's Law and Society proves that there is no such thing as neutrality. You're either with Christ or against Him. It is a 10 part series with each part being around 20 minutes in length where an array of people including R.C. Sproul Jr. and George Grant take a topic and expound on it from a Biblical perspective.

      Again, they have produced many fine videos over the years, and even though I haven't seen all of them, I have seen and own many of the titles they've released. My younger brother walked in on me watching Hell's Bells 2 one day and sat there for 30 minutes after he walked in. He said it was something he could watch because it kept his interest. If you know my brother, you know this video is well worth it to draw a response like that from him. These are wonderful videos and would make great presents for the ones you love.


      "What is Hyper-Calvinism and is it Biblical?"

      Question: "What is hyper-Calvinism and is it Biblical?"

      Answer: A simple and general definition is this: Hyper-Calvinism is the unscriptural belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God's sovereignty and under-emphasizes man's responsibility in the work of salvation.

      An obvious ramification of this is that the hyper-Calvinist has little if any desire to evangelize the lost. Or, if he does, he will not attempt to persuade the unbeliever to faith. Most churches or denominations that hold to hyper-Calvinistic theology are marked by fatalism, coldness, and a lack of assurance of faith. There is little emphasis upon God's love for the lost and His own people but rather an unbiblical and destructive emphasis upon God's sovereignty, His election of the saved and His wrath for the lost. The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God's salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost.

      The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the entire universe (Daniel 4:34-35), including the salvation of men (Ephesians 1:3-12). But in His sovereignty, the Bible emphasizes that God's motivation for saving the lost is love (Ephesians 1:4-5, John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-10) and that God's means of saving the lost is the proclamation of His Word (Romans 10:14-15). The Bible also declares that the Christian is to be passionate and determined in his/her sharing with unbelievers...as ambassadors for Christ, we are to "beg" people to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

      The above facts fly in the face of hyper-Calvinism and show it to be an unbiblical and destructive understanding of the Word of God and the sovereignty of God. A fabulous online article regarding this issue is by Phillip Johnson and is found here. Johnson defines and describes hyper-Calvinism, refutes it and recommends several other resources for study.

      HT: Got Questions?


      Salvation by Works, A Criminal Doctrine
      (C.H. Spurgeon)

      Sunday, November 25, 2007

      "Self-righteousness is also much promoted by the almost universal spirit of trifling which is now abroad. Only while men trifle with themselves can they entertain the idea of personal merit before God. He who comes to serious thoughts and begins to understand the character of God before whom the heavens are not pure and the angels are charged with folly, he, I say, that comes to serious thought and beholds a true vision of God abhors himself in dust and ashes and is forever silenced as to any thought of self-justification. It is because we do not seriously examine our condition that we think ourselves rich and increased with goods. A man may fancy that he is prospering in business and yet he may be going back in the world. If he does not face his books or take stock, he may be living in a fool's paradise spending largely when on the verge of bankruptcy. Many think well of themselves because they never think seriously. They do not look below the surface, and hence, they are deceived by appearances. The most troublesome business to many men is thought, and the last thing they will do is weigh their actions, test their motives, or ponder their ways to see whether things be right with them. Self-righteousness being supported by ignorance, by pride, by unbelief, and by the natural superficiality of the human mind is strongly entrenched and cannot be readily driven out of men. Yet self-righteousness is evidently evil for it makes light of sin. It talks of merit in the one who has already transgressed and boasts of excellence in reference to a fallen and depraved creature. It prattles of little faults, small failures and slight omissions and so makes sin to be a venial error which may be readily overlooked. Not so faith in God, for though it recognizes pardon, yet that pardon is seen to come in a way which proves sin to be exceedingly sinful."

      - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

      This sermon is invaluable. I don't say that lightly, and I am not exaggerating, either. Spurgeon explains why it is true that "if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 2:21)

      I highly encourage you to take the 55 minutes it takes to listen to this sermon. It is well worth it. I've placed this in the box below.

      You can either listen to this on here on the blog or click on the tab that pops up when you drag your mouse over the speaker icon and choose "Download" so you can have it for your iPod or whatever is convenient for you.


      The Theory of Relavtism and Subjectivity

      Many Christians live like atheists.

      What do I mean by that? An atheist has his sole purpose of being and "personal truth" stem from himself and his fallen mind. He decides what is right or wrong, and even though he borrows from the Christian world view to decide upon that, he still deems himself and his being to be the final authority on "truth". The end of all the atheist's being is this: relativism and subjectivity. Even though they have been characteristically more rude about it than the emergents, the majority of them excluding the few atheists who are now displaying their foolishness more prevalently for the world to see (Dawkins, Harris, etc.) have the principle argument, "If it's true for you, that's fine if you want to be deluded, but I deem so and so to be true for me. If it is relative to today, if it sounds good to me, and if it works, then that determines what is true." The extent of this thinking can be found in the theory of evolution itself. The evolutionist is really a creationist at heart. Though he, himself and his fallen intellect is the source of all that "creation", all he has done is created an idol called "evolution" that he deems all people should subjectively accept. He has even created the "missing link" because, as G.K. Chesterton said, evolutionists seem to be the only ones who don't realize that the missing link is still missing and for good reason. He wants to discover so bad that some kind of "revelation" outside of Scripture is true that he will twist things to be conformable to his opinion rather than what the Bible reveals is true. Hence, his subjectivity is the end of all things according to him. You'll notice this very often in their arguments: "Well, I don't see enough evidence for creation... Well, I don't see how some person that I wish to compare to the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists... Well, I don't think this is compatible with so and so..." as though him and his fallen "intellect" is the end and means of all truth. Do you see the pattern? The atheist is entirely subjective and quite arrogant to deem that truth needs to be conformed to him rather than he be conformed to the truth.

      There are Christians that live the same way, but use different terms. Inevitably, though, it's the same result. They live as though God created them in His image and everyone who believes, but unbelievers were somehow were left out of that creation process so "what's true for them is true for them; let's not cause a stir." That is not what the Scriptures teach. Let me say that again: That relativistic mentality is not of God. If someone believes Scripture, they must believe that ALL man was created in the image of God. Those who deny that are in bondage to sin; end of argument. Although the Bible teaches many things, "political correctness" is not one of them, and there is a sound reason why.

      R.C. Sproul gave the story once of a short time after his conversion when he was in a class and his teacher was a religious bigot. She chided him in front of the class by saying after much patronizing, "Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven, yes or no?" Of course, R.C. said, "Yes." That sent her into an uproar for a little over ten minutes, if I remember correctly, until the class was over. After the class, R.C. approached her and explained that to believe that Jesus is the only way to God is actually believing in Jesus because that is what He taught. In order to believe in Jesus, he had to believe in what Jesus taught. He explained that just because he believed it was true didn't make it true, however. He explained that it was true, period. He said that even though she didn't believe on Christ by the end of their conversation, she understood what he was saying because he presented truth objectively to her. When she realized that he wasn't being as arrogant to say that because he believed in it, it was true, she was open to the "possibility" of objective truth. One thing is certain, though: Although she didn't believe by the end of the conversation, R.C. still walked away believing which is more than what can be said when those who advocate "peace at all cost; truth if possible" are asked to give a reason for the hope that lies within them.

      The more the Holy Ghost teaches me, the more I understand how much relativism and subjectivity is an enemy of His; not a "witnessing tool". God's truth is revealed and we, in our fallen states, think that we must believe it in order for it to be true as though our "stamp of approval" is needed for God to be glorified. That is not the case, though, because then God's truth would not be true. If it were so, why would God have to reveal it to us? Why would he have to show us something if it has not already occurred and is objectively true? Is it not because we have fallen states that deny the truth? Is it not because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness?

      Does someone believing in Jesus Christ raise him from the dead? Has he not already risen about 2,000 years ago? Of course he has, but many of us live as if we do God a favor by believing in Him; that somehow we help Jesus out of the grave if we put our seal of approval on the situation. Just read many of the "Christian" books that now permeate the land versus the letters of the Apostles. The difference you will see is that the Apostles understood God did them a favor, and the modern authors believe they are doing God a favor. Sure, many of us won't come out and say it, but there are many things that someone who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness will not do either, and this is just one example. Christ's resurrection along with God creating ALL men in His image are objective truths. A humanists "blessing" is not needed for it to be true, and frankly, if everyone waited for subjective people to believe the truth, there would be no believers. The first century Christians were not martyred because they held to subjective relativism. They were martyred because they held to objective truth.

      Subjectivity and relativism is at the heart of the emergent "church", the seeker-sensitive "church", atheism, and many other ungodly forms of unbelief that many of us have had the despair of witnessing over time. It does not glorify God to have two sources of truth, Him and ourselves. Instead, it does the opposite because whoever is not with Jesus Christ is actually against Him and he who does not gather, scatters. (Matt. 12:30) Is someone who deems themself to be doing God a favor in believing in Him actually gathering people to the truth or scattering them away from it? The Scriptures teach the latter.

      In conclusion I want to stress this: Relativism and subjectivity are death to Christianity. This is true statement and worth of all praise: If you are taking up your cross and following Christ, you are not following subjective opinion, you are following objective truth. Every true believer attests to this witness being true.


      He That Has Love is Far From All Sin
      (Polycarp of Smyrna)

      Friday, November 23, 2007

      Wherefore gird up your loins and serve God in fear and truth, forsaking the vain and empty talking and the error of the many, for that ye have believed on Him that raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave unto him glory and a throne on His right hand; unto whom all things were made subject that are in heaven and that are on the earth; to whom every creature that hath breath doeth service; who cometh as judge of quick and dead; whose blood God will require of them that are disobedient unto Him. Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing; but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God. These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, not because I laid this charge upon myself, but because ye invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin.

      Polycarp to the Philippians (2:1-3; 3:1-3)

      - Polycarp of Smyrna
      (Written Approx. 110-140 AD)


      Have A Great Thanksgiving!

      Wednesday, November 21, 2007

      Here is Doug Eaton with some great commentary that will help you understand what believers should be thankful for not only this Thanksgiving day but everyday, as well.

      Doug Eaton's Blog: Godward Thoughts


      "What About Free Will?"
      (R.C. Sproul)

      Monday, November 19, 2007

      When someone learns the doctrine of predestination/election, the next question is usually, "Well, what about free will?" R.C. Sproul takes the time to answer this question thoroughly in this audio message.


      Christianity and Liberalism [ENTIRE BOOK]
      (J. Gresham Machen)

      J. Gresham Machen once said that he regretted not naming this book Christianity and Modernism. Modernism, post-modernism, and liberalism all have the same basic premise according to everything I hear from each front. J. Gresham Machen fought this "liberalism" intensely in his day. His words are timely now. All you have to do is substitute either 'modernism' or 'post-modernism' in each place liberalism is mentioned in this book. The way he addresses liberalism shows that they are all interchangeable.

      Here is the entire book. If you go to the bottom of the post, you can download this in pdf. (Use the slidebar to zoom in and the button on the far right of the toolbar to open this in another tab.)


      Math and the Bible
      (J.C. Keister)

      Sunday, November 18, 2007

      I may be only one of a few that find this interesting, but I am going to post it anyway. The implications are astonishing. (Use the "zoom" slidebar feature to see this better. Press the far right button on the toolbar for a fullscreen view.)


      The BIBLE Driven Church
      (Jeff Noblit)

      "Just when we need the Church the most, it has become just like us."
      - Newspaper Reporter

      You can download this sermon here.


      Peter, the Apostle of God VS. Dale Carnegie

      Friday, November 16, 2007

      When I was younger, I remember my Dad walking in one day with a huge carrying case full of tapes. I wondered what on earth was going on. We didn't exactly have "many" of Sproul's or MacArthur's tapes laying around the house. It was mostly my rock and rap tapes or my Mom's Singing Machine tapes so I wondered what he could have brought. He told me, and even at that young age I knew something wasn't right. It was a Dale Carnegie course on "how to win friends and influence people". Sheesh.

      There are certain things that a Christian must believe to be true or they are not a Christian regardless of what they profess to be. One is that whatever Jesus said, is truth because He is God manifest in the flesh. One thing Jesus declared is that "no man can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other or he will be devoted to one and despise the other." (Matt 5) Does God really want us taking lessons in self-esteem and boosting other people's pride? The Bible declares God's will to be the contrary.

      In this post, I want to compare the two methods of converting people to a cause and find out if, in the end, two people can be converted to the same cause using methods that are antithetical. Here I will compare the Apostle of God, Peter and the guru of the self-esteem movement, Dale Carnegie. Both claim to do what is "good and right", but Peter's standard is the objective standard of God and Carnegie's is the subjective opinion of man. The reason I post this is because there are certain "evangelicals" in the land that feel they can help people "make a decision for Christ" using the same basic means employed by Carnegie and now Osteen and the sort.

      Here is an example of how Peter the Apostle of God coerced people to the cause of Christ:

      "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.' "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
      (Act 2:22-39)

      What happened here? Peter declared their sin! He didn't try to boost their self-esteem/pride! They were pricked to their heart about what he said, but what was the result? "BROTHERS, what shall we do?" Note that they were cut to the heart to the point where instead of being swelled with pride, they were humbly asking Peter what they should do, and what was the result? "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Act 2:41-42) Did Peter throw a steak party? Did he have a festival dance? Did he say, "You know what, God loves you just the way you are." No. Peter declared they are sinners and the result is that those who were ordained to believe, believed because Peter loved them enough to tell them the truth instead of look for something from them for himself.

      Let's see how Dale Carnegie would have suggested to handle the situation:

      "John Wannamaker, founder of the stores that bear his name, once confessed: "I learned thirty years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence."

      Wannamaker learned this lesson early, but I personally had to blunder through this old world for a third of a century before it even began to dawn upon me that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people don't criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong it may be.

      Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment."

      There are a few things I want to point out here:

      1) Wannamaker was a businessman, he was not serving God, but rather his business. From what he has said about "overcoming my own limitations" one can conclude that he didn't see a reason for Christ's death "overcomes our limitations" and his patronage to the Masonic lodge in it's is probably a good indication as to why this is so. The main point I want to stress, though, is that he was a businessman speaking from a businessman's point of view, not especially concerned about things outside of his business. He was more concerned that his business ran smoothly rather than risk someone being offended and maybe losing productivity. It's the only logical reason someone would make such a statement. It certainly isn't a divinely inspired one.

      2) Carnegie concluded that "people don't criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong they may be" which may hold true, but isn't that precisely why someone should have the law preached to them so they can have "knowledge of sin since by law is the knowledge of sin?" (Rom. 3:20) Now I submit that a person that is more concerned about the productivity of their business than truth is going to be pragmatic no matter what the cost to make sure "ends meet". They will even define what those ends are outside of an objective source as long as the bottom line is reached.

      3) Carnegie says what may be the most telling statement of all: "Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment." Does not the law "criticize" a person and put them on the defensive and make them try to justify themselves?

      "It wounds a person's pride." When Peter was preaching to the proud people who murdered Jesus Christ, he had no problem hurting their pride. It makes sense why "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance,"(Pro 8:13a) Does someone who is trying to please the Lord want to stir evil in men's hearts? God forbid.

      "hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment" Why do you think Jesus Christ was crucified? Do you think it was because he was tickling the prideful Pharisees' ears? Was it because he wanted them to have "their best life now?" Or was it was because he couldn't compromise truth and still be God? "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like unto whitewashed sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." - Jesus Christ (Mat 23:27-28)

      I want to conclude by saying this: As Paul Washer says, "There are a bunch of little boys running around" telling anyone anything they want to hear so they can have their business prevail, not the kingdom of God. "If the bottom line stays on course, the rest is only a hindrance to it." Use sound judgment when deciding on what church you go to. Ask yourself this: Is the "Pastor's" bottom line his business, or is it the true God and His will? Paul states emphatically in the majority of his epistles, "Paul not chosen of men neither by men, but God." There is a reason for that as there is with all Scripture. There are faithful ministers that are preaching God's Word regardless because God in His grace has shown them that truth is not determined by popularity polls. Use sound judgment.

      Here is a short 6 minute clip where John Robbins compares the evangelism of Peter with the modern day "Dale Carnegie Approach":


      Rob Bell: Converting People to Narcissim Instead of to Christ

      Many of you may have not heard of Rob Bell, but I know of some of you who have. He is one of the leaders of the emergent movement who is seeking to redefine Christianity. I'll admit, in fact, I applaud the notion that there are certain things that should be changed from certain people's perceptions such as the notion that T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen somehow represent evangelicalism, but there is a difference between changing certain elements of what is considered Christianity to make it conform more to true Christianity and changing certain elements to make it anything but Christianity. Here is a clip of one of his videos called "Bullhorn Guy" in which he makes a caricature of God and the people who believe in, well, what the Bible says about Him. After hearing him say that "God loves everyone just they way they are" multiple times, I wonder what he does with Psalms 5. Well, that's not really true. I don't really wonder what he does with it. He ignores it like he does other parts of the Bible that aren't compatible with narcissim.

      Don't judge this video by appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. (John 7:24)

      So now you've seen the caricature. Someone on Youtube saw it, too, and realized how ludicrous Bell's "presentation of the Gospel" is. They decided to make a response to it. This time, though, without the caricature, but rather with... "The Bullwhip Guy".

      UPDATE: Over at GalatiansC4V16, concerning Rob Bell, Christian Research Net contributor Tony Rose writes:

      One of the contributors of pulpit.com (Pulpit Magazine), attended Rob Bell’s The Gods are Not Angry tour stop in Hollywood. His review is pretty interesting. Here are some excerpts:

      "I am convinced that the emerging church is largely early 20th century liberalism, with cooler hair…The entire night was an illustration of style-over substance… But Bell went from there into what can only be described as careful and planned ambiguity. It was obvious that he is a smart person…"

      "So when he ended the night without explaining why the sacrifice of Christ appeased God’s anger, without explaining atonement, without even touching substitution, I can’t help but note the effort that took. He spoke for over 90 minutes on the sacrifice of Christ without explaining sin, or the resurrection—which is the same as not speaking about the sacrifice of Christ…"

      "[Bell] did not tell them ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.’ Instead he said, ‘The gods are not angry anymore.’”

      "And this is the fundamental problem with Bell’s message. The Bible says that the wrath of God is continually being revealed against ungodliness. In other words, God is still angry. And Bell did an enormous disservice because the people did not hear the gospel, and they were not told to flee the wrath to come."

      HT: Apprising Ministries


      Michael Horton Reviews Osteen's
      Latest Contradiction to Christianity

      Wednesday, November 14, 2007

      I've never used this program Scribd before so let me know if you have trouble reading this. (There is a zoom feature on it.) Here is a recent book review Michael Horton gave on Joel Osteen's newest contradiction to Christianity, Become a Better You.


      Let Me State This in Bold So it is Perfectly Clear:

      Tuesday, November 13, 2007

      Charles Grandison Finney was a heretic and everyone who is promoting his methods of "decisional regeneration" is promoting heresy.

      Now that I have that out the way, to find out the extent of this, you will need to listen to the following two presentations by Mark Kielar and White Horse Inn. Phil Johnson of TeamPyro also wrote an article about him and his methods several years ago. You can read that article here. Phil said,
      "Charles Grandison Finney was a heretic. That language is not too strong. Though he excelled at cloaking his opinions in ambiguous language and biblical-sounding expressions, his views were almost pure Pelagianism. The arguments he employed to sustain those views were nearly always rationalistic and philosophical, not biblical. To canonize this man as an evangelical hero is to ignore the facts of what he stood for."

      I have several books by Finney, and Johnson is not making caricature of what Finney proclaimed. The words and terminology he used could make a person believe they are getting somewhere if one only reads it in pieces, but if you follow his thoughts all the way to the end, they all lead to the same place: yourself, not Christ.

      In short, among other things, Finney did not believe in and did not teach original sin even though it is clearly presented in Romans 5:12-21, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer even though it is clearly presented in Romans 4 and Philippians 3:9 among other places, and was basically the first primary proponent of the heresy that is now sweeping through the modern church called "Decisional Regeneration".

      According to Finney's "theology", if there is no original sin, then Adam was just the "bad example to follow" and Christ, in turn, was the "good example to follow". In other words, in Finney's teaching, there was no reason for Christ to die. This brings to mind another person you might recall, as well. The man is named Peter. Peter was actually walking with Jesus Christ one day and told him he couldn't die; far be it from him to die. Jesus then turned and said, "Get behind me Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you conisder not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16:23) Christ had to die for forgiveness of sin, and if someone promotes a "theology" where he is just a good example, the same rebuke could be said to them as well.

      In Finney's defense, however, towards the end of his life, he did make the confession that the many, many false converts he produced were, in fact, false. He admitted to his failure which, at first, might make you wonder why there are so many people still promoting his methods even if he, himself confessed they were in err. If you think about it, though, if someone adopts the same mentality Finney had when he came up with these methods which was his interest in the numbers and not what the Bible had to say was the right way to evangelize, it wouldn't really make sense if his contemporaries contradicted him and started doing their homework instead of relying on the methodology of "how does this evangelism experience make you feel?" Maybe they will admit that they led many to hell for the sake of preserving their own ignorance on their deathbeds as well.

      Kielar's sermon is one of the most surprising sermons I have ever heard for many reasons including this one: According to Kielar and his research, the granddaddy of the altar call got "saved" and started preaching without much training (including Biblical) but was able to coerce people to make decisions by his, get this, keen intellect and human strategies. Yeah, if you listen to the entire Kielar sermon, your mouth may be open for the majority of the time, too, when you realize how similar this sounds to many of the problems that are now found in the "seeker-sensitive" and "ask Jesus into your heart when you were twelve" movements. Furthermore, according to Keilar and his research, you will not find an "altar-call-salvation" before the 1820's. It was founded by the same man who denied certain parts of Scripture because they were "incompatible with his disposition".

      Now take this into perspective. Most everyone who reads this who lives or has lived in the United States and has been around the majority of "evangelical" church functions may think that the altar call (or mourner's bench as Finney called it at the beginning) is orthodox because this is basically all that everyone who reads this and is not very familiar with history has to work with. Yet, before the 1820's, there is no record of the "altar call salvation". "Surely," one may say, "the Apostle Paul had to go back and walk an aisle and say a prayer after Jesus knocked him off his horse." No, he didn't. "Well, surely Augustine had to go back and make the one, final confession that he didn't make the trip to the mourner's bench." No, he didn't. "Ok, ok... SURELY Martin Luther, after he stood before the council at the Diet at Worms, had to go ask Jesus into his heart as SOME point in order to be saved." No, actually he didn't do that either. "Well, how were they saved!?" They believed on the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart the God raised Him from the dead. "Well, what's the point of the altar call for salvation then!?" You tell me: Is there one?

      "Learning from History's Mistakes" - Mark Kielar

      "Charles Finney and American Revivali
      sm" - White Horse Inn

      Here is an example of how Finney's methods are being used:

      Here is a CrossTV video that gives further commentary
      on the fallacy of "Decisional Regeneration":


      So I Went to R.C.'s Church Today...

      Sunday, November 11, 2007

      So I went to R.C. Sproul's church today in Sanford, Florida with my friend Susan. (By the way, keep him in your prayers. He had knee surgery and is recovering from it still.) Attending Saint Andrews Church was a wonderful experience. Sproul preached on Matthew 2. It further reinforced the truth that expository preaching is vitally important. There is simply no substitute for it. It is a necessity.

      The main reason I'm posting this is because I've been to a wide range of churches now: mega/seeker-sensitive to Saint Andrews, and without a doubt, I don't even think I've been to church if there isn't expository preaching. Nothing happens without it. I know the pragmatism of the land calls for large numbers of altar calls and hand raisings, but the Word of God is the only way a person can actually grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the only way that "works", really.

      Recently, Sproul and Al Mohler were asked the question of what they thought of the "Seeker-Sensitive Movement". Their answers may surprise some:

      In July, Sproul was honored at the ECPA/CBA convention with the lifetime achievment award. Here is the video that was played during this presentation:

      (I also heard on the internet not too long ago a "critique" of Saint Andrews Church by a man that gave a rather crude caricature of it. It was a caricature, indeed. What he presented was nothing like what I witnessed this morning. Even though I am late on this, let me add to the affirmation of those, including James White on the DL a few years ago, who have already dispelled the rumor.)


      Thought of the Week 11.9.2007

      Friday, November 9, 2007

      The Axiom of True Epistemology:

      The fear of the LORD.

      (Proverbs 1:7)


      The Cross the Modern "Preachers" Put in the Back of the Store
      (Paul Washer)

      Wednesday, November 7, 2007

      "You see, this is the Cross that all these modern-day "preachers" put in the back of the store and not in the store front window because it's a shameful thing, it's a horrid thing, it's a terrible thing. Some of you are looking at each other as though, 'I've never heard anything like this before.' Absolutely! And that's the Cross has so little power in your life.

      This is a horrid thing, a vile thing, not the kind of thing you wear around your neck."


      Joel Osteen and Self-Esteem According to Paul Washer

      Monday, November 5, 2007

      This is the video I posted on Youtube that was played on Way of the Master Radio 11.5.07 Hour 1. It provides wonderful evidence of the contrast between what Joel Osteen is preaching and what faithful ministers of God are preaching.

      Here are Todd Friel and Ray Comfort discussing it on Way of the Master Radio. Listen to the points they bring up.

      Part 1

      Part 2

      (PS. I didn't send this to them. A friend of mine who runs Truth Matters said he did.)


      Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?
      (John Gerstner)

      God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Ps. 139:22)

      Why does God do so much good for those He perfectly hates and as soon as they die impenitent send them immediately to hell and never in all eternity does them one solitary favor more? It is to show His willingness to forgive the sinner if only he will repent. It shows the sincerity of God’s willingness to pardon the greatest sinner that, even while He hates him with a perfect hatred, He showers him with constant daily blessings.

      As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is no “problem of pain.” The only problem is the “problem of pleasure.” Dreadful as it is, it is not surprising that God sends sinners to hell. The problem is why He does not do it sooner. Why does God let a hell-deserving sinner live a minute and then let him prosper like the green bay tree (Ps.37:35), as well? It is obvious that God can destroy the ungrateful. Why doesn’t He? That is the problem.

      Yes, the sinner suffers, too. But so little. It is a gentle reminder: though the sinner receives many divine favors, that does not mean that God is pleased with him. It is in spite of the fact that God hates him with a perfect hatred.

      Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness
      and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the
      kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom.2:4)

      Our text also shows that the one reason a sinner is permitted to be born into and enjoy this world rather than wake up as an infant in hell is that God, with His love of benevolence, is determined to give the sinner a “chance,” an opportunity to repent. Alas, most sinners use it as a chance to sin! They make God’s blessed love of benevolence into a curse.

      In this world the sinner enjoys nothing but the benevolent love of God. Every experience of pain as well as pleasure is from God’s love — of benevolence. Even pain is from love because it tends to wake the sinner to his danger. God indeed loves the sinner, whom He hates with a perfect hatred, with a perfect love of benevolence.

      The sinner, as I said, makes every divine blessing into a curse including God’s love of benevolence. This he does by construing a love of benevolence as a love of complacency.

      Construing God’s love of benevolence as a love of complacency is fatal. Instead of the divine forbearance leading to repentance, it is used as an excuse for non-repentance. Thus the sinner is not saved but damned by God’s love of benevolence.

      God “loves” the sinner benevolently and hates the sinner displacently. If the sinner dies impenitent, God removes His love of benevolence and pours out the full wrath of his displacent love.

      As far as “hatred of sins” is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes.

      God never hates the redeemed even when they sin. Is He an unfair respecter of persons? No! (Act. 10:34) God hates the unredeemed sinner but loves the redeemed even when they sin for a good and just reason. God loves the redeemed even when they sin because His Son, in whom God is always well-pleased, ever lives to make intercession for them. (Rom.8:27, 34) Christ died to atone for the guilt of His people’s sins. When they sin, these are atoned-for sins. They are sins with their guilt removed. In one sense, they are not sins at all. God does not hate His people when they sin because they are in His Son, Christ Jesus. And they are made acceptable in His Son. He “has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:6)

      Divine nepotism? No, His Son died for these people and paid the price for their sins past, present, and future. They are cancelled before they are committed. That is truth, not fiction. Righteousness, not nepotistic favoritism. In fact, it is not their original relationship to Christ which makes their sins guiltless, but Christ’s making satisfaction for their sins that created the relationship as children adopted into the family of God.

      God, in hot displeasure, chastens His people when they sin (Ps.6: 1; 38:1). It is not hatred but complacent love in Christ Jesus. “Whom the Lord loves He chastens.” (Heb. 12:6,7) God loves His people even when He afflicts them and hates the impenitent even when He befriends them.

      Why the chastening when there is love? God blessed the wicked when there was holy hatred. Now He chastens His people when there is holy love. This is because true moral behavior must be perfected. No sin can be tolerated in those for whom Christ died. He died to purchase a “peculiar people zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) Being redeemed, so far from tolerating their sinning, precludes it. Anyone who persists in sinning proves thereby that he is not a child of God. God punishes His own especially because they are His children. “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth: Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)

      “Upright” man was promised and warned. A holy, just, and perfect God would promise and warn. Eternal life — if obedient. Instant death — the moment of disobedience. (Gen.3:5; Ecc.7:29)

      When man sinned, he died spiritually and was rejected from communion with God his maker and friend. (Gen.3; Rom. 5:12ff) The wrath of God was upon him; labor was his lot; suffering in childbirth; alienation and death, as threatened. God is holy; of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. (Hab. 1:13)

      Yet mortal man “lived” on (though to live in pleasure is death, 1 Tim. 5:6), and so did promise. When the angels sinned they perished without delay, without promise, without hope.

      Man’s fate was better and worse than the fallen angels’ lot. It was a day of possible salvation but also of possible greater damnation, greater damnation for sinning away the day of possible salvation. God in His wrath; God in His mercy; at the same time.

      This was a terrible but holy wrath. God was using His omnipotent power but according to His perfect justice. Man was affected but he deserved it. It was no more, no less, than he deserved. God is no more powerful than holy; no more holy than powerful.

      As man continued to sin, God continued to increase His fury. His wrath is in no hurry. The record is kept, all accounts receivable. Every idle word will be brought into judgment (Matt. 12:36). The cup of iniquity must be filled. Then wrath to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:16) God’s glory shines in the perfection of His work.

      But — God decreed the sin, (Prov. 16:4). Yes, for good and for glory. Man did it for evil and for shame.

      A little sin and infinite wrath? A little sin against an infinite God is infinite. Wrath is in perfect proportion to the guilt. But even if the punishment were finite it would go in “infinitely,” unendingly, because the sinner continues to sin in resenting it.

      All glory to God for His holy anger. (John 17:3; Rom.9: 17f)

      by John H. Gerstner (1914-1996)


      "Do What You Want"...? (Exposing Satanism in Society)

      Sunday, November 4, 2007

      "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the Satanic philosophy derived by the founder of modern Satanism Aleister Crowley. In fact, it is the law stated in the Satanic Bible. These three videos expose how prevalent this demonic philosophy has crept into society.

      : These videos contain graphic content, but they provide solid evidence.

      Part 1

      Part 2

      Part 3

      You can get this video in its entirety at the Apologetics Groups Official Website. It is called Hell's Bells 2 and is over 6 hours long.


      "But I Asked Jesus Into My Heart When I Was Ten..."

      Friday, November 2, 2007

      I posted this first video for the first 2 minutes alone. Watch the first and then the following videos in order so you can "try to get a vision". Guess who uses the "Judge not lest ye be judged" command incorrectly in this first video...

      (This is the not the Christian position, by the way.)

      WARNING: Obscenities throughout from the crowd and ignorance from the "saved" guy.

      Compare the previous with these:

      "Why Are You Always So 'Preachy'? Why Don't You Just 'Get Off Your High-Horse', Paul?"


      Sodomites Are Not Saints and Saints Are Not Sodomites.
      (Dr. Alan Cairns)

      Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
      (1Cor 6:9-10)


      Anti-Intellectualism is Not Biblical.
      (C.H. Spurgeon/Mark Kielar)

      Thursday, November 1, 2007


      Related Posts with Thumbnails

      A Blue Ink Blog