We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Catholic Dogmas Refuted


On 3 February I posted the article, “Some Roman Catholic Dogmas” to demonstrate the chronology of when these man-made dogmas came into existence.  One of my readers suggested that I amend the article to put in Scripture which refutes each point.  That’s the purpose of this entry.

While I will cite Scripture for some of these, other will have links to articles (either mine or others on the ‘net) which have the Scriptures in their examinations of the topics.


300 A.D.  Prayers for the dead.  Hebrews 9:27 says after death comes judgment.  No prayers of intercession can help someone after they have died.

300 A.D.  Making the sign of the cross.  There is nothing unbiblical about this; it’s just a tradition of men.  There is also no requirement to do this, so if the RCC says it is necessary, then they are wrong.

375 A.D.  Veneration of angels and dead saints.  No biblical support for venerating angels.  Should we hold them in respect? Yes, but virtual worship?  NO?  Rev. 22:9.  “Saints” are all who believe, not special people set apart by Rome.  We do not venerate them either.

375 A.D.  Use of images in worshipThis is idolatry.

394 A.D.  The Mass as a daily celebration.  Apparently, at this particular period in history, the Mass was no more than a celebration of the Lord’s Supper (I may be wrong), since it was over 800 years before transubstantiation was declared dogma.  Nevertheless, Jesus said “as often as you do this,” but gave no command as to how often the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated.

431 A.D.  The title “Mother of God” assigned to Mary.  This title was assigned not to heighten Mary’s position, but to emphasize that Jesus was God.  At this point there was no problem with this title.  The problem is where they went with it later.

526 A.D.  Extreme Unction (Last rites).  Absolutely no biblical warrant, with nothing similar being found in Scripture.  The rite is supposedly supported by Mark 6:13 and James 5:14-15, but these dealt only with anointing of the sick, not blessings over various parts of the body for supposed sins by these parts, nor confession by a dying person, etc.  While in Scripture anointing with oil was an established practice, it seems to have been for medicinal purposes or symbolism, since the oil itself had no miraculous properties (and there was no example of the oil being prayed over first to give it some mystical power.)  It takes extreme eisegesis to come to the conclusion that such a rite conveyed grace.

593 A.D.  Doctrine of Purgatory — Gregory I. 


786 A.D.  Worship of cross, images, and relics.  Relics are no where even mentioned in Scripture as being important for anything.  This is nothing less than idolatry.

995 A.D.  Canonization of dead saints.  Again, no biblical warrant for “canonizing” anyone.  All Christians are saints.

1079 A.D. Celibacy of priesthood.  Forcing priests to be celibate is totally unbiblical (actually, the who priesthood is unbiblical, since the Bible teaches the priesthood of believers )(Other passages are Rev. 1:6 and 5:10).  There is no reason why a priest cannot marry.  In fact 1 Tim. 4:3 speaks of false teachers who forbid marriage.

1090 A.D.  The Rosary.  This is nothing but a superstition amulet for repetitive prayer (Matthew 6:7).  Not only that, but it also includes praying to Mary, and focusing on all the unbiblical attributes Rome has assigned to her.

1190 A.D.  Indulgences.

1215 A.D.  Transubstantiation — Innocent III.

1215 A.D.  Auricular Confession of sins to a priestAs noted above, there is no biblical warrant for the Catholic priest, nor is there biblical warrant for confession sins to him.

1220 A.D.  Adoration of the wafer (Host).

1414 A.D.  Cup forbidden to the people at communion.  The Bible teaches that the people all participate in the bread and the cup.  To forbid one is to go against the Lord. 


1439 A.D.  The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed.  The sacraments are as follows: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation (confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, Matrimony.  Rome claims these sacraments are a source of grace.  Baptism is commanded in the Bible but it imparts no grace, and the Catholic teaching on baptism is unbiblical.  Confirmation is a man-made ordinance with no biblical warrant and no grace is imparted.  Eucharist is the Lord’s Supper (Communion) and again was commanded but the the Catholic version is idolatry and unbiblical; no grace is imparted even in biblical eucharist.  Penance is a man-made with absolutely no biblical warrant, and confession has been addressed above.  Anointing the sick has been also addressed above. There is no biblical warrant for “Holy Orders” as a sacrament; men are appointed as Elders/Bishops (same office) and Deacons but such appointment is not sacramental nor does it impart grace.  The priesthood has been addressed above, and was established to continue the Jewish system because Rome claims that the Church replaced Israel, which itself is an unbiblical position.  Marriage is nowhere hinted at in the Bible as being sacramental, and no grace is imparted via marriage.

1545 A.D.  Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible — Council of Trent.  When Scripture discusses tradition in the New Testament, the meaning is the teaching of Christ and the Apostles handed down to the churches.  Rome’s meaning is traditions of men developed long after the New Testament Church was established.  Rome’s traditions have no biblical warrant, were not instituted by Christ, and therefore cannot be on an equal authority with Scripture.

1546 A.D.  Apocrypha added to the Bible.


1870 A.D.  Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals — Vatican Council.

1950 A.D.  Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death.


I hope this will be beneficial in understanding the unbiblical nature of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

More Freebies!


These are very thorough booklets exposing these Word of Faith heretics.  They go out as a set.  Free to the first claimant!


Some people may not feel comfortable letting me have their email, so commenting here is okay; it will be moderated so no one will see your address.  However, I can respond to you to let you know you’re the “winner” if you email me at jude3.gctwm@yahoo.com. I determine the “winner” by what comes in my inbox first.


Friday, February 17, 2017

Examples of Eisegesis With the Cult of Mary


I found this in my files.  It is explaining to a friend an email conversation I had with a priest in 2010.  You can see how bizarre some of the Roman Catholic teachings can be.  I will show the priest’s comments in blue, followed by my comments to my friend (original was not color-coded).


The “until” of Matthew 1:25 - that Joseph “knew her not until [Greek eos]…" - is similar to Jesus' promise to remain with us “until [Greek eos] the completion of the age” (Matthew 28:20, Darby Translation).  This doesn't imply He will abandon us afterwards...
In other words, Jesus didn't abandon us so Mary didn't abandon her virginity.  (?????)

What you seem to imply is that Mary plays the harlot by having children by another lover (Joseph in this case) after having Jesus by the Holy Spirit, since: If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? ...  You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD.  Jeremiah 3:1
This is the first time I have heard this argument for Mary's perpetual virginity.  This is the official R.C. position!  Talk about twisting Scripture!  And even twisting logic without Scripture!

Mary's reply to Gabriel implies she and Joseph were committed to virginity: “How can this be [How can I become the Messiah's mother], since I do not know man” (the literal translation of Luke 1:34, comment added)?  If Mary committed herself to virginity, then to accuse her otherwise would be offensive, would it not?
How in the world does the R.C.C. take this to "imply" a commitment to virginity?  All it says is that she hadn't had sex - YET! It takes some real illogic and twisting to find this "implication."

How we treat Mary affects our relationship with Jesus.  If He intended the words, “Behold, your mother” John 19:27), for all Christians - all disciples whom He loves (John 19:26) - then to reject Mary as our mother is to disobey and thus reject Christ.
More twisting of Scripture, so obvious that anyone with half a brain should be able to see it.  Nowhere does Scripture tell us that the conversation was directed to anyone other than John, “the disciple whom He loved."  They have to make John 19:26 mean every Christian instead of John, which doesn't make any sense.  But this is how R.C. make Mary our "mother."

Some more convoluted teaching, unbiblical assertions, and horrid eisegesis to force Scripture to support RCC doctrine:

John's love moved him to identify the ark of the New Covenant with a woman, the mother of the Redeemer (Revelation 11:19-12:6). It is God Himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary…."Full of grace, the Lord is with thee…." Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her.  The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace.  “Rejoice...O Daughter of Jerusalem...the Lord your God is in your  midst”  (Zephaniah 3:14, 17a).  Mary...the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells.  She is “the dwelling of God...with men” (Revelation 21:3).  Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.  [CCC 2676]

To really get to know Mary, we must love her as Christ did. This helps us to discover Mary in other scriptural passages [OH, DO WE HAVE TO DISCOVER HER IN THESE PASSAGES?].  Many Church fathers noticeably loved Mary as their mother and identified figures of her in the Old Testament.  For example, as Jesus is the new Adam, they saw Mary as the new Eve. ...

As Eve was an immaculate virgin before the fall [my question to him-If she was a virgin the whole time in the garden prior to the fall, wasn't she disobeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply if she wasn't trying to do so?  And didn't God intend for them to become “one"?], so Mary was conceived immaculate and remained a virgin.

The parallel between Genesis 2:23-3:24 and Revelation 11:19-12:17 confirms Mary as the new Eve: Adam calls Eve woman; Christ call Mary woman (also, John 2:4,19:26); God clothed Eve with skins; Mary with the sun; woman with birth-pangs (also, Micah 5:3); the serpent battles the woman and her seed; serpent is cursed; God promises to put enmity between the serpent and the woman; God fulfills that promise; mother of the living; mother of the true living, those who keep God's commandments; Eve and her seed put out of garden; woman and child flee into desert; Eve accompanies Adam at the tree of knowledge; Mary accompanies Jesus hanging on the tree (John 19:25; 1 Peter 2:24); an angel vanquishes man from the tree of life; Satan from heaven.

Mary is also the ark of the New Covenant.  Jesus taught us to think this way, explaining that His body was God's true temple (John 2:19-21).  The ark contained three things: “the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant” (Hebrews 9:4).  Mary's womb carried the real manna, Christ's body, the true bread from heaven (John 6:48-51); the true high priest, to whom Aaron's rod pointed (Numbers 17:1-13); and the incarnate Word - not just the Decalogue, God's ten words.  …

When John saw the ark of the New Covenant in the heavenly temple (Revelation 11:19)...a great sign appears, a virgin with child (Isaiah 7:14), the mother of the Redeemer (Revelation 12:1,5), the new Eve!  Moses covered the Old Testament ark with gold (Exodus 25:10-22); Mary's title - Kecharitomene, "full of grace" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims) - indicates that God fully overshadowed her with pure, sinless favor or grace (charis).  Scripture requires her Immaculate Conception!…

Every child should be conceived in an act of pure love.  To be the product of passion, lust, rape, or incest is a grave injustice to an innocent child [since when is conception from passion a sin?].  Were Mary to have relations with Joseph (which she had a right to before conceiving Jesus) it would mean her love for God, in which she conceived Jesus, wasn't virginal-spousal.  But Jesus had to be conceived in an act of virginal-spousal love; thus Mary had to remain a virgin.

We must take Scripture at its word. Mary is called a virgin before conceiving our Lord (Luke 1:27), and while conceiving and bearing Him: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Matthew 1:23).  In conceiving Christ, Mary became the ark of the New Covenant [just an illogical assertion from a priori bias].  Were Joseph to touch the ark (Mary) in an unpriestly manner, he would have met the fate of Uzzah, who died touching the sacred vessel (2 Samuel 6:1-8). Mary's body was more sacred than the Old Testament ark [Really? where does Scripture say that?].  “the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by [the gate of Mary's womb]; therefore it shall remain shut” (Ezekiel 44:2, comment added).

As Adam named Eve woman when she was a sinless virgin (Genesis 2:23), so the New Adam named Mary woman (John 2:4; 19:26), indicating that she was still a sinless virgin at this point.  Love notices these details! [talk about eisegesis!]

 More likely, Marian cult followers make up these details!  How in the world do they get that stuff out of these passages?  They make it up out of their little pink heads!

For the assumption of Mary, they claim that she is already seen in heaven in Rev. 11:19-12:17, and the fact that in 2 Maccabees 2:1-8 the O.T. ark "was removed, never to be found...so Mary's body was assumed into heaven never more to be found on earth." ....
        
David's rejoicing in bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:15) prefigured our Lord's joy in bringing Mary's body into the heavenly Jerusalem.

The last one I'll give you (I don't want you to die laughing from all this nonsense) is this one:

To understand Mary's queenship, I suggest reading 1 Kings 1-2. There, Solomon enthroned his mother, Bathsheba, as Israel's queen-mother, gebirah.  He promised her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you” (1 Kings 2:20).  This figure is fulfilled when the new Eve is enthroned in heaven, crowned as the queen-mother of the new people of God (Revelation 12:1,17).


A BIG problem is how they interpret Revelation - in a very bizarre fashion!  The convoluted way in which Song of Solomon is used to prove her virginity and how other scriptures are used to prove her immaculate conception, co-redemption and co-mediatorship, have much in common with the twisting of Scripture by JWs and Mormons.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Tolerance Causes Truth to Suffer


In the world of modern evangelicalism, it is allowable to advocate the most unconventional, unbiblical doctrines—as long as you afford everyone else the same privilege.  About the only thing that is taboo nowadays is the intolerance of those who dare to point out others’ errors.  Anyone today who is bold enough to suggest that someone else’s ideas or doctrines are unsound or unbiblical is dismissed at once as contentious, divisive, unloving, or unchristian.  It is all right to espouse any view you wish, but it is not all right to criticize another person’s views—no matter how patently unbiblical those view may be.  When tolerance is valued over truth, the cause of truth always suffers.

John F. MacArthur, Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern, pg. 22

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

A Generation Hating the Truth


There have been periods in history when the preservation of the very life of the church depended upon the capacity and readiness of certain great leaders to differentiate truth from error and boldly to hold fast to the good and to reject the false; but our generation does not like anything of the kind.  It is against any clear and precise demarcation of truth and error.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times, pg.39

Sunday, February 12, 2017

"Ancient Words"


Holy words long preserved
For our walk in this world
They resound with God's own heart
Oh, let the ancient words impart

Words of Life, words of Hope
Give us strength, help us cope
In this world, where e'er we roam
Ancient words will guide us home

Chorus
Ancient words ever true
Changing me and changing you
We have come with open hearts
Oh, let the ancient words impart

Holy words of our Faith
Handed down to this age
Came to us through sacrifice
Oh heed the faithful words of Christ

Holy words long preserved
For our walk in this world
They resound with God's own heart
Oh let the ancient words impart

Chorus
Ancient words ever true
Changing me and changing you
We have come with open hearts
Oh, let the ancient words impart


Michael W. Smith

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Stand By Your Convictions


When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.

Abraham Kuyper

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Random Things Needing Discernment

Lots of things in the news this past couple weeks which need to have warnings about.  Hold on to your hats!

Steven Furtick, narcissist.  Real Christians should avoid him like the plague while he can feed his goats all day long.

Perry Noble is being revived with the help of another false teacher, Steven Furtick.  Wolves run in packs.  (I hate to bust Noble’s bubble, but “alcoholism” isn’t a disease.  It’s a lack of self control.)

The World Race and Adventures in Missions has connections to IHOP — go figure!

Interesting article about Billy Graham’s apostasy over the years, and how it developed.

Pastor Gabe examines another “contemporary Christian” song, “Above All”, demonstrating problems with the lyrics.  We’ve sung this in the past at our former church, prior to me examining songs on my blog.  I agree with Pastor Gab, and never really liked it.

“Christian astrology” is just as much of an oxymoron as is “Christian psychology.”  Scattered Sheep has an excellent article explaining problems with the idea of the gospel in the zodiac, and the false teachings of the “soothsayers of the Second Advent.”

Seven types of false teachers in the church today.

I just have to share this one about false teacher Shawn Bolz.

The New Apostolic Reformation is getting nuttier by the day.  Another example of their nuttiness is this “prophecy.”

For those who haven’t been around enough to know about heretic Jim Bakker, this should give you a good laugh — he spent time binding demons in hell so Trump would win the presidency!

Gloria Copeland is just as much a heretic as is her husband Kenneth.

It’s gotta be true because I saw it on the Internet.

Fred has another episode in his review of the book, Navigating Genesis.


So what happens at a goat pen on Super Bowl Sunday?  Something from Satan.

There is no such thing as a “prayer language” — NO SUCH THING!

Dr. Oz and “Faithful Fridays” — talk about the devil’s workshop!!!!  Priscilla Shirer and Carl Lentz will be deceiving more and more people.

Another church is giving the unrepentant predator Clayton Jennings an open forum.  What is wrong with these people who are supposed to be shepherds?!?


Well, that’s it for now; make sure you still have your hats!

Do You Love Truth?


The lover of truth must choose, in every way possible, to do and say what is right, even when threatened with death, rather than save his own life.

Justin Martyr, First Apology 2:1

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Another Bad “Christian” Song

I’ve never heard of the song, “My Victory,” but a friend pointed me to it last week and I finally have time to address it.  It seems to be the latest song used over and over again at the assembly we left two years ago.  

The writers of this song are Charles Bentley, Darren Muligan, David Crowder, and Ed Cash.  Take a look at the lyrics.

You came for criminals and every pharisee 
You came for hypocrites, even one like me
You carried sin and shame, the guilt of every man
The weight of all I’ve done nailed into Your hands

Oh, your love bled for me
Oh, your blood in crimson streams
Oh, your death is hell’s defeat
A cross meant to kill is my victory

Oh, your amazing grace, I’ve seen and tasted it
It’s running through my veins, I can’t escape its grip 
In you my soul is safe 
You cover everything

Oh, your love bled for me
Oh, your blood in crimson streams
Oh, your death is hell’s defeat
A cross meant to kill is my victory

BRIDGE
Behold the lamb of god
Who takes away our sin, 
Who takes away our sin 
The holy lamb of god 
Makes us alive again
Makes us alive again

Behold the lamb of God 
Who takes away our sin
Who takes away our sin
The holy lamb of god
Makes us alive again
Makes us alive again

Oh, your love bled for me
Oh, your blood in crimson streams
Oh, your death is hell’s defeat
A cross meant to kill is my victory

Nothing like a little repetition to work up those emotions!  As for the theology in the lyrics, my friend said, It’s truncated theology.  "The cross meant to kill is my victory" - no it isn't.  Our victory is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and doesn't stop at the cross which was an instrument of suffering for the sake of our sins but it doesn't stop there.  "Your death is hell's defeat" - no it isn’t; Jesus rose from the dead—that is death's defeat.  There is no mention in this song of Jesus’ resurrection. It could have been written by a Catholic wanting to put Jesus on the cross over and over again…

I have to agree with my friend 100% on this one.  Music leaders, where is your discernment?!?!