Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘False Teachings in Christian Bookstores’ Category

https://i2.wp.com/www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/news_landscape/2014/02/noah_illustration_a_l.jpg

“I was upset — of course,” the director says of Paramount testing alternate versions of the $125 million epic as he and the studio break their silence on efforts to appease a small but vocal segment of the faith-based audience: “Those people can be noisy.”

(source of image and quote: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rough-seas-noah-darren-aronofsky-679315)

Okay, by now many Christians are aware of the “Noah” movie starring Russell Crowe. And probably all of these are aware that the movie is very controversial.

Question is, which religious groups are praising the movie? And which religious groups, on the other hand, are condemning the movie?

Below I’ve provided excerpts from several relevant articles. Besides naming names of various groups, the articles give background concerning how the movie was tested and what reactions it got from various Christian test groups.

Note – I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]. I’m also adding links to endorsements and criticisms by various groups.

ARTICLE #1

Darren Aronofsky floats a fuller version of the Bible’s Noah tale

“… But the real trouble was on the horizon, when Paramount grew anxious that “Noah” might offend some on the religious right and started testing its own cut of the movie while Aronofsky raced to finish his. Franklin said that even with unfinished visual effects and a rough score, Aronofsky’s version tested better than Paramount’s, even though the studio’s had fewer missing pieces and was more polished.

“I think a lot of films of this size go through this. I don’t think it’s singular to us,” Franklin said. “But we were steadfast in our vision for the film. The great thing about the process is that everybody came out agreeing that our version of the movie was the best version of the movie.”

Even so, Paramount again blindsided its filmmakers [including Aronofsky] by agreeing in late February to add a disclaimer to “Noah’s” marketing materials without giving Aronofsky a heads-up.

The move came after several Christian groups [what groups?], including the National Religious Broadcasters, objected to how Aronofsky was interpreting scripture.

On the set: movies and TV

Jerry Johnson, the president and chief executive officer of the NRB, wrote in two blog posts after seeing the film that he found “some” parts of the film to be “commendable,” but his praise was tepid. He was far more vigorous in attacking “Noah,” complaining that a scene about evolution “will be a concern for many” who are creationists, that “secondary biblical details are blurred” and that Aronofsky’s Noah is so dark in some places “that you do not want to like him.”

Several other religious leaders and interested parties have been far kinder to the film, including representatives from the American Bible Society, Catholic Voices USA, the Christian Film and Television Commission and the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

Designed to appease people like Johnson and prepare moviegoers for some of Aronofsky’s inventions, Paramount’s disclaimer notes that the film was “inspired by the story of Noah” and that “artistic license has been taken.”

Aronofsky, who is both an atheist and a biblical scholar, knows that no matter how thoroughly he researched his film and for all of his attention to biblical detail — if you look closely there are seven pairs of some “clean animals,” as Genesis has it, in addition to the single pairs of other creatures — some will nevertheless find fault… [ This would be funny if not so tragic – the movie is the very antithesis of biblical accuracy.]

ARTICLE #2

Kim Masters, Rough Seas on ‘Noah’: Darren Aronofsky Opens Up on the Biblical Battle to Woo Christians (and Everyone Else)(The Hollywood Reporter, 2/12/2014)

… The studio is aware that a vocal segment of Christian viewers might reject the film over accuracy. Still, Moore says, “Our anticipation is that the vast majority of the Christian community will embrace it.”

The studio and its faith-based consultant, Grace Hill Media, have reached out to a number of key figures, with some success. Special trailers were screened to positive reactions at U.S. Christian conferences, including Catalyst, the Global Leadership Conference and Women of Faith: Believe God Can Do Anything. In January, Pastors Brian and Bobbie Houston of Hillsong, a Pentecostal megachurch based in Australia and with outposts around the world, were invited to a screening on the studio lot. Ben Field, the church’s head of film and television, who was there, says the pastors will support the movie. “If you’re expecting it to be word for word from the Bible, you’re in for a shock,” he says. “There can be an opportunity for Christians to take offense. [But] we were pretty excited that a studio like Paramount would invest in a Bible-themed movie.” On Feb. 4, Pastor Brian, at the church’s Heart and Soul night in Sydney, spoke before a few thousand congregants and joked, “You’ll enjoy the film — if you’re not too religious.”

 Also, Focus on the Family gave a mixed review of  “Noah”, with more favorable comments than I am comfortable with.

 

Read Full Post »

(revised 04/02/14)

https://i0.wp.com/godawa.com/movieblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noah-Movie-Posters-1.jpg

image source: http://godawa.com/movieblog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Noah-Movie-Posters-1.jpg

Well here we go – once again, secular Hollywood is making a mockery out of biblical accuracy and biblical Truth. Most recently we had Roma Downey and hubby Mark Burnett give us their various “Bible” productions” – 1) refusing to admit that they themselves are not Christians but New Agers, and 2) not addressing the numerous heretical points in their productions.

Now we see similar problems in the “Noah” movie, coming out 03/28/14. The producer 1) describes himself and the other film makers as basically attempting accuracy and Christian ideals, and 2) fails to address the “Noah” movie’s specific heretical and even occult points.

The trailer looked good to me – but looks can be deceiving. Following is the inside scoop – from discernment articles by Amy Spreeman at Stand Up for the Truth, and Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis.

Reading the above two articles, “Noah” looks like another Downey-esque fiasco to me…

I’d like to zero in on specific inaccuracies in the  rough cut of the “Noah” movie, as originally listed by Ken Ham. I am emphasizing certain points by bolding, and inserting comments in [brackets]. Note that Ken Ham’s blog was posted back on 11/19/13 – unfortunately, most of us have been slow in getting out the warnings about “Noah”.

Don’t Be Taken in by the Noah Movie’s Promotion
Ken Ham, 11/19/13

… the main characters of the movie are Noah, his wife, and three sons—and one little girl they rescued after all in her family were murdered by an evil tribe. She was badly injured when they found her, but Noah’s wife placed healing nectar on her stomach and she later grew up to become the eldest son’s wife. For the longest time she was barren in the womb until Noah’s wife convinced Methuselah to bless her womb—against Noah’s wishes.

Noah at first is portrayed as a humble yet strong good man—a father and husband who protected his family from the evil that had come upon the world. But as he helped build the Ark, he was portrayed more like a basket-case who was convinced that his family was the last generation. He repeated over and over again that God would not let them repopulate since God would replant Eden without man and perfection would be reestablished with the “innocent animals” God brought on the Ark. Even when Noah’s eldest son brought news to the family on the Ark that his wife was expecting, the movie’s Noah said essentially, “If it is a male, he shall live. If a girl, I will kill her because it is not God’s will for man to repopulate.”

Here are a few more problem areas seen in the rough cut of the film, most of which I expect to be in the final film:

1) In the film, Noah was robbed of his birthright by Tubal-Cain. The serpent’s body (i.e., Satan), which was shed in Eden, was their “birthright reminder.” It also doubled with magical power that they would wrap around their arm. So weird!

2) Noah’s family only consists of his wife, three sons, and one daughter-in-law, contrary to the Bible.

3) It appears as if every species was crammed in the Ark instead of just the kinds of animals, thus mocking the Ark account the same way secularists do today.

4) “Rocks” (that seem to be fallen angels) build the Ark with Noah!

5) Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) is a type of witch-doctor, whose mental health is questionable.

6) Tubal-Cain defeats the Rocks who were protecting the finished Ark.

7) A wounded Tubal-Cain axes his way inside the Ark in only about ten minutes and then hides inside. Tubal-Cain then convinces the middle son to lure Noah to the bottom of the Ark in order to murder him (because he was not allowed a wife in the Ark). Tubal-Cain stays alive by eating hibernating lizards. The middle son of Noah has a change of heart and helps kill Tubal-Cain instead.


8) Noah becomes almost crazy as he believes the only purpose to his family’s existence was to help build the Ark for the “innocent” animals (this is a worship of creation).

9) Noah repeatedly tells his family that they were the last generation and were never to procreate. So when his daughter-in-law becomes pregnant, he vows to murder his own grandchild. But he finally has a change of heart.

10) Noah does not have a relationship with God but rather with circumstances and has deadly visions of the Flood.


11) The Ark lands on a cliff next to a beach.


12) After the Flood Noah becomes so distant from his family that he lives in a cave, getting drunk by the beach.

There were many other bizarre, unbiblical aspects in the preview cut. Though it’s possible that some of these elements may not make the final cut (though we suspect most will), compare the above list to the trailer that has just been released! The comparison should be very revealing for you. You wouldn’t get much of a hint of most of the biblical problems in the list above based on watching on this cleverly-put-together trailer. A real con job, to be frank!

By the way, I also read that the name of God is not mentioned in “Noah”. Reminds me of the name of Jesus not being mentioned in the Roma Downey series “Touched by an Angel”. And Christians still think these are Christian productions?

Focus on the Family’s review of  “Noah” details what they see as both bad and good in the movie. Frankly, I have nothing good to say about “Noah”. But I do agree with FOTF’s conclusion regarding the movie:

Long before its release, Noah was deluged in controversy. Some Christians praise the film for its themes of redemption and love winning out over malevolence, others revile it for taking so many liberties with the biblical account.

Director Darren Aronofsky offers a spectacular and often moving story, but it’s obviously not the story of Noah. There’s more Tolkien than Torah here, really, and more of Aronofsky himself than both of those. Perhaps this director made the Creator in his own image—full of mercy, magic and environmental sobriety. If you uncouple the movie from the Bible and take Noah as imaginative, fantastic fiction, it can begin to work. But hooked as it is to such a sacred narrative, well, let’s just say it’ll be hard for some Christians to swallow whole this fractious fable.

Harry Potter fans expect Harry Potter movies to stay mostly true to the book. History buffs are known to require historical dramas to follow actual history. I think it’s reasonable, then, for Christians to ask that the stories most precious to them be treated with faithfulness—and that movies based on them would, y’know, stay at least in the ballpark. But Mr. Aronofsky has chosen a different tack, and so the ancient truth about Noah becomes more of a pretext for Middle-earth rock monsters and a tormented, half-mad Noah ready to kill his own kin.

Here’s a secular editorial that criticizes Christians (such as the National Religious Broadcasters) for wanting to criticize and boycott “Noah”.  Hmm, I wonder why the NRB didn’t also call for a boycott of the Downey-Burnett Bible productions? After all, they too strayed far afield from biblical accuracy.

Speaking of biblical accuracy, there are many “Christians”, etc. who do not take the first eleven chapters of Genesis as being historically literal. With these eleven chapters being “myths” to them, no wonder they have no problem with the serious errors in “Noah”. Consider the following quotes, found here:

Rabbi John Spitzer, associate professor of Jewish studies at Walsh University, said the movie is the interpretation of its director, writers and actors.

 “Once the words go off the page and go on the screen you’re already getting an interpretation, and I think interpretations are fine as long as you know they’re not final,” he said.

“If you don’t believe the movie is telling you the quote, ‘truth’, small t, you have an opportunity to use the movie as a way of discovering the capital T, ‘truth,’ ” Spitzer said. “I’m not afraid of the movie — I believe the Noah story is an important myth in the Bible and as such each of us … we have to be able to take it into our hearts and souls and find the meaning that is relevant.”

“We often think that a myth is something that’s just not true, and that’s not true,” he added. “It describes a truth that can be told best through a story.”

Nicole Johnson, associate professor of philosophy and religious studies at the University of Mount Union, said “the story of Noah can be reinterpreted and retold in interesting ways — in my perspective (it) doesn’t necessarily do a disservice to the understanding of that event.”

Johnson said that “we tend to put a scientific standard on (the Bible) — I’m not sure that’s the right way to interpret something that was supposed to last (for all ages).”

FOR FURTHER READING

Opposing the movie “Noah”

Beginning and End, Russell Crowe’s ‘Noah’ Film – A Warning For Christians (updated 11/13/13)

Brian Godawa, Darren Aronofsky’s Noah: Environmentalist Wacko
(revised version, originally posted 10/29/12)

Brian Godawa,   The Noah Movie: How To Watch It with Wisdom and Discernment (Godawa blog, 03/27/14)

Brian Godawa, The Noah Movie: Deconstructing Noah’s Ark; Godawful Storytelling (Christian Post, 03/28/14)

Brian Mariani, Reviewing “Noah”: Bible-based Entertainment or Deceptive Heresy? (March 26, 2014)

Pastor Joe Schimmel of Good Fight Ministries, The Noah Movie Deception (a YouTube video)

Amy Spreeman, Kaballah, Mysticism and Noah (a Stand Up for the Truth podcast by Dr. Brian Mattson)

Why Hollywood’s Noah falls short (Stand Up for the Truth interview with Jan Markell)(03/27/14)

For the movie “Noah”

‘Noah’ Star Russell Crowe Breaks His Silence About Meeting the Pope (Variety, 03/27/14)

Russell Crowe calls ‘Noah’ criticism ‘irrational’ (USA Today, 03/27/14)

Eliana Dockterman, Russell Crowe Says Flood of Noah Complaints Not Drowning Him (TIME, March 27, 2014)

Alissa Wilkinson, Noah (Christianity Today, March 27, 2014)

For the graphic novel “Noah”, which accompanies the movie

Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel on Their New NOAH Graphic Novel

Articles listing religious organizations for and against “Noah”

Kim Masters, Rough Seas on ‘Noah’: Darren Aronofsky Opens Up on the Biblical Battle to Woo Christians (and Everyone Else) (The Hollywood Reporter, 2/12/2014) – gives background on religious test viewers, and names Christian groups supporting the Noah movie

A Godly, biblically sound movie on Noah, by Ray Comfort

Movie Review and Interview with Ray Comfort on ‘Noah’, the Biblically Accurate Version

 

Read Full Post »

(revised 01/30/15)

Well we endured the very popular “The Bible” TV miniseries, and now “The Son of God” movie. I wonder how many evangelicals have been deceived into believing Roma Downey has become a born again Christian. Truth is, Downey is still a New Ager, in spite of many public statements by her and hubby Mark Burnett that they are Christians.

It angers me when New Agers are so deceptive, deluding born again Christians into thinking they are Christians (Oprah Winfrey and other New Agers are also trying to deceive us in this way). Following is a March 2014 First for Women article I came across with New Age quotes from Roma Downey. (I realize there may be copyright issues concerning the posting of this article – for now at least, I am leaving the article online primarily for other discernment ministries to access and quote.) Here’s the article:

Downey001
Downey002
Downey003

In the above March 2014 issue of First for Women magazine, Downey said, “I think we all have a responsibility to see God in each other. That’s how I’ve raised my children – that no matter whose face they look into, they’re looking into the face of God, who’s in all of us.”
(First for Women magazine, 03/31/14, p. 45)

Other New Age buzzwords in the above article,  quoting Downey:

“light, peace and happiness”
“doing work that spreads the message of God’s love”
“rituals she relies on to stay centered”
[candlelight] “promotes mindfulness”
[I light a candle and it] “calls in the light”

Also, in the article Downey says she is reading the book The Dovekeepers by Alice Hoffman. Hoffman sounds New Age to me. Even if Hoffman isn’t New Age, Downey apparently likes her occultic themes. Check out this info from Wikipedia:

“Many of her works fall into the genre of magic realism and contain elements of magic, irony, and non-standard romances and relationships.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Hoffman

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Apparently Downey is a darling of the following yoga website, which lists many of her online video interviews about “The Son of God” movie.
http://yogasanas.net/index.php/component/relatedvideos/?vid=Jq90uQnP5ko

A 2013 Lighthouse Trails discernment article on Downey, with links for further research:  http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=12323

Read Full Post »

Plain and simple, I like lists. Lists of cults, lists of false teachings, even lists of lists. So I was intrigued to come across a “list” article reposted here by our friends Amy and Mike on the Stand Up for the Truth website. In this article, a diehard postmodern lists and discusses “6 things [that he thinks] Christians should just stop saying”. Be forewarned – his list is extremely liberal/ Emergent and anti-Christian. This, my friend, is a look inside the minds of today’s postmoderns – sick.

Amazingly, this is the garbage many evangelical churches and colleges today are entertaining, in clinging eagerly to the teachings of Emergents Tony Campolo, Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, and a myriad of other heretics. (Some of these postmodern/Emergent leaders hold to just a few of the six anti-Christian views below; most hold to all six anti-Christian views.)

Now on to the article. I am emphasizing certain points by bolding, and inserting comments in [brackets].

Six ways Progressive theology is destroying Christianity

Jesus is So Cool

[Introductory comments by Stand Up for the Truth]:

First they asked you to think outside the box of Truth; now they’re asking you to stop speaking Truth altogether.  The Progressive wing of the Church has been able to grow and thrive, thanks in part to the re-surging Emergent movement that has long been taking the doctrines of Christianity apart. Here’s how contributor to the extreme leftist publication Huffington Post (a site from which I share frequently about the activities of the Christian Left), is trying to re-shape the Bride of Christ into the harlot of Babylon.  How influential is this guy? Steve is celebrated as the “Voice of the SBNR (Spiritual But Not Religious),” as well as author, speaker, thought leader and spiritual teacher.  His latest article is getting thunderous applause. Gird your loins:

6 Things Christians Should Just Stop Saying

It is time. No, it is past time. Christians must stop saying the following things.

1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. It isn’t inerrant and not likely even in the “original manuscripts.” But then, I cannot say that with absolute certainty, anymore than anyone else can either. Why? Because no such “original” manuscripts even exists. That’s like saying, “We believe there are aliens on other planets!” Good for you. Now, prove it. As we have it, no matter what translation you favor, the Bible is replete with errors. To pretend otherwise is your right. To say otherwise is a lie. You are entitled to your opinions, your assumptions, even your beliefs. What you are not entitled to is a misrepresentation of the facts. A corollary to this that Christians should stop saying is this:

2. We just believe the Bible. That, too, is false. What you really believe is your interpretation of the Bible. And the last I checked, the history of the Christian church is the history of disagreement over “interpretation.” How else do you explain the scores of denominations within Christianity alone? It would be patently more honest of Christians to say, “The following represents our understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, but we are also aware there are many equally sincere Christians who interpret the Scriptures differently from us.” A third thing Christians should stop saying:

3. Jesus is the only way to heaven. What you are really saying is, “The way we interpret John 14:6 is that Jesus was clearly drawing a line in the sand and telling his hearers and the world: ‘If you do not believe in Me, you won’t go to the Father when you die.’” For this, I refer back to No. 2 above: what you and your group of believers really mean to say is, “It is our interpretation of John 14:6 that Jesus is saying that He is the only way to heaven.” There are scores of Christians, however, and I am one of them, who do not interpret Jesus’ words in John 14 the same way. Just because I do not makes me no less Christian than you are. So stop drawing lines in the sand, please, between equally sincere followers of Jesus. When I read the 14th chapter of John, I see a context that yields an alternative reading of the text. Instead of Jesus starting some new religion here and saying, “OK, fellas, I’m going to go away soon” — referring to his death — “but, before I go, you should know that where I’m going you, and others who believe just like you, will one day be, too — that is, of course, if they believe like you believe that I am the only way to heaven. That is to say, if the people around you and who come after you don’t believe that I am the only way to heaven, then, of course, they’ll have to go to hell. Is all that clear?” I offer an alternative interpretation: When Jesus spoke to them about leaving them, they were understandably shaken. How could they not be? After all, they had left everything to follow him. Now, just a year, or two, or three years later, Jesus is saying he’s getting ready to leave them? But, of course, they’re upset. So Thomas, speaking on behalf of the others, asks, “But where are you going and why can’t we go with you? Furthermore, how will we know the way?” Jesus responds in tender, reassuring ways. Sensing the fragility of their faith, seeing the anxiety on their faces, he reassures them that, in God’s house are many rooms, “mansions” or places. Yes, He’s going away but where He’s going they, too, will go. Just as He has led them this far, He will lead them further still (and what follows in the latter part of John 14 is the beautiful reassurance of the on-going presence of God in the Holy Spirit). So, for me personally, and many other Christians, too, Jesus is no more pointing to himself as the “one-and-only-way” to God than Thomas is expressing in his question concern for Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists and whether they’ll go to heaven? I can assure you that Thomas, and the others, were only concerned about themselves. And yet, even at that point, Jesus is tender in His care of them and seeks to reassure them that, just as He and the Father were one, and just as they had trusted the things He had been saying to them during his time with them, so they could trust him and what he was saying at this time, too. Yes, he was leaving them. But no, they would not be left alone. Where he was, they would be. He had shown them the way to the Father. But, even after He’s gone from them, they will know the way then, too. The Comforter would guide them. And so, the Church is here today. But not because Christians declare, “There is no way to go to heaven if you don’t believe in Jesus.” The Church is here today because when people do trust the things Jesus said about Himself, about His relationship to the Father…when people believe and so live the teachings of Jesus they, too, are changed — they, too, become “new creations in Christ,” as Saint Paul put it (2 Corinthians 5:17). Now, I took longer with this one thing Christians need to stop saying because many Christians seem stuck here, thinking that there’s only one way to interpret Jesus’ words about being the way. It is my hope these Christians will know there are equally sincere Christians like myself and others who do not believe Jesus was drawing a line in the sand between him and some new religion he was creating and all the other religions of the world. Again, it’s your right to “believe” or, more accurately, interpret Scripture as you wish. You do not, however, have permission to arrogantly assume your way of interpreting the words of Jesus are the only way to understand His words. Last I checked, no one’s interpretation of anything is infallible. Not yours. Not mine. A fourth thing Christians need to stop saying:

4. The rapture of Jesus is imminent. Again, if you want to believe in some secret rapture of Christians from the earth just before the Tribulation, if you want to believe in and carry around in your hip pocket detailed charts and graphs of how its all going to happen, then so be it. But do the rest of us a favor and stop saying so in public. So far, your record of correctly predicting the future earns a flunking grade. And I and scores of other Christians are frankly tired of apologizing for your arrogant — and so far, absolutely wrong — predictions as to when it’ll happen. My recommendation? Burn up your charts and go live like Christ. Quit masking your real fears by calling them faith. It isn’t faith that leads you to sell all you have, give the proceeds to some wacko, and go camp out on Mount Horeb as you await the rapture. It’s stupidity instead. It’s embarrassing, too. It makes thoughtful Christians have to apologize to the world and explain that we’re not all off-our-rockers, at least, not yet, anyway. So, please, please. If you want to believe in the charts that Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye and other “get-rich-off-the-stupidity-of-Christians” have duped scores into believing, then have at it. Just stay out of the news please! Go quietly to your campsites and do your waiting.:

5. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is a sin against God. This one issue, my friend, is on the outs. If you don’t know that, you are more blind than the Republicans were in the last election. They misinterpreted the political environment and so completely blew it when it came to getting their candidate elected. And you, my friend, are misinterpreting the moral, spiritual and religious environment — and the changes that are coming. My son said it well the other day. We were discussing homosexuality and same-sex marriage and he observed, “Dad, it’s your generation that’s hung up on these issues. Once you guys get out of the way and the younger generation moves into the decision-making arena, these issues will disappear. The day will come when, just as slavery is unthinkable in our consciousness today, it will be equally unthinkable to deny anyone the right to be who they are or the right to same-sex marriage.” You can still revere the Bible, my friend, but move beyond the prejudice of Paul or anyone else. You don’t need to make Saint Paul infallible to treat the Bible as important. Finally, please, please Christians stop insisting that…

6. The earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you want to believe that Genesis is a scientific description of the origins of the universe, then have at it. Just stop insisting that those myths be taught in our public schools. You do no service to the Bible nor to the morality of this country by demanding school administrators include textbooks that teach that nonsense or by demanding courts hang the Ten Commandments on chamber walls or classroom walls. If this democracy is going to survive, get over your silly, misinformed notions that our forefathers were all Bible-believing, Bible thumping, Genesis-affirming Christians who came to this country to establish your kind of Christian nation and then expect everyone else to conform to your misguided assumptions. Whew! I feel better. Thanks for letting me get a few things off my chest. Now, there is one thing I think all Christians, including me, should remember — no, should practice (and we should practice this between ourselves first, too) — and that is the one simple thing Jesus once said would be the one-and-only thing the world would know us by… Not our beliefs. Not our doctrines. Not our denomination’s distinctions. Not even our declarations. Jesus said, “They will know you are my disciples by your love” (John 13:35). When we love, what more needs to be said?

[Note – the reposting of the above article here on the Stand Up for the Truth website is followed by a number of insightful reader comments.]

Related articles

Read Full Post »

(revised 07/05/14)

Some readers (including some individuals in discernment ministries) have wondered why I hold so strongly to the King James Bible. Hopefully the following blog helps clarify my position.
—————————————————————————–
Born again Christians have a hard time agreeing on what version should be used, or if one version should be used. So, perhaps we can start with what versions should NOT be used, and work our way backwards in a process of elimination. We can thus work our way down to fewer versions, which means less doctrinal chaos.

So here’s a list I’m starting of the worst of the worst, in no particular order:

1) New Age-ish versions such as The Message (this was published before the advent of the Emergent movement)

2) Emergent versions such as The Voice

3) Contemplative versions/study Bibles such as Renovare Study Bible (renamed The Life with God Bible NRSV)

4) Bible versions that are specifically Catholic

5) Bible versions that are considered Protestant, but have some printings today which include the Catholic Deuterocanonical Books

6) Bible versions that are specifically liberal. (Example – the RSV, which was commissioned by the National Council of Churches. In Isaiah it refers to the Messiah as being born of a young woman, rather than being born of a virgin).

7) Bible versions that use dynamic equivalency rather than word-for-word translation (remember the warning about adding to and/or taking away from God’s Word – Rev. 22:18-19)

8) Bible versions such as the NIV that are trending toward gender neutral language (accurate word-for-word translations should never be sacrificed in the name of feminist political correctness). The newest revision of the NIV has been condemned by the Southern Baptist Convention for this reason.

9) Bible versions that water down biblically sound doctrine – such as replacing the word “Hell” with the word “Hades”. My question is, why remove the word “Hell”? Christians for 400 years have known exactly what doctrine “Hell” refers to (a place of eternal torment). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

So what Bible version(s) does that leave us, that are acceptable? That is the million dollar question.

I believe very strongly that we should use only translations of the Textus Receptus New Testament and Masoretic Old Testament. (These are the source documents of the King James Bible.) Such translations DO NOT HAVE ANY of the nine problems itemized above.

And, ideally, there would be one “authorized version” in each language of the world. In the English-speaking world, I believe this should be the King James Bible. To help us understand its archaic vocabulary, I would suggest using a good Bible dictionary, a Webster’s classic (1800s) dictionary), and a good Bible commentary. I would not recommend a study Bible – too many erroneous or even heretical teachings are placed inside the covers of our study Bibles – even KJV study Bibles.

Read Full Post »

(revised 08/02/17)

I stand strongly for the King James Bible. Although technically I am Textus Receptus-King James Bible only, not King James only – there is a difference. I hold the TR-KJB only position of Bro. David Cloud; here Bro. Cloud explains his position.

Following is a brief definition of the TR-KJB only position:

I believe that the only authoritative, preserved source text of God’s Word is the Textus Receptus New Testament and the Masoretic Old Testament. In the English speaking world, the King James Bible is the TR-MT translation which I accept as authoritative. In other languages of the world, translations directly from the TR New Testament and Masoretic Old Testament are acceptable. (King James only people – i.e. followers of Peter Ruckman – believe that users of every language of the world should learn English and use the King James Bible.)

From this point on, I will use the term KJV-only since it is more common (although I prefer the term KJB-only).

In this blog, I am using the term KJV-only in a more general sense, for all English speakers who use the King James Bible exclusively. (That is, TR-KJ followers as well as KJ-only adherents.)

Concerning the KJV, in the past I have recommended a fundamentalist school which I thought was still KJV-only, namely Bob Jones University. I have since pulled my blog recommending BJU. Turns out BJU is no longer KJV-only.

And BJU is not the only fundamentalist school which has stopped exclusively using the KJV. Check out the following excerpt from Bro. Cloud, found here:

If it is wrong for Pensacola Christian College, Heritage Baptist University, Maranatha Baptist Bible College  [no longer TR-KJ only – see the “Versions” section at https://www.mbu.edu/about/statement-of-faith/ – DM 08/02/17] , Landmark Baptist College, Fairhaven Baptist College, the Dean Burgon Society, etc. to preach on this issue and to issue warnings, why is [sic] not also wrong for Bob Jones University, Northland, Clearwater, Detroit, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, etc., to preach what they believe on the issue and to issue warnings? [The first  listing, in green, still holds to the KJV; the second listing, in red, is no longer KJV-only.]

I found a more detailed discussion and listing of  BIble schools (on both sides of the KJV issue) here. I am providing a lengthy excerpt below:

1 Access the web-sites below (the ones available) that were selected in alphabetical order (there are many more…) in the USA. They are Seminaries and Bible Colleges which are faithful to the King James Bible: Some, also, have courses by correspondence (see “Independent Baptist Bible College” and “Internet Bible Institute” below). Note the absence of the schools recognized by Regular Baptists, for the ones officially approved by GARBC have already slipped into apostasy about the issue of bibliology. It is more than proved that is the first step to fall into Neo-Evangelicalism, being only a matter of time the fall into total apostasy. These heresies begin inside the Unfaithful Seminaries and Colleges, for when they fly with their own wings, connected with the denominational machine, they become the source of heresies, apostasies that destroy fundamentalism. Notice, therefore, in alphabetical order, only 18 schools below, which represent the faithful remnant (there are more…):

BIBLE BAPTIST INSTITUTE 1618 Womrath Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124. (215) 288 5667
Pr. Victor M. Rivera / Pr. David Peterman, Sr., Director.

BLESSED HOPE BAPTIST COLLEGE 5386 Hwy. 67 South, Benton, Arkansas 72015, voice: 501 – 315 5005 Dr. Ken Graham

CAROLINA BAPTIST COLLEGE 116 S. Franklin St., Reidsville, NC 27320. (336) 634 1345
Dr. Jerry L. Carter, Pastor and President.

CROWN COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE 1700 Beaver Creek Drive, Powell, TN 37849. http://www.go4thecrown.com (web site). Dr. Clarence Sexton, President.

EMMANUEL BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Emmanuel Baptist Church, 296 New Britain Ave., Newington, CT 06111. 860-666-1055 (voice), 860-666-0146 (fax), http://www.emmanuel-newington.org (web site). Dr. J. Michael Bates, Pastor/President; Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dean.

FAIRHAVEN BAPTIST COLLEGE Fairhaven Baptist Church, 86 E. Oak Hill Road, Chesterton, IN 46304. 800-733-3422, 219-926-6636 (voice), 219-926-1111 (fax), http://www.fairhavenbaptist.org (web site), Fairhaven@CleanInter.net (e-mail). Roger Voegtlin, Pastor/President.

FAITH BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE Faith Baptist Church, Rt. 1 Box 464, Horsecreek Rd., Seneca, PA 16346. 814-677-5172 (voice), http://www.csonline.net/fbbc (web site), fbbc@csonline.net (e-mail). Larry Williams, Pastor/President.

FAITHWAY BAPTIST COLLEGE OF CANADA Faithway Baptist Church, 1964 Salem Rd., Ajax, Ontario L1S 4S7. 905-686-0951 (voice), 905-686-1450 (fax), faithway@faithway.org (e-mail), http://www.faithway.org (web site). Gregory Baker, Pastor and President. Extension graduate studies available.

FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST COLLEGE 1150 SR 144, Mooresville, Indiana 46158. voice: (317) 834 2170
Dr. Everett Barnard, President.

FOUNDATIONS BIBLE COLLEGE PO Box 1166, Dunn, NC 28335-1166. Phone (910) 892-8761, web site http://www.foundations.edu. Dr. H. T. Spence, President.

GULF COAST BIBLE INSTITUTE Post Office Box 1451, Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32549
Dr. M. H. Tabb, President and Founder.

HERITAGE BAPTIST UNIVERSITY AND SEMINARY 1301 W. County Line Rd., Greenwood, IN 46142. 317-882-2327 (voice), russjr2@hotmail.com (e-mail). Russell Dennis Jr., President.

INDEPENDENT BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE Independent Baptist Church, 9255 Piscataway Rd., P.O. Box 206, Clinton, MD 20735. 301-856-1616 (voice) Pastor Mike Creed. Extension training via the Internet.

INTERNET BIBLE INSTITUTE Mainville Baptist Church, 57 E. Foster-Maineville Rd., Maineville, OH 45039. drsteve@iglou.com (e-mail), http://www.biblebelievers.com/MBC1.html (web site). Pastor Steve Hammon. A two-year extension program.

LANDMARK BAPTIST COLLEGE AND SEMINARY Landmark Baptist Church, 2222 East Hinson Ave., Haines City, FL 33844. 800-700-5322, 941-421-2937 (voice), 941-422-0188 (fax). http://landmarkbaptistchurch.org (web site), LBCDOS@juno.com (e-mail). Dr. Mickey Carter, Pastor/President. Extension training also available.

MARYLAND BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE Maranatha Baptist Church, P.O. Box 246, 4131 Old Neck Elk Road, Elkton, MD 21922. 800-226-0869 (voice), 410-398-6667 (voice), http://www.findchurch.com/maranathabc/marylandbc.htm (web site). Dr. Allen Dickerson, Pastor. Dr. Robert Hitchens, President. Extension courses available.

PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE AND SEMINARY 25 Brent Lane, Box 18000, Pensacola, FL 32523-9160. 877-787-4723 (voice), 850-479-6548 (fax), 850-478-8496 (voice), pts-grad@pcci.edu (e-mail), http://www.pcci.edu/pts (web site). Arlin Horton, President. Dr. Dell Johnson, Dean of seminary.

TABERNACLE BAPTIST COLLEGE 3931 White Horse Road Greenville, SC 29611-5599 phone: (864) 269-2760, e-mail: college@tabernacleministries.org. President: W. Melvin Aiken, D.D., D.R. Ed.

—————————

NOTE – Here are articles about  additional schools, associations and individuals I have found which still support the KJV ala the “Textus Receptus only” view:

Bible for Today’s author listing

Conservative Holiness schools and ministries – Most if not all of these are KJV/TR-only.

Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) article defending the TR-only view

Lighthouse Trails list: “Colleges That are Not Promoting Contemplative/ Emerging and Do Not Have a Spiritual Formation Program” – Note – these may or MAY NOT be KJV/TR only. I need to go through the list and examine each school’s website.

Trinitarian Bible Society’s website
————————————————-

Now back to excerpts from “the Brazilian article”:


Attention: The American Schools and Seminaries cited below, ARE NOT RECOMMENDED because adopted or changed to the heretic position ( or eclectic – doesn’t matter) in relation to the text of the Bible:

If a missionary that you know in Brazil, fundamentalist friend, doesn’t use only the Bible Almeida Corrigida e Fiel (and King James Version in English) and came from one of these schools, now you know why!

NOT RECOMMENDED:

Bob Jones University – Greenville, SC

Note: All this is also valid for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship (FBF), institution dominated by Bob Jones University.

1. They sell the corrupt Bible NASB in the University bookstore.

2. Produced a despicable book called “The Mind of Man”, conceived inside the president’s office of Bob Jones University, mocking the King James Bible, which was once defended.

3. They put in the front cover of this despicable book (making a clear advertisement), a picture of the corrupted Revised Standard Version, a scandal of Bible which copyright is owned by the apostate National Council of Churches! What a shameful disaster!

4. Bob Jones IV (son of the current president) went to study in Notre Dame, a Catholic University!

Below is what Dr. Bob Jones III forgot about his grandfather:

The following is from The Sword Scrapbook, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tenn., 1969:

“The King James Version is, after all, the best translation we have ever had. The very words of the Bible in the original languages were inspired of the Holy Ghost. That is what the Bible claims for itself; and that is what the born-again, Bible-believing Christians believe about the Bible. We are to search the Scriptures as our Lord commanded us; but, remember, there is a curse to those that add to the Word or take away from the Word. The hottest place in Hell will be reserved for these modernistic conspirators who, in a subtle, pious way, are trying to steal the faith of humble Christians in the Word of God. Remember, you do not have to be a scholar. You do not have to be a great authority on languages. You do not have to be a great literary genius. Remember this: any man who wonders if the Bible is the Word of God has not been born again. All born again Christians believe the Word and love the Word.” —

Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.

[see also this article critiquing BJU]

Calvary Baptist Seminary – Lansdale, PA

Central Baptist Seminary – Plymouth, MN

Cedarville College – Cedarville, OH (fell into neo evangelicalism – they had even jazz-concert on campus!)

Clearwater Christian College – Clearwater, FL

Detroit Baptist Bible Seminary – Detroit, MI

Faith Baptist Bible College – Ankeny, IA   ( sell the corrupt NIV Bible in the College bookstore)

Maranatha Baptist Bible College – Watertown, WI

Moody Bible Institute – Chicago, Il

Northland Baptist Bible College – Dunbar, WI

Western Baptist College – Salem, OR

(fell into neo-evangelicalism: Had drums and had female students using shorts in Chapel! Maybe that’s the reason why an ABWE missionary, that promotes this institution, advertises the apostate ministry of Willow Creek and doesn’t bother with the corrupt Atualizada Bible nor the NVI.)

Wheaton College – Wheaton, Il   (fell into neo-evangelicalism since 1960’s)

Read Full Post »

Click here for the original source of this great article by Ken Ham – a Facebook note. Ken’s Facebook note is followed by many insightful reader comments.

WARNING ALL HOMESCHOOLERS
by Ken Ham (Notes) on Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 8:19am

Recently I wrote a blog about Dr. Peter Enns who was speaking at the Homeschool conference in South Carolina, and will also be speaking in Cincinnati and Pennsylvania where I will be speaking.  Check out the previous blog at:  http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/15/another-compromiser-speaking-at-homeschool-conventions/

Well, Jay Wile, also well known in Homeschool circles wrote a blog very critical of me for doing that:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

And on March 18, Jay Wile wrote a glowing report on Dr. Peter Enns:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4621

I would encourage you all to be like the Bereans in Acts 17, and carefully check out what Peter Enns teaches versus Scripture.  To do this, I suggest you go to the Biologos website–Peter Enns works with the Biologos Foundation.  Now be warned–this is a very liberal site–in fact, it is an organization set up to try to get the church believe in evolution and millions of years.  However, it is much more than this–if you read many of the articles and their answers to questions you will find them basically shaking their fist at God’s Word–it is a site that undermines dreadfully the authority of Scripture.  Don’t be led astray–but read for yourself at:

http://www.biologos.org/

Check out my previous blogs on Biologos at:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2009/08/15/what-are-nazarene-students-being-taught/

Here is just one of many examples of Peter Enns rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible and undermining God’s Word–He totally rejects a worldwide Flood: (Note that ultimately, it is because of what he calls the ‘geological record, at least as interpreted by mainstream scientists,’ that he rejects a literal Genesis-not just the Flood, but a literal Adam etc as you will find in his other writings).

“…It is virtually certain that one or more local floods in Mesopotamia—perhaps around 3000 B.C. according to some scholars—provide the historical basis for all the flood stories that come from that area. But the geological record, at least as interpreted by mainstream scientists, discounts any notion of a “worldwide” flood that killed every single creature on earth, save a few (Genesis 6:7; 7:21-23), a few thousand years ago.”

“…To interpret the Genesis flood as a complete global catastrophe is a modern imposition onto an ancient story. Ancients simply did not think of the earth in that way. This is where “Flood Geology” gets off on the wrong foot. Apart from the well-documented scientific problems with this approach, it expects a worldview that Genesis is not prepared to deliver.”

“…The presence of flood stories from various time periods in other parts of the ancient world (e.g., Asian, European, Mayan) does not support a global flood, as some Christian apologists try to argue. These stories simply reflect the ubiquity of floods in antiquity and the devastation that massive ones would bring. The fact that the world flood stories are so different from each other reflects how each culture told the story of their local floods in their own way.”

“…For both contextual and scientific reasons, the biblical flood story is clearly not a statement of vital historical information. It is a powerful expression of theological identity among the other peoples of the world”

Note he is saying that a literal Genesis is an ‘hypothesis.’

“…A position that claims the necessity of historicity throughout Genesis is not the default position of faith. It is an hypothesis, as much as any other, only without much explanatory force given the current state of knowledge.”

To attempt to overcome the fact that the New Testament in a number of places (eg 2 Peter 3) refers to the Flood as obviously a literal global event (and Jesus refers to the Flood as a literal event eg: Matthew 24), he states this:

“To nip in the bud a predictable objection: the slippery slope argument does not hold here. To say that the flood story is fundamentally more story than history does not mean that the crucifixion and resurrection are also unhistorical. Genesis and the Gospels are different types of literature written at very different times for very different reasons. Failing to make such basic genre distinction is perhaps at the root of some of the conflict over Genesis.”

He recognizes that the if one rejects a literal Genesis, and because the New Testament writers refer to events in Genesis over and over again, then if one rejects Genesis, why not the resurrection.  Well, right now he seems to accept the resurrection–but the next logical step is to reject this as literal, regardless of what he says.

By the way, the first time the gospel is preached in Genesis is Genesis 3:15–so I guess the gospel is not to be taken literally???

So sad–that this sort of teaching is now infiltrating the Homeschool movement.  Peter Enns is involved (along with Susan Wise Bauer) is involved with the very liberal Biologos group and involved in now producing Bible curriculum for Homeschools.  So please be warned.

Ken

FOR FURTHER READING

Christine Pack, Answers in Genesis Kicked Out of Homeschooling Conferences (04/01/2011)

Ken Ham, Peter Enns – Mutilating God’s Word (12/14/2012)

Ken Ham, Enns Continues to Promote Heresy –  Sponsored by a Baptist Church (04/20/2013)

Read Full Post »

(revised 01/24/14)

Years ago I had the misfortune of attending public schools. In high school, we were taught evolution, and only evolution. No Creation Science was discussed, no Intelligent Design, nothing but pagan Darwinianism. Very few students complained or protested, and very few parents at the time homeschooled. So we settled uneasily for evolution without alternative.

Today we are blessed to have other options. Christian homeschooling parents can teach their children the Truth, the facts about Creation, with total religious freedom (for now, at least, in the U.S.).

But Christian parents beware. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find Christian homeschool curricula which take a hardline stance against evolution and for the Truth. Which is, I believe, Young Earth Creation (YEC).

(image source: http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/mojoblog/creation_museum.jpg)

I came across several articles which reveal what some “Christian” homeschool publishers are now providing as alternatives to YEC.  {I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets].) In an 04/29/13 Christianity Today article, Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra wrote:

Christian homeschool science textbooks have long taught young earth creationism (YEC) almost exclusively. But observers say a growing number of parents want texts that also teach evolution. Some of these parents still believe in a young earth, says [BioLogos] program director Kathryn Applegate, but they want their children exposed to different perspectives. [BioLogos is extremely liberal.]

“Homeschooling has broadened so much, and now includes ,” said homeschool pioneer Susan Wise Bauer, a history professor at Virginia’s College of William and Mary. [Bauer is also extremely liberal.] “Also, there are a lot of younger evangelicals who have come to a different way of understanding Genesis, while still holding [on to their] evangelical roots.”

Numbers on the trend are hard to pin down. Still, BioLogos president Deborah Haarsma says that it’s “fairly common” for homeschooling families to request materials from her organization, which promotes theistic evolution. [Parents, take note – theistic evolution is heretical; do not order materials of any kind from this “Christian” organization.] Some of these parents still believe in a young earth, says program director Kathryn Applegate, but they want their children exposed to different perspectives. [If these parents “still believe in a young earth”, why are they giving their hard earned money for materials that blatantly espouse theistic evolution?]

American Scientific Affiliation

Doug Hayworth, coordinator of homeschool science resources for the American Scientific Affiliation, agrees. Inquiries to his Christian association reveal not a wave of old-earth converts, but instead frustrated young-earth believers who believe that “the standard [YEC] curricula … are very strident,” said Hayworth, who homeschools. “They’re looking for some advice.” [Again, I question the real beliefs of these parents. “Strident” – according to Merriam-Webster – is defined as “characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound <a strident voice>; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality.” What exactly is it about the Truth that they consider strident?]

Interesting. In an article entitled Weighing in on Ken Ham, Peter Enns and Jay Wile – Hayworth gives a great description of the “Christian evolution” conflict between these three men. But note this excerpt which shows ASA does not hold a YEC-only position: “…we do not promote only one specific position on science and faith topics. Although many ASA members have views akin to those of the BioLogos Foundation (some individual are members of both organizations), we represent a broad range of denominations, scientific disciplines and views of biblical interpretation in relation to science. This differentiates our mission from BioLogos’s mission. “ [I’m not sure how this makes ASA any better than BioLogos. Both question the validity of the YEC view – which is what counts.]

Sonlight Curriculum

Back to the Christianity Today article, which states:

Sonlight Curriculum is an exception [to the YEC-only curricula]. It offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. “The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement,” said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. “That might be to our detriment.” She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.”

But does Sonlight hold strongly to the YEC position, as Sarita Holzmann claims that she believes? No! Check out this blog by “Robert”: Do Christian Homeschoolers “Embrace” Evolution?  Robert is connected with Sonlight. He never comes out and condemns “Christian” evolutionary theories. And this detailed article by Sonlight co-president John Holzmann (Sarita’s husband) questions whether we can even know that YEC is true.

This excerpt from Robert’s Sonlight blog does provide further leads concerning the views of several other Christian organizations (which perhaps publish homeschool curricula):

“Obviously, Christians reject non-theistic evolution because by definition that view excludes the supernatural and, with it, God.

But what about the other options? Young-earth creationism is promoted by organizations such as Answers in Genesis, old-earth creationism is held by Reasons to Believe, while theistic evolution is the view of Biologos. In addition, the Discovery Institute promotes what it calls Intelligent Design, which claims to remain neutral on the question of old versus young earth, but opposes theistic evolution and non-theistic evolution.”

BioLogos projects

Again, let’s look at the Christianity Today article. Here we find another red flag regarding BioLogos. Remember, BioLogos promotes theistic evolution:

With a recent grant from BioLogos, Turner and colleague Brian Eisenback, a biology professor, are writing a textbook that discusses the history of the science of origins, as well as different positions scientists have taken on Genesis and origins. They will include material on YEC, evolutionary creationism, intelligent design, and atheistic evolution.

And yet another red flag:

A similar BioLogos project is underway at Wheaton College, where five professors are working on a textbook covering the current scientific consensus on origins. [Will this textbook favor or oppose this “consensus”? Knowing that BioLogos favors theistic evolution, I’m guessing this upcoming “Christian” textbook will favor evolution-in-general.]

Sadly, Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra’s Christianity Today article does not condemn any “Christian” homeschooling publisher for pushing theistic evolution.

Besides BioLogos, I hope to locate other “Christian” homeschool publishers which are pushing theistic evolution and other non-YEC theories as the Truth. And mark my word, theistic evolution is an evolutionary theory; it is not Creation. Click here for one of many Christian discernment articles blasting theistic evolution as evolution-in-disguise.

Bottom line – It is an honorable thing for Christian homeschool publishers to prepare students for the world’s evolutionary arguments, by warning them about evolutionary theories.  (To its credit, the Christianity Today article does mention this practice of warning children.) But beware “Christian” homeschool publishers which cast doubt on YEC and discuss alternatives to YEC, claiming that an evolutionary alternative may be the truth.

FOR FURTHER READING

Articles exposing BioLogos publisher as being liberal:

Homeschool Controversy: Anti-Bible, Bible Curriculum! – This article mentions the liberal BioLogos publisher, as well as the liberal Peacehill Press. An excerpt: “I have watched anti-Bible books  infiltrate and grow in the homeschool movement over the years. Satan does not want us to teach our children truth. What better place to attack the Christians than to get to homeschool teachers. We are training the next Christian generation.”

Henry Morris III, An Inconvenient Truth – This article provides a good introduction to the various views of creation and evolution. Also, Dr. Morris mentions BioLogos.

Articles FAVORING the new wave of Christian homeschool textbooks including evolutionary theories:

List of BioLogos articles mentioning homeschooling

Evolution and Christianity: 1. Christian homeschooling parents dismayed by creationist textbooks, accommodationist books on the way

Peter Enns (a founder of BioLogos), Not All Homeschoolers Think Adam Had a Pet Dinosaur, Which is Good

David R. Wheeler, Old Earth, Young Minds: Evangelical Homeschoolers Embrace Evolution

The Old-Earth Christian homeschooling vacuum

Forum discussion: Books on creation, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution

———————————————————————————–

To find more articles on this issue, Google this search string:
[“homeschool” “evolution” “publishers”]

Also, try this search string:
[“homeschool convention” “evolution”]

Read Full Post »

At several times in the past several years, I have discussed the Trinity with Oneness Pentecostals, and well as evangelicals who are not quite sure there is a Trinity. One of the major questions is whether a person can be become a born again Christian without believing in the Trinity.

Many born again Christians believe a person cannot become born again without believing in the Trinity. I came across an excellent article which explains why this is.  I have reposted the entire article below; click here for the original source. I have emphasized certain points by bolding in orange, and inserted comments [in brackets in bolded orange].

————————————————————————————-

whitedragonawa
February 16, 2012

Why Modalism Is A Damnable Heresy

 In light of the recent T.D. Jakes controversy and Modalism I decided to write this article to better explain the problem with this heresy. Too many times Christians have no clue how to explain why Modalism is a damnable heresy because they do not understand its conclusions. Modalism is nothing new and pops in and out of the spotlight all of the time. In fact, while I lived in Eugene, Oregon my dad and other men from our Southern Baptist church battled with Modalists who were members of our church, but secretly involved in the United Pentecostal Church. The men were actually teaching sunday school for the youth group males, as well as trying to befriend many of the men of the church and influence them. They were trying to take over our church from the inside. This is the church I was baptized in when I was 15.

One day I was taken on a trip with the main leader of these 3 Oneness Pentecostals who told my parents it would be good for me. His son came with us and we ended up going really far away, near the coast and meeting up with a large group of people to help build a church. We were installing drywall and helping pull wires through the ceiling. It so happened that the church was a United Pentecostal Church that I was helping do work for. He deceptively brought me on the trip to help his heretical church brothers fix up one of their church buildings. His deception was very strong as he accomplished the manipulation and brainwashing of 2 of our church men. The 2 men teamed up with him in order to attract more of the men so they would bring their families into their den of wolves. Heresy within an orthodox church has the tendency to become a zombie-like infestation that deadens the minds of men and puts them under the control of demonic influence.

Another even worse issue was that the main leader of the 2 other heretics was having secret communion meetings behind the church outside on certain nights. He invited my parents to come once, and it was people who did not belong to our church, strangers they never saw before. They were having some kind of worship meeting and communion. They had set up a small tent covering in the back parking lot. At the time, my parents were new to the church so did not realize what was going on at that moment. Eventually, these wolves in sheep’s clothing were exposed and kicked out of the church, but not after many instense debates, arguments, and spiritual attacks.

Too many people want to explain something as a heresy simply because a council said so, and not because of a biblical understanding of why it is heresy. Heresy makes salvation impossible so it is good to understand why it is so with Modalism and why it is worthwile to put fourth the spiritual energy to fight it and reject it outside of the Church just like my father and other men from our average sized church in Oregon did over a decade ago…

Introduction

Modalism (also know as Sabellianism [named after Sabellius, the heretic priest from the 3rd century that promoted this heresy], Modalistic Monarchianism, Modal Monarchianism, Oneness, and Patrapassionism [which means the Father suffers in Latin]) is the belief that God is only one person and changes/shifts into different modes. This is a heresy that leads a person to Hell because any incorrect belief about the nature of God cancels out salvation by default. This default happens in different ways but always occurs. Modalism leads people to Hell just like any other heresy about God’s nature. Modalists deny the Trinity, and in most cases with extreme aggression. Unfortunately, many Christians have a hard time logically expressing why this belief is a damnable heresy. This heresy is an extremely strategically, deceptive heresy which tries to mask itself and blend in with Orthodoxy. It fools many evangelicals. Unlike other anti-Trinitarian beliefs that deny the deity of Christ, this heresy embraces the deity of their “Christ” hence why it is so deceptive (note: there is another less popular form of Modalism that denies Christ’s deity called Adoptionism, but is not the focus of this article). Modalists claim to love Jesus Christ and claim He is God, yet in reality Modalism denies Jesus Christ and is an antichrist religion. It is a very destructive belief and total blasphemy. Without a deep understanding of soteriology and the nature of God, Christians can be confused on how to explain why Modalism is heresy. This article will attempt to do so.

Who are Modalists?

Modalism has been a problem since the early Church and still continues to be a problem today. The main proponent of Modalism in modern times is the cult called the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). The televangelist, charlatan “Bishop” T.D. Jakes is affiliated with this group. Another cult that is almost as big as the UPC are the United Apostolic Churches (UAC). These groups are known as Oneness Pentecostals, and still, there are lesser known sects and individuals who promote a modalistic God. MacArthur (2007) states, “As these groups and their popular spokespersons have found increasing acceptance in the evangelical mainstream, modalism is suddenly being accepted as if it were a valid evangelical option” (p. 117). In some circumstances, people make the mistake of expressing God in a modalistic way to express the three Persons of God, such as using H2O as an example of three things being one which causes people to misunderstand the Trinity (i.e. water, ice, and vapor are different things but all three are still H2O, yet H2O is never all three at the same time). Some people mistakenly believe in a modalistic God out of ignorance of how to describe the Three Persons mentioned in the Bible. People try too hard to explain God and end up using human wisdom to describe God and are not satisfied with leaving the Triune nature of God as a mystery. True believers, who make such mistakes out of ignorance, eventually (and most of the time quickly), come to the realization that God truly exists in Three distinct persons who are not the same, yet comprise of ONE Eternal Being. This is why Christianity uses the term Trinity which means TRI-UNITY as in three-as-one. True Christians become satisfied with this mystery and accept it as just that, a mystery. No one can fully understand how God is, but Christians can know what God is because the Bible teaches it.

The type of people who come to understand that the biblical truth of God is the Trinity are people who care to know correct doctrines and want to love the true God and will seek out proper knowledge of the Bible. Sadly, most Modalists have absolutely no desire for seeking actual truth and want to force their opinions into the Bible because they have personal agendas. A truly innocently ignorant follower of a modalistic god will always repent within due time, without much division, strife, or aggression against Trinitarians. The others are simply heretics whom are inspired by Satan and will always fight a losing battle against the Trinity until they die and go to Hell. Unfortunately, the latter makes up the major portion of Modalists and always has. You can see the demonic minds of these reprobates expressed all over the internet, especially YouTube.

Modalism promotes a god that changes

Modalism contradicts what Christianity has historically accepted about the nature of God. True Christianity expresses God existing in three Persons that equal one Being. This belief is given the theological title of “Holy Trinity” to express this concept. Whereas, in Modalism God is expressed as existing in only one person that shifts into different modes and moves in different ways in different times throughout history. God “shape shifts” so to speak, from the Father at one time, changing into the Son another time, and also changing into the Holy Spirit at times. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit never exist at the same time in Modalism. The UPC and Apostolics call their god “Jesus” and they baptize their congregants strictly, only in that name. “Jesus Christ” is the proper name of God to them which covers the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their “Jesus” god is all three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the modes are never shifted into at the same time. Their god is a changing god. This contradicts what the Bible teaches in Hebrews 13:8 which states firmly: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” What is annoying is that many of these Oneness followers illogically use this same verse to somehow promote the Trinity being false. It is a fact that their religion is not at all based on logic when exegeting the Bible. What Oneness/Modalism promotes essentially, is, that Almighty God being only one person, died on the cross. Logically, this would mean that the Father came down and died on the cross but just shape shifted into the Son. So there is no actual different person of God dying on the cross. It is the same person dying on the cross, the same person giving itself as a sacrifice, and the same person accepting itself back into heaven. Modalism claims another “Father” that schizophrenically changes his personality by shifting into different modes. How can anyone trust a God who changes so sporadically? How can we even be sure there are only three modes of God? There might be more. This is a critical mistake! Not to mention it makes absolutely no sense!

Oneness followers love to use isolated proof texts from the Bible or misrepresent a verse’s surrounding context, and also ignore related passages in the Bible. One of their favorite verses they will quote is Isaiah 9:6 which says,

For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on His shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

Oneness heretics will claim that this proves that Jesus Christ is the Father and only shifted His mode into the Son. The Son did not exist until the Father turned into Him. This verse does call the child Eternal Father, but that is only stating a fact about His Godhood, that Jesus Christ is fully God and God is our Eternal Father. Not that Jesus Christ is actually God the Father. Related passages in the Bible about Jesus Christ and God the Father explain it so.

The concept of the Holy Trinity is all over the Bible. The actual beliefs of the Trinity are misrepresented by Modalists who claim it promotes three gods and not one. This is not true. The Trinity teaches that all 3 Persons are different from each other and not the same, yet they are all One and the same God. The Father is 100% fully God, the Son is 100% fully God, and the Holy Spirit is 100% fully God. But the Father is not the Son, is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, is not the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is not the Father, is not the Son. Yet all three Persons are one God, the same God. This teaching is all over the Bible and it is a mystery that we cannot understand, but we must accept. God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit is our Eternal, Everlasting Father.

Modalism cancels out salvation by default

The most basic reason why Modalism cancels out salvation is that if the Trinity is true, it means that God is Three-As-One and anything other than a triune God does not exist. Worshiping a God that does not exist is idolatry. Modalism is a false religion and God commands that there should never be any other gods worshiped besides Him (Exodus 20:3). There is no forgiveness of sins if a person puts their trust into a false god. Just because the name of a false God uses the same titles and names as the true, triune God of Scripture does not mean it is the same God. Matthew 24:24 claims there will be false Christ’s coming, and 1 Corinthians 11:4 says that people can preach a different Jesus and a different spirit and Christians should not put up with it. Simply labeling something as Jesus does not change the fact it is a lie from Satan.

Another more complex reason that will help Christians explain on a deeper level why Modalism leads people to Hell is that logically, if the Trinity exists, Modalism cannot provide salvation because it does not give Christ credit for His atoning work on the cross. Romans 8:2 explains that there is no condemnation for Christians “because the Spirit’s law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” If the Trinity is true it means that only the Person of Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. John 3:16 says that God sent His “only begotten Son” to die for those who believe. If someone rejects that there is a Person of the Son and instead claims there is only one person that changes, and the Son did not exist until He was manifest in the Incarnation of Christ, then there is no atoning sacrifice that actually happened since they reject the real Person of Jesus, the Son of God who actually exists and has existed eternally. Grudem (2000) affirms,

“[M]odalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement– that is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied” (p. 242).

Christians cannot accept Modalists as brothers in the Lord, and they should never be unequally yoked with Modalistic darkness. The modalistic god denies the Eternal Person of the Son, thus meaning they deny the true God and profane His atonement.

Without the Person of Jesus the Atonement is denied

What Modalism is actually saying is that the separate person of Jesus Christ, the Son, is not real and never died on the cross because He does not exist. A separate Person does not exist. Only the Father (or Almighty God) exists and changes his face to turn into and look like the Son. This is a bold denial of God as a whole (since Jesus Christ is fully 100% God) and a denial of the work of the existing Second Person of God: the Son.

A human example would be that a Father agreed with his son that he would go out and pay an extremely expensive price for criminals to be free from their death sentences, and that his son would own them and they would be given to him; and he would show them compassion. After hearing about freedom from their judicial punishments of death because of the son’s payment, those criminals— instead of going with the son who bought them— believe the father is actually the one who bought them because he morphed into the mode of the son. Furthermore, the criminals claim that the son who actually bought them with his father’s urging does not even exist. They believe only the father exists and shifts into a different looking mode to become his own son, but is still the exact same person as there is not a son person and a father person, but only a father person who shifts modes. He just changed into the son. So the son who actually bought them with an extremely expensive price is denied as well as his hard work earning the payment for them to be free. This is a major insult to the son. But in reality the only way they could be free is if they understand that the son is actually a real person who exists and is not the father, and they follow him. Because since these criminals deny the son who bought them, and instead believe his father shape shifted into a son to become him, that real son that exists separately from his father will deny them in the presence of his father.

Modalism denies Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that if you deny Jesus Christ (being the Son of God, a separate Person from the Father, and separate from the Person of the Holy Spirit), He will deny you in the presence of God the Father. Jesus Christ Himself said, “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory and that of the Father and the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). Jesus in Luke 12:9 also said, “…but whoever denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” So it is obvious that Modalism denies Christ despite the fact they try to claim they promote Jesus and follow Him. The Oneness “Jesus” is a “false Jesus” that does not exist and profanes, and blasphemies the true living, eternal, Son of God. It misplaces credit for propitiation onto the Father, when propitiation was strictly something the Son did. Romans 3:23 says that the redemption is in Christ Jesus, and in verse 24 it says, “God presented Him as the propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over sins previously committed.” It does not say that the Father was the propitiation. 1 John 2:2 explicitly states that Jesus Christ alone was the propitiation: “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the Trinity is true, Modalism is denying God by claiming the Person of the Son does not exist. 1 John 2:23 expresses it simply, “No one who denies the Son can have the Father…” All repentant sinners become Christians who receive salvation. Christians are saved because they call on the name of the Lord and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If someone repents to a false God that does not exist, one that denies the existence of the Person of the Son, they will not have salvation. Romans 10:9 says, “…if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” If a person claims this verse for a Modalistic Jesus, one that denies the Person of the Son, there is no power for salvation.

Modalism denies the Father’s ability to be a righteous judge

Not only is Modalism an offense to the Person of the Son, but it offends the Person of the Father by ignoring His sacrificial giving of His one and only Son, the Son which He loves so much in relation within the Godhead; and it claims instead that He is the one who died and gave the propitiation for sins. Ignoring the extreme sacrifice the Father allowed to happen to His precious Son is an extreme insult to the love of the Father for sinners that He would allow His own Son (who was willing) to be punished in their place; and not only that, but that the Father is the one who gave out all of the crushing punishment to His own Son. Isaiah 54:6 says, “The LORD has punished Him for the iniquity of us all.” Also, 2 Corinthians 5:21 states, “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Modalism denies God this glory and insults the Father. The Father remained pure and untouched by sin and is the righteous judge that gave out His wrath onto Christ. If Modalism is true it means that God existing in one person, being the Father would have became sinful and then killed himself. There would be no righteous judge untouched by sin able to pour out the wrath. It would be the Father becoming sin on His own and then punishing Himself. This idea cancels out a pure and holy Person who is able to remain innocent who can judge sin. In reality, since the Trinity is what is true, there is a righteous and clean judge untouched by sin that was able to pour out His wrath onto Jesus Christ (who was made sin willingly by the Father) and complete the ability for salvation to be completed. To deny the Father’s giving of His real eternally existing Son is blasphemy, and it cancels out the ability for salvation. Such a person as the “god father” of Modalism does not exist and it profanes the true Father’s work. Therefore, Modalism completely denies the true Father.

1 John 2:22 firmly states, “He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.” 

Modalism denies the Holy Spirit

Not only does Modalism deny Christ, and the Father, it also denies the Holy Spirit and claims He is also the same as the Father. That would mean the Person of the Holy Spirit (who is 100% fully God as well) according to the Trinity does not exist, thus denying God completely. Nonetheless, Modalism is idolatry and an offense to the true God and will be punished on judgment day.

The Incarnation’s salvific power is cancelled out   

Modalism cancels out the ability for an actual human/God existence in Jesus (a conclusion that the Adoptionist form of Modalism understands). Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God at the same time. This is the dual nature of Christ concept that true Christians believe. Jesus Christ, who is God, came in the flesh (John 1:1, John 1:14) and was a blood sacrifice for our sins. Romans 7:4 says, “Therefore, my brothers, you also were put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of the Messiah.” If God is only one person then it would mean that Jesus Christ is the same person as the Father. If Modalism was true it would be that Christ’s will as a human would not at all be different from the will of the Father because they are the same person. But the Bible says in Mark 14:36, John 6:38, and Luke 22:42 that Jesus was not doing His own will, but the will of His Father. If Modalism was true these verses would be contradicting this “one person only god” by expressing that Christ’s will as a human and His God will were not unified. This would mean that Jesus Christ as a human was not God, and that God must have possessed a human person that is not God.

Consequently, only God is infinitely valuable and perfect to be able to die for the sins of mankind in order to save them. One human could only atone for one life, but God could atone for everyone because of His infinite value. Also, humans are not perfect and never can be because all of them are born in sin. Romans 3:10 states, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” and Jesus Christ Himself expressed, “No one is good but One— God” (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19). Even if God created a human body or a human person that was perfect, that He could fill up, it would still not be infinitely valuable. The fact is the Bible teaches that God paid for His people in His own blood (Acts 20:28). Therefore, God died for the sins of His elect which forces Modalism’s logical conclusion to be that Jesus’s humanity was not unified with God which means it could not possibly have provided salvation. There is no salvific power in the “Modalist’s incarnate Jesus.”

Conclusion

Hopefully, this article has effectively addressed the reasons why Modalism is a serious heresy, and is not to be taken lightly. Especially, it is not to be accepted as a valid, non-essential doctrine within the bounds of orthodoxy. Modalism completely denies the true God and creates a false god that does not exist. Modalism’s logical conclusion is self defeat. It denies all three Persons of God and commits theological suicide. It denies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as well as the humanity of Christ that atoned for sin. Modalism is an illogical heresy and needs to be aggressively refuted in evangelical circles. Too many people are confused and unable to understand the mechanics of this heresy because it is so deceptive. It is nothing but a device of Satan and demonically energized within theological circles to lead people astray so that they will burn in Hell for eternity. Modalism is truly a damnable heresy.

References

Grudem, W. (2000). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

MacArthur, J. (2007). The Truth War. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Read Full Post »

Click below for the various parts of this series on New Ager Roma Downey (and husband Mark Burnett):

Like Oprah, New Agers Roma Downey and hubby Mark Burnett now falsely claiming they’re Christians – why?

Roma Downey’s comments about “Touched by an Angel” show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

Roma Downey’s comments about her ties with New Thought/New Ager Della Reese  show Downey is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

Roma Downey’s comments about her “Little Angels” series show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

Roma Downey’s comments about her New Age “Spiritual Psychology” degree show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

NEW: Roma Downey’s comments and connections with psychic medium John Edward show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

Roma Downey’s comments about her theology show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

Roma Downey’s comments about her “biographical trivia” show she is not a Christian as she claims, but a New Ager

NEW: New blogs I’m working on, showing in Downey and Burnett’s own words that they are not Christians as they claim, but New Agers

Note – all above blogs © 2012-2014 Dave Mosher, all rights reserved. Excerpts may be quoted up to 300 words, as long as credit is given to my original blogs and links are provided to my original blogs. Thank you.
———————————————————————————————–

Now on to the current blog:

(revised 03/21/13)

New blogs I’m working on, showing in Downey and Burnett’s own words that they are not Christians as they claim, but New Agers

I’m finding more documentation that Downey (and hubby Mark Burnett) are not born again Christians as they claim, but today are still New Agers. I’m hoping to incorporate this newly found documentation into new blogs. I will list these proposed blogs below, but first, some comments:

Some viewers of “The Bible” may think Downey has changed – that she was New Age but is now a born again Christian. NOT! For one, Downy and her hubby are both claiming that Downey has been a “person of faith” all her life. Yet, even today there is no mention of a conversion experience in Downey’s life.

Up until Downey’s 2010 graduation from the University of Santa Monica (with a degree in New Age “Spiritual Psychology”), one could find many references to Downey being New Age. Actually,  her so-called “Christian faith”/spiritual journey seems to be an occult New Age smorgasboard of Roman Catholicism, Celtic “Christianity”, Della Reese (New Thought), John Edward (Rosary-praying psychic medium), John-Rogers (New Age), Eckhard Tolle (New Age), etc. Not to mention a New Age obsession with “angels” (who in “Touched by an Angel” never mention our Lord Jesus Christ) and “miracles” (in the “It’s a Miracle” TV series these mostly consist of occult manifestations).

On top of all this, in recent years Downey (and her hubby) seem to have adopted theological bits and pieces from Joel Osteen (evangelical prosperity gospel, positive thinking), Rick Warren (evangelical seeker sensitive, global P.E.A.C.E. Plan), T.D. Jakes (evangelical prosperity gospel, hints of Jesus-Only/Oneness Pentecostalism), etc.

So where does Downey stand today? I do not believe she is a born again Christian as she has claimed recently. (In  various interviews, she’s maintained that she’s known Jesus all her life, that she’s born again, and that she’s accepted Jesus as her Saviour.) Yet nowhere have I heard Downey mentioning a conversion to true Christianity – repenting of 53 years of an ungodly New Age mishmash, being born again, accepting Christ as her Saviour so she won’t spend eternity in Hell/the Lake of Fire.

Now on to the new blogs I’m working on for this series:

New Blog #1) Why are New Agers endorsing “The Bible” miniseries? – Many New Agers love “The Bible”. Examples: 1) psychic medium John Edward (a good friend of Downey’s) tweeted his endorsement of the miniseries, 2) this New Age blogger recommends the miniseries, 3) various articles refer to Oprah Winfrey (who is New Age) tweeting her enthusiastic endorsement of  “The Bible”.

I was puzzled at first – why did Roma Downey feel so compelled to produce “The Bible” miniseries, having received a New Age Spiritual Psychology degree? Why is someone so into New Age teachings so obsessed with sharing the Bible? It just doesn’t make sense. Unless perhaps she wants to share New Age themes she sees in the Bible. (After all, there are many unbiblical points in the miniseries.) Two obviously New Age themes are an overemphasis on angels (reminiscent of “Touched by an Angel”), and an overemphasis on miracles (reminiscent of Downey’s hosting some  “It’s a Miracle” episodes – and perhaps with hints of “A Course in Miracles”).

I believe the key can be found in how New Agers interpret the Bible.  Check out this Christian discernment article  – an introduction to New Age interpretations of the Bible. Perhaps a study of John-Roger (born Roger Delano Hinkins) and his New Age interpretations of the Bible will show more subtle New Age themes in “The Bible” miniseries. (Downey graduated from John-Roger’s New Age school). For more information on John-Rogers and his movement, see this Christian article . Also, see my blog on Downey’s New Age Spiritual Psychology degree here.

Even if “The Bible” was not produced with an exclusively New Age agenda, it was definitely produced with an ecumenical, interfaith bias. It is a watered down Bible, reducing Christ in many places to merely a great man – not the God-Man, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, our Saviour. “The Bible” pleases everyone (except born again Christians) and offends no one (except born again Christians).

New Blog #2) In “The Bible” miniseries itself – the portrayal of angels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1YhLpDv7PE Clips like this remind me of Downey’s New Ageish “Touched by an Angel” TV series. (It has always shocked me that the angels in “Touched by an Angel” never mention Jesus.)

Again, in “The Bible” miniseries itself: Downey and Burnett’s claims of three miracles while filming – see http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/3-real-life-miracles-that-took-place-on-the-set-of-the-bible/ The original article (with different photos) can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291441/The-Bible-Blockbusters-producer-claims-miracles-took-place-set.html I believe these are just as likely three counterfeit miracles from the Enemy of our souls, making these ungodly people think the miracles are from God. How can there be miracles from God on set, when the producers are New Age and the actors are nonchristians? In Jesus’ ministry, one of the purposes of miracles was to verify His authenticity; Downey and Burnett’s “ministry” is not authentically Christian.

Remember when Downey hosted various episodes of “It’s a Miracle” (see proposed blog below)? Downey seems to call every supernatural phenomena a “miracle” – whether it is from God or from Satan and his minions.

New Blog #3) Their 100-day devotional book based on “The Bible”. Many days have New Ageish lingo if read very closely. Here is the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Story-God-All-Reflections-Inspirations/dp/1455525677/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363010459&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bible+reflections+downey

New Blog #4) “Christian” Roma Downey hosting demonic “Touched by an Angel” marathon on GMC … on Easter Sunday 2013. (When the listing becomes available, I plan to list the episodes of TBAA being shown.) If she were truly born again, Downey would certainly have wisdom, common sense,  and biblical discernment. She would realize how irreverent/blasphemous it is to host TBAA on – of all days – a Christian “holy day”. (I oppose Catholicism – I’m trying to come up with a term more appropriate than “holy day”.) Want proof that TBAA has a demonic theme in its 212 episodes? As mentioned above, throughout  the series, the “angels” never mention the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a trait of demonic angels, not heavenly angels. Yet even today Downey continues to praise the TBAA episodes, maintaining she and the other “angels” did a wonderful thing by bringing viewers God’s word (small w, I say).

In a commercial on GMC March 13 and other days in March 2013, Downey says, “Hello, this is Roma Downey encouraging you to gather your family for a very special “Touched by an Angel” marathon [clip inserted of “angel”/New Thought minister Della Reese saying “and that oughtta be good”] – a full day featuring some of my fondest show memories and a collection of episodes that will remind us all what Easter is really about” [clip inserted of “angel” Della Reese saying “miracles happen around you every day”, then guest star Valerie Bertinelli responds “Amen”]. Join me for Miracle Sunday.” GMC then makes an announcement: “All day this Easter, leading up to the GMC World Premiere Movie, “The Carpenter’s Miracle” [another occult/New Age show] at 7.” Downey then closes the commercial, quoting GMC’s motto, “Uplifting Entertainment”.

First of all, does “born again” Christian Roma Downey really believe TBAA – which never mentions our Lord Jesus Christ – reminds of us of what Resurrection Day is really about? (Unless of course Downey is not a born again Christian, but actually a New Ager.) And second, GMC started out as “Gospel Music Channel” – why are they now showing the “non-heavenly angel”/”occultish miracle” genre of TV shows?

New Blog #5) Roma Downey’s comments on hosting various episodes of  “It’s a Miracle” from 2003-2004.  Click here for details on this TV series. And click here for a list of the episodes; I’m trying to determine which of the 267 episodes Downey hosted. Born again Christians viewing this TV series believe most of the “miracles” were not from God but were demonic, occult manifestations (ESP, psychic mediums, past life experiences, astral travel, etc.).

New Blog #6) Roma Downey’s comments about her music (which is New Age). Click here for her discography.

I am currently in the process of adding more info to this blog – keep  checking back. And thank you for your patience. New info on Roma Downey and hubby Mark Burnett is coming out almost daily – it’s hard to keep up with!

© 2012-2014 Dave Mosher, all rights reserved. Excerpts may be quoted up to 300 words, as long as credit is given to my original blogs and links are provided to my original blogs. Thank you.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: