The Bible Project and the Gospel: A Cause for Concern?

Introduction

The Bible Project, founded by Dr. Tim Mackie, has gained widespread recognition for its visually engaging and accessible explanations of biblical themes. However, concerns arise when theological accuracy is compromised in the process. One such concern is the portrayal of Israel and the Church in their presentation of Luke’s Gospel. This article seeks to examine whether the Bible Project is promoting Supersessionism—the idea that the Church has replaced Israel—and how this affects the integrity of the gospel message.

Seeking Clarity: An Unanswered Inquiry

Having watched the Bible Project’s video on Luke’s Gospel, I sought clarification on what appeared to be a suggestion that the Church is the ‘New Israel.’ To ensure I had not misunderstood, I reached out directly to the Bible Project. My primary concern stemmed from an interpretation that seems to originate from W.E. Hull’s thesis, “A Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Luke,” which suggests that the tribes of Israel have disappeared. This notion appears to contradict the book of Revelation, which explicitly states that God will restore the twelve tribes during the millennium (Revelation 7:4-8).

Based on 1 Peter 3:15, which commands believers to be ready to give an answer for their faith, I expected a response engaging with these concerns. Instead, I received the following reply:

“Hi, Mig! Thank you for reaching out.

We really appreciate that you’ve engaged with our content and have questions! Unfortunately, our audience engagement team is not equipped to discuss in-depth theology questions on a case-by-case basis. While we value the significance of your question, we are not able to address it specifically.

Our primary role is to help our audience navigate the collection of creative resources we have produced. We realize the inevitability of questions emerging from particular ideas and themes, but these inquiries are great conversation starters with people in your local spaces — at church, a small group, or a gathering of like-minded friends.”

This response raised further concerns. If a theological teaching ministry cannot clarify its own doctrinal positions, then what assurance do viewers have that the material is biblically sound?

Theological Implications: Supersessionism in Luke’s Gospel?

A key issue in Luke’s Gospel is whether it teaches that Jesus established a ‘New Israel’—a claim that, if true, would suggest that the Jewish people no longer hold a distinct place in God’s redemptive plan. Some interpret Acts 28:28, which states, “Therefore, I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” as evidence that Luke presents the Church as replacing Israel. This interpretation is common among Pentecostal circles but is not universally accepted.

On the contrary, the book of Acts also records the continued faithfulness of Jewish believers:

• Acts 2:41 – “About three thousand were added to their number that day.”
• Acts 4:4 – “Many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.”
• Acts 6:7 – “The word of God spread; the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.”
• Acts 21:20 – “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.”

These passages demonstrate that Luke did not envision the Jewish people as being replaced but rather emphasized their continued role in God’s redemptive plan.

The Bible Project’s Responsibility

Given that the Bible Project is a widely influential resource, its theological accuracy carries significant weight. If it is promoting a version of Luke’s Gospel that subtly endorses Supersessionism, then it risks distorting the nature of the gospel itself. The absence of direct engagement with theological questions further exacerbates the problem, as it leaves their audience without critical clarifications.

As the Bereans in Acts 17:11 were commended for examining the Scriptures daily, viewers must likewise critically assess whether the Bible Project’s content aligns with biblical truth. Additionally, Revelation 22:18-19 warns against adding to or taking away from God’s Word:

“And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life.”

This is not a minor issue. Any misrepresentation of the biblical narrative—intentional or unintentional—can lead to significant theological errors, especially for younger audiences who may lack the discernment to identify doctrinal deviations.

Conclusion

The Bible Project’s reluctance to clarify its stance on Supersessionism is concerning. While their videos are engaging and educational, they must ensure that their theological interpretations align with Scripture. If their portrayal of Luke’s Gospel implies that Jesus established a ‘New Israel’ at the exclusion of the Jewish people, then they risk misleading their audience on a foundational gospel issue.

As believers, we must uphold the integrity of Scripture and remain vigilant against theological distortions. The Bible Project, as a major teaching resource, should take responsibility for addressing these concerns with transparency and biblical accuracy. Until they do, their content must be approached with caution.

In Christ,
Miguel Hayworth

The post Is Tim Mackie’s Bible Project distorting the gospel and leading unsuspecting youth into serious error? appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Paul Washer: Leading Others Astray Through Ecumenical Compromise

Note: The links provided are for research purposes and do not imply endorsement.

aul Washer, a figure widely admired for his passion and conviction, is nonetheless leading many into spiritual compromise. His associations, endorsements, and ministry partnerships reveal a troubling alignment with ecumenical movements and organisations that are actively working to blur the boundaries between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism.

The Leonard Ravenhill Connection

Washer frequently promotes Leonard Ravenhill, a teacher whose influence has contributed to doctrinal errors and ecumenical compromise. While not an outright heretic, Ravenhill displayed poor discernment by endorsing figures such as Reinhard Bonnke, who was exposed for fabricating claims like raising the dead in South Africa.
(Source: Archived Christ for All Nations page)

Ravenhill’s teachings also fuelled the development of the heretical Lordship Salvation doctrine, rooted in the mysticism of Charles Finney. This doctrine has been weaponised by neo-Calvinists like John MacArthur and further popularised by Billy Graham, who promoted unity with the Roman Catholic Church. Washer’s endorsement of Ravenhill ties him to these dangerous theological trends.

HeartCry’s Troubling Partnership

Washer’s HeartCry Missionary Society openly collaborates with Martin Bucer Seminary, an institution presided over by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher. Schirrmacher is a personal friend of Pope Francis, a prominent ecumenical leader, and deeply embedded in organisations such as the World Evangelical Alliance and the Global Christian Forum. These bodies are working alongside the World Council of Churches, whose agenda is to foster global religious unity under the guise of “Christian unity.”

Washer’s partnership with Martin Bucer Seminary links him to these ecumenical efforts, which are not only unbiblical but align with the spirit of antichrist.

Cross ’19 Conference and Compromise

In 2018, Washer was slated to speak at the Cross ’19 Conference, where several speakers have ties to heretical movements like Hillsong and Jesus Culture. Some key examples include:

• Trip Lee: A personal friend of Washer, Lee openly promotes Hillsong and Jesus Culture, yet Washer has never rebuked him or distanced himself.
• Thabiti Anyabwile: A Marxist-leaning speaker who embraces social justice theology.
• John Piper: Known for his connection to Rick Warren, Lectio Divina practices, and ecumenical compromises with figures like Louie Giglio and Carl Lentz.

Washer’s silence regarding the compromised ministries of these speakers highlights his growing indifference to biblical separation and doctrinal purity.

The Ecumenical Agenda

Washer’s involvement with ecumenical leaders and movements like the Martin Bucer Seminary and his tacit approval of heretical organisations point to a deeper compromise. These partnerships align Washer with the broader ecumenical agenda to unite Protestants with the Roman Catholic Church under the guise of Christian unity.

This agenda is not benign—it is a direct assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Scripture warns:

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

A Call to Discernment

Paul Washer’s popularity among Bible-believing Christians makes his compromises all the more dangerous. Many followers are being unwittingly led into error by his associations and endorsements. While Washer presents himself as a staunch advocate for truth, his actions tell a different story—one of partnerships and platforms that erode the purity of the gospel and lead others toward unity with the Roman Catholic Church.

Believers must exercise discernment and refuse to follow leaders who compromise biblical truth for the sake of influence or false unity. Washer’s ministry is a cautionary tale of how even seemingly sound teachers can stray into error.

Paul Washer & HeartCry Partner With Ecumenical Pope-Lover

Thomas Schirrmacher & Franklin Ferreira Sponsored by HeartCry

Thomas Schirrmacher Loves Pope Francis

The Ecumenical Engagements of Thomas Schirrmacher and Their Implications for Evangelical Associations

Introduction
Thomas Schirrmacher, an influential theologian, ethicist, and the Secretary General of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), has been at the forefront of ecumenical efforts to foster dialogue between evangelical communities and the Roman Catholic Church. His connections to prominent Catholic leaders, particularly Pope Francis, have drawn significant attention and concern, especially among those who view such relationships as potentially compromising evangelical theological distinctives.

Equally concerning is the indirect association of evangelical leaders like Paul Washer, whose HeartCry Missionary Society has partnered with organisations tied to Schirrmacher. Such connections raise questions about the broader implications for evangelicalism’s doctrinal integrity in a time of increasing ecumenical initiatives. This article delves into Schirrmacher’s connections to Pope Francis, the role of Martin Bucer Seminary, and the potential theological consequences of these relationships.

Thomas Schirrmacher and Pope Francis
Schirrmacher’s involvement with Pope Francis is well-documented and emblematic of his commitment to ecumenical dialogue. He has met with Pope Francis on multiple occasions, and his book, Coffeebreaks with the Pope: My Encounters with Francis, details his personal interactions with the Pontiff (thomasschirrmacher.net). These meetings reflect Schirrmacher’s deep involvement in fostering relationships across denominational lines.

One notable event was the ecumenical prayer vigil in St. Peter’s Square on September 30, 2023, where Schirrmacher greeted Pope Francis (Evangelical Focus). This public display of unity with the Vatican raised concerns within parts of the evangelical community, with some organisations, such as the Spanish Evangelical Alliance, openly criticising his participation and distancing themselves from his actions. Such events underscore the delicate balance between fostering interdenominational dialogue and maintaining theological boundaries.

Furthermore, Schirrmacher’s role in the World Evangelical Alliance has brought him into close collaboration with organisations like the World Council of Churches and the Global Christian Forum. Both are widely known for their ecumenical agendas, which those who hold to scriptural purity view as compromising biblical doctrine in favour of a broader, unity-focused theology.

Schirrmacher’s Broader Ecumenical Influence
Schirrmacher’s influence extends beyond his personal meetings with Pope Francis. He serves as the president of Martin Bucer Seminary, an institution that has also been a focal point of criticism for its ecumenical engagements. The seminary’s involvement in global theological discussions, particularly with Roman Catholic institutions, has drawn scrutiny from those who hold to scriptural purity and are wary of its alignment with Catholicism.

Additionally, Schirrmacher is a senior leader of the World Evangelical Alliance and serves on the committee of the Global Christian Forum. Both organisations have been involved in initiatives that some believers in scriptural purity argue blur the lines between Protestant and Catholic theology. For instance, the World Evangelical Alliance has frequently partnered with Catholic representatives in dialogues aimed at fostering greater unity between the two traditions. Those committed to scriptural purity argue that such efforts risk promoting a false sense of doctrinal agreement, potentially undermining core Protestant convictions.

Paul Washer’s Connection to Martin Bucer Seminary
The implications of Schirrmacher’s ecumenical efforts are further complicated by the indirect involvement of Paul Washer, a prominent evangelical preacher and founder of the HeartCry Missionary Society. Washer’s ties to Martin Bucer Seminary have raised questions about his stance on ecumenism, given the seminary’s leadership under Schirrmacher. While Washer has not openly endorsed Schirrmacher’s ecumenical agenda, his partnership with an institution so closely associated with these initiatives raises concerns among those who prioritise scriptural purity.

Those committed to scriptural purity point to the theological compromises that can arise from such associations. Martin Bucer Seminary’s partnerships with Catholic organisations and Schirrmacher’s personal advocacy for Pope Francis are seen by many as indicative of a broader ecumenical agenda that conflicts with evangelical distinctives. Washer’s reputation as a staunch defender of biblical doctrine has been called into question by those who believe his affiliations send a contradictory message to his followers.

Doctrinal Implications for Evangelicalism
The growing ecumenical engagement between evangelical leaders and Roman Catholic representatives poses a significant challenge to the doctrinal integrity of evangelicalism. While fostering dialogue and understanding across denominational lines can have its merits, it must be approached with caution to avoid theological compromises.

Key areas of concern include the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on justification, the authority of Scripture, and the role of tradition. These doctrines remain fundamentally incompatible with evangelical theology, which upholds salvation by faith alone and the sole authority of Scripture. Partnerships or associations with Catholic leaders and institutions risk legitimising theological positions that many believers in scriptural purity consider unbiblical.

Schirrmacher’s involvement in global ecumenical efforts highlights the need for discernment within evangelical communities. Leaders like Paul Washer, who have built their ministries on a foundation of biblical fidelity, must take care to distance themselves from organisations or individuals whose actions may compromise the clarity of their theological positions.

Conclusion
Thomas Schirrmacher’s ecumenical activities and his close relationship with Pope Francis highlight a growing trend towards theological compromise under the banner of unity. These developments raise significant concerns for those committed to scriptural purity, as such efforts often blur the lines between biblical truth and doctrinal error.

Paul Washer’s association with organisations tied to Schirrmacher, including the Roman Catholic-affiliated Martin Bucer Seminary, further underscores this troubling trend. Once seen as a steadfast defender of biblical truth, Washer has aligned himself with leaders and institutions that many believe compromise the gospel by promoting ecumenism. For those who hold firmly to scriptural authority, this is seen as an abandonment of his earlier principles and a betrayal of the very truths he once proclaimed to defend.

This shift has caused significant division within the evangelical community, with many questioning Washer’s theological integrity. His failure to address these associations or publicly distance himself from their ecumenical agendas has left many disillusioned and concerned about the influence he wields over unsuspecting followers.

For those committed to biblical truth, Washer’s actions represent a cautionary tale. The call to stand unwaveringly on God’s Word is clear in Scripture, and any deviation from that standard risks leading others into error. As the Apostle Paul warned in Galatians 1:9, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Washer’s affiliations raise serious questions about his commitment to this principle and challenge the faithfulness of his ministry.

Ultimately, this situation serves as a sobering reminder that the pursuit of unity must never come at the expense of biblical truth. True unity is found only in the gospel of Christ, and any movement or leader that compromises this foundation should be met with firm resistance. Those who believe in scriptural purity are called to expose error, contend for the faith, and protect the flock from being led astray. In light of Washer’s actions, his ministry must be scrutinised through the lens of Scripture, and his deviation from biblical truth must be exposed for the sake of those seeking to remain faithful to God’s Word.

Coffeebreaks with the Pope: My Encounters with Francis by Thomas Schirrmacher. (Source).Evangelical Focus article on the ecumenical prayer vigil. (Source).Analysis of Martin Bucer Seminary’s ecumenical partnerships. (Source).Statement from the Spanish Evangelical Alliance criticising Schirrmacher’s Vatican involvement. (Source).


Leonard Ravenhill, a prominent evangelist and author, is known for his critical perspectives on contemporary evangelism, including the methods employed by figures like Billy Graham. In his book America Is Too Young to Die (1979), Ravenhill expressed concerns about the effectiveness of large-scale evangelistic campaigns, stating:

“Thank God for all that the last twenty-five years have been shown us in evangelism–if it was the real thing. But when the general practitioner cannot solve the patient’s sickness, the specialist is brought in. When the evangelists have failed; when the million-dollar crusade leaves little in its wake; when the TV evangelistic show is over; when the Bible schools hang their heads and say, ‘It is not in us’; when the theologians hide their blushing heads and swing the other way in their swivel chairs; when the seminaries say, ‘We have heard of the fame of revival with our ears, but we have no formula for it’; when all these helpless ministries fail and the Nation speeds its way to hell; while the Church is looking on–let the righteous cry, and the Lord says He will hear them.” (sermonindex.net)

This passage reflects Ravenhill’s scepticism towards the impact of expensive evangelistic events, a method often associated with Billy Graham’s ministry. Additionally, in a social media post, a quote attributed to Ravenhill critiques the high costs of such gatherings:

“Billy Graham had another gathering…it cost fourteen million dollars. I’ll tell you something about the presence of God: Revival doesn’t cost…” (twitter.com)

These concerns suggest that, while Ravenhill acknowledged the efforts of evangelists like Billy Graham, he was troubled by the methods and the apparent lack of lasting spiritual impact from large-scale, costly crusades. Those who hold to scriptural purity have often found themselves at odds with the popularity of such movements, as they emphasise a return to a more genuine, biblically grounded approach to evangelism.

The Legacy of Leonard Ravenhill: A Cautionary Tale of Compromise?

Ravenhill’s promotion of various figures over the years has also drawn attention from those who believe that his influence may have led to unintended compromise within the Church. One such figure is the controversial preacher Paul Washer, whose own ministry has been linked to a growing acceptance of the ecumenical movement.

While Ravenhill’s criticisms of Graham were based on his assessment of modern evangelism, it is tragic to note that, in some circles, Ravenhill himself has been associated with figures and movements that share significant theological similarities with the very compromises he once opposed. His promotion of Paul Washer, who has been publicly linked to organisations that partner with the Catholic Church, has raised questions about the trajectory of his influence.

Those who hold to scriptural purity believe that the ‘Ravenhill rabbit hole’ has unfortunately led to a dangerous compromise, where figures once considered steadfast in their theological convictions now find themselves aligning with individuals and organisations that dilute or distort the gospel message. In particular, Paul Washer’s partnership with Martin Bucer Seminary, an institution linked to prominent ecumenical figures such as Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, who has openly expressed admiration for Pope Francis, has led to widespread concern.

Schirrmacher’s involvement with the Roman Catholic Church and his friendship with Pope Francis have raised alarms among those who value scriptural purity. Critics argue that such associations pose a grave threat to the integrity of the gospel message. As individuals like Paul Washer continue to support and partner with figures like Schirrmacher, many fear that the theological compromise that Ravenhill once warned about is becoming an increasingly prevalent issue within evangelical circles.

Conclusion: The Fruit of Compromise

Ravenhill once famously said, “You will know them by their fruits,” urging believers to examine the lives of those in ministry and to hold them accountable according to biblical standards. Unfortunately, it appears that the fruit of some modern-day ministries—including those of Paul Washer—has been a deepening compromise with the very systems and institutions Ravenhill once opposed.

By aligning himself with figures who are involved in ecumenical and Catholic-backed organisations, Paul Washer has, in the eyes of many who hold to scriptural purity, caused significant division within the body of Christ. His endorsement of such associations has led to a blurring of doctrinal lines, making it increasingly difficult for believers to discern between truth and error.

The rise of ecumenical partnerships, including those between Paul Washer and figures like Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, signals the ongoing dilution of the gospel message. While Ravenhill himself did not promote such compromises, his influence on figures like Washer has, unfortunately, played a part in this growing division within the Church. As those who hold to scriptural purity continue to speak out against these alliances, it becomes clear that, in the end, many roads indeed lead to Rome—a sobering reminder of the dangers of compromise in the pursuit of unity.

The end result is many roads lead to rome.

The post Paul Washer: Leading Others Astray Through Ecumenical Compromise appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Francis Chan: Furthering Apostasy and Promoting Doctrinal Heresy

Francis Chan, once an evangelical preacher, has now embraced Roman Catholic doctrine, furthering the apostate agenda and promoting doctrinal error. Years ago, I warned against Chan’s increasing alignment with Catholic mysticism, Gnostic practices, and monastic teachers. Now, his acceptance of Roman Catholic dogma, including its teachings on the Hypostatic Union, confirms his departure from biblical truth.

Looking back, signs of his compromise were already evident. As early as Together 2016 in New York, Chan was advocating for unity with the Roman Catholic Church, participating in an event that sought to blur the theological distinctions between Protestant evangelicals and Rome. This movement was not about genuine biblical revival but rather an ecumenical effort to erode the doctrinal foundations of the Reformation and bring evangelicals under Rome’s influence.

This event featured numerous prominent figures in contemporary Christian music and evangelical leadership, including Hillsong United, Kari Jobe, Lecrae, Passion, Crowder, Kirk Franklin, Ravi Zacharias, Jeremy Camp, Andy Mineo, Michael W. Smith, Lauren Daigle, Christine Caine, Mark Batterson, Tony Evans, Matthew West, Jo Saxton, Mike Kelsey, Casting Crowns, John K. Jenkins Sr., Josh McDowell, Luis Palau, Tasha Cobbs, Lacey Sturm, Trip Lee, Samuel Rodriguez, Jennie Allen, Christine D’Clario, Matt Maher (a devout Roman Catholic), Sammy Wanyonyi, Lindsey Nobles, and others.

Most notably, Chan celebrated the participation of Roman Catholic leadership, including Pope Francis, alongside Southern Baptists, Hispanic organisations, and African-American churches. This reveals his willingness to set aside vital theological distinctions for the sake of superficial unity—something Scripture repeatedly warns against (2 Corinthians 6:14-17, Galatians 1:6-9).

Chan’s trajectory mirrors the broader ecumenical agenda that seeks to undo the work of the Reformation, rejecting the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). By aligning with Rome, he is leading countless believers away from the true gospel and into a system that, at its core, denies the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work on the cross.

This is not mere theological error—it is an abandonment of biblical truth. Those who still follow Francis Chan must recognise the gravity of his departure and the spiritual danger of embracing Roman Catholicism’s false teachings. The call for unity at the expense of doctrine is a deception that ultimately serves the Counter-Reformation agenda, which aims to bring evangelicals back under Rome’s authority.

Rather than following men who compromise truth, we must stand firm on Scripture, contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

The purpose of the event was centred around the following vision: “As we were planning this vision, the prayer was always: ‘We want to have the largest Jesus gathering in America’s history.’”

I have previously warned that such movements could lead to an insurgency, shifting people away from the authority of Scripture and promoting traditions that diverge from the Bible’s teachings. This journey often leads many evangelicals towards Roman Catholicism. The ultimate aim is to encourage acceptance of the Catholic Eucharist, which is central to the Roman Catholic faith, and anyone opposing this is frequently marginalised, labelled an extremist, or accused of committing idolatry.

This has resulted in individuals like Francis Chan, who has accepted the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This only supports my argument that evangelicalism today is dangerously misguided, as at its core is corruption from those seeking positions as pastors and church leaders of various types.

In a recent statement, Francis Chan declared, “I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years everyone saw Communion as the literal body and blood of Christ.” This is historically inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding about the Mass, a teaching that was not accepted until Pope Julian I, and was reinforced by the Roman Catholic Church Fathers—not the Early Church Fathers. His attempt to cherry-pick support for the Roman Catholic dogma of the Eucharist ignores the historical truth. For more details on the history of the Eucharist, refer to my article on Transubstantiation.

Francis Chan seems to have forgotten how the Roman Church treated dissenters and heretics, often condemning them to death by burning for rejecting the Eucharistic dogma and regarding Christ’s Last Supper as a symbolic memorial rather than a literal act.

A core issue arises when churches adopt socialist positions rooted in Karl Marx, instead of biblical principles. This emphasis on charitable works over sound doctrine results in a departure from the essential truths that bind us to Christ through His teachings in the Bible, not in the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. If our faith is subject to the Mass—the central tenet of Roman Catholicism—there can be no assurance of salvation. The biblical teaching of assurance is undermined, and we are left to accept all religious teachings as equally valid to the Bible itself.

I recently received an email attacking me personally without providing clear examples of any errors on my website, other than defending the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The email came from a dubious source, which I suspect was created solely to avoid an honest discussion. It read as follows:

Servant of Jesus
[email protected]
5.173.144.9

Dear Sir or Madam,

Why do you claim to help people escape dangerous sects while promoting idolatrous names on your website? The mantra powering your site is nothing more than praise to Hare Krishna, a person (not God), and is also used by Masonic lodges and New Age movements. Is this carelessness or hypocrisy?

I have never promoted anything related to the Hare Krishna movement or Freemasonry, and such accusations are baseless. The charge of hypocrisy is contradictory within the same message.

The “About” section of my website clearly rejects ecumenism, multi-faith positions, and non-evangelical forms of Christianity, while also rejecting any doctrines that stray from biblical authority. Most conservative evangelicals would agree with this stance. However, it seems this person, likely a Roman Catholic, has taken offence at it, which can only be seen as a positive thing.

Further, this individual insists that if one is not obedient to the Roman Catholic Church, one is independent of the truth. They believe the Holy Spirit resides only within the Roman Catholic Church, where forgiveness comes solely through the sacrament of confession. However, this perspective is steeped in tradition, not biblical doctrine.

The passage they reference from John 20:23, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained,” is often misused. The context of this verse shows that Jesus was speaking to the disciples, but it is not about granting forgiveness through a priest. Rather, it shows that forgiveness was already accomplished by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and the priest cannot offer forgiveness that has already been granted by Jesus alone.

The individual’s further claim, drawing on the words of Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s exorcist, that Satan resides outside the Roman Catholic Church, is deeply troubling. Father Amorth may have made bold statements about the Devil’s presence in the Vatican, yet this same church continues to deceive many by holding them captive to its traditions.

The Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the sole institution established by Jesus Christ is simply not true. The church existed long before the Vatican ever did, as evidenced in the book of Acts. The idea that salvation is exclusively tied to one institution is false, and this type of teaching prevents people from realising the truth that salvation is only through faith in Christ alone, not by the works or merits of any religious system.

The body of Christ has always existed in many forms, with diverse doctrinal views, and still functions as one Church. Denominations may differ, but those born again are all part of the same body of Christ.

In conclusion, salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross. It is dangerous when anyone seeks to steal God’s glory by enslaving others in their religious systems, keeping them trapped indefinitely. If you are in a system that does not align with Scripture, I urge you to seek the truth and come to Christ, not through religious rites or works, but through faith in His finished work.

This critique of Roman Catholic doctrine is not an attack on the individual, but a call to return to the pure gospel, which is based solely on Scripture, not traditions or man-made systems.

The claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church founded by Christ is rooted in error. Christ established His Church, but it is a spiritual entity, not a hierarchical institution. This individual is not a servant of the Biblical Christ, but of the Roman Catholic Church.

We must remain vigilant against those who corrupt the gospel, like Francis Chan, and avoid giving heed to those who seek to deceive, whether knowingly or unknowingly. We are to follow Christ alone, through the teachings of Scripture, not through man-made doctrines or traditions.

Theological Errors in the Teachings of Francis Chan: A Biblical Critique

Francis Chan, a prominent contemporary Christian pastor and author, is widely known for his best-selling books such as Crazy Love and his influential ministry, We Are Church. His teachings have had a significant impact on Christian communities worldwide, particularly among those seeking a radical, passionate approach to following Christ. However, while Chan’s enthusiasm and emphasis on loving Jesus and living authentically are commendable, his theological positions, particularly in certain areas, raise significant concerns. This article seeks to examine Francis Chan’s teachings from a non-Calvinist theological perspective, critiquing his stance on salvation, the nature of the church, and spiritual authority, among other issues.

1. Salvation and the Nature of Faith

Chan’s teachings on salvation often emphasize the importance of a life radically transformed by Jesus, with the assumption that such transformation must be evident in behavior. While a changed life is certainly a biblical fruit of true conversion, Chan’s frequent emphasis on works can potentially obscure the gospel’s core message—that salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), not by works.

In his book Crazy Love, Chan frequently stresses the need for Christians to live radically for God, often suggesting that those who do not demonstrate significant signs of spiritual transformation might not be truly saved. This runs the risk of leaning towards a works-based salvation—a misunderstanding of the Apostle Paul’s clear teaching in Ephesians 2:8-9, where he affirms that salvation is a gift from God, not the result of human effort. Additionally, Chan’s tendency to point to visible evidence of salvation, such as radical life changes or outward behaviors, can create confusion and insecurity in the lives of Christians, potentially leading them to question their assurance of salvation.

2. Assurance of Salvation

The assurance of salvation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith and is a key element where Chan’s teachings are particularly concerning. Chan often emphasizes the necessity of living radically for Jesus, but his focus on the external evidence of faith may inadvertently undermine the believer’s assurance of salvation. The Bible presents a different view of salvation: one rooted in God’s promises, not in the fluctuating feelings or performances of the believer (John 10:28-30; 1 John 5:13).

While works and a transformed life are evidence of a genuine faith (James 2:14-26), they are not the foundation upon which salvation is built. The danger in Chan’s approach is that it leads believers to rely on their own performance and feelings to determine their salvation, rather than solely on the finished work of Christ. A more balanced approach, in line with Scripture, would emphasize that salvation is secured by faith in Christ alone, with works as evidence of a living faith, not a precondition for salvation.

3. The Church and Its Authority

Chan’s teachings on the church also raise concerns from a biblical perspective. In his book Letters to the Church, Chan advocates for a “radical” return to early Christian practices and suggests that much of modern church structure is a distortion of the biblical model. While the desire to reform the modern church and restore its biblical purity is noble, Chan’s radical approach to church structure could lead to unhealthy conclusions about the role of leaders and the congregation. He advocates for what he calls “house churches” and expresses dissatisfaction with traditional forms of church leadership, suggesting that leadership structures today often hinder the full expression of the body of Christ.

While there are certainly biblical criticisms to be made about the modern church and its practices, Chan’s solution, which seems to minimize traditional church authority in favor of informal house groups, may be equally problematic. A biblical understanding of church leadership, from a non-Calvinist standpoint, affirms the role of elders and pastors as shepherds and overseers who are responsible for teaching sound doctrine, leading, and protecting the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4). The apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) demonstrate the importance of biblical leadership and sound doctrine. While house churches can certainly be a valid expression of community, they must still be accountable to sound teaching and proper biblical leadership.

4. The Role of the Holy Spirit

Another area of concern in Chan’s teachings is his sometimes vague or unbiblical handling of the role of the Holy Spirit. Chan has emphasized the importance of being led by the Spirit, often encouraging believers to seek a powerful, emotional encounter with God through the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit does empower and transform believers, it is essential that any emphasis on the Spirit remain in alignment with Scripture.

From a non-Calvinist viewpoint, the role of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth (John 16:13), convict of sin (John 16:8), and empower them for service. However, Chan’s focus on seeking emotional experiences can sometimes overshadow the more ordinary but equally important roles of the Holy Spirit—such as illumination of the Scriptures, conviction, and sanctification. The Scriptures are clear that the Spirit’s work is not to exalt feelings or experiences above the Word of God but to point believers to Christ and bring them into deeper knowledge of the truth.

5. Prosperity and Theological Concerns

Though Chan does not explicitly endorse the prosperity gospel, certain aspects of his teachings inadvertently flirt with the idea that material blessings or radical sacrifice can somehow earn favor with God. This can be particularly dangerous when it leads believers to equate faithfulness with material success or the lack thereof. Scripture teaches that blessings come from God but warns against equating material wealth with spiritual success (Matthew 6:19-21; 1 Timothy 6:6-10). A biblical understanding of prosperity recognizes that believers are called to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13) and that true spiritual riches lie in knowing Christ, not in material gain.

6. The Call to Radical Discipleship

A final concern in Chan’s ministry is his call to radical discipleship. While the call to follow Jesus wholeheartedly is a central aspect of the gospel, there is a danger in presenting discipleship in such a way that it becomes a burden or a checklist to measure one’s salvation. The Bible does indeed call believers to count the cost and follow Jesus, even to the point of radical sacrifice (Luke 14:27-33), but the focus must always be on God’s grace. Radical discipleship should not be portrayed as an unattainable ideal, but as a response to the grace of God and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Titus 2:11-14).

Conclusion

Francis Chan’s teachings undoubtedly encourage many Christians to take their faith seriously, but they also present several theological concerns when examined in light of Scripture. From a non-Calvinist perspective, his emphasis on works, the radical nature of discipleship, and the apparent undermining of the believer’s assurance of salvation can lead to confusion and spiritual instability. While the desire to see the church purified and believers living authentically is commendable, it is essential that such teachings remain rooted in the biblical truths of salvation by grace through faith and the proper understanding of the church’s role in nurturing believers.

Christians must be cautious when engaging with teachings that emphasize radical external acts of faith as a measure of salvation. Instead, the Bible calls believers to a balanced, grace-filled approach to discipleship—one that emphasizes faith in Christ, the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, and the importance of sound doctrine in the life of the church.

Key Biblical Passages:

Matthew 6:19-21 – The dangers of seeking material wealth as a measure of spiritual success.

Ephesians 2:8-9 – Salvation is by grace through faith alone.

John 10:28-30 – Assurance of salvation is grounded in Christ’s work, not human effort.

1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9 – The biblical qualifications for church leadership.

John 16:13 – The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding believers into truth.

Comprehensive Conclusion and Call to Action

Summary of Key Arguments

In examining Francis Chan’s theological shifts and his growing engagement with Catholic practices, it is clear that his teachings diverge from foundational Protestant doctrines. This article has critically evaluated his embrace of Transubstantiation and sacramental theology, highlighting the substantial theological differences between Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Eucharist. While Chan’s early ministry emphasized radical discipleship and biblical preaching, his more recent doctrinal positions raise serious concerns about his commitment to the gospel of grace alone.

• Transubstantiation and Sacramental Theology: Chan’s shift toward supporting the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, particularly the doctrine of Transubstantiation, represents a critical departure from the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic memorial of Christ’s body and blood. The Bible makes clear that the Eucharist is an act of remembrance, not a mystical transformation of the elements (Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The elevation of the Eucharist to a sacrament that confers grace upon the believer contradicts the sufficiency of Christ’s work and the biblical principle that salvation is not mediated through sacraments but through Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:24-28).
• Sola Scriptura and the Authority of Tradition: Another significant concern is Chan’s growing reliance on Catholic tradition alongside or even above Scripture. In embracing Roman Catholic practices and the authority of the Church’s teachings, Chan seems to undermine the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura, which asserts that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. The Protestant Reformation was built on the conviction that Scripture, as divinely inspired and sufficient, should guide the life of the believer, and that tradition, while valuable, must always be subject to Scripture. The shift toward elevating tradition risks leading believers into doctrinal error and a weakening of biblical authority.
• Works-Based Salvation: The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith and works presents a stark contrast to the biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone. In Catholicism, sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist are seen as necessary for the process of salvation. By endorsing these practices, Chan’s theology risks confusing the nature of salvation, leading people to believe that their relationship with God is mediated through sacraments and human efforts. The New Testament, however, teaches that salvation is a free gift of God, received solely by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 1:7). Any move away from this truth toward a sacramental, works-based system compromises the gospel and potentially leads individuals into spiritual bondage.

Final Exhortation to the Church

The church must stand firm in its commitment to biblical orthodoxy, especially in an age where theological compromise is increasingly tolerated in the name of unity. The pursuit of unity should never come at the expense of truth, particularly when core doctrines of the Christian faith are at stake. The Bible warns against the dangers of false teachers who distort the gospel and lead people astray (Matthew 7:15-20, Galatians 1:6-9). Francis Chan, though well-meaning in his desire for unity and revival, has made theological choices that warrant serious scrutiny.

In response to Chan’s teachings, the church must hold fast to the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and the sufficiency of Scripture alone. As believers, we are called to reject any teaching that undermines the clarity and purity of these doctrines. The Apostle Paul urges the church to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), and this means resisting any doctrine that threatens the integrity of the gospel message.

The Role of the Church in Discernment

Discernment is critical in today’s theological landscape. The church must be diligent in maintaining sound doctrine and protecting the flock from false teachings. This involves careful biblical study, prayerful engagement with Scripture, and a commitment to theological integrity. The body of Christ must be vigilant, as there is an ever-present danger of doctrinal shifts that lead away from the gospel.

As Francis Chan continues to influence the evangelical world, the church must respond not with condemnation but with a spirit of biblical correction and love. The call to engage with teachings critically does not negate the importance of unity within the body of Christ but affirms the need to preserve doctrinal purity for the sake of the gospel. It is vital that Christians are equipped to discern truth from error and that they stand firm on the teachings of Scripture.

The Necessity of Biblical Faithfulness

Ultimately, the most profound danger in Chan’s teachings is the potential to distort the gospel message itself. The Bible makes it clear that there is no other gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), and believers are warned against embracing a “different gospel” that is not truly gospel at all. The call for the church today is to remain anchored in the truth of God’s Word, to uphold the gospel as it has been revealed through Scripture, and to reject any teaching that veers from the central tenets of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

We must also remind ourselves that the gospel is not only a set of doctrinal beliefs but a message of freedom. To misrepresent the gospel by introducing a system of works-based salvation or a reliance on sacramental mediation is to undermine the power of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Salvation is a gift, freely given to all who trust in Christ’s finished work (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10). This is the good news that the church is called to proclaim, and it is the foundation upon which all Christian faith stands.

Conclusion: The Call to Uphold the Gospel

The church faces a critical juncture in the ongoing discussion about doctrinal purity and the preservation of the gospel. While Francis Chan’s influence on the church has been undeniably positive in many ways, particularly in his initial calls for radical discipleship and passionate faith, his recent theological shifts pose serious concerns. The embrace of Roman Catholic practices, particularly the sacramental view of the Eucharist, undermines core Protestant doctrines and threatens the gospel message itself.

It is incumbent upon the church to respond with clarity, conviction, and biblical faithfulness. We must hold fast to the doctrines of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and the authority of Scripture alone. The gospel message is not negotiable—it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). Let us, therefore, reject any teaching that diminishes or distorts the gospel and remain faithful to the truth that has been entrusted to us.

In the final analysis, the Christian faith is not a matter of works or rituals; it is a matter of grace. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, and the grace He offers are sufficient for all who believe. Let us guard this gospel with all diligence and be ever watchful against those who would seek to pervert it.

Updated by Miguel Hayworth 2025

The post Francis Chan Furthering the Apostate Agenda appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

A session of the Basel Council, which took place between 1431 and 1449,
during the Western schism, engraving, 1730.

This year has been a difficult one for many, with a multitude of significant events unfolding. From the rise of the Millennial and Snowflake Generations to the ongoing challenges posed by Brexit, the looming crash of the stock market, and rumours of World War 3, the world seems increasingly chaotic. The tensions across the European Union have intensified, and governments are legislating against the use of certain words. Anti-feminist propaganda has risen, coinciding with political efforts to further remove Judeo-Christian values from mainstream education. These efforts coincide with a broader rejection of centuries-old conservative beliefs, replaced by a growing political sympathy for socialist and communist ideas. This is creating widening divisions in society, contributing to civil unrest. There is widespread corruption within European and UK governments, and, to sum up the current climate, we could aptly say that the fall of Babylon the Great is upon us.

The Fall of Babylon

The term Babylon the Great is often used symbolically in biblical literature, particularly in the Book of Revelation, to describe a time of confusion and chaos. The concept is a metaphor for political, religious, and social disintegration. In this context, the phrase Babylon the Great aptly describes the current state of affairs, where truth is obscured, and many are left in confusion regarding the moral, political, and spiritual direction of society.

Whilst the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is seen by some as winning its counter-reformation agenda, there are still significant struggles within the Christian world, particularly in relation to doctrines and practices. One of the most contentious issues is the celebration of Christmas, which some see as undermining the gospel message. The question arises: are we at the end of an era for apologetics and polemics, with doctrinal purity being disregarded in favour of divisive arguments?

Doctrinal Struggles in Christianity

The eschatological divide—the divide concerning teachings about the end times—has led to schisms and arguments within churches. Predictions about the building of a third temple in Jerusalem, for example, have led to the rise of false prophecies and an overemphasis on end-time speculation. This focus on the future has diverted attention from the core of the Christian message: salvation through Christ.

The rise of false doctrines, especially concerning the timing of Christ’s return, has sparked heated debates. However, regardless of one’s political or theological views, it is undeniable that we are living in a period of great confusion, often exacerbated by the phenomenon of fake news and media manipulation.

In these times of uncertainty, the Church must be cautious in remaining faithful to the gospel. The purity of doctrine, once regarded as paramount, seems to be increasingly compromised by distractions and unbiblical teachings.

The Crisis of Moral Integrity

A significant concern this year has been the failure of Christian ministries, such as Moriel Ministries, to publicly condemn abuses within certain Christian institutions. While Moriel has spoken out against sexual abuse within the RCC, it has remained silent on similar abuses within evangelical circles, such as those in Calvary Chapel and New Tribes Mission (NTM).

These institutions have been exposed in the media for their role in enabling child abuse, and yet Moriel has not issued any public statements condemning these actions. This silence is concerning, as it signals a reluctance to hold evangelical leaders accountable for their actions. While NTM and Calvary Chapel have taken steps to address these issues, the initial failures to prevent abuse cannot be overlooked.

It is essential for Moriel, as a Christian ministry, to take a stand against abuse wherever it occurs, not just within the RCC but also within evangelical circles. The Church has a responsibility to speak out against injustice and uphold the dignity of all people, particularly the most vulnerable—children.

The Need for Accountability

One of the major issues with Moriel Ministries is its lack of transparency and accountability. As a public ministry, it is unclear who Moriel is ultimately accountable to. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for concerned individuals to approach the ministry with their concerns, leading to a sense of frustration and helplessness.

Jacob Prasch and Moriel Ministries must acknowledge their responsibility to speak out on public platforms with humility and integrity. While they may not be directly responsible for the actions of others, they do bear a responsibility to confront issues of injustice and wrongdoing within the Church. Silence in the face of such issues is not an option, and it is my hope that Moriel will take this call for accountability seriously.

The Christmas Debate

The debate surrounding the celebration of Christmas continues to be a source of division within the Church. Some argue that the origins of Christmas are rooted in pagan traditions, while others defend its Christian significance. Daniel Lattier, in his 2017 article The Myth of the Pagan Origins of Christmas, attempts to refute the idea that Christmas has pagan roots, but his argument is flawed.

Lattier contends that the celebration of Christmas does not fundamentally undermine the gospel. However, the Christmas narrative, rooted in Catholic dogma, presents a distorted view of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. The Christmas story, when viewed through the lens of Catholic tradition, becomes a celebration of the Eucharist rather than a pure focus on Christ’s work of salvation on the cross.

It is important to understand that the date of December 25th, chosen by Pope Julius I, was not co-opted from pagan traditions but was deliberately established to draw pagans into the Catholic fold. This ecumenical exercise was part of a broader effort to unite all peoples under the authority of the RCC, and to reject the gospel’s purity in favour of a more syncretic, watered-down version of Christianity.

The Gospel vs. Catholic Dogma

The core issue with Christmas as it is traditionally celebrated is not its pagan origins but its grounding in Catholic dogma. By observing Christmas in the traditional sense, many Christians inadvertently lend legitimacy to the RCC’s teachings, which undermine the gospel. The Christmas feast, as a celebration of Christ’s birth, often fails to centre on Christ’s redemptive work. Instead, it reinforces the RCC’s teachings on the Eucharist, the Mass, and the sacraments.

Michael Voris, a staunch defender of the RCC, accurately describes the celebrations surrounding Christmas as being deeply Catholic in nature, with all the associated rituals and festivities. This is a key point: Christmas, as celebrated by many Christians, has become a tool of Catholic ecumenism, promoting unity with Rome at the cost of doctrinal purity.

The Impact of Secularism and Extreme Ideologies

In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of extremist ideologies, including militant veganism and a further push to dismantle traditional institutions like marriage. These developments are signs of a growing cultural shift that prioritises political correctness and social activism over traditional moral values.

Despite these troubling trends, we can take comfort in the fact that God is sovereign and His plan will unfold according to His will. The events of each year serve a greater purpose in fulfilling God’s eternal plan. As Christians, we can face the future with hope, knowing that Christ’s return is imminent, even as we wait patiently for His arrival.

Conclusion: Keeping Our Focus on Christ

In the midst of these challenges, it is crucial that we, as Christians, do not lose sight of our hope in Christ. The events of the last days, as described in passages like Matthew 24:6, can be frightening, but they remind us that our strength comes from God. Our hope is not rooted in speculation about the timing of Christ’s return—whether pre, mid, or post-tribulation—but in the gospel itself.

The true message of Christmas, and of the entire Christian faith, is the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Let us not be distracted by secondary issues or speculative doctrines but remain steadfast in the hope of the gospel. As we navigate the confusion of these times, let us hold fast to the truths of Scripture and keep our eyes fixed on Christ.  

God bless you

Miguel Hayworth 30/12/2019

The post End Year Review 2018 appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

To Shun or Not to Shun???

(Please note that the names mentioned in this article are not an endorsement of the individuals referred to here)

Tyndale Bible, Romans 16:17
“I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause division and give occasions of evil, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies; and with sweet speeches and flattering words deceive the hearts of the innocent.”

2017 was a year that brought with it many struggles and conflicts. I believe it marked a call from God for reflection on our own lives and a constant willingness to practice daily repentance, as the Bible teaches us. In challenging situations, we must always bear in mind that none of us is without sin. We seek the Lord daily for renewal, with constant, strong conviction, without compromise.

It is vital for the spiritual health and wellbeing of anyone who is truly born again to stay clear of the contemporary and egalitarian view that Christian churches should be so liberal that they see female roles as equal to their male counterparts in authoritative spiritual matters. This view encourages many Christians to think outside the box, embracing a more progressive and liberal approach. In doing so, feelings and the religious aspects of Christian practice and worship have morphed into anarchy. There is now a complete rejection of objective moral character, replaced by subjective morality and a modernist interpretation of scriptural principles. In other words, the Bible is no longer regarded as authoritative. Those holding to this view are now often labelled as extremists.

As much as I dislike the rhetoric and the manner in which scripture is twisted to push people into line with the rest of the “goats” who will fall over the proverbial cliff, these so-called post-modern progressive Christians have become liabilities when it comes to persecution for those who stand for what is right. Core biblical, fundamental, and orthodox beliefs are being aggressively stamped out in favour of promoting apostate and neo-evangelical Christian teachers. These teachers are seen as beneficial and attractive, focusing on individual circumstances rather than upholding sound doctrine.

They prey on the biblically ignorant, the weak, and those who are immature in the faith. My mother’s family is no exception to this, as I witness my cousins being duped into falsehoods to accommodate interfaith relations. They unwittingly hold to the idea that Catholics—who fundamentally adhere to dogmas, sacraments, and doctrines—are “saved,” without considering what the RCC actually teaches. Likewise, Muslims, Buddhists, and those who leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with no spiritual fruit, believe it is acceptable to be foul-mouthed, all the while calling themselves “born again” Christians. This is nothing more than the product of pseudo-Christianity that is propagated in today’s post-modern church.

It would be wise to heed the warnings that I learned from Richard Wurmbrand, who, while in captivity, showed us that the worst of all enemies are those who claim to be Christians. When the time of great persecution comes, these are the very people who are most likely to inform the authorities of you. He emphasised forgiveness, mercy, and love, but he also said we should not hold it against them, as this is simply human nature.

While reflecting on my own sins and living in daily repentance, I am reminded that none of us is without fault. However, this does not excuse us from tolerating what the Bible warns us about concerning false teachers, nor does it excuse false teaching at the cost of rejecting sound doctrine. Peer pressure makes it easy to give in. While we are encouraged to look at the example of Christ, we know we cannot expect anything from those who claim to be “believers.” The church age is finished, and we have entered a new stage of spiritual degradation. Spirituality has become the common denominator for men like Francis Chan, Rick Warren, John Piper, and others who strongly influence many families within churches. However, what they offer is not a blessing but rather a judgment from God Himself, as He allows them to see lies because they desire it so. These people are a liability, not a solution.

Therefore, I believe it is right to make a public statement that there are, at times, biblical mandates for shunning—even family members—who claim to be believers, as the Bible teaches that we should judge them. I will clarify that we are not judging a person’s salvation, which is for God alone to determine. We are not referring to interpretations of non-essential doctrine, but to the doctrine of the Gospel that pertains to our common salvation. It is evident that many scriptures are ignored because the Bible is no longer seen as the authority, and relationships with family members are prioritised. Nothing could be further from the truth for those who uphold biblical authority as taught in the scriptures.

Jesus gave us the heart of the law: to love God above all things. This means the principle and application of scripture must always take precedence over any relationship. This is not always easy, and it often comes at a cost. Historically, the Bible has been at the heart of many conflicts, wars, divisions, and sufferings. This is not often God’s doing, but our own, as we are often stubborn and unwilling to submit to His will. In other words, we cannot “chew the meat and spit out the bones,” as there are more bones to spit out than meat to chew. Many within the evangelical church, including my mother’s side of the family, are no exception. As for my mother’s family, this is me publicly closing that chapter of my life, and I wish them well for the future. My prayer is that the Lord opens their eyes to the spirit of the age we live in, as we are in an age of Laodicea.

While most today shy away from venturing into the streets with the gospel because it is seen as anti-social, preferring instead to engage with modernist ideas, we are entering a period where Christians now favour Christian philosophy over the application of doctrine. Many are now more focused on debates about prophecy and the end times than reaching the lost in the streets with the message. When they do go out, it is often about social works rather than confronting sin as intolerable before the sight of God. The message in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world,” often emphasises God’s need for man because He sees something good and special in all of us. However, the reality is that man needs God for salvation because of the condemnation addressed in John 3:36. It is far more important for man to centre himself around God than to have a humanist view of God that teaches man is more important.

I am convinced, based on the Bible’s truth, that these people who claim to be Christians do not have a love for the truth, as outlined in 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Many churches today are oriented around meeting individual needs, trying to attract those with “good hearts.” They believe that if a Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Pentecostal, or people of other faiths and none have good hearts, then we are all seeking to serve the same God—even if they do not know Jesus as their Saviour. This is what is known as Broad Christianity, which teaches that God’s plan of salvation is wide. This is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:13-15:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

If the gate is narrow and the way is small, how can family members like my cousins or other evangelicals claim that their views align with the words of Jesus? I am learning from their beliefs that God forbid we should ever think the same way. The Bible is very clear on the human heart; it is deceitful, as Jeremiah 17:9 says, and desperately wicked. When they claim people have good hearts, it does not negate the fact that the Bible is true to its word. We should never trust our hearts when people tell us otherwise. The Bible has already judged the human heart, and if the scriptures teach us not to trust it, who am I to disagree with God’s word?

I do not hold it against them because they have been taught this view by a multitude of teachers from various Bible colleges or seminaries. Many would regard these teachers as more qualified to give scriptural instruction and would accept their words without testing them. The attitude is no different from that of traditional Catholics who hold priests in high regard. The church of Rome argues that authority comes from their doctors in the RCC, and that you need the priests. Evangelicals, too, often take a similar approach with their pastors. It is no surprise that the RCC is attractive to many evangelicals who, at this moment, would not cross over into full membership. However, that time is near when they will have to choose where they place their faith: in the Church or the Bible.

The cultural and social programmes in many churches are dangerous because they no longer focus on confronting unbelievers. Instead, they are used to rid the churches of any “undesirables”—those who do not conform to the church’s programme or doctrine are considered outside of “Christianity.”

Those who accuse faithful believers of being self-righteous are often guilty of the same thing. They speak with guile, while we are called to continue living in obedience to scripture, humbly and without self-righteousness. In my years as a Bible-believing Christian, I have witnessed iniquity from politics to churches. I am not referring to personal sins, but to government officials and churches acting in rebellion and defiance of God’s word, adapting Catholic mysticism and pagan practices into Christian worship and meditation, setting aside doctrinal differences and seeking unity at any cost. I have seen how Satan uses events to bring all religions together under the guise of peace. Yet, the Bible calls this a false peace and false unity—one that many Christians, including my mother’s evangelical family, are naively accepting.

1 John 4:1-6 warns us about the spirits we should test, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. It is clear that Islam, rabbinical Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot distinguish between biblical separation and the counterfeit unity of today. They follow patterns from the Old Testament, where even Israel was in rebellion against God. The churches today are no different. They cannot claim ignorance regarding the teachings of Christ.

It is crucial that we take note of the book of Jude, which speaks of wilful rebellion and the consequences of ignoring God’s word. The Bible calls believers to live in a state of constant daily repentance, meaning a change of mind, not going after things that seem right in our own eyes. We must reflect on doctrine and not simply live by Christian experience in an increasingly fast-changing, modern world.

As Christians, we should not take for granted the liberties we have. Modern political issues, such as the growing influence of communism within state-run schools, government, political parties, and the freedoms of home education, are slowly stripping away our rights. These changes are being instigated by members of the Labour Party.

Communism has been shown to be oppressive and incompatible with Judeo-Christian beliefs, as history has demonstrated its dangers. It is a reminder that we must remain vigilant about the influences shaping our world today.

Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing leader of the UK’s opposition Labour Party, has openly expressed his admiration for Karl Marx, stating, “We all owe something” to the socialist revolutionary. This statement reveals not only Corbyn’s ideological alignment with Marxist thought but also his stance on the economic and political systems that have shaped much of his political career. For Corbyn, Marxism represents a guiding framework for challenging the status quo and promoting the redistribution of power and wealth. However, his explicit endorsement of Marx raises serious concerns for those who believe that Marxist principles, which often clash with Judeo-Christian values, cannot offer the solution to the deepening issues within society.

Source: Huffington Post

In light of Corbyn’s position, it is worth noting that his influence has extended far beyond political discourse. RT reports that British bookstores have witnessed a significant increase in sales of Marxist and left-wing literature, a trend that appears to coincide with Corbyn’s rise to prominence. As the Labour leader’s popularity grows, more individuals seem to be turning to Marxist ideologies in search of answers to the challenges posed by economic inequality, climate change, and social justice.

This surge in interest in Marxism cannot be ignored, especially when considering the ideological shift that has taken place within certain sectors of the UK’s political and religious landscapes. Corbyn’s brand of left-wing politics champions a redistribution of wealth and power in a way that is aligned with the tenets of socialism and communism. However, for those who uphold biblical truth, the embrace of such ideologies raises questions about their compatibility with Christian principles, particularly those concerning the sanctity of personal responsibility, the role of government, and the importance of spiritual liberty.

The rise of Marxist thought, particularly in the form of Corbyn’s political platform, underscores a broader shift within society towards a collective vision of progress. Yet, this shift risks undermining the Christian worldview, which places individual moral responsibility and freedom of conscience at the core of its teachings. While Corbyn’s socialist rhetoric may appeal to many as a solution to societal inequities, it is essential to consider the dangers of an ideology that rejects the personal autonomy that the Bible upholds and undermines the truth that true justice comes only through a right relationship with God.

As Marxism makes a resurgence under Corbyn’s leadership, it also poses a challenge to the values upheld by those who reject the idea of state-driven collectivism. The explosion in the sale of left-wing literature is a stark reminder that as political leaders, such as Corbyn, continue to promote Marxist ideals, those who adhere to biblical principles must remain vigilant, ensuring that the core message of the gospel—salvation through Jesus Christ—is never overshadowed by ideologies that seek to substitute God’s sovereignty for human-led social structures. The stakes are high, not just for politics, but for the very spiritual health of the church and its role in standing firm on biblical authority amidst a rapidly changing world.

Back in 2015, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour representative, John McDonnell, made headlines when he threw a copy of Mao Zedong’s Communist Little Red Book at then-Chancellor George Osborne during a parliamentary debate. While McDonnell attempted to downplay the gesture as a lighthearted joke, it can easily be seen as an affront to the deeply troubling ideology that Mao’s China propagated. Mao Zedong’s regime, responsible for widespread repression, human rights abuses, and millions of deaths, symbolises a form of authoritarian communism that disregards individual freedoms and imposes a collective will through state power.

What can we expect, however, when Corbyn’s inner circle is so heavily influenced by figures like Karl Marx and Mao Zedong, along with other communist thinkers? The embrace of Marxist theory within the Labour Party, especially under Corbyn’s leadership, has brought these ideas into mainstream political discourse. McDonnell’s symbolic act of tossing a Maoist book was not just a trivial stunt; it reflected a deeper ideological alignment with the very political and economic systems that have caused untold suffering in history. The endorsement of such figures cannot be ignored, especially given that Corbyn has expressed admiration for Marx’s teachings and the broader communist agenda.

Source: The Independent

Since Corbyn ascended to the leadership of the Labour Party, it is no coincidence that we’ve witnessed a surge in the sales of works such as the Communist Manifesto. RT has reported a boom in the sale of Marxist and communist literature, which aligns with the growing influence of Corbyn and his supporters. This surge in interest points to a revival of communist ideals in a time when political discontent and economic uncertainty are on the rise. What is troubling, however, is not only the resurgence of Marxist thought but the moral implications of these ideologies.

Marx himself, though celebrated by many left-wing thinkers for his critique of capitalism, held deeply troubling beliefs. His view of religion as the “opium of the people” led him to denounce Christianity and other religious practices as mere distractions from the supposed realities of class struggle. But what is often overlooked is the satanic undertones in Marx’s rejection of God and his promotion of a materialistic worldview. Marx sought to replace spiritual and moral authority with state-driven ideology, paving the way for regimes that sought to extinguish any competing sources of authority, including religion.

As Marx’s influence continues to pervade modern political movements, it’s crucial to acknowledge the dark roots of this philosophy. While Corbyn and his supporters may argue that they are merely advocating for social justice and economic equality, the history of communism shows a different narrative—one of oppressive regimes that used violence, manipulation, and ideological conformity to control populations. The embrace of such figures and ideologies may well be a reflection of an increasing rejection of traditional values, including the foundational biblical truths that many Christians hold dear.

For those who view Marxism through a biblical lens, the revival of communist thought, particularly in the form of Corbyn’s political ideology, raises serious concerns. Marxism, as a belief system, directly contradicts the message of Christianity, which emphasises personal responsibility, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of justice through God’s authority rather than through a collective human effort. The rise of this ideology, coupled with Corbyn’s prominence on the political stage, is a reminder that Christians must remain vigilant, ensuring that any attempt to bring Marxist thought into the fold of modern political discourse does not overshadow the truth of the gospel.

As history has shown, ideologies that dismiss the need for divine guidance in favour of human-centered systems often lead to destruction. This is evident in the violent and repressive regimes that have followed in the wake of Marxist revolutions. As the Labour Party, under Corbyn’s leadership, continues to shift further left, it’s important to consider the potential consequences of such ideologies not only on the political landscape but also on the moral and spiritual health of the nation.

One of the most notable individuals who endured the oppressive weight of communism and its Marxist foundations was Richard Wurmbrand. His experiences under the brutal regime of communist Romania are chronicled in his powerful book, Marx and Satan (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Satan-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0891073795). Wurmbrand, a former pastor who was imprisoned and tortured for his Christian faith, offers invaluable insight into the dark undercurrents of Marxism—particularly its connection to Satanism.

In 1948, mere months after the establishment of the Communist ‘People’s Republic of Romania,’ Wurmbrand was arrested. Initially labelled ‘Prisoner Number 1,’ he was subjected to horrific torture in a solitary confinement cell. For over eight years, he endured physical and mental torment at the hands of the communist secret police. His miraculous survival was discovered only when a doctor—masquerading as a member of the Communist Party—found him alive. Despite this, he was re-arrested in 1959, after a conspiracy involving an associate, and sentenced to an additional 25 years for ‘preaching ideas contrary to Communist doctrine.’ In 1967, Wurmbrand, alongside his wife Sabrina, founded a ministry to support the persecuted church, later known as Voice of the Martyrs. By the mid-1980s, the ministry had expanded globally, reaching 80 nations and operating in 30 countries. His book, Tortured for Christ, became a significant source of encouragement for Christians living under persecution throughout the Soviet system.

In his Marx and Satan, Wurmbrand delves into the dark beliefs of Karl Marx and the ideological forces behind the communist movement. In Chapter Two, titled “Against All Gods,” he writes:

“Marx was an avowed enemy of all gods, a man who had bought his sword from the prince of darkness at the price of his soul. He had declared it his aim to draw all mankind into the abyss and to follow them laughing.” (pg 23)

Wurmbrand argues that Marx’s rejection of all forms of godliness extended to a deeper, more sinister rejection of God Himself, and he even draws parallels to Satanic influences within Marx’s life. His commentary reveals a Marx who actively sought to incite a spiritual revolution—a rebellion not just against earthly rulers, but against the very notion of divine authority.

In Chapter Four, “Too Late,” Wurmbrand reflects on letters written by Marx’s family members, which he suggests reveal troubling signs of a deeper, darker spiritual influence. For example, a letter from Marx’s son Edgar in 1854 begins with the unsettling phrase, “My dear devil.” Wurmbrand remarks, “Who has ever known of a son addressing his father like this? But that is how a Satanist writes to his beloved one.” Furthermore, Marx’s wife, Jenny, addressed him as “high priest and bishop of souls” in a letter from 1844, referring to him in ways that suggest a position of spiritual authority. Wurmbrand wonders, “What pastoral letters did he, a man believed to have been an atheist, write? Where are they?” He posits that these references point to a spiritual reality that has yet to be fully explored or understood.

In Chapter Five, “A Cruel Counterfeit,” Wurmbrand examines the satanic leanings of Marxist leaders, such as Nikolai Bukharin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. He provides evidence that even within the ranks of communism, Satanist practices and symbols were not uncommon. For instance, Troitskaia, the daughter of Soviet marshal Tuhatchevsky, writes that her father kept a picture of Satan in the eastern corner of his bedroom—a place where Orthodox Christians traditionally place their icons. Similarly, in Czechoslovakia, a Communist leader named “Hruza” took the name meaning “horror,” a term also associated with the devil. Wurmbrand even discusses how Communist sympathisers, such as Anatole France, were connected to Satanist rituals, further solidifying the link between Marxism and satanic influences. One piece of demoniac art displayed in Paris even included the chair used by France for presiding over Satanic rites.

In the UK, Marx’s influence is still felt today, even within the ranks of political leaders. In 2017, Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, defended his Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, when McDonnell praised Marx’s Das Kapital. As reported by The Telegraph, McDonnell stated that “there is a lot to learn from Marx’s communist tract,” sparking concerns within the party. Corbyn, in turn, defended McDonnell, claiming that “all great economists influence all of our thinking.” Corbyn admitted that he had read both Marx and free-market economist Adam Smith, reassuring voters that his Labour government would not raise taxes for low and middle earners. While Corbyn may not explicitly identify with Satanism, his admission of being influenced by Marx raises alarm bells. As a Christian, one must be concerned about the ideological forces that shape our leaders. Marx was fundamentally anti-Christian, and Corbyn’s praise for him could suggest a dangerous alignment with ideologies that have caused immense harm in the past.

It’s important to note that I am not suggesting that Corbyn is a Satanist, but rather that his views are shaped by the ideologies that Marx espoused—ideologies that are inherently opposed to Christianity. Marx sought to overthrow not just earthly political systems but to erase the very concept of divine authority, which stands in direct opposition to the biblical worldview. As Christians, we must be cautious about the influences we allow into our lives, whether political, social, or intellectual. When we reject God’s truth, we inevitably become vulnerable to the deceptive forces of this world.

In the context of modern political struggles, we must recognise the consequences of rejecting biblical truth. This failure to fear God results in a world increasingly hostile to Christianity, with governments and institutions growing more anti-Israel and secular movements gaining traction. The rise of ecumenicalism within the church only adds to the confusion, as many evangelical leaders seek to form alliances with the Roman Catholic Church, despite its false teachings on salvation, authority, and doctrine. As Rome pushes for a ‘counterfeit peace,’ many evangelicals are being lured into compromising their faith.

In the book of Revelation, we are warned that the Antichrist will bring about a false peace (Revelation 6:2). We must be cautious not to fall into the same trap, as Rome and other false ideologies attempt to distort the message of the gospel. True Christian unity is not found in compromising doctrine, but in standing firm in the faith, rejecting falsehoods, and upholding the authority of Scripture above all else.

We are called to be vigilant, discerning the spirits and testing everything against the truth of God’s Word. As the apostle Paul urges in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires.” We are in that time now. As Christians, we must reject the false teachers who distort the gospel for personal or political gain. Our faith should not be swayed by worldly wisdom, and we must be prepared to stand alone, if necessary, in defence of biblical truth.

As we move further into the 21st century, we must recognise that biblical and orthodox beliefs will increasingly be rejected. Churches that once stood as bastions of truth will become places of confusion and compromise. But we are called to remain steadfast, as 1 Thessalonians 5:12–21 reminds us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” and “abstain from all appearance of evil.” We must rely on the Scriptures as our sole authority and avoid the influence of modern evangelical thinkers who promote postmodernist beliefs. Our faith must be rooted in the unchanging Word of God, not in the shifting sands of worldly philosophies.

The time is ripe for another Reformation, not one that seeks unity with Rome but one that separates us from those who have compromised the gospel for the sake of ecumenism. We must call for a return to the biblical gospel, which calls us to stand apart from the world and its falsehoods, to uphold the authority of Scripture, and to remain faithful to the redemptive work of Christ alone.

In Christ,
Miguel Hayworth – Director, UK Apologetics Library

The post End of Year Review for 2017 appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

The Social Gospel and Seeker Friendly Christians

http://ukapologeticslibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/socialism.mp3

00:28:17 | 28.3MB

Within ten years the moving trends of progressive evangelicalism is now widely accepted in the churches, amongst many who are now lukewarm. The authority of scriptures has been rejected in favour of traditions that are wrapped around good works. In doing so this is rejecting the apostle Paul’s centralised approach for the church to only submit to the gospel and the witness of it according to Romans 1:16.

The post The Social Gospel and Seeker Friendly Christians appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

1. Introduction: The Rise of Progressive Evangelicalism

• Current Trends in Evangelicalism: Describe how progressive evangelicalism has gained influence over the last decade. Contrast this with historical evangelicalism and explore why many churches have embraced progressive ideologies.
• Theological Shifts: Discuss the theological shifts from sola scriptura and sola fide towards a works-based faith. Include examples of key figures and churches that have contributed to these changes.
• Scriptural Authority: Emphasize how this shift undermines the authority of Scripture, with a focus on the centrality of the gospel, citing more biblical passages supporting the gospel as the foundation for salvation.

2. The Rejection of Biblical Authority

• Historical Overview of Biblical Authority: Expand on the historical importance of biblical authority in the church. Include references to the Reformation and the recovery of biblical truth, and contrast this with the modern trend of disregarding Scripture in favor of traditions and human wisdom.
• The Impact on Evangelical Churches: Explore how churches are increasingly focusing on social justice and good works as the central mission, and why this is problematic for theologically minded individuals.
• Scriptural Teachings on Authority: Discuss the Pauline teachings on the authority of Scripture, particularly Romans 1:16 and its implications for the church’s mission.

3. Cultural Mandates and Social Gospel

• Biblical Teachings on the Gospel and Good Works: Examine the scriptural understanding of good works in the context of the gospel message. Is the church’s mission to improve society through social action, or is it to proclaim the gospel and make disciples?
• Historical and Theological Roots of the Social Gospel: Discuss the rise of the social gospel in the early 20th century and its impact on evangelicalism today. Include a critique of the theology behind it and its divergence from the biblical gospel.
• Comparing the Social Gospel with the Biblical Gospel: Provide a detailed comparison between the message of the social gospel and the true gospel as described in Scripture, with specific examples from the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

4. Ecumenism and Its Impact on Evangelicalism

• The Historical Development of Ecumenism: Explain the history of ecumenical movements, especially Vatican II, and how these movements have influenced progressive evangelicals. Examine the theological implications of ecumenism.
• Evangelical Participation in Ecumenism: Explore why many modern evangelical leaders are embracing ecumenical dialogue and cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church, and the theological dangers this poses. Discuss what the Bible teaches about unity and separation.
• Biblical Calls for Separation from False Doctrine: Analyze key scriptures that call for separation from false teachings and compromise, such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 and Galatians 1:6-9.

5. The Rise of Feminism and the Influence on Evangelical Theology

• The Feminist Influence on Evangelicalism: Examine the growing trend of female leadership in evangelical churches and the theological implications of this shift. Discuss the rise of egalitarian theology and its rejection of biblical teachings on male leadership in the church.
• Scriptural Teaching on Gender Roles: Explore the Bible’s teachings on gender roles within the church, citing passages like 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and Ephesians 5:22-33. Address the theological implications of disregarding these teachings.

6. The Problem with Cultural Compromise

• Theological Implications of Compromise: Discuss the dangers of compromising the gospel to appease cultural norms, especially in relation to issues like same-sex marriage and the redefinition of sin. Use Scripture to show why the church must stand firm on biblical morality.
• Romans 1 and the Rejection of God’s Truth: Dive deeper into Romans 1:18-32, showing how the rejection of God’s truth leads to moral and spiritual decline. Connect this to modern evangelicalism’s embrace of cultural mandates.

7. The Role of the Church in Social and Political Change

• Christianity and Social Justice: Explore the theological basis for social justice in modern evangelicalism, contrasting it with the biblical mandate for the church to proclaim the gospel.
• The Bible’s Call to Preach the Gospel, Not Social Justice: Provide a scriptural critique of the “social gospel” and show that the primary mission of the church is to preach salvation through Christ, not to pursue political or social agendas.
• The Relationship Between the Church and the State: Examine the role of the church in relation to the state, and how modern evangelicalism has blurred the lines between spiritual and political action.

8. The Impact of the Roman Catholic Church on Evangelicalism

• The Historical Divide Between Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Discuss the theological differences between Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism, particularly with regard to justification, the authority of Scripture, and salvation.
• Evangelicals Becoming ‘Agents of Rome’: Analyze how modern evangelicalism is increasingly mirroring Catholic practices and doctrines, and why this is a danger to biblical Christianity.
• The Papacy’s Influence on Contemporary Evangelical Thought: Discuss the Vatican’s influence on modern evangelicalism, especially in light of ecumenical efforts and theological compromises.

9. The Deception of Ecumenical Unity and Its Biblical Rejection

• The Biblical Call for Doctrinal Purity: Provide a deeper exegesis of passages like 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 2 Peter 2, and Jude 3-4, which warn against false teachers and doctrinal compromise.
• Theological Unity and Biblical Truth: Discuss why true unity in the church can only be based on doctrinal purity and fidelity to Scripture, not on ecumenical unity with those who hold to false teachings.

10. The Apostasy of the Last Days

• Understanding the Apostasy: Examine what Scripture teaches about the apostasy in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, and 2 Peter 2). Show how this relates to the current trends in progressive evangelicalism.
• The Church’s Response to Apostasy: Discuss the biblical response to apostasy, emphasizing the need for repentance, faithfulness to Scripture, and a firm stance against false teachings.

11. Conclusion: The Call to Faithfulness and Biblical Obedience

• The Importance of Holding to the Faith: Summarize the main theological points, urging readers to remain faithful to the gospel and resist the cultural and theological pressures of modern evangelicalism.
• Standing Firm on Biblical Truth: Reiterate the importance of doctrinal fidelity and the authority of Scripture, with a call to action for Christians to stand firm in the face of apostasy.

Additional Notes:

• Footnotes and Citations: Add extensive footnotes to provide references to primary sources, theologians, church history, and biblical commentaries.
• Case Studies: Include examples of modern churches and movements that have embraced progressive evangelicalism, alongside more traditional, doctrinally faithful responses to these trends.
• Historical Context: Provide deeper historical context on key movements, such as the rise of the social gospel, the history of Vatican II, and the influence of the early church councils on evangelical thought.

1. Introduction: The Rise of Progressive Evangelicalism

Current Trends in Evangelicalism

In recent years, progressive evangelicalism has gained considerable influence, particularly within the Western Christian context. Historically, evangelicalism has been associated with conservative doctrinal positions, a strong emphasis on Scripture as the supreme authority, and a focus on personal salvation through faith in Christ alone. However, progressive evangelicals have shifted these emphases toward inclusivity, social justice, and political activism. These shifts are not just cultural but are deeply theological, reflecting an evolving understanding of Christianity in relation to contemporary social movements.

One of the key factors in this rise has been the increasing acceptance of progressive social ideologies that emphasize issues like racial reconciliation, environmentalism, and LGBTQ+ rights. Churches such as Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC, led by Steven Furtick, and The Mosaic Church in Los Angeles, led by Erwin McManus, have become emblematic of a new wave of evangelicalism that is concerned with social action as much as, if not more than, the preaching of the gospel.

For example, The Mosaic Church prioritizes inclusivity and diversity, using its platform to advocate for progressive social movements. Its leadership actively challenges traditional notions of faith by emphasizing a relational and experiential approach to Christianity, often focusing on the lived experiences of congregants rather than strictly adhering to doctrinal fidelity. This approach appeals to younger generations seeking a church that aligns with their social values and is perceived as progressive and culturally relevant.

At the same time, this shift away from historical evangelicalism has drawn criticism from those who hold to traditional views rooted in doctrinal orthodoxy. As more churches adopt progressive theologies, there is a growing tension within evangelicalism about the nature of biblical truth, the role of the church, and the centrality of the gospel. The debate is not just about culture but about the very nature of Christian identity and the gospel itself.

Historically, evangelicalism’s core mission has been to evangelize the lost and proclaim salvation through Christ alone. This focus on personal salvation through the grace of God has always been seen as the heart of evangelicalism, differentiating it from social or political movements. The shift toward a works-based faith, where issues of social justice and good works are often emphasized above the proclamation of the gospel, represents a radical departure from the original vision of the movement.

Theological Shifts

The theological shifts that undergird progressive evangelicalism involve a reinterpretation of classic doctrines. Chief among these is the move away from sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone) toward a faith that emphasizes works and social activism as integral parts of salvation.

At the heart of these theological changes is a shift from biblical authority to human experience. In progressive circles, the authority of Scripture is often called into question. Instead of accepting the Bible as the ultimate and final authority, some progressive evangelicals propose that Scripture must be interpreted in light of cultural contexts and personal experiences. For instance, while traditional evangelicalism upholds that the Bible is inerrant and sufficient for all aspects of life, progressive theology tends to adopt a more subjective approach to interpretation, allowing for personal experiences and cultural trends to shape its understanding of Scripture.

A prime example of this shift can be found in the Emergent Church Movement, which gained traction in the early 2000s. Key figures in this movement, such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Tony Jones, sought to create a form of Christianity that was more relational and experiential, while moving away from rigid doctrinal formulations. While many of the leaders of the emergent movement later distanced themselves from traditional evangelicalism, their influence has been significant in shaping the modern progressive evangelical mindset.

The most notable of these theological shifts is the focus on the social gospel and the idea that salvation is not merely about the eternal destiny of an individual but about transforming society. In this view, the church’s mission is to engage with social issues like poverty, racism, and environmental degradation in a way that transcends evangelism and becomes a holistic pursuit of social transformation.

At its core, this approach often dilutes the message of personal salvation in favor of a broader, more inclusive gospel that seeks to address the physical needs of people while sidelining the spiritual aspects of salvation. In this way, progressive evangelicalism risks substituting works-based salvation for the clear message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, a foundational tenet of evangelical Christianity.

Scriptural Authority

The shift away from sola scriptura has significant implications for the authority of the Bible within progressive evangelical circles. As churches increasingly prioritize social engagement over doctrinal purity, they run the risk of marginalizing the core message of the gospel in favor of promoting a culturally relevant Christianity.

One of the central themes of traditional evangelicalism is the authority of Scripture. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and as such, it holds the highest authority for Christian life and doctrine. This belief is grounded in passages like 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” which asserts that the Bible is both authoritative and sufficient for all matters of faith and practice.

In contrast, progressive evangelicalism often interprets Scripture more flexibly, allowing for reinterpretation of key texts in light of modern cultural values. For example, traditional Christian teachings on sexuality, marriage, and gender roles are often challenged by progressive evangelical leaders, who argue that these views are culturally bound and not timeless biblical principles. Instead of relying on Scripture as the primary source of truth, progressive evangelicals turn to personal experience and cultural trends to shape their theology.

An example of this approach can be seen in the re-evaluation of Romans 1:26-27, which condemns homosexual behavior. Progressive theologians often argue that these verses were culturally specific and do not apply to modern same-sex relationships. This reinterpretation is a significant departure from the traditional evangelical understanding that the Bible consistently teaches that same-sex relationships are sinful.

By rejecting or reinterpreting these clear biblical teachings, progressive evangelicalism undermines the authority of Scripture and creates a version of Christianity that is shaped more by cultural norms than by biblical truth.

2. The Rejection of Biblical Authority

Historical Overview of Biblical Authority

Biblical authority has been a cornerstone of Christian belief since the early church. The Reformation of the 16th century was pivotal in reaffirming the Bible’s supreme authority, marking a rejection of the growing influence of papal authority and church tradition that had obscured the clarity of Scripture. Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin argued that the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone (sola fide).

However, in recent decades, we have witnessed a shift within many evangelical circles. Progressive evangelicals, influenced by postmodern thought and the desire for inclusivity, have increasingly emphasized human experience, cultural relevance, and tradition over biblical authority. This departure undermines the doctrine of sola scriptura, replacing Scripture with subjective interpretation, where tradition and human reason take precedence. The Bible is viewed as an evolving document that must be read through the lens of current cultural and social issues rather than as a divinely inspired, timeless text that provides objective moral truths.

The Impact on Evangelical Churches

This erosion of biblical authority is most visible in churches that emphasize social justice, political activism, and cultural engagement as the core of their mission. These churches often elevate good works, such as combating poverty and racial inequality, as their central purpose, sometimes at the expense of the proclamation of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

While good works are an essential part of the Christian life, as demonstrated in passages like James 2:14-26, they must not supplant the gospel message. A church that replaces the proclamation of the gospel with an emphasis on social issues has lost its gospel foundation. This shift from doctrinal focus to social activism is a troubling trend, as it can distort the true purpose of the church, which is to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded (Matthew 28:19-20).

Scriptural Teachings on Authority

Paul underscores the authority of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where he states that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This passage emphasizes that Scripture is divinely inspired and fully authoritative for all aspects of life. Similarly, in Romans 1:16, Paul boldly declares, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” The gospel, as presented in Scripture, is not to be altered or compromised for cultural or social agendas. The church must remain faithful to the authority of the Bible, grounding its mission in the unchanging message of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

3. Cultural Mandates and the Social Gospel

Biblical Teachings on the Gospel and Good Works

The gospel, according to Scripture, is the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, “and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” While good works are a natural outflow of salvation (Ephesians 2:10), they are never the means of salvation. The church’s primary mission is to proclaim the gospel, not to pursue social change or political agendas.

The scriptural understanding of good works emphasizes that they should be done out of love and gratitude for what Christ has done, not as a means of gaining favor with God. James 2:14-26 highlights the importance of living out one’s faith through action, but it also makes clear that faith without works is dead. This reinforces the idea that works are a response to salvation, not a substitute for it.

Historical and Theological Roots of the Social Gospel

The social gospel, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was an attempt to apply Christian principles to social issues such as poverty, inequality, and labor rights. It emphasized social justice as the central mission of the church. However, many proponents of the social gospel tended to downplay the necessity of personal salvation, focusing instead on improving society through human effort.

This shift away from the gospel as the primary message of the church is problematic because it obscures the true purpose of the church and distracts from the essential truth that salvation is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19-20 focuses on making disciples, not just social reformers.

Comparing the Social Gospel with the Biblical Gospel

The social gospel presents an incomplete view of the mission of the church. It treats the improvement of society as the ultimate goal, often overlooking the eternal significance of individual salvation. In contrast, the biblical gospel focuses on the work of Jesus Christ—His life, death, and resurrection—as the foundation of salvation. The church’s mission is not to perfect the world but to proclaim the good news that Christ has come to save sinners and reconcile them to God.

The teachings of Jesus and Paul emphasize the importance of preaching the gospel and making disciples, not primarily addressing societal issues (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8). While the church is called to love its neighbor and care for the marginalized, these actions should flow from a heart transformed by the gospel, not replace the gospel message itself.

4. Ecumenism and Its Impact on Evangelicalism

The Historical Development of Ecumenism

Ecumenism, the movement toward greater unity among Christian denominations, gained significant momentum in the 20th century, particularly following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Vatican II sought to promote dialogue and cooperation between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian traditions. The movement emphasized shared beliefs and mutual respect, but it also introduced theological compromises, particularly regarding the nature of the church and salvation.

While ecumenism has fostered unity among believers in many ways, it has also led to theological concessions. Some evangelicals, in seeking unity with the Catholic Church, have downplayed the critical doctrinal differences that have historically separated the two traditions, particularly regarding the authority of Scripture and the nature of salvation.

Evangelical Participation in Ecumenism

Many contemporary evangelical leaders have embraced ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, believing that cooperation on social issues, such as poverty and the sanctity of life, can bridge doctrinal differences. While cooperation on social issues can be beneficial, it must not come at the cost of doctrinal purity. The Bible makes it clear that the church must stand firm on the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) and cannot compromise on essential doctrines.

The participation of evangelicals in ecumenical movements can pose a theological danger, as it often leads to a downplaying or even a rejection of the gospel’s central message. The Bible calls Christians to unity, but that unity must be based on shared doctrinal truth, not a mere desire for harmony.

Biblical Calls for Separation from False Doctrine

Scripture clearly teaches that the church must avoid false teachings and separation from those who espouse them. In 2 Corinthians 6:14-17, Paul warns against being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers, stressing that light and darkness cannot coexist. Similarly, Galatians 1:6-9 highlights the importance of guarding the gospel from distortion, calling those who preach a different gospel “accursed.” These warnings demonstrate the importance of doctrinal purity and the need to avoid compromise with false teachings, even if the aim is unity.

5. The Rise of Feminism and the Influence on Evangelical Theology

The Feminist Influence on Evangelicalism

In recent years, the influence of feminism has become more pronounced in evangelical circles. The rise of female leadership in churches, as well as the development of egalitarian theology, has sparked significant debate within the evangelical community. Some advocate for female pastors and leaders, citing passages like Galatians 3:28, which affirms the equality of all believers in Christ.

However, the Bible also contains clear teachings on gender roles within the church. Passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 teach that women are not to exercise authority over men in the context of church leadership. The rejection of these teachings in favor of egalitarianism has led to theological confusion and a distortion of biblical roles for men and women within the church.

Scriptural Teaching on Gender Roles

The Bible is clear that men and women are created equal in value and dignity before God, but it also teaches distinct roles for each within the family and the church. Ephesians 5:22-33 outlines the complementary relationship between husbands and wives, with the husband serving as the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church. Similarly, 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from teaching or having authority over men in the church, emphasizing the importance of maintaining biblical order.

While the rise of feminism has led to some positive changes, such as the elevation of women’s voices in society, it has also led to challenges within the church, particularly in terms of church leadership. A refusal to accept the Bible’s teaching on gender roles can undermine the authority of Scripture and cause division within the body of Christ. It is essential that the church holds to the biblical view of gender while upholding the dignity and worth of women in all areas of life.

6. The Problem with Cultural Compromise

Theological Implications of Compromise

The desire to align the church’s teachings with cultural norms has become increasingly prevalent in contemporary evangelicalism. Cultural pressures to conform, especially on issues like same-sex marriage and the redefinition of sin, have led some church leaders to soften or outright abandon traditional biblical stances. Theologically, compromising on such issues is dangerous because it diminishes the authority of Scripture and distorts the gospel message.

Romans 12:2 warns believers to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” The church is called to be set apart from the world, not to adopt its values or conform to its ever-shifting moral compass. When the church compromises on key moral issues to fit in with cultural trends, it risks distorting the gospel message and losing its distinctiveness as a prophetic voice in society.

Jesus, in Matthew 5:13-16, calls His followers to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, highlighting the church’s role in standing as a beacon of truth and righteousness, regardless of cultural opposition. When the church conforms to the world’s values, it fails to fulfill its God-given mission of proclaiming the truth of the gospel.

Romans 1 and the Rejection of God’s Truth

Romans 1:18-32 provides a sobering picture of the consequences of rejecting God’s truth. Paul explains that when people suppress the truth of God, their hearts become hardened, leading them to moral and spiritual decline. In this passage, Paul outlines how idolatry, sexual immorality, and a rejection of natural law are the consequences of turning away from the knowledge of God.

In verse 18, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” This suppression of truth leads to a downward spiral of sin, as seen in verses 24-32, where God “gave them up” to their sinful desires. This rejection of God’s moral order is not a neutral stance but one that brings about severe consequences, both in this life and the next.

This passage is particularly relevant for modern evangelicalism, which has increasingly embraced cultural mandates that directly conflict with Scripture. As society redefines sin and morality, many churches are under pressure to conform, particularly regarding issues like same-sex marriage, gender identity, and sexual ethics. However, the Bible makes it clear that sin is not to be redefined to match societal trends; rather, the church must stand firm on the truth of Scripture, even when it is counter-cultural. The example set in Romans 1 serves as a warning: rejecting God’s truth leads to spiritual and moral decay, a reality that modern evangelicals must take seriously.

7. The Role of the Church in Social and Political Change

Christianity and Social Justice

The rise of the social justice movement within evangelicalism has led to confusion about the church’s role in society. While the Bible teaches that Christians are to care for the marginalized and promote justice (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8), it is essential to recognize that social justice, as pursued by modern movements, is not the church’s primary mission. The gospel’s message is focused on the salvation of souls through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not primarily on political or social reform.

The church’s role is to preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20), and to teach believers to obey all that Christ commanded. While the church is called to demonstrate the love of Christ through acts of compassion, it must not lose sight of the fact that its primary mission is spiritual rather than political. Theological engagement with social justice must be careful to maintain the gospel’s centrality and not distort it to serve an earthly agenda.

The Bible’s Call to Preach the Gospel, Not Social Justice

In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul expresses astonishment that the Galatian church is turning to a “different gospel,” warning them that “if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” This serves as a reminder that the gospel is the priority for the church, and any deviation from the gospel message, even for the sake of social causes, must be rejected.

The “social gospel” is often seen as an attempt to address social ills and injustices in the name of Christianity. While addressing social issues is important, the gospel cannot be reduced to mere social activism. As Jesus taught in Matthew 16:26, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” The true gospel does not offer a political or social agenda but rather eternal salvation through Christ alone.

The Relationship Between the Church and the State

The relationship between the church and the state has been a subject of much debate throughout history. The Bible calls the church to honor and obey governmental authorities (Romans 13:1-7), but it also makes it clear that the church’s primary allegiance is to God. The church should never compromise its message or mission in order to align with political powers.

In recent years, many evangelicals have blurred the lines between spiritual and political action, often using the pulpit to advance particular political causes. While Christians are free to engage politically and advocate for justice in society, the church should avoid becoming a political organization or endorsing specific political ideologies. The church’s mission is spiritual, not political, and it must always maintain its focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

8. The Impact of the Roman Catholic Church on Evangelicalism

The Historical Divide Between Catholicism and Evangelicalism

The divide between Catholicism and evangelicalism is rooted in significant theological differences, particularly regarding the nature of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and the role of the church. Catholicism teaches that salvation is achieved through faith, works, and participation in the sacraments, while evangelicalism maintains that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The authority of Scripture is also a point of contention. Catholics believe that the Church’s tradition and the magisterium (teaching authority) hold equal weight with Scripture, while evangelicals affirm the doctrine of sola scriptura, which holds that Scripture alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.

These theological differences have historically kept Catholicism and evangelicalism separate. However, in recent years, there has been an increased push for ecumenical dialogue and cooperation between evangelicals and Catholics, particularly on social issues. While cooperation on certain causes is not inherently wrong, it must be approached with caution, as the theological differences between the two traditions cannot be ignored or minimized.

Evangelicals Becoming ‘Agents of Rome’

Some contemporary evangelicals, in seeking unity with the Catholic Church, have increasingly mirrored Catholic practices and doctrines. This trend is concerning because it risks compromising the clarity of the gospel message. For example, some evangelicals have adopted Catholic-style liturgies, prayer practices, and views on the sacraments, which can obscure the gospel’s simplicity and clarity.

The Bible teaches that the gospel is to be preached clearly and plainly (2 Corinthians 4:2). Theologically, any deviation from the biblical gospel—whether through reliance on works or the veneration of saints—distorts the message of salvation. Evangelicals must be cautious not to adopt Catholic practices that undermine the sufficiency of Christ’s work and the authority of Scripture.

The Papacy’s Influence on Contemporary Evangelical Thought

The Vatican’s influence on modern evangelical thought has been growing, especially in light of ecumenical efforts. The papacy’s role in promoting a unified Christian front on social and moral issues has appealed to some evangelicals who desire a strong alliance against secularism and moral decline. However, this collaboration comes with significant theological compromise, as the papacy’s teachings on salvation, authority, and the role of the church contradict biblical Christianity.

Evangelicals must be aware of the dangers of ecumenical unity with the Catholic Church if it means compromising essential biblical doctrines. While dialogue and cooperation on social issues can be valuable, evangelicalism must not sacrifice doctrinal purity for the sake of unity.

9. The Deception of Ecumenical Unity and Its Biblical Rejection

The Biblical Call for Doctrinal Purity

Throughout Scripture, there is a clear and consistent call for the church to maintain doctrinal purity, especially in the face of false teachings. Passages like 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 2 Peter 2, and Jude 3-4 warn against the influence of false teachers who seek to distort the gospel and lead believers astray.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Paul writes, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared.” This passage serves as a stark warning that false teachings will infiltrate the church, leading many away from the truth. The church must remain vigilant, guarding against the influences of those who would water down the gospel message or introduce foreign ideologies into the body of Christ.

Similarly, in 2 Peter 2:1-2, Peter warns, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.” These verses highlight how false teachers often operate under the guise of truth, leading many astray and causing the gospel to be misrepresented. The warning is clear: the church must be diligent in preserving doctrinal purity.

In Jude 3-4, the apostle Jude urges believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” This is a call to stand firm against those who would distort the truth of the gospel, emphasizing that the gospel message has been entrusted to the church in its purest form and should not be altered or compromised for the sake of unity with false teachings.

The biblical call for doctrinal purity is unequivocal. The church is responsible for holding fast to the truth of the gospel and not allowing the introduction of teachings that deviate from the Word of God. Any ecumenical movement that seeks unity with groups holding to false teachings, even for the sake of social or political causes, is contrary to the commands of Scripture.

Theological Unity and Biblical Truth

True unity within the church can only be achieved through fidelity to Scripture and adherence to sound doctrine. Unity based on shared beliefs in the essentials of the gospel is the foundation of the church’s fellowship. This is evident in passages like Ephesians 4:3-6, which calls believers to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” This unity is rooted in a shared belief in “one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”

However, the unity called for in Scripture is not a call for indiscriminate cooperation with all groups, regardless of their doctrinal position. 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 highlights the danger of being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers or those holding to false doctrines. The passage asserts that believers should separate themselves from those whose teachings conflict with the truth of the gospel. The unity the Bible calls for is not a compromise of doctrinal integrity but a unity that is grounded in biblical truth.

Ecumenism, when it seeks unity at the expense of doctrinal purity, undermines the integrity of the gospel. Christians must remain committed to the truth of Scripture, even if it means standing apart from groups that hold to divergent teachings. True theological unity can only be found in the shared commitment to the foundational truths of the Christian faith—truths that are clearly articulated in Scripture and essential for salvation.

10. The Apostasy of the Last Days

Understanding the Apostasy

The Bible speaks frequently about the apostasy that will characterize the last days, warning believers to be on guard against falling away from the faith. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 says, “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” This “rebellion” or “falling away” is the apostasy that will precede the return of Christ, marked by a rejection of the truth and the rise of false teachings.

In 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Paul warns that “the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” This passage clearly indicates that the apostasy will be characterized by a widespread departure from sound doctrine, with people turning to false teachings and embracing doctrines that deviate from the truth of the gospel. The consequences of this apostasy will be dire, as it will lead people away from salvation and into spiritual ruin.

2 Peter 2 also speaks of the apostasy that will come in the last days, describing false teachers who “secretly bring in destructive heresies” and lead many astray. These false teachers, according to Peter, will exploit the church for their own gain, causing the truth to be blasphemed. This passage serves as a warning to believers to be on guard against those who would introduce false teachings and to remain steadfast in the truth of the gospel.

The apostasy of the last days is not a distant or abstract concept; it is a present reality that can be seen in the growing influence of false teachings within the church today. Progressive evangelicalism, with its emphasis on social justice and the rejection of traditional biblical doctrines, is a form of apostasy that mirrors the warnings found in Scripture. It is a departure from the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints and a deviation from the gospel message that leads to spiritual compromise.

The Church’s Response to Apostasy

In the face of apostasy, the church is called to remain faithful to the gospel and to reject the false teachings that threaten to distort the truth. The Bible calls believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to “hold fast to the word” (1 Corinthians 15:2) in order to protect themselves from the deceptive influence of false teachers.

The church’s response to apostasy must include repentance, a return to biblical faithfulness, and a firm stance against any doctrine that undermines the gospel. Romans 16:17-18 urges believers to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” This is a call to separate from those who promote teachings that lead people away from the truth.

The church must also continue to preach the gospel with clarity and urgency, calling people to repentance and faith in Christ alone for salvation. The mission of the church remains the same: to proclaim the gospel, make disciples, and guard the truth of Scripture against all forms of compromise.

11. Conclusion: The Call to Faithfulness and Biblical Obedience

The Importance of Holding to the Faith

In conclusion, the church today faces significant challenges as it grapples with the rise of progressive evangelicalism, ecumenical movements, and the pressure to conform to cultural norms. However, Scripture is clear: the church must remain faithful to the gospel and to the authority of Scripture. Believers are called to stand firm in the truth, holding fast to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

As the world grows increasingly hostile to biblical truth, the church must remain steadfast in its commitment to the gospel. The message of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone must be proclaimed with clarity and conviction, and the church must reject any teachings that distort or compromise this gospel message.

Standing Firm on Biblical Truth

Standing firm on biblical truth is not always easy, but it is essential for the health of the church and the salvation of souls. As the apostle Paul exhorts in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” The church must continue to preach the word faithfully, even when it is unpopular or culturally inconvenient.

Ultimately, the church’s mission is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and to call people to repentance and faith in Him. As believers, we must stand firm on the authority of Scripture, resist the cultural pressures to compromise, and remain faithful to the message of salvation by grace through faith.

Additional Notes:

• Footnotes and Citations: Throughout this discussion, references to primary sources, theologians, and biblical commentaries can be added to provide a deeper understanding of the issues raised.
• Case Studies: Modern churches and movements that have embraced progressive evangelicalism could be examined, alongside examples of churches that have remained faithful to biblical doctrine and resisted compromise.
• Historical Context: The rise of movements such as the social gospel, the impact of Vatican II, and the influence of early church councils can provide valuable context for understanding the current theological landscape.

 

Miguel Hayworth Updated 18/02/2025

The post The Social Gospel and Seeker Friendly Christians, a Mandate that is Hostile to Christ and the scriptures. appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

The Christian Foundation and the Mission Partnership: Leading Children Astray

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 (AKJV)

“For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the lust of concupiscence.”

As parents who genuinely care about the welfare of our children, choosing the right creche goes beyond convenience. It requires thorough research, including Ofsted reports, user reviews, and ethical considerations. In my case, I turned my attention to Childcare Pathways in Milton Keynes. This creche, located at Foundation House (the headquarters of MK Christian Foundation and Mission Partnership), is an arm of the Christian Foundation. As a parent and a Born-Again Christian, I am deeply concerned and cannot recommend Childcare Pathways.

Sexual Education: A Betrayal of Christian Values

The Bible draws a compelling analogy: a tree with rotten roots cannot bear good fruit. Unfortunately, the root attached to Childcare Pathways is Mission Partnership, and its outreach arm, MK Christian Foundation. Since 2010, I have been raising awareness of MK Christian Foundation’s unbiblical practices, which include hosting weekly sessions with Brook. Brook is a charity that profits from teaching children graphic and inappropriate sexual behaviours, including sodomy, oral-anal pleasure, and how to avoid anal discharges. This ‘Sexual Pleasure Training’ is proudly facilitated by the Christian Foundation under the same roof as the creche.

The Link to Abortion and Infanticide

Brook’s agenda extends beyond undermining God’s moral law; they promote a denial of the truth that God created us male and female (Matthew 19:4). Furthermore, Brook provides children with referrals to abortion services at the nearby Community Foundation, which also happens to be Brook’s landlord.

Abolition Society: Exposing the Ties to Abortion

Since 2010, the Abolition Society has been exposing the unholy alliance between the Christian Foundation, the Community Foundation, and Brook. These organisations are involved in perpetuating the destruction of innocent lives, including facilitating the abortion of over 1,560 babies annually at the Community Foundation’s premises. The financial support for these activities comes from taxpayers, with grants often funding these disturbing initiatives.

Stephen Norrish: Ties to Abortion and Infanticide

Stephen Norrish, Co-Director of MK Christian Foundation, is also a trustee at MK Community Foundation. This dual role makes it difficult to separate the two foundations, both of which are complicit in the destruction of life. In addition, the Christian Foundation has accepted a grant of £4,520 from the Community Foundation, which, in part, funds the very abortion facility where 1,560 babies are killed each year. The Scriptures warn that “thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8).

Hypocrisy and the Betrayal of Christ’s Image

The Christian Foundation has betrayed the sanctity of life, accepting financial support from the very entities that profit from the slaughter of unborn children. Jesus commanded that Christians should be “peculiar people, circumcised in their hearts, set apart for God,” but instead, MK Christian Foundation’s association with Brook has led children astray, teaching them to engage in fornication, adultery, and child murder.

A Call for Repentance

I urge the leaders of the Christian Foundation, the Community Foundation, and Brook to repent of their involvement in these immoral acts. The Bible warns against walking in the vanity of the mind and the darkness of the heart, which leads to immorality and greed (Ephesians 4:17-19). The love of money, which fuels these heinous activities, is indeed the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

Conclusion: A Call for Moral Integrity

Hebrews 13:4 reminds us that “marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” The Christian Foundation’s partnership with abortion providers and its endorsement of morally corrupt teachings, such as Brook’s sexual education, is a betrayal of Christian values. As Christians, we must stand firm against these practices and seek to protect the sanctity of life and the dignity of God’s creation.

The post MK Christian Foundation & the 30 Pieces of Silver behind their Childcare Pathways! appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

End of Year Review 2016: Ever Closer to Rome’s Grand Master Plan

As we draw 2016 to a close, it’s crucial to reflect on the direction in which the evangelical churches are heading. Many have deluded themselves into believing that their efforts are succeeding in converting Catholics to Christ. However, the reality is that these same evangelicals are increasingly integrating themselves into the very systems they once opposed, joining the Roman Catholic Church in its grand rituals, observing its feast days, holy days of obligation, and other long-established Catholic customs and traditions. This is not a minor shift—it signals a far deeper convergence between Protestantism and Rome.

When it comes to religion, tradition often holds more sway than scriptural authority. We see this not only in Catholicism but also in other groups, such as the Black Israelites (also known as the Black Hebrew Israelites), who are no exception to this rule. Their traditions, despite their departure from orthodox Christian doctrine, hold far more power than Scripture itself, leading to practices that elevate tradition over the Gospel.

In 2016, we have witnessed increasing divisions and contentions, particularly over non-essential doctrines such as eschatology. These theological debates, while important, have become so consuming that they have caused many to lose sight of what truly matters. This infighting, particularly within evangelical circles, has led many away from their first love—Christ—and allowed satanic influences to take root within our fellowships. As we bicker and argue over prophecy, we fail to see the broader spiritual battle unfolding around us.

The ongoing debate over the timing of the rapture, for instance, has been weaponized as a distraction, serving to cover up the hypocrisy that pervades many Christian circles. In doing so, we play directly into the hands of Rome, which is inching ever closer to its goal of extinguishing the evangelical church worldwide. Meanwhile, the Jewish people prepare for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem—a sign, perhaps, that time is running out for all. The questions of doctrine and eschatology that divide us should be put into perspective, as there is an urgent need to return to sound biblical teaching, which many have lost sight of over the years.

It is my belief that God will judge the churches for their rebellion. In the end, He will send a spiritual famine, withdrawing His presence from those who have abandoned His truth. The Scriptures tell us that one of the signs of Christ’s return will be the great apostasy—the global departure from the truth of Scripture. As we read in 2 Thessalonians 2, this apostasy is not only about doctrinal error but about a rejection of God’s commandments in favor of human traditions. Many churches today, rather than focusing on the Gospel, are more concerned with redefining what it means to preach it.

Perhaps most troubling is the widespread celebration of Christmas and Easter among evangelical circles. These holidays, despite their Christian veneer, are deeply rooted in Roman Catholic traditions—traditions that many reformers like the Puritans, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Presbyterians once rejected as idolatrous and incompatible with true Christian faith. Yet today, many evangelicals participate in these holidays without considering their pagan and Catholic origins.

Christmas, for example, is not merely about the birth of Christ as many would like to believe. It has its roots in the Catholic Mass, with its focus on the re-birth of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. The same can be said of Easter, which, at its core, revolves around the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Despite their claims to be about Christ, these holidays cannot be separated from the Catholic liturgical practices that undergird them. It’s akin to someone practicing yoga for its physical benefits while completely ignoring its roots in Hindu spirituality. Can one truly separate the practice from its origins?

The Mass, at the heart of both Christmas and Easter, is a ritual that I believe is inherently pagan in nature. It represents a sacrifice that is antithetical to the biblical gospel, yet millions of Catholics continue to participate in it, relying on it for their salvation. Even worse, many evangelical churches have now begun to participate in these practices or accept them, inadvertently endorsing the Roman Catholic view of salvation that undermines the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This sends a troubling message to Catholics, one that distorts the very essence of the Gospel and Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.

In many ways, Christmas has become a symbol of this theological compromise. While it is marketed as a time to celebrate the birth of Christ, the holiday has become a vehicle for perpetuating the false sacrament of the Mass, which teaches that Christ’s flesh and blood are consumed in a ritualistic reenactment of His sacrifice. Evangelicals who engage in these practices, even with the best of intentions, may fail to recognize that the core teachings of Christmas are incompatible with biblical Christianity.

As we read in Mark 7:6-13, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for holding human traditions above the commandments of God. His words ring true today: many churches, in their efforts to keep traditions alive, have forsaken the clear teachings of Scripture. We are not to honor God with our lips while our hearts are far from Him. Yet, this is what many evangelicals are doing when they embrace practices that are rooted in Catholicism and reject the Gospel message in favor of human traditions.

I often find myself in debate with fellow evangelicals who argue that as long as Christmas and Easter are celebrated with a focus on Christ, they are acceptable. However, this logic is flawed. By the same reasoning, one could argue that Mormonism, Islam, or even Neo-Nazism can all be celebrated as long as they mention Christ. Where, then, do we draw the line?

What is most tragic is that billions of Catholics around the world will participate in the Mass, placing their faith not in Christ alone, but in the authority of the Pope. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is found through submission to the Church’s authority rather than through faith in Christ alone. This false doctrine has led countless souls astray, and yet many evangelicals refuse to reach out to Catholics with the truth of the Gospel.

It is important to ask ourselves: why did the Puritans, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Presbyterians reject the celebration of Christmas? These early reformers saw through the superficial layers of tradition and recognized the underlying idolatry that these holidays perpetuated. They understood that true worship of Christ requires a rejection of the traditions of Rome, not an accommodation of them.

In the broader context, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 warns us that before Christ’s return, there will be a great falling away, a widespread rejection of truth. We are witnessing this today, as many churches depart from the faith, embracing worldly practices and doctrines that are contrary to the Word of God. The rise of liberal Christianity, which seeks to reconcile Scripture with modern culture and science, is another sign of this apostasy. The idea that love for humanity should supersede doctrinal truth is a dangerous distortion of the Gospel.

As liberal theologians push for a “tolerant” Christianity, they abandon the authority of Scripture and promote a version of Christianity that is so diluted it bears little resemblance to the faith once delivered to the saints. This is the theology of the postmodern church, a church that values humanistic ideals over the timeless truths of Scripture.

For many, this compromise is so deeply ingrained that they fail to recognize the apostasy that is unfolding before their eyes. They have traded the fear of God for a misguided notion of love—a love that tolerates error and promotes unity at the expense of truth. This is the essence of the social gospel, which prioritizes human relationships over biblical fidelity.

As we look ahead to the future, we must recognize that the time of the Gentiles is nearly over. God is preparing to turn His focus back to Israel, fulfilling His promises to His people and bringing about the salvation of Israel in the last days. As believers, we must be vigilant and prepared for the imminent return of Christ.

We do not need to look far to see the influence of Satan in the world. From the blatant evils of Hollywood to the subtle infiltration of false teachings in the church, the enemy is at work. But the most dangerous manifestation of his influence is in the church itself, where doctrines of demons are masquerading as the truth.

The year 2016 may be remembered as the year when the church was further lulled into complacency, distracted by endless debates over prophecy and eschatology, while the true battle for truth rages on. The false predictions of a global economic collapse and other sensationalist claims have only served to distract us from the real issues at hand. We must remain focused on the Gospel and on the return of our Lord, for time is short and the day of His coming is drawing near.

As we conclude this review, let us not forget the words of Christ in Revelation, where He warns the churches to repent and return to their first love. The days are growing darker, and we must be ready for the coming of the Bridegroom.

An increase of wickedness of the pagan and satanic mystery religions has increased over the years in the UK for example as seen at Beltane Fire Festival as a cultural event, this event is also practiced across europe, warning these videos below are not suitable for children or those who are sensitive.

As spiritual darkness sweeps in like a flood, those who are faithful must raise a standard against it.

Some of these pagan practices have become mainstream in the evangelical church, such as the labyrinths used at Beltane. The UK as a whole has entered an increasing state of rebellion against God, and the flaunting of sin, demonstrated in our streets across the UK, has erupted into violence—not just in the UK but around the world. This confirms the truth of Scripture, as stated in Matthew 24:37–39: “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

In the book of Genesis, it says that the people in Noah’s day were excessively violent (Genesis 6:13). In my lifetime, I have seen violence steadily increase. Though it was always present in the background, in recent years, the scale of violence has become blatant. From the butchery and genocide committed in the name of Islam to ordinary people committing acts of brutality and murder, we have also witnessed a rise in drunkenness in city streets. This issue continues unabated.

In my end-of-year report, I do not feel we are in a position to celebrate or be joyful; rather, the churches should be in a state of repentance and lamentation. What we find, however, is the opposite. Churches are inviting the goats of the world into their congregations, failing to recognise that Scripture is clear: we should not be in fellowship with unbelievers. As believers, instead of inviting the unsaved to our meetings, we should be taking the gospel to them. This is another sign that the churches are apostate, spiritual tombs, desolate and morally sold out to the world. In just two years, churches have not only accepted occult, Gnostic, mystical, and pagan practices, but they are now also encouraging and justifying same-sex marriage. The churches are spiralling rapidly into complete corruption, decadent and in a state of sin. They have committed gross harlotry by sleeping with the enemies of the cross.

Churches are displaying Catholic images to the extent that they are in fellowship with the Church of Rome. The Vatican buildings, full of pagan and satanic symbols, have been mixed with religion. Even Prince Charles stated in his recent Christmas message, “Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same: to value and respect the other person; accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God.” (Source: The Daily Telegraph)

[Link to source]

Prince Charles is openly consulting with Jesuits, Islamic leaders, the Pope, and other religious leaders to spread his message that peace can only be achieved if all religions come together. He seems to believe that the God of the Bible is the same as the gods of other religions and that all paths lead to the same destination. However, the Bible does not acknowledge any respect for other religions. According to 1 John 2:22, Prince Charles would be categorised as a liar, for he does not believe that Jesus is the only Saviour and the sole way to heaven. His actions deny and reject Christ’s scriptural authority.

The Bible teaches that there is only one way to salvation, through Jesus Christ, not through other religions (Acts 4:12).

In the UK, there is a lack of people who will stand up and contend for the faith. Very few actually engage in witnessing, and many Christians attending meetings are so caught up with everyday concerns that witnessing is at the bottom of their priorities. Many sit in conferences and meetings, growing fat on knowledge, while many on the city streets are dying. These rough sleepers often have time to listen to the gospel. Roman Catholics, who attend Mass every Friday, are in bondage to their religion, lacking assurance of salvation. In my experience of witnessing to Catholics outside their churches, many are open to sharing and discussing their faith, providing an opportunity to show them the errors of Roman Catholicism and lead them to the truth of Christ, with the hope of winning them out of the RCC.

2016 was a year in which even the Jehovah’s Witnesses put many churches to shame, as they were out every day in cities and town centres, faithfully witnessing for Jehovah’s organisation (the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society). The Mormons were equally dedicated in this regard. Evangelicals have been duped into thinking Mormons are saved, unaware that Mormons are polytheists.

The few groups who do proselytise are not focused on the gospel. They demonstrate their rejection of Romans 1:16 and Mark 16:15.

The Bible teaches that, in the end times, the flock will be scattered because of false pastors. The Church has been warned about God’s judgments upon believers, which are necessary to purify the body of Christ. Could it be that in the coming year this might unfold? Only God knows. We must be prepared to stand firm and trust in Him amidst the storms of life as we endure.

When our time of testing arrives, we must earnestly seek to remain faithful. I am not referring to being ready for the great tribulation, as tribulation already exists in the world. Many have lost their lives for their faith in the past 25 years. In the face of trials and despair, we are encouraged to do one thing: “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

We can have confidence knowing that Christ has conquered death and sin: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 15:55-57)

Miguel Hayworth

Stranger things can happen

The strange and treacherous world of politics and religion

As we look forward to a new year, 2017, we also look back to it being 16 years after Y2K, one of the greatest examples of “fake news.” Or the Fake news that our own government took down the twin towers in NY instead of Islamic terrorists. It is 15 years after 911 and the predictions of doom have not stopped. Many are fearful of the world we now live in, some are justified and some are not.

Clearly the world is at a dangerous place at the moment, numerous unstable leaders and dictators threaten the freedom of others, some things stay the same and some things change (Venezuela, Cuba). At the top of our concerns is a religion that says they are for peace have leaders threaten and kill others. Iran continues to threaten Israel and the West. Especially now that we have a new president who will not give them billions of dollars and continue to endorse a façade of a peace treaty. Education centers have brought mass confusion taking the youth captive by ideologies and philosophies that are contrary to America’s traditions and freedom and what is actually true. Our education process has become politicized. Our education systems have become populated with rebels against America and her traditions (religious and freedom).

Teachers are authoritarian figures to our children, but they are rarely questioned as being wrong. Parents are questioned more than they are. We must take the time to educate our children to reverse what they hear at school even if it is 15 minutes a day around the dinner table (apparently another outdated tradition)

But fear is not to be the reaction of any Christian, we instead have been given power, love and a sound mind. Sound minds are not what we see in abundance today, insanity has become the new norm. If only people’s noses grew like Pinocchio’s when they lie, we could see the truth immediately. Still, some would blame it on a disorder or purposely ignore their lying. Because they already live by lies and feast on them. The collective population lives by lies from the news on politics and religion[s].

Strange things happen when you purposely blind yourself to the truth. When truth is not the center of one’s life and being, logic and reality is pushed to the wayside. To see this we only have to look at our education, schools and universities that teach rebellion more than learning.

Flowers were symbolic of the new revolutionary movement in America in the 60’s, This longing to bring a communal utopia is still alive. Songs like when you come to San Francisco wear a flower in your hair has endured. This goal has not died, in fact, many of these people became Aquarian conspirators and joined our universities or became eco warriors, many want a global government. They joined the system to have it implode from within (like Alinsky taught) … And they nearly got their way.

The dominating news over the last several months and even now is the election. Our newsletter states we cover events that affect us, this includes outside faith and religion.

The debates in the United States are over, the people have spoken by voting. Even from space, U.S. astronaut Shane Kimbrough, a member of the main crew to the International Space Station (ISS) filed his ballot from the International Space Station. That’s a first.

In a reaction to a nearly everything the new progressives artificially imposed on America, the people responded. Of course the news media and many involved cannot understand how this reversal happened. Over 70% of the country did not like the direction we were going in but they could not hear them in their bubble. It was always there, it just did not have the ability for action until this November

We used to put our shoe on the left foot first, now it will be the right foot first. Nevertheless, there is far too much anger and resentment mostly from emotional infants reacting; who did not get their way. They are more than distraught; they are apoplectic! Life has crashed in on some of these students who thought their liberal global social citizenry would be realized.

This paradigm shift is called an election. One side wins the other side loses. I know this competition is not conducive to the schools these days, where everyone gets a trophy for showing up and trying, but this is the way it is in real life. Not everything goes the way we want in life.

For several years we have been watching a severing of the country from its constitution. The same has been happening in the church – we are being severed from the Bible. We have the liberal progressives ruling in government and the same attitude is in the church. You can identify them, as they teach Christianity without the Bible. Jesus said we are sanctified by the word, without it we join the world and get conformed to its ways, trapped and useless.

Jesus speaks to the Ephesian church about returning to their first love, that his presence would be among them collectively (not as individuals).The church has already been half muzzled by silencing our speech where one cannot exercise judgment on false teaching from inside the church. Those who do are banned, removed. Jesus also spoke to individuals in the Laodicean church because the Church itself would not let him in. Watch out for those that want to silence the voices that discern and pursue the truth, we have a right to defend the Scripture and protect our brothers and sisters from lies.

What will become of us when we have very few teachers of the word that are willing to stand up for the word and resist the tide of unbiblical change[s] that has come to our doors?

We have some lessons to learn from what just happened in America, for it is unprecedented. Lets grasp this teachable moment. Can the church do the same reversal that happened in politics?

I don’t think many of us realize how far gone the church is with the prophetic movements influence, the kingdomizers, the “everyone is like Jesus movement” (heal and do miracles), or the word faith speak and receive that has made itself welcome in so many churches. Or the most hideous of all, interfaith (Emergent), synthesizing what is foreign to Christ’s teachings and practices.

Like mystics and Gnostics, so many are taught by experience, while the Scripture tells us to learn by doctrine. Live out what we learn through the Holy Spirit to see God change other lives by the GOSPEL and discipleship. Remember Jesus’ words before He left (Mt.28), teach, disciple, baptize.

To enforce a Christian government on people by apostles and prophets makes them politicians not servants, the government is upon Jesus’ shoulders not the church. Dominionists want authority to rule, because of their post millennial view that have made a huge error- that they will put things in order and hand everything over to Jesus when He comes. The Bible says no such thing.

The big no no’s

Two things you do not openly talk about; politics and religion – especially at thanksgiving. At risk of igniting more controversy, let’s talk about both. Politics affects everyone’s daily life, Religion (faith) affects only a few. You can be wrong in politics but you can’t be wrong in religion (faith), it can cost you your soul.

Americas dedication in faith has waned and been replaced by politics, “in the party we trust.” Especially on the Democrat side, who are the least religious of both parties, attracts the communists, Marxists and Leninists whom all oppose God.

The world is controlled by politics through various governments. The church, individuals are supposed to be controlled by God, Jesus Christ through under shepherds, the pastors who are to care for the sheep. In our day there’s a political machine and there is a religious machine. There are those in politics who genuinely want to make life better for people and those who enslave them by the system. It is the same in the church, and we were warned by Jesus about those who make disciples after themselves, who will use and abuse you.

The day the Pope grieved.

Having a title or a position does not make one a leader, it may in politics but not in the true faith. I have seen enough pastors fail in their duties in small churches. Pope Francis who apparently is the sole representative of Christ on earth according to his church (not God’s) who was voted in as an apostolic successor, said the death of Cuba’s revolutionary leader Fidel Castro was “sad news” and that he was grieving and praying for his repos. Castro who was baptized a Roman Catholic and was educated by the same Jesuit order Francis belongs to. Castro was a devout atheist and his regime seized property, nationalized homes and businesses declaring Cuba an atheist/communist state when he rose to power in 1959.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/26/pope-francis-grieves-over-the-death-ofexcommunicated-atheist-dictator-fidel-castro/#ixzz4T80GrF8Z

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pope-Vatican-Fidel-Castro-Cuba/2016/11/26/id/760712/ https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/30/semper-fidel-2/

Castro, a communist dictator who hated Christ kept people from worship of the true God dies and this so called representative of Jesus calls him a deceased dignitary, offering prayers to the Lord for his rest calling on the maternal intercession of our Lady of the Charity of El Cobre, patroness of that country.

The media remorsed along with the Pope calling Castro an aging grandfather, they maximized their comments to make him into a hero. The fact is he was a modern day dictator and oppressor of his people. And the church should not forgot, Benny Hinn prophesied his death for the year 2000. 16 years later Hinn is proven wrong as time is the enemy of all false prophets.

Both religion and politics can tear a nation apart or bring it together

The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes” (Dan. 4:17). Politics is one of many ways God can use to accomplish His will. Evil men can abuse their political power, just like a pastor or leader can abuse his position; and they will all answer for it. Many of the pastors have also, in fact many Pastors act more like politicians or CEO’s than shepherds. Wake up church, they have left their post and calling, or were never called in the first place. It’s not always that hard to tell between a shepherd and a hireling. One cares, they protect and feed the sheep. To their pastors shame so many go to church to get fed, only to go home hungry. We are in a time of spiritual starvation.

In America we are a republic. It is the peoples will and if people want evil or corruption they can choose it, God can allow it, or by his mercy He can intervene.

The United States of America is a Republic

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of allegiance to the Flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Colonel George Balch in 1887,[3][4][5] later revised by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.[6] The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954 when the words “under God” were added.[7]

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” first version 1892. With various adjustments we now have the 1954 version “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

What makes this so important is the capturing of a sense of united patriotism for a country that acknowledges God and is a Republic, not a democracy (nor are we a theocracy). Putting ones hand over the heart and repeating this is NOT like the Nazis who put their hands upward toward the fuhrer, or the Romans who hailed Caesar. For children, citizens, those who serve it is to be a reminder of who we are, who we are supposed to be. Some want both republic and God to be removed. Today, those who dislike anything we do burn the flag which is a symbol of Americas freedom and ways.

Maybe the church needs to take the Scripture just as seriously to confess Christ, though we are not a nation, but his body, we could use some reminders of who we are and what we are supposed to be. Good or bad, this was basically the creeds intention in the early church. To have the church know and adhere to our doctrinal distinctive for spiritual unity

As a theocracy Israel had the Sh’ma, Deut.6:4, only they were a nation God controlled. And we will have no perfect government until Jesus our Messiah returns, so we can do the best with what we have.

The difference between Republic and a theocracy is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the laws set up by men. A Theocracy lives under the Law of God. Though we say “One nation under God” we allow pluralism of religions and it is only a cliché for most people today. America has elements of a democracy in our Republic. But we are not a democracy but a representative Republic, giving the states sovereignty.

A looming Crises?

The forming of the electoral college. Since there are more populated states, Small states were worried that states with large populations would have more sway. This is why there must be electorals to be fair, otherwise one can campaign in 4-6 states to win and the rest of the country has no voice.

The Electoral College is how we officially determine who our president is. We are a union of 50 states, called the United States of America. By early morning Nov.9 2016 the total Electoral votes number were 306 for Trump, Clinton 232, according to The Wall Street Journal. Both candidates had the goal (and agreed) to win the electoral votes of each state, 270 electoral votes to win. Winning the popular votes per state are the only popular votes that count, which are the electoral’s under our constitutional system. Only those who win the electoral college serve as president. You don’t change the rules after the fact. Trump received 60 percent of all states. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president.

What we have just witnessed is as close to miracle that most will ever see. All the naysayers of the news said he had no way to win; they gave enough false reports to make sure of this. But he found an alternate way. This was a total uphill climb for the Republican (no matter who it was) since it was already stacked with assurances for the democrats. Hillary basically got the states that always vote democratic, except for a few upsets.

The left has become so discombobulated, they fear America may return to its traditional values of yesteryear before globalism was introduced. Or Biblical values that please God instead of sinful man.

First came the effort to do a recount by those in disbelief, and it came up empty. Why are they not also checking the votes in states where Hillary win was close? Maybe trump has votes to gain there as well?

Now we have one Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. One Republican has joined with 79 Democratic electors in calling for an intelligence briefing.

Let’s be clear, no one broke into any voting machine to alter our vote counting, the DNC (and Hillary’s server) were hacked months before and according to wiki leaks it was not the Russians. And furthermore no email has been rejected as false.

An email leaked between Clinton and Podesta indicated that: “Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” to accuse Qatar and Saudi Arabia of “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical Sunni groups in the region. What we find is that Hillary received a tremendous amount of funds from these same states, Saudi Arabia $10 million to $25 million; United Arab Emirates $1 milllion to $5 million; Qatar $1 million to 5 million, along with numerous other Arab states contributions. Many would consider this collusion at the highest level.

This effort to stall is spearheaded by California Democratic elector Christine Pelosi — daughter of reelected House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It was rebuffed Friday (dec.16) by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. This is politics in raw corrupted form. By Monday we will know where we stand as the electorals gather to vote

What we have now is a demoralizing of our country to have people have no confidence in his administration as well as foreign governments. “The Left” do not want to accept anyone who will run things that thinks differently than they do, especially Hollywood elites. Several main things are involved, global warming and Israel.

If this was reversed what do you think Hillary would say? Even with the recounts the electoral amounts stay the same (so far Trump has gained more from the recount). It’s time for everyone to accept this election as they have done before and hope that this change of policy turns out well for everyone.

As far as influencing an election, what of the current Administration we have going to Israel to influence their election on our dollars and trying to Stop Netanyahu from being elected. I don’t think they have anything to say to whomever hacked them when they tried to influence Israel’s election. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-israel-election-benjamin-netanyahu/2016/07/12/id/738318/

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

This has given us a reprieve from the leftist amoral policies that have been implemented for years that has taken us away from our founding of this nation. There is no one side that is pure these days, both have been corrupted but now we have a chance to deal with it.

Can the church do the same? We need a reprieve from the onslaught of false teachings

It would be good and beneficial to do a reset and go back to what we had before all the word faith prophets and apostle wanna be’s came along. Peter Wagner, Kim Clement are gone from the earth. No longer able to convince people of their teachings, prophecies and revivals. William Branham was just as convinced as he passed his enthusiasm to others, convincing them the angel of the Lord stood next to him doing the miracles. Even producing a fractured picture of a light to prove it. So began the Latter Rain movement that these men and so many others accepted.

The prophets called people to turn from sin to God, to repent. Back to the word of God from the prophets words. Today the prophets” shmooze, they speak good things, peace, prosperity, no wonder the people love them and do not notice they have taken them away from God and His word by their words, their ears are inflamed.

We have seen many people wake up about politics, can the church wake up to the faith delivered to us all or will we slip into a coma?

When one is in a cult or has a cult mentality they refuse to see the facts, they make their own way to their own conclusion. They reject the facts from the Scripture no matter how softly or strong you present it to them. This attitude can also be outside faith where reason and logic are to be the common of life.

Those who have faith understand the world and its condition. It can only make sense when one has an eternal perspective. Those without God try to make sense of the world but can’t. They can become angry, bitter at the world, the way it is and want control. Some want to create a utopia that befits their imagination. So politics, the party becomes their religion and God, it is called an ideology.

The unbeliever’s, can’t explain why the world is the way it is, its condition can only be understood by the bible which says it is fallen, corrupted. The world is in a fallen state, it is not conducive to peace and harmony, you must work at it to maintain it. Everything must be maintained or it falls apart. That includes government and the church.

There thinking process is deficient and can never come to the conclusion that conforms to reality. This does not mean they are all evil (though some are) but that their minds are darkened from sin and they need light. It is only when one refuses the light over and over again that they become evil.

The believer in Christ sees the world in a very different manner than those who do not believe. Their decision making is not the same and they understand morality becomes more minimized when sin is practiced. This is because we are made in Gods image, a moral likeness. Morality has memory, it comes by training (just as sin does). The Bible standards we practice produce ethics and are intrinsic to a godly life.

No matter who is our president as believers we will have to deal with the same corruption spreading to mankind. The Bible says this will increase in the end, yet we hold the answer.

2 Tim 3:12-14 “And all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them”

As we begin a new year may we all have a renewed sense of service from the Lord being present with us in our relationships and work as we co-laborers with Him to those who are saved and the unsaved under all governments and spiritual belief’s.

The apostles of our Lord did not have it easy, but they are our examples (1 Cor. 4:11-13), but we can rejoice with them,

“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Cor. 15:57-58)

May you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Mike Oppenheimer

The post End of Year review 2016 appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Oct 16 2016 13:14:20 Contact form data approved freeman
[email protected]   66.227.174.121

The hypocrisy is amazing with you people. You arent Christians and you wont find Heaven in the after life. Hell awaits you cowards. Christ will not be pleased with how you shun his other followers yet invite those who seek to kill his followers with Open Arms. You are Lier’s and whores.

Exposing the Hypocrisy in False Accusations: A Biblical Response to Email Allegations

Introduction: A Clarification of the Gospel Message and Response to Misguided Accusations

The email I received on October 16, 2016, from freeman with the email address [email protected] was both a disturbing and misguided attack, laced with accusations that lack both scriptural foundation and understanding of the true essence of the Christian faith. This response is not merely an attempt to defend myself but to defend the very Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is at stake when false claims are made against those who uphold its truth.

The message of the Gospel is not one of condemnation but of reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Paul writes, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” The Gospel calls us to reconciliation—not just with God but with one another, in unity and truth. The email’s tone and content are in stark contrast to this, and thus, it is crucial to address the unfounded accusations with the robust theological truths that guide our faith.

I. The Inflammatory Language and Its Impact: Exposing the Self-Righteousness of the Accuser

The sender of the email uses insults—”cowards,” “liars,” and “whores”—in an attempt to demonize and dehumanize. This language is not only a violation of the command to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:39), but it also reveals the sender’s own self-righteousness and failure to understand the gravity of sin. Jesus warned against such behavior in the Sermon on the Mount, saying, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:22).

The kind of vitriol expressed in the email reflects a misunderstanding of the gospel’s call to humility and grace. In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee, full of self-righteousness, thanks God that he is not like the tax collector, who stands far off and beats his chest. But Jesus declares that the tax collector, recognizing his own unworthiness and sin, goes home justified, not the Pharisee. This parable demonstrates that the pride and arrogance exhibited in the email sender’s language have no place in the kingdom of God.

Furthermore, in James 1:19-20, we are instructed to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger,” for “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” In contrast, the sender’s email is filled with a fiery anger that seeks to stir up division, not righteousness. Such communication is rooted in a desire to elevate oneself and tear down others, rather than fostering love, understanding, and dialogue.

In the context of Christian witness, we are told to speak “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). But the sender’s words are void of love; they are designed solely to incite anger and shame. As Christians, we are called to love even our enemies, not treat them with contempt. The email reflects the opposite of this—the spirit of judgment without grace. Such behavior only damages the credibility of one’s faith and misrepresents the heart of the Gospel.

II. The False Claim: “You Aren’t Christians”

One of the gravest errors in this email is the accusation that those receiving the message “aren’t Christians.” The audacity of such a claim is not only theologically misguided but also an affront to the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. The sender presumes to know the state of others’ hearts, which is a presumption rooted in arrogance. Only God can judge the true condition of someone’s heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Throughout Scripture, we see that salvation is not dependent on doctrinal precision in every minute detail, but on faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Paul writes in Romans 10:9-10, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The core of Christian salvation is centered on this confession and belief, not on how we align with every secondary issue of doctrine.

Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul speaks of the unity of the body of Christ, stating, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here, Paul emphasizes that the unity of Christians transcends cultural, social, and even doctrinal differences. The body of Christ is made up of diverse individuals, but all are united in one faith: the faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For the sender to accuse another of not being a Christian based on secondary doctrinal disagreements is to misunderstand the very nature of the body of Christ. Christian unity is not about agreement on every issue but about a shared commitment to Christ and His work on the cross. To dismiss others as non-Christians over differences in practice or belief is to engage in the same divisiveness that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, where he implores the church to avoid division over petty disputes.

Moreover, the assertion that certain followers of Christ “aren’t Christians” has echoes of the heresy of the Judaizers in the early Church, who insisted that Gentile converts must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be truly saved (Acts 15). Paul condemned this view as a distortion of the Gospel (Galatians 5:2-6). The heart of Christianity is not legalistic adherence to a set of external rules but a heart that is transformed by faith in Christ (Romans 3:28).

III. The False Doctrine of “Hell Awaits You”

The accusation that “Hell awaits you” is a dangerous and unbiblical approach to theological discourse. While it is true that Hell is a real and terrible reality for those who reject Christ (Revelation 20:15), the sender’s use of this as a weapon to threaten others is not reflective of the Gospel’s message of grace, mercy, and redemption.

Scripture teaches that God does not desire anyone to perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The Gospel message is one of hope, not fear, as John 3:16 reminds us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Hell is a consequence of rejecting God’s offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, but it is never the starting point of the Gospel message. The message of the cross is not that people are doomed to Hell, but that they have been given a way to be reconciled to God through Christ.

Moreover, the spirit of the sender’s message seems to reflect a type of judgmentalism that is contrary to the spirit of Christ. In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus warns against hypocritical judgment, saying, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” The sender’s attempt to use Hell as a means of condemning others is not only unbiblical but also self-righteous.

Christians are not called to serve as the final arbiters of who will or will not be saved. Jesus, the righteous judge, alone has the authority to judge the eternal fate of individuals (John 5:22). Our task is not to pronounce condemnation but to proclaim the good news of salvation to all people, offering the hope of Christ to a world in desperate need.

IV. The False Claim of “Shunning Other Followers of Christ”

The claim that we “shun other followers of Christ” is built on a misunderstanding of what it means to practice biblical fellowship. Fellowship in the body of Christ is not about blind acceptance of all ideologies or teachings. The Bible makes it clear that we are called to be discerning in whom we associate with, especially in matters of doctrine.

In 2 John 1:10-11, the apostle John writes, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” This is not a rejection of all Christians who differ in minor ways but a recognition that certain teachings threaten the purity of the Gospel and must be avoided. It is essential to protect the truth of the Gospel from distortion.

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul instructs the church to avoid associating with those who claim to be Christians but live in unrepentant sin. This does not mean shunning all believers with whom we disagree, but it does mean drawing lines when the Gospel itself is at stake. The idea of “shunning” is not about personal animosity but about maintaining the integrity of the Gospel message.

The accusation of “shunning” also overlooks the many ways in which the Church is called to engage with and minister to people from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and practices. We are called to do the work of an evangelist and make disciples, not to build walls of division. But when these walls are necessary to preserve the truth of the Gospel, we must be willing to stand firm (Ephesians 4:14-15).

V. The Heart of the Problem: A Lack of Biblical Understanding and Grace

At the heart of the email is a profound lack of understanding of the Gospel and the grace that it offers. The sender’s approach is based on works, self-righteousness, and fear, rather than on grace, faith, and love. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul reminds us that “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Grace is the foundation of Christian life, and it is only by grace that we can stand before God. This grace compels us to love and extend mercy to others, not to condemn them. The email’s harsh words betray the sender’s misunderstanding of both the Gospel and the attitude of Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, did not come to condemn but to save (John 3:17). We are called to follow His example and extend grace, mercy, and forgiveness to all who seek Him.

VI. Conclusion: A Call to Repentance and Grace

In conclusion, the email received reflects a spirit of division, pride, and judgment, which stands in stark contrast to the Gospel of grace. As Christians, we are called to speak the truth in love, to correct with gentleness, and to engage with others in humility. The accusations leveled against us are not only baseless but also dangerous, as they misrepresent the very message of the Gospel.

Rather than responding in kind with anger or resentment, we should pray for the sender and others who harbor such divisive attitudes. We must stand firm in the truth, speak the truth in love, and never allow such hostility to deter us from fulfilling our mission as ambassadors of Christ.

Let us remember the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 12:21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” May we be a testimony to the grace and truth of Jesus Christ, and may our lives reflect the love that He has shown us.

It is a common tactic for individuals who are threatened by the truth to respond with anger and venom. The email I received, with its false accusations and vitriol, is a classic example of how some will lash out when their own positions are challenged. What this individual fails to understand is that their harsh words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel and biblical doctrine. It is not the messengers who are in error but those who resist the truth.

This individual, in their anger, accuses others of hypocrisy, claiming that those who follow Christ are not true Christians. They even go so far as to declare that such individuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. But let us turn to the Word of God to expose the emptiness of these accusations.

The False Accusation of Hypocrisy

In their email, the individual begins by accusing others of hypocrisy. However, the Bible is clear that hypocrisy is a matter of the heart, and it is those who claim to uphold God’s Word but do not live according to its precepts who fall into this category. Christ reserved some of His harshest words for the Pharisees, who outwardly appeared righteous but inwardly were full of sin. He called them “whited sepulchres”—beautiful on the outside but filled with dead men’s bones (Matthew 23:27). Hypocrisy, in the biblical sense, is not simply about failing to live perfectly but about pretending to be what one is not, especially in matters of faith.

The person who sent the email accuses others of hypocrisy without recognising their own lack of understanding of the true gospel. Christ does not call us to live in perfect sinlessness but to repent and follow Him with sincerity. The very accusations made in the email reveal the person’s failure to grasp the concept of grace and repentance. They erroneously believe that their judgmental spirit somehow qualifies them to cast stones at others. But Jesus warned us against such attitudes, urging us to first remove the plank from our own eye before addressing the speck in someone else’s (Matthew 7:5).

The Accusation of Not Being Christians

This email also makes the erroneous claim that those who oppose false teaching are not Christians. The person appears to equate their narrow understanding of Christianity with the only true faith, which is a dangerous fallacy. The idea that someone can lose their salvation or that they are not truly Christian because they expose error is both unbiblical and divisive.

The Apostle John makes it clear that true Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and live according to His teachings (1 John 2:3-6). To declare that someone is not a Christian because they defend the truth and expose error is to misunderstand the nature of salvation. Salvation is not based on adherence to a particular set of human-made standards or doctrines but on faith in the finished work of Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Furthermore, the individual in question accuses others of “shunning” true followers of Christ while allegedly “inviting those who seek to kill His followers with open arms.” This is an extreme and unfounded accusation, one that reflects more the person’s own anger than any objective reality. The Christian faith teaches love for all, even those who may oppose or persecute believers (Matthew 5:44). Christ Himself showed love to those who opposed Him, even to the point of laying down His life for them (Romans 5:8). It is not for us to take up arms against those who disagree but to offer the gospel with truth and love, while being prepared to suffer for the sake of Christ.

Defining True Biblical Love

It is also important to address the false claim that those who oppose false teachers are somehow unloving or deceitful. True biblical love is not about passively accepting all ideologies and teachings in the name of unity. Love, as defined by Scripture, is not blind acceptance of falsehood but a commitment to truth and righteousness.

The Apostle Paul writes that love rejoices not in iniquity but in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). The idea that love means accepting everything without discernment is a distortion of the biblical concept of love. In fact, the Bible teaches that we should oppose false teachings and stand firm for the truth (Jude 3, 2 Timothy 4:2-4). This does not mean that we do so with hatred or malice, but with a desire for the salvation and growth of those deceived by error.

True love seeks the good of others, even if that means speaking hard truths. As the Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 4:16, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” The fact that the sender of this email accuses those who speak against false teachers of being liars and whores reflects their inability to understand the biblical call to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

The Dangerous Path of False Teachers

One of the most troubling aspects of this email is the accusation that exposing false teachers is somehow wrong. In the New Testament, we are repeatedly warned against false teachers and prophets. Jesus Himself warned that false prophets would arise, even performing signs and wonders to deceive many (Matthew 24:24). The Apostle Paul likewise cautioned the early church about the dangers of false teachers, calling them “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Acts 20:29). These individuals are not neutral parties—they are actively seeking to lead others astray and away from the truth of the gospel.

The individual who sent this email seems to disregard the biblical call to expose and reject such falsehoods. Instead, they prefer a false unity that tolerates heresy and error. True Christians are called to discern and reject teachings that do not align with the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not a matter of division for division’s sake but a matter of protecting the integrity of the faith and the souls of those who might be led astray.

In the end, the accusations in this email are not based on any biblical understanding but on a personal vendetta against those who take the word of God seriously. The individual who sent it clearly does not understand the role of the believer in standing firm against error, nor do they grasp the grace and mercy extended to all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: A Call to Stand for the Truth

The accusations made in this email are nothing more than a distraction from the real issues at hand. They seek to divert attention away from the truth of God’s Word and the importance of standing firm in the faith. We are living in a time where false teachings are rampant, and it is the duty of every believer to defend the truth of Scripture. To ignore this responsibility is to abandon the very foundation of our faith.

As we engage in spiritual warfare, we must remember that it is not our strength that prevails but the power of the gospel. We are called to stand firm in the faith, not in our own righteousness but in the righteousness of Christ, which is the only hope we have for salvation.

To the individual who sent the email: you are invited, not to a battle of words, but to a deeper understanding of the gospel. We pray that you would lay aside your anger and bitterness and come to the truth that is found only in Jesus Christ. It is not too late to repent and seek His forgiveness. Only then can you experience the peace that comes from living in the truth.

The post The Hypocrisy of those who oppose you. appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.