Sunday, August 31, 2014

Video — "Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time"

This is a frustrating video. No, not for me, I think Dr. G. Thomas Sharp has some extremely important things to say that Christians need to heed; it is one of the best "relevance talks" on Genesis that I have ever heard. What is frustrating is that too many Christians want to be mediocre and have nice fuzzy warm feelings with their unbiblical wimpy Jesus picture on their dressers. For people who have the courage to watch this video, they will learn several things: Genesis is foundational to the gospel, Christians have compromised and consider the Bible itself to be insignificant, there is no regard for the authority of Scripture, the battle of origins has never been about science but has always been religious in nature, and more.

I implore you to spend the forty-eight minutes and give serious consideration to what Dr. Sharp says. My guess is that people who do get something out of this talk will not only want to hear it again, but will want to share it. EDIT: The original video has gone away, but I found another with subtitles in Finnish.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Bad Pairings and Sharing the Gospel

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s sanctuary have with idols? For we are the sanctuary of the living God, as God said:
I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord; do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty.
2 Cor. 6.14-18, HCSB
1 Cor. 6.14 KJV is often used as a warning by Christian parents to their dating-age children. "Unequally yoked" yields quite a few illustrations, especially for people who are familiar with working the land (Deut. 22.10). The version at the top says "mismatched", another version says, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers". Most translations that I have found use "yoked". The caution against dating an unbeliever is very important because the idea of "missionary dating" is a violation of this admonition, and many Christians who married unbelievers have had serious long-term regrets, even to the point of living like unbelievers themselves.

Wikimedia Commons / Bullock yokes / Cgoodwin
However, this passage is not only about marriage. It is about how Christians should be relating to unbelievers in general, and how closely involved we should become. We are not of this world (John 15.19-20, John 17.14), but that does not mean we have to isolate ourselves from unbelievers; I cannot insist that the utility companies are run by Bible-believing Christians, for example. Christians are to be careful with their associations with unbelievers, especially if we may be indicating that we condone their practices. You can do some research on this passage (John Gill's exposition should prove helpful as a starting point), but I need to apply the "mismatched" principle in a bit of a different direction.

Should Christians work with unbelievers toward a common goal? There are many views on this, since it can be a gray area. I believe the main concern is if the common goal is spiritual in nature. Please note that this is not about doctrinal differences regarding nonessentials. I do not even know the views of other Admins at The Question Evolution Project regarding the continuation or cessation of the sign gifts of the Spirit, baptism by sprinkling or immersion, Calvinist or Arminian (I know of one Calvinist, and he does not harass me for not choosing either Calvinism or Arminianism), and so on. Also, I do not think any Admins espouse the baptismal regeneration heresy, which adds a ceremony to grace through faith (I actually pulled several articles from an apologetics group because they had a cultic mentality on this subject). Working toward a common goal of refuting evolution and upholding the authority of Scripture is our most important goal at TQEP.

A bit of a side note, we have "Likes" and commenters who have views that are quite a bit different than mine. Should I run them off? Of course not (unless they blaspheme, mock and so forth).

The following example is supposed to be true. I cannot document what I was told about it, but the illustration applies. Imagine an organization that is set up to show the truth about atheism, that it is an intellectually bankrupt worldview, and how atheist organizations are detrimental to religious freedoms. Sounds good so far. But what if the atheism-refuting organization is populated by liberal Christians, a Moslem and agnostics? They give information that touches on biblical things as well as logical and philosophical refutations of atheism. Personally, I think I would be supporting an organization that promotes views that are unbiblical. Would you support them?

Here is another. A biblical creationist who has a high view of Scripture shares apologetics information from a site that may be good for individual articles, but the organization itself supports the magisterial view of science (that is, giving science supreme authority, and interpreting Scripture according to current science beliefs). In a similar circumstance, biblical "apologists" share material by arch-compromiser Hugh Ross, who actively ridicules creation science, or William Lane Craig, who also ridicules creationists and holds to the dubious theology of Molinism. Should a biblical creationist share such materials from people who are opposed to their views and have a lower regard for Scripture?

A third possibility is when a supposedly biblical creationist Page on Facebook shares information from doubtful sources (such as Moslems, old earthers or Jehovah's Witnesses). When this is pointed out, the response is, "Yes, but they gave a good refutation of evolution". Should they be doing this?

There are sites run by people who claim to be Christian, yet spend their time attacking biblical creationists. Atheists spend their time making comments on those sites, and the supposed Christian agrees with the way the atheists attack the Bible believers. Further, one site owner goes to atheist Pages on Facebook and further denigrates biblical creationists. Would you have doubts that this guy is even a Christian?

For a final example, after I exposed a cult posing as a creationist Page, then another creationist Page came to their defense to attack both me and The Question Evolution Project. That Page has several Admins, but they were united in attacking us (so much for John 13.35). "We are just defending our buds page who is getting ruthlessly attacked for a stupid reason. Secondly, i have nothing to do with this as not all the admins of EFT are involved in this", whoever "i" happens to be (apparently not bothering to read the articles exposing the cultist and legalistic views). Their response is based on emotion, not on a rational defense or support of scriptural principles. Should a biblical creationist Admin continue with a Page that not only supports a cultist, but attacks people who honor Scripture?

This comes down to discernment. Yes, I've been writing a great deal about that lately. Christians need to grow in the Word (2 Peter 3.18, 2 Tim. 2.15), knowing what and why we believe so we can contend for the faith (Jude 1.3, 2 Cor. 10.4-6) in submission to Christ. I personally cannot, and recommend against, using sources that are at odds with your own position, especially since there is a wealth of information from reliable sources. Also, I feel that I would be not only tacitly endorsing compromisers and false religions, but also confusing people by sharing that material.

However, being too rigid in all of this becomes legalistic. Although I do not endorse the Intelligent Design movement because they generally reject biblical creationist principles, some creationists will use their materials to show irreducible complexity and refute naturalistic evolution. My feeling is that such things can be kept to a minimum, and with a caveat along the lines of, "This article contains good information, but we do not endorse the Suchand Soforth organization". In addition, if you share something from a news site with numerous authors, hopefully the people you pass it on to will have the good sense to realize that such a thing is usually self-contained; you're not endorsing the organization.

Do not just take my word for things. Check what I say with the Word of God, think for yourselves (use that brain God gave you), pray — and be discerning. Do all to the glory of God, not for pride's sake or based on emotion.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

A Cult on Facebook Claiming to be Creationist

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

This article will be rather heavy on graphics, so I shall use lower resolution images as much as possible. Screenshots are under Fair Use for information and educational purposes. Screenshots are necessary, since the cultist under discussion has been known to change or delete items when caught.

These things are difficult to write. Not only do they take a great deal of time to compile links, Bible verses, screenshots and so forth, but I have to be certain that I am being accurate, doing the right thing and, above all, seeking glory to God, not glory to Bob. Such articles are not fun to write. When it comes to disagreeing on matters of doctrine, a Christian must be very careful and write about the teaching themselves rather than rail against a brother or sister in Christ — especially regarding nonessentials. This is different. I have others, including the pastor, praying about this endeavor. Yes, I'm taking it very seriously.

Exposing false teachings is necessary, even though it can be unpleasant. When someone pretends to be a follower of Christ but is proclaiming outright heresy, hindering the gospel and attacking God's people, they should be named and their works condemned (Gal. 1.9, 1 Tim. 1.20, 2 Tim. 2.17, 2 Tim. 4.14, 1 John 2.19, Eph. 5.11, 2 Cor. 10.4-5).

Elsewhere, I wrote an article calling for discernment among Christians, and not to simply accept the word of someone who claims to be a biblical creationist. Cults will pretend to be creationists and use the matter of origins to snare people into their organization. I urge you to read "Danger for Christians and Creationists" to get background on the cultist Page that I am going to discuss; the main point is to compare what someone says with Scripture (Paul himself was not believed outright, the Bereans checked what he said against the Word of God as mentioned in Acts 17.11).

Small note of explanation: I capitalize "Page" because Facebook does it, and it helps distinguish between one of theirs and, say, a page on the Web.

Although this is primarily about a certain Page on Facebook, the principles involved apply to other circumstances the reader may encounter. The Page is called "Evolution is a Religion of Origins". (Evolution is a religion of origins.) Previously, I was never comfortable with the way they were extremely caustic to evolutionists and even to Christians who did not like their approach, although he does reject evolution. Also, they have a fondness for using the word "Yahuwshuwa" instead of Jesus. I just thought it was an affectation for an alternate version of the name of Jesus, and "Yahuwah" was another name for Yahweh. And he did post occasional good articles from reputable creation science ministries — but that is part of the lure.

Some people have become legalistic about the celebration of Easter and Christmas. Their enthusiasm for telling other Christians not to celebrate was based not only on false information, but a disregard for the Scriptures. On April 19, 2014, I posted "Is Easter a Pagan Holiday, and Should Christians Celebrate It?" I hope you will read it, as it provided links to well-researched, accurate information that Christians needed to know about the history of that holiday, as well as some biblical perspectives on legalism, pride and judgmental attitudes.

Evolution is a Religion of Origins (herein referred to as ERO) made some vicious comments on the Page I administer, The Question Evolution Project (TQEP). They were so rude, I banned that Page from commenting further. The anonymous owner of that Page decided that TQEP, and me personally, were heretics promoting Roman Catholicism, paganism and other heresies, and we should repent and do things their way. On April 20, he posted his reaction:

Click for larger. This is edited, the original screenshot is huge.
Again, Fair Use for education and information.

I have to admit that this caused me some consternation. Several people looked at the post as well as the Page, and realized that I was dealing with a cultist. He kept referring to a site called "World's Last Chance", which is (yet another) cultist claiming to be the only one using God's true name. This one is in the Sacred Name cult. The various strange names that the cult uses have no bearing in reality. Also, he says that I am more interested in "the words of men over the WORD of YAHUWAH". Well, this Yahuwah character is an idol that a cult has created, and he is doing what he decries, taking the words of men in that cult over the real Word of God!

One documented deception was that ERO listed his Website as Eric Hovind's "Creation Today":

Click for larger. Again, Fair Use for education and information.

When confronted, ERO changed it to something very interesting (annotated screenshot, sorry it's a bit difficult to read, I won't use that particular "drop shadow" any longer):

Click for larger. I edited in a screenshot for the location for his URL, which has since been changed.
Again, Fair Use for education and information.

At this point, I decided to write the article about cults deceiving Christians and hoped that people would think for themselves and check bad teachings with Scripture. But no, the truth about them came out. On August 2, 2014, ERO showed conclusive proof of blasphemy and linked to a video:

Click for larger. Again, Fair Use for education and information.

"Do your RESEARCH and seek the TRUTH!" That's what I keep trying to get people to do, as well as search the Scriptures and think for themselves. Some of us challenged him on this post, and he answered with a huge amount of propaganda and abuse. Apparently ERO was unaware of my warning article from April (even though it had been widely circulated on Facebook), because when I posted my link as a comment on the above post, he reacted on August 9 (which I did not see until August 12) and posted a libelous diatribe, where he even used a "meme" that I made, giving credit this time:

Click for larger. This is edited, the original screenshot is too large, again.The emotion-driven rant is similar to atheists that I have seen going haywire.
Again, Fair Use for education and information.

Atheists, compromising Christians, cultists and others have this in common, that they have disdain for the Word of God. They also tend to get abusive when confronted with the truth (though Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses tend to be far more civil). Some may claim that they believe the Bible, but they elevate the opinions of others (including philosophy, science, cult publications &c.) above the authority of the Bible, which is the Christian's foundation. 

Some people say, "Yes, but we get good information about evolution from them!" Is it worth giving them approval and possibly having others deceived?

We can and should pray for their salvation in the true Jesus Christ, show them their errors, and warn others of false teachings and deceptions. This is not the only pretend-Christian cult, but hopefully, you will examine claims and teachings from groups you encounter so you can decide to avoid them or not. I cannot (and will not) tell people that they cannot go to Pages such as "Evolution is a Religion of Origins". I can warn you and urge you to spend your time elsewhere. In the end, it's up to God and you. I pray for the readers of this article, that you will have wisdom and discernment.

Addendum: ERO became hysterical. He reposted the same libelous rant several times with different pictures: First, second, third, fourth.  
LOL this guy is spreading his own word and telling his sheeple to stay clear of this page. I doubt many of them will come here and confront me on this page with any credible evidence by reputable scholars. He has sucked them in with creationism and then his own biased brainwashed ignorant opinion/interpretation becomes their gospel.
There were refutations given, including a link to Dr. Brown (also used in this article). He replied with more of his cult propaganda and ignored them. The remark about "all reputable scholars" is ridiculous, hence no substantiation was offered. A problem we have with atheists, evolutionists, liberal "Christians" and cultists (such as ERO's "Sacred Name") is that they are demonically influenced, as is demonstrated by this guy. But that is an article for another time.

Addendum 2: Another creationist Page that lacks credibility, veracity and discernment actually came to the aid of the cultist

Addendum 3 (should be the last one): I followed a "conversation" with this cultist and someone who wanted a simple answer to whether or not the Page owner believes in the Trinity. After obfuscation and abuse by ERO, the conversation was deleted. But not before I got a screenshot of it. Here is a very pertinent point:

Click for larger. The name of the questioner is blurred. The original screenshot is too large, again.
As before, Fair Use for education and information.