Category: emergent church

Posted in doctrine, emergent church, false christians, focus on the family

Focus on the Family, Bono, & who is a Christian; Part 3

Posted on by elizabethprata
Bono on his Co-Exist tour wearing his Co-Exist headband

Last week, President of the Christian organization Focus on the Family Jim Daly sat down with U2 rocker Bono. Mr Daly emerged from that interview trumpeting Mr Bono as a Christian, and write a glowing piece for Focus on the Family’s website and also published in the Washington Post called “Why Orthodox Christians Should Appreciate An Unorthodox Bono“.

In parts one and two of the series of three parts, I looked at–

1. Focus on the Family’s increasing apostasy
2. Whether Bono is a Christian

And now in part 3 we’ll look at the lack of discernment in Christians today. Not everyone who claims Jesus is a Christian and it is important to understand that. I’ll tell you why.

–Accepting unquestioningly all people who claim Christianity but who obviously are not, blurs the lines of the faith.
–We are supposed to share truth to a lost and dying world. Non-Christians, including false Christians we accept as genuine, do not have that truth to share.

As GotQuestions states, “The evidence of a true Christian is displayed in both faith and action. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18). Jesus put it this way: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). A true Christian will show his faith by how he lives. Despite the wide variety of beliefs that fall under the general “Christian” label today, the Bible defines a true Christian as one who has personally received Jesus Christ as Savior, who trusts in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sins, who has the Holy Spirit residing within, and whose life evinces change consistent with faith in Jesus.”

We are supposed to care who says they are a Christian because Christians are supposed to have the truth of Jesus in us and abide by the Spirit. If we do then we’re brethren, and we build each other up, pray for each other, and help each other. If they are not, we know to evangelize them with our words, witness to them with our lives, and separate from them in our spirit. Mindlessly accepting everyone who utters “Jesus” like a magic password, blurs those lines and foils the notion that we are supposed to be separate, holding onto the only truth in a dying world of relativism. This unwillingness to engage in what is at root a problem of discernment is the number one problem in the church.

John MacArthur said,  “People ask me this all the time, “… What do you see as the biggest problem in Christianity? The biggest problem in the church? It’s simple for me to answer that. The biggest problem in the church today is the absence of discernment. It’s a lack of discernment. It’s the biggest problem with Christian people, they make bad choices. They accept the wrong thing. They accept the wrong theology. The are prone to the wrong teaching. They’re unwise in who they follow, what they listen to and what they read.”

He continues, “I’m afraid that is pretty typical of the contemporary evangelical scene. There is a lack of precision in thinking, there’s a lack of consistency, there’s a lack of integrity. It’s just a hodgepodge, listening to anybody and everybody, reading anything, making no particular judgments. In fact, to make a judgment may be seen as unchristian. Boundless, endless credulity, anything and everything except there’s got to be good in all of it, how dare you question anybody’s view on anything. And I really believe that because of this pervasive attitude, evangelical Christianity, biblical Christianity as we know it is fighting for its life. Amazing to think about.”

Bertrand Russell had a lot to say about our lack of consistency and lack of integrity to the truth, as we’ll see below.

The reason biblical Christianity is fighting for its life is related to something that Martyn Lloyd Jones predicted 40 years ago. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote in his 1970 book ‘Romans: An Exposition of Chapters’:

Martyn Lloyd-Jones

“Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also and many say that we must not be too precise about these things. If you hold that view, you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.”

Polemics defined is: contentious arguments that are intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position. (source). That is Christianity in a nutshell, isn’t it! Jesus is the only way to heaven…you must repent or die…Jesus is God and there is no other… These are polemical arguments.  A polemic is one definite controversial thesis. Debate is the second cousin to polemics. Debate is not so definite, debate allows for common ground between the two disputants. A polemic is intended to establish the truth of a point of view while refuting the opposing point of view. In polemics, there is one truth only. In debate, there is compromise and common ground. That is why we cannot debate and compromise in Christianity.

The problem today is that people debate. They don’t engage in polemics. A polemicist says, “There is only one truth and here it is, there is no other name by which you many be saved than that of Jesus. If you do not claim that name in repentance, you will go to hell.” (Acts 4:12, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). Saying that truth today is becoming increasingly radical. Also radical is marking the boundaries of Christianity and claiming that such and such a person is outside of it.

Christianity is itself a polemic. The book of John establishes right and wrong, good and evil, light and

Source

dark. There is either or. Jesus is either God or He isn’t. You are of this world or you are not. Yet today there is a refusal to state the one truth, polemically, and this has allowed all manner of untruths to creep in. For example,

“But there are some things in the Word of God that are very clear and those are the things that are at the heart of our faith. And one of them is to understand who is a true Christian. And it’s astonishing to me how confused people are. I talked to one of the students at the college who went to Amsterdam 2000 this summer, this convocation of thousands of evangelists. And he is a college student, he said to me, “I couldn’t believe what I heard. The thing was opened by a Roman Catholic priest, and there was a man there who denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ and they all received applause and a standing ovation.” By evangelicals? And when somebody steps in and says, “Stop this charade, this pretense of Christianity, let’s get down to who’s really a Christian,” you get vilified and marginalized and alienated. But that’s okay because what matters is the truth. So we’re trying to deal with the truth.” (source)

Christianity by nature of its polemical stance, is divisive. It is supposed to be. I am not saying that people are supposed to be divisive on purpose by being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable. However, stating the truth divides. Didn’t Jesus say,

Source

“The Sword of the Gospel”
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36).

So no, Bono by believing in other religions is not a Christian. It is important to say these things. So how do you tell who a Christian is, here is MacArthur again:

“And the way to understand who a Christian is, I’ve concluded after a long time trying to get to this point, is to understand deliverance, the theology of deliverance. You can tell a Christian because they’re delivered. That’s what the Bible teaches.”

“The first category of deliverance is those who are really Christians have been delivered out of error into truth. Now listen to what I say. No one is a Christian who does not understand, believe, embrace and love the truth. What truth? The truth that we call the gospel. …When the Spirit of truth regenerates, He moves people from error to truth. He brings the sinner the understanding of, belief in, embracing of, and total commitment to the truth.”

You can tell a Christian because they know the truth and a non-Christian doesn’t. Simple.

It is important if we are a Christian be clear about any interlopers in our midst. Look at poor Bertrand Russell. The philosopher Bertrand Russell gave a lecture in 1927 in London, called “Why I am Not a Christian.” In it, he bemoans the watering down of what the definition of Christianity is, and mocks those of us who are holding the hose.

Bertrand Russell

“As your chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word “Christian.” It is used in these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians — all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on — are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.”

Having certainty and conviction of clear doctrines was something that atheist Russell could respect, even get behind. Ultimately, so can Jesus.

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16).

Russell says our definition of Christian is too elastic, and he is right to wonder about the whole shebang of Christianity when we let so precious a truth become elasticised and stretched beyond recognition! It is his way of saying, “If they don’t care what Christianity is, why should I?” And when the false professors we have allowed into our midst fall away, and they always do, then what?

Phil Johnson

Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church and Executive Director, Grace to You, was assigned the task of explaining and critiquing the emerging church movement in one of the 75-minute sessions at the 2006 Shepherd’s Conference The resulting paper is titled, “Exposing the Postmodern Errors of the Emerging Church”. (a .pdf).

Pastor Johnson said the emerging church movement is an “irrational agglomeration of unorthodox ideas”, and of Bono, Johnson said he is one of the prime leaders of it. “This may help you more than anything I have said so far to understand the flavor of the “emerging church movement”: Bono—the Irish rocker and politico of U2 fame—seems to be the unofficial icon of the movement. If you’ve been tuned into pop-culture at any time over the past two decades and know anything about Bono, that might help you to grasp something about the look and feel of the movement”. … emergent types seem to quote Bono all the time. I would say that he sometimes seems to be the chief theologian of the “emerging church movement,” but in all fairness, that honor belongs more to John R. Franke and Stan Grenz. .. But he and Franke are the two academic theologians who have done more than anyone else to blend postmodernism and theology into a kind of quasi-evangelical doctrine”.

And that is what we have today. We have a long-standing organization such as Focus on the Family promoting an icon in Bono who represents a false movement which is bringing quasi-evangelical doctrine to quasi-evangelical Christians. On the other side we have an elder of the faith in Pr. Johnson who says that movement Bono represents is full of irrational agglomeration of unorthodox ideas, has contempt for biblical authority, breeds doubt about the perspicuity of Scripture, and sows confusion about the mission of the church.

At the January 2013 Convocation of the Bangor Theological Seminary in Maine, Rev. Steven Lewis noted that there are indicators that the religious landscape of North America has radically changed. “That landscape change includes a spiritual revival and renewal afoot but it is not religious, the Rev. Steven Lewis, academic dean of Bangor Theological Seminary, said in January in the opening session of Convocation. He called it “humanitarian spirituality.”

Who wouldn’t be confused about who’s really a Christian when seminaries are graduating theologians who are told these terrible things? It is exactly this ‘humanitarian spirituality’ which Bono exemplifies-that Jesus will vomit out His mouth. As blogger Elliott Nesch said of the Daly-Bono meeting and the resulting version of Christianity which was unfortunately validated through it, “Philanthropy is no substitute for the Gospel of Jesus Christ! … Bono is embraced and given the upper-hand in both religious and political spheres of influence. Many are following Bono in social justice but throwing the Gospel out the window. Bono’s hip Christianity will inspire many Christians to embrace ecumenism and apostasy in the cloak of philanthropy. This is a politicized social Gospel which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ.”

And THAT’S why we care about who is a Christian.

————————–
Focus on the Family, Bono, & who is a Christian Part 1

Focus on the Family, Bono, & who is a Christian? Part 2

Posted in emergent church, pre-tribulation rapture

Emergent church questioning tactics are bad leaven

Posted on by elizabethprata

I’ve written before about the emergent church and its apostasy. One of the tactics of the apostate emergent person is to constantly question the bible and its doctrines. “Does hell really exist?” “Would a loving God punish?” “Is hell really eternal?” These and other doctrines are opposed not from a hatchet, but from lightly sprinkled leaven. Leaven-questions are designed by satan to diffuse into the person’s heart and chip away at the authority of the bible, the certainty of the Word, and by extension, the questioner’s faith.

Here is one example of the questioning tactic, best perpetrated by Emergent Rob Bell, lately known for his book “Love Wins”. This quote is from his book ‘Velvet Elvis’ in which he likens the membrane of Christianity to a trampoline where we all jump and jump:

“But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?”

Bell’s ‘what if’ questions continue:

“What if that [trampoline] spring [the virgin birth] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? . . . If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”

What he is saying is that the bible is confusing, the plain meaning of virgin could mean several things, and if you apply one of those several definitions to Jesus’ birth then the whole ‘thing’ collapses. But God is stronger than one word, “one spring” in Bell’s trampoline he calls Christianity, and the only thing actually falling apart is faith.

One question leads to another. Taking away the plain meaning of a word under the guise of deeper intellectual study of the passages is a very good tactic for chipping away at faith, because the questioner can lull himself into thinking he is performing intellectual study with honestly spiritual intentions. You can read more about the false doctrines of Rob Bell and how to spot them,here.

I had a conversation the other day with a person who has been a Christian for 50 years. She is a pastor’s wife. Her husband is not pastoring a church right now and hasn’t been for a long time, but he teaches in a community ministry and also teaches adults at a Sunday School. Their son in law is going to seminary. In other words, they look like a faith filled family, but her certainty in the basic doctrines are slowly being chipped away by her husband and son-in-law’s constant questioning in a pattern that exactly mirrors what I showed you in the Rob Bell method of hermeneutics.

‘I used to believe in the pre-trib stance’ she said, ‘I was taught that growing up. But now I’m not so sure.’ That lack of certainty is torturing her, because as a good Christian she knows the bible isn’t unclear, and as a good Christian wife she submits to her husband’s teaching. There’s a dissonance there that hurts. She didn’t say it, but I could see it.

The bible is tightly woven. It is a perfect book. That means you believe it all or you believe none. Once you start disbelieving a central doctrine, like the pre-tribulation rapture, then you have to adjust your thinking in many other doctrines to accommodate your new stream of thought. If you think the rapture will happen later, into the Tribulation (it doesn’t matter if you think it will be mid or post tribulation, satan is happy just to get you over the threshold in the time of Jacob’s Trouble) then you have to start questioning all of the following:

2 Thessalonians. In that letter, (esp. verses 1-10) Paul sought to reassure the believers there who had been infiltrated with false doctrine. They had been told falsely that they missed the rapture- ‘our gathering together to Him’ as Paul terms it. Persecution had begun, and so thought that the Tribulation had started and they were out of luck on the rapture doctrine. They were deeply worried. Now, if the default position is that we all go through the Tribulation, why would Paul need to even reassure the Thessalonians that they hadn’t missed the rapture?

The Restrainer: The rapture is to occur prior to the Tribulation. When disbelievers start questioning this, they have to resolve the sign that Paul gave in 2 Thessalonians indicating the Day of the Lord. The rapture is distinct from the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is the period of time when Jesus punishes the corrupt earth. While the rapture can happen any time, The Day of the Lord cannot occur unless and until three things happen and one of those is the Restrainer is taken out of the way. In 2 Thess 2:6-7 Paul says the Day of the Lord won’t happen until and unless the antichrist is revealed, and the antichrist won’t be revealed until the Restrainer is taken out of the way. That’s a reverse timeline. The Restrainer is the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit, indwelling you and me as salt and light in the world. We act as a preservative from the Spirit’s influence in us and in the world. Once He is out of the way, the antichrist can come to the fore in all his corruptness. Now this is timeline presents problems to the post trib believer. Dismissing the plain meaning of the verse is hard to do, so instead they re-define who the Restrainer is. They say ‘maybe the restrainer is a lawless governmental system. Yeah, that’s it!’ [Note: the Spirit doesn’t leave the world in the Tribulation, He simply changes ministries, dispensing with one of them: His restraint of evil].

Encouragement: Paul explained in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 about the Day of the Lord in a passage titled, “The comfort of the Lord’s Coming”. He ended with saying to encourage each other with these words. Jesus said the Tribulation would be worse than a time ever experienced on the earth and never will be so bad again. It will be so bad that no flesh would be left alive if He didn’t cut the days short for the elect’s sake. Are you encouraged or comforted by the words that Christians will go through the worst time ever, be squashed by hail, have our head chopped off, get hunted, starved, and then martyred? “Be of good cheer! It will be awful but then Jesus will come!” I’m not encouraged. I’m not comforted. It is counter-intuitive to think that Paul would try to cheer up the Thessalonians by reminding them they would be appointed to go through the worst time in the history of the world, even worse than the Flood that wiped out everyone!

Wrath: Paul had written earlier in 1 Thess 5:9 that we are not appointed to wrath. His sentence is very simple: “we are not appointed to wrath.” But rather than accept that statement plainly, the emergent questioner poking holes in the pre-trib stance must now resolve that statement to coincide with the fact that the Tribulation is wrath and we will be appointed to it. Indeed, my friend said, “I wonder, what IS wrath, really.” Because the bible is tightly woven, one re-definition of a doctrine elicits another. Now they have to figure out what wrath really means. Like Rob Bell wondering what ‘virgin’ really means. Soon we’ll have people saying ‘that depends on what the meaning of is is.” Oops, we already had that happen. That was President Clinton trying to escape the plain meaning definition of sexual intercourse.

There are more things a post-tribulation believer has to re-define but you get the idea. You can see how, once you drift away from the solidity of the bible’s plain doctrines, supported by each other throughout the entire book (“Scripture interprets scripture”), that you have to begin an alternate construction which, because it is a man-made structure, is a house of cards on sand. Believing in the pre-tribulation rapture satisfies all questions and upholds all other doctrines in the bible. Believing in mid or post tribulation rapture elicts more questions … that must be answered … which causes more questions … which induces re-definitions … and you see how “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:8-9). The evil diffusive properties of bad yeast permeates and spoils.

People have said to me, “It doesn’t really matter when the rapture takes place, before or in the middle or at the end, does it? It’s only a matter of timing.” Yes it matters. It is not a matter of timing. It is a matter of leaven.

The glorified properties of truth and the leading by the Holy Spirit into wisdom and understanding uplifts and solidifies, He doesn’t create confusion. “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:8).
http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttp://www.facebook.com/widgets/like.php?href=http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/06/heat-wave-update-detroit-without-power.html

http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=xa-4df8df7d18b59150

Posted in emergent church, false doctrine, prophecy

Tips on spotting Emergent church falsity in yourself or others

Posted on by elizabethprata

The false doctrines of emergent Christianity are permeating everywhere. I usually think of them as existing and infecting churches in Seattle or California, not in Georgia, not in the people I know. But those poisonous doctrines are everywhere, including right around me.

One of the typical doctrines of this false religious movement is incessant questioning under the guise of intellectual openness. They relentlessly cast doubt on the authority and reliability of Scripture. It is a lie from the first lie, from satan who said “Hath God indeed said…??” It is not intellectual openness to continually ask questions of biblical truth, it is a the chipping away of the absolute authority of God.

If you find yourself going in this direction you’re infected with it:

“I used to believe in the pretrib rapture, now I’m not so sure.” Substitute any word for pretrib and you have the same Emergent questioning tactic. “I used to believe in hell but now I’m not so sure.” “I used to know what ‘the wrath’ is but what is wrath, really?”

They say, “I’m being intellectually honest.” But they’re not, actually. They’re being spiritually dishonest.

Asking constant questions, and worse, always being available for the next or a different answer chips away at the absolute nature of Truth. That truth is found in the bible and once you let the Holy Spirit form the answer in you, to lead you to the verses where it is clear, then let it stay. It’s work to remain absolutely staunch but you have to do it. Here is the nut of the matter: as long as there is the possibility of a different answer, you don’t have to defend the one you’re temporarily clinging to.

Here is a tip: Any time you go from a stance of understanding to one of doubt you are going in the wrong direction. Now, I’m not saying questioning is bad. I do that all the time. I ask a million questions each day. I ask, why did Eve take the fruit? How did Satan convert a third of the angels to his way of thinking? Where is heaven? What are the physics behind the creation? How did Paul stay so positive in the faith throughout his trials? But here is the difference. God is the author and perfecter of our faith. (Hebrews 12:2). He is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). When you ask questions on doctrinal things and you turn to the bible for answers, if you are coming away with more questions than answers, you’re infected. If you come away with clarity and peace, you’re not. The bible satisfies answers. Satan is the one with the questions.
http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttp://www.facebook.com/widgets/like.php?href=%20http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/06/tips-on-spotting-emergent-church.html

http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=xa-4df8df7d18b59150

Posted in bible, emergent church, end times

Let’s have a conversation

Posted on by elizabethprata

I want to make a tough post. Some of you will not like it. If you chafe at the following words, then please pray, and “examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. More about what that means and how to do it, here.

We are in post-modern times. That is “a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by a problem of objective truth … It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place.” If you have heard someone say “that may be true for you, but it isn’t true for me,” then you have the essence of post-modernism. The emergent church movement is a match made in hell with post-modernism in that suspicion of objective truth is central. Emergent Christians claim that biblical truth is impossible to achieve, know, understand or interpret. It is something that invites arrogance and intolerance is divisive, and prevents unity. The bible is old and ‘not relevant’, and is subject to be changed to conform with these times. All are buzz words stemming from the pit. Satan is the original perpetrator of “Hath God said?” when he asked Eve if not eating the fruit in the Garden was what He really meant.

As for unity: there is no such thing. Rather, there is unity. All false religions are united but Christians are not supposed to conform to the world. Jesus came to bring a sword and that sword divides. (Mt 10). It does not unite.

Now, to the meat of the post. I am increasingly impatient with the emergent church’s phrase “Let’s have a conversation with…” Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus. etc. They point to Paul’s appeal at Mars Hill, in Acts 17:22-33. They say that Paul went to Mars Hill and talked, conversed, shared, with the idolaters there. It was all so friendly and a tea party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Paul went in and told them they were all wrong, and introduced them to Jesus.

Now, about a conversation. I am setting this next paragraph within the context of a witnessing, Christian conversation. Secular conversation is not the issue here. The definition of conversation is “oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas”. The key part is exchange. It assumes that within the conversation, any Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu has an equal idea to share back. That the exchange will occur on an equal basis. It doesn’t.

I was tweeting another Christian the other day and he was so happy to share about his talk with a Muslim, saying to me, “Hey, “they believe in Jesus too!” I reminded him that their version of Jesus (Isa) was a non-Resurrected Jesus and that their religion was therefore false. He (a bit haughtily) said that Paul talked with the people on Mars Hill.

This is a terrible watering down of the Gospel. The Christian frog has been sitting in water that has warmed up by incremental degrees as satan is wont to do, and so many people are hardly aware of how close they are to boiling. You know, when water boils, it heats up until 212 degrees. But if it stays at 211 degrees, it will not boil. Christians who entertain Isa are at 211 degrees and they don’t even know it.

Let’s make a picture analogy. If you are of the ilk that wants to share, have a conversation, and accept what the other religions have to offer, then this is what you are doing.

You sit at a table across from a Wiccan, Buddhist, or Muslim. In front of you is a plate of gold. On top of this golden plate are crackers of such a pure white, they almost hurt your eyes to look at them. They gleam. When you pick one up and offer to to the person across from you with whom you are having this conversation, the cracker almost sings as an angelic choir.

Likewise, since conversing is sharing and exchanging, the Muslim picks up a cracker. It is moldy, so moldy it has green spots on it that have actually grown hairs. They have a plate too. It is made of compressed sewage and atop this plate is a big, steaming pile of warm turds. There are maggots crawling over it. They take a filthy, dirty encrusted knife, dig into the pile of poop, and spread it on the moldy cracker. They hand it to you. Hey, it’s an exchange. We are all at the same table, sharing, aren’t we?

I want to be clear. Our Wiccan and Buddhist and Muslim friends are our friends. Jesus died to save them and we love them as our neighbor. They are not the enemy. The lie they have swallowed is satan’s lie. He is the enemy.

A lot of Christians are eating the poop, believing that they are helping the cause of the Gospel by sharing in conversation at the same table. It isn’t. Jesus doesn’t need the plate of crap. What Christians need to do is share the Truth, the ONE truth, in love and humility but with certainty. Other religions and other people sharing their religions with us have nothing to share. There is Jesus, Who is the Truth, and there is every other religion, which is the lie. Period. I hope I’ve been clear.
http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttp://www.facebook.com/widgets/like.php?href=http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2011/06/lets-have-conversation.html