Dialoguing with a Sinner's Prayer/Numbers Proponent

People love to boast. In America, people love to boast numbers. They love to boast sports scores, money earned, things owned, Facebook Friends, anything, if it can be counted, someone in America is boasting about their perceived numerical superiority. Sadly, this urge has poisoned Christianity as well. Pastors love to brag about their church attendances. The Hyles Anderson crowd brags that they have the world’s largest Sunday school. Others love to brag about how many were baptized on any given day, or period of time. Still others proclaim how many they had saved as a result of their work. But, this last point is starkly different than the other things mentioned in this introduction. Scores, money, attendances, baptisms, etcetera can be physically quantified and qualified for whatever they’re worth, but how does one quantify and qualify Salvation? I have had many conversations with some of America’s “leading” pastors and professed “soulwinners.” (I, at one time, even claimed to be among their ranks). The conversations, though many, generally unfolded like this:

BSW (Bragging Soul-winner): Today was an amazing day! I led 12 people to Christ. Ain’t God Good!

CC (Curious Christian): Awesome! So, how do you know they are saved?

BSW: I shared with them the Roman’s Road, and then they bowed their heads, and asked Jesus to come into their hearts.

CC: Nice, so, you spent a long time with each one then?

BSW: No, not really, only about 5-10 minutes. I had one that I spent about 30 minutes with, but that’s because she was talking so much about how she couldn’t be saved, because she was too wicked to be saved. Thank God that He is still in the soul saving business, and that salvation is the simple gift!

CC: Ok, let see if I understand you correctly. You shared the Roman’s Road. So, you began in Romans 1?

BSW: (Interrupts) No, why start in Romans 1? I started with Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Then I told each one, that we’re all sinners. Then I showed them the penalty of sin, Death in Romans 6:23. Then I explained that Death is separation from God for eternity in Hell. Then I preached to them Jesus. That He was God come in the flesh, died on the cross for our sins, and that He loves us, and doesn’t want us to go to Hell when we die. I showed them Romans 5:9-10 to prove that God loved us so much that he died for us. All we have to do is Confess with our mouths, and believe in our hearts that Jesus is God, and died, was buried, and rose again for us, so that we don’t have to  go to Hell. We can, instead go to Heaven when we die.

CC: So, you did no real conviction of sin is what you’re telling me?

BSW: Sure I did. Didn’t you hear me say that I showed them Romans 3:23?

CC: Yes, you did show them that verse. But that verse is at the end of a chapter and a half of Paul’s pointing out sin. Didn’t you use the Ten Commandments?

BSW: No, why should I have?

CC: For starters, they're part of the whole Romans Road. They’re God’s standard used for judging between the sinful and righteous. Second, Jesus used them during His earthly ministry. Paul as mentioned used them in Romans 2-3, and recalled their affect upon his life in Romans 6-8. It’s not good enough to call someone a sinner. Most simply do not believe that his sin is bad enough to take his to Hell. People have to be convicted of sin. Their own, willful, wicked sin. They also have to realize how serious that sin is.

BSW: Ok, but that doesn’t change the fact that all 12 people bowed their heads and asked Jesus into their hearts. They made a profession.

CC: How do you know they're saved though?

BSW: I don’t know. We can’t see people’s hearts, only God can do that. But they confessed with their mouths that Jesus died for them. So, they're saved.

CC: Where in the Bible was the sinner’s prayer ever used?

BSW: Romans 10:9-13.

CC: Romans 10 has nothing to do with how to be saved, it has everything to do with who can be saved, namely, "Whosoever... Jew or Greek." Why didn't Christ use your method? Why not use it when the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19 approached him. He was already professing Christ as Good Master, like you did earlier by claiming “God is good.” What did Christ do? Did he lead him in a sinner’s prayer? 

BSW: No, but that’s because Christ could see his heart. We can’t see people's hearts.

CC: Christ proved to the ruler that he was in sin. Christ asked him a few of the Ten Commandments, which revealed pride and idolatry. Though Christ could see the heart, he showed us the way to uncover sin in man's heart/life by using this real life encounter. The ruler, though believing and even professing, left Christ lost in spite of his believing. How would you have responded, if someone like that approached you, and said the same things? Would you have lead him in the sinner's prayer?

BSW: I’m not Christ. I can’t see people’s hearts.

CC: But, we have the mind of Christ according to I Corinthians 2:15-16, and we have His example. Matthew 19 is recorded for our edification and instruction. You can know these things. One most certainly can discern between lost and saved, but not by using the sinner’s prayer. Christ gave us parables, such as the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, that illustrate that the workers could see the difference between lost and saved. He also used the seed analogy to illustrate salvation. Seeds, as you know are planted, and they take time to grow. In that analogy, I’m afraid that the type of convert you’re claiming is the stony ground hearer. He immediately hears the good parts with excitement, and makes a quick decision, but becomes offended when he hears the truth about his sin over time. To use another Biblical analogy, those men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 

BSW: So, what you’re saying is that you don’t think I had 12 saved today, and that all of the great men of the faith have been witnessing incorrectly? It sounds like you’re teaching a new doctrine.

CC: You’re now appealing to human tradition as your authority. That’s dangerous. What’s equally as dangerous is that you never once mentioned repentance in your encounters.

BSW: I believe in repentance!

CC: Then why did you not reveal the specific sins in each encounter today?

BSW: I did, they need to repent of the only sin that will take man to Hell, unbelief.

CC: Granted, unbelief is a sin that will damn one to Hell, but it’s not the only one. Romans 1 lists many more sins than just unbelief. Further, many believe, but are still lost in sin. Jesus illustrated that in John 8, and specifically told the Jews that believed on Him that the truth would set them free from sin. Those believing Jews did not like that statement, and attempted to kill Christ. Christ then proclaimed that those very same believing Jews were of their father the Devil. Therefore, lost, one heartbeat from Hell! Don’t forget, also, that the Devils fear and tremble according to James 2. Belief, though necessary, is only one side of the coin. Repentance from sin is the other. True belief will trigger true repentance from sin. Though that can be, and is, immediate salvation, the results from a human perspective can only be seen over time. Much like you can plant a seed, call that seed an apple tree, but you don’t truly know if the tree that grows from that seed is an apple tree until you see the fruit.

BSW: But the church saw 3,000 saved on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2!

CC: Certainly, but it was the Holy Spirit that proclaimed those numbers, not man. Those 3,000 were also commanded to repent, and in fact did repent after sin was clearly revealed to them by Peter's message. Nowhere else does any man boast of such numbers. In fact, as an example, Paul was very cautious about even baptizing (that is, only those who were professing salvation) many people in I Corinthians. We should adopt the same approach, and be cautious when witnessing. He instead stated that he was called to preach the Gospel. We’re all called to do the very same thing. The proclaiming of someone’s salvation, however, was not given to us. We do a disservice by inoculating people against the real truth, that Christ died to free us from sin, when we witness improperly.

BSW: You think all of the reported numbers are unsaved.

CC: Using such methods, being unbiblical at their heart, cannot lead someone to Christ. In fact, praying a sinner's prayer does not allow for true repentance. The person praying is now implicitly relying upon the fact that he prayed a prayer to get into Heaven. He, therefore, and often does, continue living in his life of sin, never turning from sin ever. Why should he? You never warned him about it. For instance, how many of those thousands evidenced a changed life, one that sees those large numbers hungering and thirsting after the things of God. How many of those numbers want to fellowship with the believers? How many of those numbers want to preach to the Lost the same way that Christ did?

BSW: But they are baby Christians. They can’t all want that at first. They must be discipled. There must be follow up.

CC: Yes and no. Yes, they’re baby Christians. Yes, they need to be discipled. No, they are in fact all called to go and preach the Gospel. That’s commanded to everyone. Christ had no problem sending His new children immediately back into the harvest. Paul had no problem doing the same thing. Philip had no problem doing it either. No, there needs to be no follow up with soundly saved people. If they’re soundly saved, they will crave the things and people of God in such a way that they will continuously be seeking those things. Why should anyone have to compel a saved person to want to know more about God, to want to spend time with others who want to know more about God, to tell the lost and dying about the Love of Christ? That love and desire can’t be hidden. Jeremiah’s comments about this issue in Jeremiah 20 reveal the very need that a truly saved person has to share the Gospel. Paul expounds upon that victorious freedom and power in Romans 8. The Bible further reveals nothing about this “follow up” as you call it. Instead, it talks about those going out from us, but not being of us.

BSW: What you’re talking about is saying that very few can be saved.

CC: Yes! Christ stated as much too! Matthew 7. Which about sums up everything we’ve discussed. You’re trying to claim numbers by using an unbiblical method, the sinner’s prayer. In turn you’re creating false converts, who do not want to know Christ, serve Christ, fellowship with believers, or repent from sin. This passage should, therefore, frighten you! You need to repent from this wicked practice, as it’s not helping anyone, it’s sending many to Hell, “in the name of Christ.”  

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If one professing to be a follower of Christ does not repent of this practice, then he should beware of Christ’s woe upon his life in Matthew 23:15 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. I appreciate your zeal, but please, practice your zeal with humility and sound doctrine!

*Nota Bene! I realize that this dialogue is filled with red herrings, especially from the BSW position, but that, generally speaking, is exactly how these conversations unfold. Once the BSW position is questioned, and the BSW's objections are answered, he can only steer away from the main point at hand. He thinks he has answers, but none of them are tenable, which is why I purposely take on his red herring objections. Typically, though not in this dialogue, these conversations do not remain calm. Most of the interactions that I have had like this end with the BSW screaming, creating straw men, and/or yelling ad hominem attacks at me. In other words, they simply, and profoundly, have no viable, scriptural response, and thus reveal wickedness.

A Response to Sin Creeping Into and Destroying Modern Churches

On July 25, 2013 a Rockford, Illinois news agency reported that a former church employee had been accused of molesting a 13 year old girl. Initially, anyone reading that headline should have reacted with disgust and/or anger. Interestingly, however, another encountered reaction is a defensive one. Yet, one should note that those on the defensive usually fall prey to thoughts riddled with emotionally-led, fallacy-styled thinking. It is the type of thinking seen whenever God uncovers sin, as evidenced in the Garden of Eden. It was the type of thinking when Peter pointed out “Simon the Sorcerer’s” sin in Acts 8. It is expected of sinners, because that’s what they do, they make excuses for their sin. A follower of Christ, however, is in marked contrast. He is one who has a deep hatred of sin, not just in his own life, but in the world around him. This deep hatred is not based upon his own feeling or standard, or else it would not be of Christ, but of man. The same hatred is also mixed with deep compassion. Consider the “Rich Young Ruler” of Matthew 19. That man was in sin, he came to Christ seeking eternal life. Christ revealed sin in that man, He had to. As Christ began to reveal sin in that man, Mark 10:21 tells us that Christ beheld him with love, and in that love Christ responded by telling him about his sin, and how to repent from it. This thought brings about the real question, the one that matters most. How should the church deal with sinners and reaching out to the lost?

The traditional modern American church position can be summarized thusly, “Come to our church, all are welcome.” This can be and is stated in many different ways, and upon the face of it, the statement is inviting, caring, and “welcoming.” Most churches today go well out of their way to create burdensome programs built to attract as many people as they can. Many are successful, many are not. But what is the standard for success? Is it numbers in attendance? Is it a growing national audience, or larger buildings, or church sports teams? From a purely sound business model, yes it is, which is why Christian Colleges offer business/management style classes as part of pastoral core curriculum. The author was required to take a few of these classes, and learned a few things about how-to and how-not-to do business. My professors were intelligent men, who were pastors as well as college profs. They knew what they were talking about, not only from books, but also from experience. They had built their businesses successfully. But did they build them Biblically? I’m not questioning their heart, though I have done so elsewhere. I’m questioning their methods. To borrow a profound question from a friend’s recent article: Can one support the way that the modern church is built, funded, and run from the Bible? (Section 2, question 10). Let’s make this a bit more personal. Are there examples in the Bible of your church? Chapter? Verse? Is it Biblical to have an “Open Door Policy” in that all are welcomed and invited to attend meetings? According to this model it is, and it is strongly encouraged by the leadership.

The non-traditional church position views the matter much differently. It does not have an “All are welcome” sign, nor does it even have a sign. This does not mean people are not welcome, however. Any would be welcome, but those who would like to fellowship must meet a few clearly laid out standards. First, those desiring to fellowship must show clear signs of a truly repentant, fruit producing follower of Christ. Second, they must desire to spread the gospel. Third, they must desire to disciple. Simple stuff, and it is expected to be done by all, not just a select few. (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:44-49, John 20:19-23, Acts 1:8, Hebrews 10:24-25 – focus on the “one another” in both verses). There is no business model outside of witness and disciple in this model. No one is invited to “come to our church”, no one is enticed to come to a program. It is a terrible business model in comparison to the traditional position. It could never pay a pastor’s salary. It could never build large buildings. It could never boast large crowds. It is not what young men and women go to “Bible College” for. To be fair, the same questions must be asked about this model that were asked concerning the traditional church. Can one support the non-traditional model in how it is built or not funded from the Bible? Are there examples of this church in the Bible? Are there examples of the “Closed Door Policy” in that people must meet requirements to fellowship with other believers? Wouldn’t such an idea be unloving? How is this model an example of Jesus Christ’s love for the world?

The author has been involved in both models, very actively too at that, as a child, student, organizer, leader, teacher, missionary, and pastor. He has seen how both models work from the most intricate details to the simplest of actions. It is from this viewpoint that posited questions will be answered, it is the author’s bias, based upon Biblical and practical applications. It is completely understood that not everyone will agree with the answers given. The only thing desired is that what is about to be offered is prayerfully, Biblically considered. Do not fall back upon emotional pleas, ad hominem, straw man, red herrings, or any other form of fallacy. They’re not helpful. One must know and understand why he believes what he believes. If his position is untenable, then why hold that position? One can and does cause much harm by thinking this way, such as what happened at the above mentioned church, or any church, for that matter.

The traditional church attempts to meet the great commission through various means. Services, programs, events, dinners, and/or sports-teams are all part of the plan to draw in the lost. In theory these attract more people’s attention, and therefore more people’s participation. Nothing is inherently wrong with these events in and of themselves, but if they become the method of evangelism then they are unbiblical. The Bible’s method for evangelism is always one on one. Consider Philip and the Ethiopian Eunich in Acts 8. What about Christ with Nicodemus? Or Peter with Cornelius? The Bible, as stated already, command all followers of Christ to spread the word. We are all to be instant in season and out of season, not just the salaried staff. There is practicality in this. First, it puts more people in the army on the front lines. Second, it is more personal. People have questions, serious ones at that. One on one allows for these questions to be asked and answered carefully, thoughtfully, compassionately. Third, in light of number two, the Christian is forced to study to shew himself approved. It forces him to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. It forces him to know Christ. The traditional model robs the member of all of this, as, generally speaking, the vast majority of church members do not witness one on one. What instead occurs, is the leadership encourages “All to come, attend our services. We’ll put on a good show for you.” It could be a traditional show, or a contemporary show, an early show or a late show. Just attend. That’s what matters. American Christendom has an historical example of this method – the Half-way Covenant in New England churches. After a few years of this practice, churches were filled with such sin and superstition that they were useless for Christ. They opened the doors to everyone, and everyone came. Everyone brought everything, and everything sent Christ out of the church. This satanic perversion has been happening for quite some time, and not just in America (Revelation 2:12-29, 3:14-22). God commanded the churches in Revelation to repent of this, which always requires a turning from sin/error and turning to Christ.

The traditional church’s method of discipleship is even more non-committal. It attempts to use, in their term, a “shot-gun” approach to reach the crowds. The idea is that “God’s Man” will preach “God’s Message” and “God’s People” will hear what needs to be heard, and this is the Biblical plan for discipleship. To answer this issue, one must look more carefully at the Great Commission. Focus on two specific words – Preach and Teach. Preaching is to the lost in most cases (Romans 1:16, I Cor. 1:17-31). Teaching is done to those already saved. It is discipleship. One does not need to continuously preach Christ crucified to the saved, it was the foundational message that has already been lain down (I Cor. 3:11). Christ did both teaching and preaching. He did so, because some were saved, and others were lost that heard Him. (Matthew 4:23,  9:35, 11:1 – both words are used in each verse, it’s not being redundant, it’s two different things that Christ was accomplishing). He made sure to do both aspects, and He commanded us to follow after Him. (Matthew 28:19-20). He preached to the lost, and he taught his disciples, all one on one. His disciples followed this same pattern, and there is no other example given as to how to accomplish both preaching and teaching anywhere in the Bible. (Acts 1:1, 5:25, 5:42, 13:1, 15:35, 18:11, 28:31, Romans 2:21, I Cor. 2:13, 4:17, Galatians 6:6, Col. 1:28, 3:16 – notice the one another here - , I Timothy 2:7, 3:2, 4:11, II Tim. 1:11, 2:24, Titus 1:9, 2:12, Hebrews 5:12, 8:11, I John 2:27). One must be careful, however, of bad teaching as is often warned. (Matt. 15:9, Matt. 23, Mark 7:7, John 9:34, Acts 4:18, 5:28, 21:28, Romans 2:21, I Cor. 2:13, I Tim. 1:3, 1:7, 2:12, 6:3, II Tim. 4:3, Titus 1:9-16, II Pet. 2:1, Rev. 2:20).

Bad teaching comes from bad teachers, and the teacher as well as the teaching must be rebuked, as Christ often rebuked the Pharisees (eg. Matthew 23), or Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-12). This only stirs up controversy if the person being rebuked refuses to see his error. The Pharisees did not respond properly to Christ’s open rebuke. How could they? They were lost. Peter, on the other hand, responded well to Paul’s rebuke. He knew that Paul was speaking truth, and Peter was following after the truth as a saved man. Either way, the point is that rebuke is commanded (Titus 1:13). Exhortation is commanded. Judging is commanded. (I Timothy 4:2, II Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew 7:1-6, I Cor. 2:15). A Christian can know the difference between truth and error, and Christ gave us a very powerful example of that in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:13-29). He followed that up with the parables of the sheep/goats and wheat/tares in Matthew 13. I John is entirely written to distinguish saved/lost. John 3 splits the two camps into light/darkness. Are all bad teachers lost? No. some of them are saved, but have not been disciples properly. Consider Apollos, to whom Aquila and Priscilla had to teach sound doctrine. Apollos endured that teaching, a proof of his salvation. One who will not endure sound doctrine is lost (Matthew 23, John 5:38-47, John 8:30-59, II Timothy 3:1-10, 4:3-5, Titus 1:9-16). These people get only one or two chances, no more, no less (Titus 3:10).

If bad teaching is not reproved and rebuked the consequences can be disastrous. The Traditional Church actively seeks to squelch these situations. In the fundamental setting two prominent teachers have actively taught against reproving and rebuking. Both Paul Chappell and Jack Hyles allow(ed) for no criticism of their preaching. Why? What is there to hide? What is given in defense of this ultimate, unquestioned authority? Where does this tradition come from? What are its abuses? What is its purpose? Are there Biblical examples of this position? The first and last questions on the list must be taken together. Yes, there is at least one Biblical example by name mentioned in III John, Diotrophes (III John 9).  Diotrophes wanted to be preeminent, that is above all else, in charge. John blasted him in no uncertain terms, and commanded the readers to follow not that which is evil. By implication, Diotrophes and his method were evil, and should not be followed. Christ further had many sharp rebukes against such practices in Matthew 23 and His judgment against Nicolaitainism in Revelation 2-3. (Nicolaitainism is a hierarchical setting – simple or complex – in which one lords over another. It is as prevalent in Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon circles as it is in Roman Catholicism). One should further remember Paul’s comments against such man-following in I Corinthians 3. Bottom line, following man is “carnal” at best, and deadly-wicked in reality. The tradition, in a nutshell, is pagan, as Alexander Hislop details in his incredibly detailed work The Two Babylons. The head of woman is man, the head of man is not the Pastor, or the church, it is Christ (I Cor. 11:3). Consider the devastation. A seemingly devout man spends 30-40 years in the ministry. Hundreds to thousands come under his teaching, and believe that man to be “God’s Man.” He is given a place high atop a pedestal. One that is revered. He’s called Reverend, Doctor, Father, Pastor, or whatever else (Matthew 23). He’s trusted, respected, and loved. No one would ever think that this man is capable of teaching error (most people think this of their pastor, other pastors teach error, but not mine, this is subjective thinking, and very dangerous). One dark afternoon the police raid your church, and take your pastor out in handcuffs. What’s going on? What’s happening? Who is attacking this blessed man of God? The media hates Christians. It’s a liberal attack against good people. Right? That illustrates much of the reactionary thought of many, but not all. The rest of the story is soon illustrated. Pastor molested, pastor committed adultery, pastor raped, Christians involved in sexual crime…. Then there are the cover ups. ABC News foundation rattling expose in 2011 got the ball rolling, but the issues did not start there, they’ve been around for some time, and will continue to plague this system, because the system is faulty. No one dares say anything against this giant of a man of God. Surely, he couldn’t be doing anything wrong. Right? Apparently not, there are entire organizations now devoted specifically to uncovering and stopping this type of stuff within, most likely, your own church! Yes, the media has illustrated a concerted hatred toward things of God, but it also understands that sin sells stories. In other words, it knows what sin is, even if the church no longer does. Hurt church members also understand what sin is, which is why they flee in large numbers after they realized they’ve been a part of the system. In some instances, such as Trinity Jacksonville (of which I am well acquainted), those scarred institutions trade their former conservative positions for more liberal ideals. They have to, or they’d lose the numbers, which is business 101 for failure.

To this point this article has been all about expose, and pointing out problems. One must be asking, “Oh yeah, smartypants, what would you do? Could you do any better?” Inherently, that is the wrong question, but it is the normal question asked in situations like these. No, “I” could not do any better, and if “I” think I could then “I” would be guilty of what “I” just wrote against above. It’s not about me, you, I, we, etc… It’s about Christ. Granted, that seems like a pious claim that all make, but let’s back it up with some Biblical force.

In the second listed model, the non-traditional, there is a plurality of elders. There is not one person running the show, there are many. (I Timothy 5 – elder does not equal pastor, if so, then woman, who are mentioned as elders in the chapter could also be “pastors.”) Elder men have a responsibility to younger men, and elder women have a responsibility to younger women. Under no circumstance, ever, anywhere, is a pastor to, by himself, meet and teach a woman one on one, alone. That’s the elder woman’s responsibility. The same applies to elder women and younger men (I Timothy 2:11-12). In a group fellowship setting, there should be someone who keeps things decently and in order. That is detailed in I Corinthians 12 and 14, as well as Romans 12. That person, who is often called pastor, is to be an “ENSAMPLE” according to I Peter 5:1-3 (note that Elders is mentioned here in this passage). The point is necessary, because “en” means from within, and “ex”, as in example, means from without. The Elders are those who have become so within the body of Christ, and have proven themselves worthy of that double honor mentioned in I Timothy 5. (Consider also Leviticus 19:32 and Proverbs 16:31). They do not just become elders over night, but have consistently proven that Christ is indeed working in and through them, and has been for some time both in witnessing and discipleship.

Those elders have a responsibility to guard the flock. They have been around. They have much more wisdom, as demonstrated by how they handle sound doctrine, than the younger brethren. They, therefore, can spot error much more rapidly than the younger Christian, that is not to say that the younger Christian cannot spot error, or that he cannot point error out (I Timothy 4:12). He certainly can, and does. If it’s truth against an elder, however, he must be careful in how he handles the situation so as to not breed confusion. One of main functions of an elder apart from teaching and discipleship is keeping error out of the church. They are to reprove, rebuke, and keep it from entering the fellowship (Ephesians 5:1-17). This is the crux of this article’s main point. The Biblical pattern is to properly distinguish between saved and lost (Matthew 13). Once distinguished, fellowship together with Christ and believers should be a desire, one that doesn’t need to be commanded, as it is a proof of salvation (I John 1:1-4). The lost are not allowed to enter the fellowship, as the Bible commands (I Cor. 10:20-21, II Cor. 6:14-18, Ephesians 5:11-12). If, as happened in Corinth, someone “slips through the cracks”, that person, under the non-traditional method, will not abide long before he is revealed by salt and light. When found out, the fellowship has a God mandated responsibility to swiftly deal with the issue. If the professed brother refuses to see his error, he must be compassionately, yet sometimes forcefully told to break fellowship (I Corinthians 5). It is this author’s experience that churches very seldom heed this command, and in turn believe that it is their responsibility to “reform” that individual. They’ve missed the point, the person, if sin is not properly repented from, is lost in sin and one heartbeat from Hell. The modern approach does the fellowship no favors, as sin will and does eventually spread like the leaven mentioned in I Corinthians 5. PURGE IT OUT! Further, if the person in question is led to believe that he is saved, and that sin is just normal, then that church is creating a religious lost person akin to anyone in Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, et. al. They all know some truth, but not the clear truth that Christ came to die for the sins of the world, was buried, and rose again the third day. There should be, as a clear example, a decreasing pattern of sin, not a normal pattern. That was broken and overcome by Christ! Don’t be afraid to point this out, it’s the greatest love that a Christian can ever have for another person! (John 16:33, Romans 12:21, II Peter 2:18-22, I John 2:12-29, I John 4:4, I John 5:1-5).

Is this an argument stating that these problems cannot or do not happen in the non-traditional church setting? Not at all. But it is an argument stating that the issues plaguing the Modern system cannot, and are not being handled scripturally. Because of that being the case, they will continue. People will keep getting hurt, and in this age of mass communication, the public will hear more about it than ever before. This should be a given. Further illustration of the system’s failure is its constant creation of new programs and outreaches to, in some way or other, fix the issues. It’s simply become too complex, or to borrow a phrase from the political realm, “Too Big to Fail.” Keeping in that line of thought, the System must be overhauled. It must be built upon the only sure foundation. It must be patterned after the only Biblical models available. It must vanish so that it Christ can once again become visible. It must die, so that Christ may live.

For more on the non-traditional viewpoint, please, visit here, here, here, and here. If you’re in fact wondering about how much Bible you may or may not know, take this quiz, if you find that you don’t do well on this quiz, please, follow II Corinthians 13:5’s admonition. I’d much rather be wrong, and one ends up in Heaven, than be right and many end up in Hell. If you’re in the system’s trap, please, consider this, this, and this (The posts entitled Satan’s Suction System as well as Do We Need Better Leaders?)

Don’t keep falling prey to this system. Break free. Overcome!

If This Is Your Pastor, Then You Need To Flee!

This video is appalling! But it does illustrate the extent that pastors think they that they are lords over "their flock." If you find yourself "under" someone like this, then all I can say is run. If you in fact believe this man is well within the Biblical parameters set for a pastor, then consider a few passages -

I Peter 5:3 - 

Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

I Cor. 11:1-3 - 

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

III John 9-11 - 

9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

II Timothy 3:1-9 (Special emphasis on 1-5) - 

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

Hebrews 10:24-25 - (Emphasis mine)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

I have always enjoyed my friend Dr. Dave Stone's website, and he offers these ideas concerning church. Also, Paul Howey's website offers much more material concerning the pastor worship cult. Consider this article for example. Please, don't keep harming yourself by placing yourself under men like the pastor in this video. He is, though zealous and even well-meaning, going against God's Word by employing such methods.

PS - This was Jim Standbridge from Immanuel Baptist Church, Skiatook, OK, but it doesn't matter who it is, it could well be your pastor.

Summary and Remarks Concerning Larry Alex Taunton's "Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity"

An old school friend of mine posted this link to an article on Facebook that appeared in The Atlantic. My first thought was, “This should be an interesting attack against Christianity.” Then, I looked at the title again, and noticed that it had the tagline “Lessons for a Stronger Christianity.” This left me puzzled, because The Atlantic is not known as being a Christian publication, further, it’s much left-of-center, especially in areas conflicting with evangelical/fundamental beliefs. Surely, The Atlantic, in my mind at least, would never publish an article that would challenge Christians, right? After all, isn’t going to church supposed to take care of all that? Isn’t church where one goes to get preached at? Further, according to Christians, aren’t Atheists simply arrogant, hateful, misguided abhorrents to society? If they’d just go to church like they’re supposed to, then they’d see that God is real. If they’d go to church, then the world wouldn’t be so messed up. After all, it was Atheists who have sparked the modern world’s revolutions, most notably the French Revolution, of which I’ve been slogging through over at Clio’s Lessons for more than a year now. If they just realized the foolishness of their position, then they’d reject their stance, and turn to Christ. Therein lies the problem. Who is showing them Christ?

Larry Alex Taunton’s article should be a bombshell. No, let me restate that, it should be a hydrogen bomb. It should cause deep, spirit-led, heartfelt sorrow. It should cause all who profess Christianity to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, as II Corinthians 13:5 states. It won’t. Modern American Christianity is largely confused. This should come as no surprise to the Bible-believer, because such confusion was prophesied long before America even existed as a nation. Much of the epistles warn against such confusion, but it happened, and is happening anyway. The situation is all too common. Some great teacher, who in many cases has a great heart, arrives on the scene saying amazing things in an incredible way. This man has what seems to be truth, and he definitely has love, so what could possibly go wrong? We should just trust God that He put us under the teacher’s voice. Who are we to question the man of God? Further, this is the way we’ve always done it. It’s tradition, and no one messes with tradition. Especially not an atheist. It’s the atheist who needs to get right, not us Church-going Christians. Mr. Taunton’s article very carefully reveals this very idea/practice as being in fact the problem itself.

Mr. Taunton’s work , which can be seen here, has brought him face to face with atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and many professing Christians. He is attempting to calmly proclaim Christ to an increasingly stormy world. Recently, as his article points out, he and his foundation did a study trying to uncover what he calls “The New Atheists” motives. When did they become Atheist? Why did they choose Atheism? It was questions like these that uncovered many seemingly unrelated statements, that he eventually concluded were in fact all related. Mr. Taunton foreshadows the very heart of the matter when he first quotes Michael, a poli-sci major from Dartmouth, “I really can’t consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn’t trying to convert me.”  This is the main point, and focus around which all other issues arise. Michael, an atheist, has got it right! In this vein, those professing Christianity have greatly erred, and are in fact part of the ever-growing problems affecting their sacred establishments. After quoting Michael, Mr. Taunton then sets off to prove this point.

Taunton and his team issued a challenge across social media aimed at challenging college student led atheist groups. The response was overwhelming as many across the spectrum responded to the simple request, “Tell us your journey to unbelief.” One such young-man, Phil, greatly touched Taunton. His remarks revealed much that churches just don’t understand, or perhaps in many situations, refuse to understand. Phil was raised in a Methodist church, a church, by his own admission, that he liked. It was a contemporary-style church, but it was not the style that impressed Phil, it was his youth pastor’s, Jim,  heart for and knowledge of the Bible. Phil recalls being able to ask questions, no matter how great or small, during a Bible study setting. He began to realize that Jim would always search the scriptures for an answer. If he knew the answer, great, and if he did not at the moment, Jim would search to find one. Jim simply paid attention, and sought out the Bible. This, however, was not good enough for “growth.” (Numerical growth, not spiritually maturing growth – there is a difference, but more on that later). Jim was told to teach less, and become more of a fun guy in order to attract more numbers. When Jim refused, Phil lost his youth pastor. In Jim’s place the church hired, according to Phil’s testimony, Savannah, a pretty, young girl, “…[who] knew nothing about the Bible.” The numbers began rolling in, but Phil was out. Not out of the church, he still attended, but he attended as an atheist until he left for college. Using this story, Taunton outlines 7 serious issues to which any and all professing Christians should pay attention.

First, most atheists in Taunton’s study attended church. They became atheists in reaction to Christianity alone, nothing else.

Second, those churches had at best an ambiguous message. Messages about being good, or doing good in society (aka Social Gospel) littered the testimonies. Churches were often about their, that is the organization’s, reforming an individual, not Christ’s doing the reforming. No connection was made between Christ and the person’s life, as the Bible states. Taunton recalls Stephanie, a Northwestern student’s remarks, which reveal why she left Christianity. She saw, at best, little incentive to stay in the church, if Christ could not reform the lives of those attending. Taunton further points out that this was not just an isolated comment, but one that was restated often.

Third, churches were giving superficial answers to serious questions. As an educator, I have witnessed this one first hand. A former student of mine recently nailed me with a series of very pertinent questions. He had been asking family, teachers, and pastors the same series of questions for about a year before he reconnected with me. When I started to take the time to show him Biblically the answers he so craved, more questions came. We spent two long evenings, and countless other chats over the last year digging, one on one, into the Bible. I at one point asked him why he hadn’t found any answers yet, he replied with two heartbreaking comments, “I was told that I was thinking too deeply about these things.” and, “I just need to trust by faith that what I’m being told is true.” Both responses reveal the problem Taunton is illustrating. The school and church is not one that preaches social gospel. It would not be claimed by the New Evangelicals or Neo Orthodox realm. It is, as they proclaim Fundamental, Bible-Believing. The reality, however, is that they practice much of the numbers game as well as New Evangelical or Neo Orthodox thought. When the tough questions are asked, those in leadership run, because as Phil pointed out about Savannah, they don’t know the Bible. The students in Taunton’s study all reveal that they found church to be a place of “…shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant people.” They draw this conclusion, especially in the early adult years, from the fact that no one in their professing Christian circles knows how to answer life’s serious questions.

Fourth, my previous comments would seem to have an irreverence for Pastors, Missionaries, and Teachers in the church. It would also seem that these students-turned-atheists have such irreverential attitudes toward church leadership. That’s what someone in those positions of authority would have you believe at least. The reality is much more eye-opening. Taunton has debated many atheists in his lifetime, one of whom was the most antagonistic atheists of his time, Christopher Hitchens. After a debate in 2010, Taunton asked Hitchens why he didn’t attempt to “savage” him on the stage. Hitchens reply is loaded with insight, “Because you believe it.” It was in this paragraph  that Michael from Dartmouth’s quote about good, moral Christians trying to convert him was stated, thus revealing that only a few Christians are due respect. All others claiming to follow Christ are then called out. The atheist, as I have experienced, and Taunton points out, have the utmost respect for those who truly, and ”…’unashamedely’ embraced Biblical teaching.” It is only those who are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ that earn the atheists respect. Those wishy-washy forms incur wrath, as they should. Taunton shows that this is true not just across the college-aged spectrum, but also quotes famous magician Penn Jillette’s now well-known comments, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…. How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” No, there’s not a disrespect or irreverence to these leaders, that is unless they’re so ashamed of Christ as to not proclaim the truth to a lost and dying world. In that case, the atheist is absolutely correct in his antagonistic reply to the weak-minded, social clubs that call themselves “churches.” I concur.

Fifth, Taunton states that ages 14-17 are decisive. As a former High school student I couldn’t agree more. I’d, however, further add that each and every year after 17 the young person becomes exponentially more difficult to reach. Not impossible, but incomprehensibly more difficult. (One can only say such a comment if one has been out “proselytizing.” Otherwise, one would never know this reality in its fullest sense). High school students are not stupid. They often ask better, though simpler, questions about life than adults. They just want to know so much. When they don’t find the answers in one area, by default they look for answers in another area. In today’s age of information at your fingertips, this becomes a serious battle for parents, teachers, etc…. Half-baked answers just won’t suffice. Laziness will soon be exposed. Thus the Bible’s comments about Studying to shew thyself approved or Proving all things and holding fast that which is good. If a Christian doesn’t do these things, what good is he in helping others find truth? Wouldn’t you reject someone who can’t answer your questions on any matter? Teens are no different.

Sixth, emotions are real, and for ages 14-17 they are very serious, often leading to life-changing decisions. Typically in Christian youth rally’s or conferences a type of emotionalized message is preached. Those speakers understand that if they can affect the teenagers emotions, then they can effect an outcome. Often scores of teary-eyed teens flood forward for an alter call, and make decisions about any number of issues. I am not against going straight for a person’s heart, but one must understand that there is a proper way to do so. I’ve had people start crying on the street after I’ve shared the Law with them. This is good, “Godly Sorrow”, not created by my words, but by their own admission to being guilty under God’s Law. That Godly Sorrow, as the rest of the verse states, leads to repentance to Salvation not to b repented of…. II Cor. 7:10. What often transpires, however, at one of these youth events is a ramped up emotionalism that produces numbers of responses. Some of the responses are good, but the majority are nothing more than sensationalized feelings. Speaking from both sides of the coin, I, as a student went forward for the very same things others did. Usually within a week or so, however, the emotion wore off, and I’d be back at whatever it was about which I was so remorseful. That seemed to be the case with others around me too, and I just accepted it as normal. Then I started to notice that I would go further into whatever sin it was that caused me so much angst, and the next time I’d hear an emotion-laced plea, it fell upon deaf ears. I’d become hardened. Not only did I become hardened, I rejected what was being preached. Once I finally understood that Christ overcame the world, sin, death, and hell, and that He wanted to do that for me and in my life, then I realized how wicked I was. Then I was in agreement with God about sin, and then I turned from sin (In repentance to God), and toward Christ (In Faith). This ultimately vital truth is not widely used anymore. It does not produce numbers. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. It is not enough to point out in an emotional way what sin is. One must give truth to the person who is broken about sin, and compel them to repent from their sin, and turn to Christ. In this case emotions are often present, but emotions without truth properly applied leads to despair when the feeling disappears. Teens more often than not become jaded after a series of emotional responses, and then reject what they think is Christianity. Taunton does not go into this type of detail. Instead he gives witness to abusive relationships, and how they affected the atheists in his study. He metions two cases in which scarred girls rejected a god in whom they thought inflicted pain upon mankind. Their emotions are/were real, and must be handled accordingly. One should understand that these emotionally abusive situations can and do occur in religious settings. (eg. Pastors threatening parents or students, who have experienced some form of wickedness done by the church leadership. The news is all too full of such events).

Finally, Taunton points out that the internet has become an immense tool in teens converting to atheism. The internet is a double-edged sword. When used correctly, it is a very helpful instrument. When used incorrectly, it leaves permanent damage. It would be faulty, however, to blame the internet for causing teens to become atheists. Much as it is faulty in stating that a knife killed a person. The tool has to be willfully used in order for it to be effective. In spite of that, accidents do occur. It is how one responds to the willful or accidental usage of a tool that matters. Let me illustrate my point further. Two teens are doing a research project for school. They both pick the same topic, Atheism. Both claim to be Christians. Both students, Jack and Jill, research the same information, but Jack’s work leads him into atheism, whereas Jill’s work leads her into a deeper understanding of Christ. What was the difference? They both used the same material, but arrived at vastly different conclusions. Jack, who at the beginning professed to be Christian, had a weak, at best, knowledge of the Bible he claimed to follow. Jill, on the other hand, had a strong foundation in the Bible, and was not fazed by the material she researched. She had been properly, Biblically taught the answers to life’s serious questions. When those questions came, she did not flinch. Jack, however, did. The tool did not lead him into atheism, it just revealed that the seed of God’s Word had not taken root in his heart. Jack’s willful choice led him into atheism, not the internet. Jill’s willful choice to follow Christ, kept her from espousing atheism. Thus, when both used the same materials, one used the information correctly, and one used it incorrectly. There are many tools in the world today, much of them online. The parent must be aware of this reality. Further, the parent must be aware of what state the child’s heart is in. This is a present, active, always wary necessity for each and every parent. It does not mean that such parental action will make their child a Christian. It means that a parent must, relying upon Christ, raise their children in scriptural nurture and admonition. When, not if, the serious questions arise, the parent (as commanded by the Bible in hundreds of ways), should teach and train. If that is done properly, the child-become-teen, should not be afraid to answer boldly, and scripturally.

In Taunton’s conclusionary remarks, the makes this powerfully condemnatory last remark, “That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable.” He adds another comment by Michael, “Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven’t seen too much of that.” [Emphasis mine]. What has happened!? Atheists seem to understand something that most professing Christians miss, or refuse to understand. They understand that Christianity, as we know it in modern America, is no longer changing lives, nor does it care to affect the lives of those around them. To add my final thought to the article, one that I and others often use when dealing with professing Christians – “What are you doing with it? If nothing, as Penn Jillette illustrates, why do you hate me so much that you want me to go to Hell? Do you really believe Christ then? Do you really love Him? Has your life been changed by Him?” Well, has it?

Augustine - Saint or Sinner?

I have stumbled across an interesting summary regarding "Saint" Augustine, that I believe is well worth the short amount of time necessary to read the article. It can be found here.

Of special note in the article is the history detailing how Augustine, and his friend Jerome, used force to have Pelagius declared a heretic. Ever since that time, Pelagius and his adherents have been deemed heretics by, not only Augustine's Catholic Church, but also those within the Reformed Catholic (aka. Protestant) traditions. This piqued my interest, as I have always read about the "Pelagian Heresy" in most books covering the topic. No one mentions how Pelagius was proclaimed orthodox many times by the very same leaders who, later, were coerced into declaring Pelagius a heretic. Why was Augustine so bent on having Pelagius declared a heretic? Could it have been because under Pelagius' view, Augustine was still guilty for his sins?