You are here: Home / Apologetics

Pope Frank Thinks You Are Insane For Taking Your Faith Seriously

10/22/2013 31 Comments

Pope FrankDuring a Mass last week, Pope–Petrus Romanus–Francis called ideological Christianity “an illness.” According to the Encarta dictionary, Ideology can mean 1) an organized system of beliefs, values, and ideas forming the basis of a social, economic, or political philosophy or program. 2) a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world. When considering Christianity then the second seems most applicable but it is not necessarily negative. It seems to me it means one tries to live consistently with what claims to believe. Pope Francis finds that unacceptable:

Interestingly, the Pope also criticized conservative Catholics for protesting abortion and same-sex marriage. When asked about homosexual priests who had infiltrated the Roman system he replied, “Who am I to judge?”  startling words from the so-called vicar of Christ.  As a result, secular humanists, abortionists and homosexuals are beside themselves with joy over the pope’s position against the hated fundamentalism. The term “fundamentalist” has been given a bad spin and I would like to correct it.

In 1846, the Evangelical Alliance was formed to unite all believers who saw liberalism as a denial of the faith. At a meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, they listed the five “fundamentals” that could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. These were: (1) inerrancy of Scripture, (2) the divinity of Jesus, (3) the Virgin birth, (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and (5) his physical resurrection and impending return. These doctrines are what separate the sheep from the goats. The church I attend affirms all of them. If yours does not, consider finding a new place to worship. While it is argued here that they are all essentials, two, four and five cannot be denied while in any meaningful way remaining a Christian. After all, Christ is the center of Christianity, the Gospel is His death and resurrection and the great hope of the believer is in Jesus’ promise to return (Heb 9:28; Tit 2:13).

Even the outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens has better understanding of Christianity than Pope Francis. This is an excerpt from an interview of Hitchens by a Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell concerning his book God is Not Great:

Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.[1]

It is terribly unfortunate that an ardent anti-theist like Hitchens understood Christianity better than a minister like Sewell and, apparently, even the pope himself.


[1] “The Hitchens Transcript”, Portland Monthly, http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/books-and-talks/articles/christopher-hitchens/ (accessed 9/29/2011).

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With False Prophet, Petrus Romanus, Pope Frank

RA Torrey on the Personhood of the Holy Spirit

10/22/2013 1 Comment
R.A. Torrey

R.A. Torrey

R.A. Torrey (1856–1928) was an independent Congregationalist educator and evangelist. He was ordained in 1883 as a Congregationalist minister serving as a pastor and missions supervisor (1883–1889). In 1889, D. L. Moody asked Torrey to become the first superintendent of the Moody Bible Institute where he served until 1908. Torrey pursued his interest in mass evangelism and missions with overseas tours, including meetings in Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. In 1912, Torrey took leadership of the newly formed Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola). His leadership was foundational for the school which today boasts one the top apologetics programs in the country as well as the well respected Talbot School of Theology. Torrey stayed at Biola until 1924. We need more men like him today.

In our increasingly pagan environment, poorly educated false teachers are infiltrating the body and spreading heresies and denying basic biblical theology. Recently the Lord has led me to address the attacks upon the Holy Spirit by Russ Houck (who claims a doctorate in theology from an unaccredited school) and his popularizer Rob Skiba, both who teach that that He is merely an impersonal force. While its common among the cults, it is a dangerous heresy. Torrey wrote an excellent book The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit stating in the very first chapter that this is not an optional doctrine but rather one that is fundamental to the worship of the true God:

It is of the highest importance from the standpoint of worship that we decide whether the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, worthy to receive our adoration, our faith, our love, and our entire surrender to Himself, or whether it is simply an influence emanating from God or a power or an illumination that God imparts to us.If the Holy Spirit is a person, and a Divine Person, and we do not know Him as such, then we are robbing a Divine Being of the worship and the faith and the love and the surrender to Himself which are His due.
RA Torrey, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, (New York: Fleming HL Revell Company, 1910), 7.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has questions or perhaps was misled by the heretical teachings of Houck and Skiba. It is available as free download here.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Cult, Rob Skiba, Russ Houck, Trinity

Caesars Messiah and Joseph Atwill Debunked

10/12/2013 8 Comments

Chris White has a new video ^ and website dedicated to debunking Joseph Atwill’s conspiracy theory. http://caesarsmessiahdebunked.com/

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Jesus Myth

Ceasar’s Messiah Conspiracy Theory is Easily Refuted

10/10/2013 62 Comments

Gallio Inscription

Gallio Inscription

A sensational headline is making its way around the internet: Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus Christ.’ Accordingly, I have received quite a few messages about this new “Covert Messiah” claim by conspiracy theorist Joseph Atwill. This is actually old hat from Atwill who authored the book Ceasar’s Messiah back in 2005.  The overall thesis is that the Roman Emperor Titus conspired to invent a new religion that would pacify the population rendering them easy to govern. As Atwill spins his yarn, Titus enlisted the help of Flavius Josephus who left various clues in his works that Atwill has ever so shrewdly decoded for us less perceptive readers.  Of course, this raises lots of obvious questions about why the Roman’s were feeding Christian to the lions and banishing them from Rome as recorded by Suetonius. But more fundamentally, it seems that Atwill misunderstands Jesus:

When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.[1]

The fact that the Roman’s were the ones that crucified Jesus seems to escape Atwill.  A superficial reading of the Gospels might seem to support his conspiracy theory but Jesus was fundamentally hostile to the pagan world system.  He was not, and is not, a pacifist. Speaking of Jesus, the book of Revelation strongly controverts the claim:

“From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”(Re 19:15)

This passage from the Gospel of Matthew below hardly fits the profile that Atwill attempts to shoehorn Jesus into:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”(Mt 10:34–37)

Jesus asked for unqualified allegiance, something even the most venerated rabbi did not claim. The central point of the teaching above is that love of God and his kingdom must take precedence over every other human relationship including the Roman Empire. This is why the early Christians were willing to lay down their lives rather than worship Caesar as a god. This is why Paul was martyred (interestingly before Atwill’s theory has even been launched) and that fact brings up the most egregious fallacy in the theory: he assumes Jesus was “created” post AD 70.

Archeologists have dated many of Paul’s letters long before AD 70. 1 Corinthians is a prime example containing data that solidly dates to around AD 55. He wrote it from Ephesus during his third missionary journey. Paul was nearing the end of his stay and making plans to leave (1 Cor. 16:5–8).  We can be certain of the date because Paul appeared before the Roman governor Gallio in Achaia in Acts 18:12–17, and his appearance, probably in AD 51, provides a firm date for determining the chronology of his ministry. A statue with an inscription preserves the fact the Gallio served in the region from AD 51-53 a detail consistent with Paul’s writings. This undesigned coincidence demonstrates the authenticity of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians which amongst other things, discusses Jesus resurrection from the dead, the central truth claim of the Gospel.

This inscription places Paul in front of procounsul Gallio between AD 51-53.

This inscription places Paul in front of procounsul Gallio between AD 51-53.

For this reason, even the most critical scholars date 1 Corinthians to AD 55.  1 Corinthians 15:3-7 contains the account of the resurrection a full eighteen years before Atwill’s conspiracy theory was said to be launched. This video explains an early creed that falsifies the Ceasar’s Messiah hypothesis:


This latest “discovery” appears to be an attempt to revive the largely discredited and dismissed conspiracy theory.  Atwill’s new evidence is to be revealed October 19th. I expect that historians and scholars will shred it in a matter of days.

 

[1] “Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus Christ’” http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Jesus Myth

Rob Skiba’s Faith Statement the Mark of a Cult

09/24/2013 152 Comments

Babylon Book200Popular author Rob Skiba is intentionally deceiving his followers. It is a matter of public record that I have confronted him concerning his denial of the trinity, specifically the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Terms like “trinity” have specific definitions that reasonable people agree on in order to make communication possible. Think about it this way, if I decided to redefine the word “red” to match the color green and then started stopping at green lights I would cause a traffic accident. Well Skiba is causing a theological pileup on the freeway. Recently he published a statement of faith on the internet. His disingenuousness ( I will prove)  is apparent right from the start in point number one:

I believe in one eternal God whose name is YHWH (Deuteronomy 6:4). He is the Father of the only begotten Son, Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus – John 3:16) , and He has sent His Holy Spirit to empower, comfort and encourage us in our walk with Him. I believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one (Genesis 1:1-4; Isaiah 11:1-5; John 1:1-14; 10:30; 17:11; 1 John 5:7), thus, commonly referred to as the Trinity. [1]

He wants people to read it and think he is affirming the trinity. But he really is not. The above statement is intentionally deceptive. I have undeniable proof that he does not believe what is “commonly referred to as the Trinity.” He argues vigorously against the trinity and my facebook notes comment section have a record of it. What is “commonly referred to as the trinity” is undeniably “one God in Three persons.” Here are some sources.

Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion:

Trinity. The Christian understanding of God as triune. Trinity means that the one divine nature is a unity of three persons and that God is revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ultimate basis for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity lies in the divine self-disclosure in Jesus, who as the Son revealed the Father and poured out the Holy Spirit. See also economic Trinity; immanent Trinity.[1A]

Here’s another theological dictionary:

    Trinity A reference to the doctrine that God is one and yet exists eternally in three   persons.[2]

Even a non-specialist dictionary like Webster’s gets it right:

Trin•i•ty \ˈtri-nə-tē\ n

[ME trinite, fr. AF trinité, fr. LL trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, fr. L trinus threefold] 13c

1           : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2           not cap : a group of three closely related persons or things

3           : the Sunday after Whitsunday observed as a feast in honor of the Trinity[3]


It doesn’t get any more “common” than Webster’s. Clearly, what is commonly referred to as the trinity is the belief in “one God in three persons.” Rob denies the Holy Spirit is a person just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. This is Rob’s comment from our facebook discussion that first alarmed me to his cultic theology.

Skiba denies Holy Spirit and calls Trinity doctrine the "real heresy."

Skiba denies Holy Spirit and calls Trinity doctrine the “real heresy.”

Note in the last paragraph he writes the majority view (one God in three persons) “is the very definition of absolute heresy.” So he has effectively called every Christian theologian over the last 1700 years a heretic. He has no respect for anyone who has come before him and, as shown in previous posts,  his cultist views are based on a surface reading of an English translation. Very poor form. But now he publishes a faith statement giving the reader the impression he affirms what he so vehemently denies? His conscience is apparently seared. He is very well aware that what he believes is far removed from what is “commonly called the trinity.” So why is Rob misleading you about his beliefs? He wants to keep his fans and followers who might (and should) leave his fold if he told the truth.

It is common practice amongst the cults. For example The Way International holds a similar stance. Ken Boa writes, “The Way often uses the right terminology but in the wrong way.”[4]  Similarly, “Theosophy proceeds deceitfully and parasitically by its practice of using (misusing) Christian terminology.”[5] Also, “Though this cult uses Christian terminology to communicate its mystical Eastern concepts to a Western audience, it is vehemently opposed to every major tenet of biblical Christianity.”[6]  If it walks like a duck then it’s probably a ___ *quack! Skiba’s deceptive faith statement is clearly cultic because it uses known Christian theology to deceive followers into thinking he affirms Christian doctrine. If you follow Rob Skiba’s teaching and attend his church you have joined ranks with these cult groups listed here. Birds of a feather…

Addendum, here’s another argument from Skiba that clearly shows he does not believe “what is commonly referred to as the trinity”:

Skiba Denies Personhood

 

[1] Rob Skiba, “Statement of Faith” http://www.babylonrisingblog.com/Faith.html (accessed September 24, 2013).

[1A] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 118.

[2]Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 204.

[3] Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.

[4]Kenneth Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult (Canada; England: Victor Books, 1990), 244.

[5] Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult, 138.

[6]Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult, 131.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Cult, Rob Skiba, Virtual House Church
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »