|
| FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) with headquarters in Cambridge, England, promotes itself as "the world's foremost scholarly organization devoted to the dialogue between science and religion." Recently it commissioned a report by seven of its "expert" members to deal with the claims of the Intelligent Design movement that has set evolutionists by the ears here in the United States. ISSR notes that "there has been much interest in the view that our current scientific understanding of evolution is incoherent. According to this view, certain biological features, because they appear to be ‘irreducibly complex', could not have evolved by natural selection and therefore must have been created by the intervention of an ‘intelligent designer'." ISSR adds: "This view has been challenged, not only by atheists such a Richard Dawkins, but also by religious believers. Among these are many members of the International Society for Science and Religion." ISSR's Executive Committee has published the report on the issue by its seven members, each of whom is proclaimed as an "expert" in science, theology, philosophy or history. The report was finalized only after consultation with ISSR's members, who come from many countries and from many different religious traditions and academic disciplines. The concept of Intelligent Design is, says the report, "neither sound science nor good theology." The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God's action as creator - a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call "the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science - just as we oppose the efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism)." Sir Brian Heap, the President of ISSR, who is both an endocrine physiologist and a professing Christian, said, "Here is a succinct critique with a valuable bibliography, though no doubt not the last word on the subject." He is dead right. This is certainly not the last word on the subject. Parading "experts" is as helpful as parading a line of polar bears. Those who promote ID are also "experts" in the very same fields of science, philosophy and religion. What all ISSR's religious experts have in common is a desire or willingness to discount (a) the plain statements of the Bible, treating them as anything but divine revelation; and (b) any cogent argument that shows the inherent impossibility of the scheme proposed by Darwinian evolutionists. In other words, they come to the subject with closed minds, determined to make the evidence fit their prejudice. The theologians they acclaim are not theologians at all in the real sense of the word. Theology can function only on the basis and in the realm of divine revelation. ISSR's theologians can never ascend beyond a humanistic construction of a god of their own imagining. Theirs is a god of their own devising. Their religion, whatever its name, is really idolatry. Their theology is bad theology and their science is bad science. All the "experts" in the world cannot change this. Unfortunately, however, their prestige enables them to press their bigoted views on the government to deny students in public schools the opportunity to learn both sides of the debate, which says a lot about the insecurity of ISSR and its experts. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Recently I commented on the demise of the so-called Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Its support at grass roots level is almost non-existent. After over a century of propaganda and high powered sponsorship it has come to very little. That has not dampened the enthusiasm of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches for the event. Since 1968, the WCC's Commission on Faith and Order and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity have jointly sponsored it and this year the pope and the General Secretary of the WCC, Dr Samuel Kobia, a Kenyan Methodist, got together in Rome to give a very public thrust to their endeavor to produce one united church under the leadership of the pope. The WCC, headquartered in Geneva, has 347 churches in its membership, including Anglican, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal and Orthodox bodies. Although the Church of Rome does not belong to the WCC, it has members on some of its bodies, including the Commission on Faith and Order. About thirty ecumenical leaders of Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches met in Rome to take part in what was billed as a week-long ecumenical festival. Kobia's joint appearance with the pope marked the conclusion of the week of prayer for unity (January 18-25). Kobia repeated the same old canard as all his predecessors. He said: "I want to assure you of our commitment to continue our co-operation in the best possible way. ... The world needs a church that is one and united in its witness." Referring to the unrest in his home country which has led to more than 800 deaths, Kobia continued, "The common witness of the churches for reconciliation and healing of the nation is crucial for peace in Kenya." All this sounds great to the carnal mind. The secular press seems to love these apparently loving and peace-producing statements. In fact, Kobia's statement is absolutely false on all levels. Unity already exists among genuine Christians on the basis of fundamental Christian doctrine and practice. It does not necessitate a monolithic ecclesiastical structure without which our witness must remain ineffective. The opposite is clearly the case. As recent studies have shown, churches that are large state monopolies are dying while churches that are seen as being "competitive" are flourishing. So building ecumenical powerhouses carries no promise of having any effect on the world around us. To hear Samuel Kobia talking to the pope you would think that if only they could have got together in time the recent politically inspired rioting in Kenya would have been avoided. You talk about wishful thinking! I would argue that if their vision of a world church ever materializes it will make matters such as the Kenyan troubles even worse. Make no mistake: there is no God-given spiritual power in the ecumenical movement. It is a man-invented, man-engineered, humanistic organization that has since its inception been an open enemy of the gospel of Christ. In its history it has been pro-Communist, pro-terrorist, anti-Western and anti-missions. In a word it has been anti-Christ. Remember that when next you see a benign looking picture of men like the pope and the General Secretary of the WCC. The ecumenical machine they are cranking up aims at nothing less than the destruction of Bible Christianity. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
When two lesbian women tried to hire photographer Elane Huguenin for their pseudo marriage ceremony she declined because she said her Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The lesbian pair filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, which is now trying Elane Photography under state antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation discrimination. The complainants sought for an injunction against Elane Photography that will forbid them from ever again refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony. They have also requested attorney's fees, which according to lawyers could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars if the case were to proceed through various stages of court proceedings. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal alliance that is dedicated to defending and protecting religious freedom, sanctity of life, marriage, and family, is currently defending Elane Photography. "We defended Elane Photography in court, saying basically that no person should be required to help others advance a message that they disagree with," ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Jordan Lorence, said. "That's a basic First Amendment principle. The government is punishing Elane photography for refusing to take photos which obviously advance the messages sent by the same-sex ceremony-that marriage can be defined as two women or two men." There is an already clearly established legal precedent that should protect Elane Photography from this iniquitous lawsuit. Of course, that is not to say that the New Mexico Human Rights Division will not try to establish rights for homosexuals that trample the clear constitutional rights of a photographer whose religious belief does not allow her to participate in a same-sex pseudo marriage. Homosexuals and their fellow travelers are on a crusade to force acceptance of their perverted lifestyle by mainstream society. In fact, they want to go further and force the rest of us not only to recognize homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle but to become active participants in promoting it. Already that have prevailed on courts to rule that little children must have textbooks that effectively redefine the meaning of family to make homosexual relationships appear normal. They will never stop in their crusade until they have spread the poison of their perversion to every part of this society. We need more individuals and business that are willing to stand up and be counted. Many corporations that have regard only to the bottom line and care nothing for the moral fiber of the nation have become active supporters, even promoters, of the sodomite movement. As I say, it's time that people of integrity decided to take a stand and determine not to yield their constitutional rights-yes, their God-given rights-to oppose the dark and damning wickedness of homosexuality. Homosexuality is nasty, not normal; abominable, not acceptable. The sooner we take that message to America the better for America. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Consider the following from a Reuters report from Washington, filed February 4, 2008: U.S. popular music is awash with lyrics about drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Medical researchers have reviewed the words of the 279 top songs of 2005 to estimate just how common they are. Their report ... showed a third of the songs had explicit references to substance abuse. And two-thirds of these references placed drugs, alcohol and tobacco in a positive light by associating them with sex, partying and humor, according to the team led by Dr. Brian Primack of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. They calculated that with Americans aged 15 to 18 listening to 2.4 hours of music daily, they hear 84 musical references to substance use a day and more than 30,000 a year. Not wishing to run counter to the current views political correctness, the doctor who led the inquiry and issued the report at once stated, "It's not going to be feasible or even desirable to censor these messages. Probably a more empowering approach is to teach kids to analyze and evaluate the messages for themselves." This report deals with a major problem and we should be grateful to Dr. Primack for producing the study, even though his suggested solution is weak and doomed to failure. The stark reality that we have to face is that the entertainment industry thrives on moral decadence and is the major instrument for causing the moral collapse of our nation's youth. The music industry has been incredibly successful in indoctrinating generations of Americans into adopting the depraved "values" of drugged out, alcoholic and immoral singers and musicians. There is nothing accidental in the concentration of popular music on the themes of drugs, booze and illicit sex. These form the atmosphere that all too many musicians live in. It's the world they know and it's the world they want our young people to live in. Unfortunately, they have been overwhelmingly successful in attaining their objective. The question is, "How should we deal with the problem?" The most obvious answer is to cut off the cancer at its source. But, we are told, that would be censorship and we couldn't have that. We can have dead teens, drunk drivers, broken homes and a fractured society-yes, we can put up with these but we cannot stop a lying, drug addicted, alcoholic sexual pervert from poisoning millions of young minds. We make it a crime for anyone to sell drugs. We call him a drug "pusher." But we cannot criminalize singers who push drug use. That would inhibit their freedom of speech! Of course, we inhibit many other kinds of speech but somehow the vaporings of drugged up singers are sacrosanct, no matter how much damage they cause. This is what happens to a society when it abandons God's code of right and wrong. In this age of self-absorption-when instant gratification of lust is glorified and when self-discipline is held up to ridicule-all talk of "sin" is hissed at as "judgmental." Americans could do with hearing a bit more of the judgment of God before they get to experience it in the eternal burnings. Perhaps then, made to tremble by the force of God's law, they would seek His mercy in Christ. That is the only real answer to the filthy flood that is engulfing this nation. Only the gospel has the power to save sinners and truly set them free. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
A few months ago a British Muslim leader spoke of "offering" Britain the benefit of adopting Shari‘a law. Now Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has come forward to tell the nation that the introduction of Shari‘a law for Muslims in the United Kingdom "seems unavoidable." The fact that British Muslims do not "relate" to the British legal system is sufficient reason for Williams to call for Shari‘a courts to be set up to deal with Muslim marital and financial disputes. Adopting such parts of Muslim law would, according to him, "help maintain social cohesion." Williams told the BBC that an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts-I think that's a bit of a danger. ... There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." This is incredible. Muslims have flocked into Britain and now complain that the British legal system is not compatible with their "culture." So what does Rowan Williams propose? That Muslims do what all the rest of the citizens of the country do and obey the law or have it changed for all citizens by due parliamentary process? No. He suggests that Britain should set up special courts for Muslims, outside the state legal system, courts with standards that are foreign to Britain's legal tradition and that deal with only a segment of the population. And-astonishingly-according to the Archbishop, this legal segregation will lead to greater social "cohesion." Now the last time I looked at a dictionary, cohesion carried the idea of a tendency to stick together. How setting up segregated Muslim courts will lead Muslims and non-Muslims to stick together or will enable Muslims to assimilate into the mainstream of British life is beyond me. And I suspect it is beyond anyone but noodle-headed liberals who have no deep attachment to the beliefs and practices that underlie Britain's constitution. Rowan Williams assures us, "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well." But that inhumanity is precisely what we would get. Already Muslim girls have been murdered by fathers or brothers in what Muslims call "honor killings." Imagine what would happen if a Muslim party to a marital dispute decided he or she did not want to be judged by Shari‘a law. And imagine what will happen when, having got their exclusive Muslim courts, Muslims decide to demand the right to devise their own system of punishments or even the extension of Shari‘a law to the entire population. The simple truth is that Muslims, like all other sections of the community, can appoint third party mediators to decide disputes but all are ultimately answerable to the legal code of the state. To call for a segregated court system is foolish, dangerous and in open defiance of the standard God set up in Israel: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exodus 12:49; see Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16). I believe the Lord knows more about a just legal system than Rowan Williams, so we should heed Him not the Archbishop. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
There's a new kid on the block of Baptist church politics. Having suffered severely as a newly invigorated conservative movement ousted them from their long held power base in the Southern Baptist Convention, liberal Baptists have formed what they call "The New Baptist Covenant." From January 30 until February 1, 2008, 15,000 participants convened in Atlanta to seek a wider unity and to delineate a policy of social involvement. Reportedly, the group demonstrated racial, theological and geographic harmony as they prayed, sang, listened to sermons and attended workshops focusing on ministry to the people they claim Jesus called "the least of these" in society. They welcomed some big name speakers to the platform. There was Baptist ex-President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. There was another Baptist ex-President, even more famous than Carter, none other than Bill Clinton. And Al Gore was there as well, to stand by his support for homosexual marriage. Jimmy Carter was clearly enthused by the emphasis on world hunger, poverty, changing the judicial system and such like. "I feel that this New Baptist Covenant assembly is based on ... love God and love the person standing in front of you at any time," Carter bubbled. Clinton was the closing speaker and he lectured the participants on how to go forward to the unity they sought. "If we are going to form a covenant that can embrace the whole body of the Baptist [tradition], which every Christian can identify with and every good human being on earth can applaud, it is the spirit with which we go forward and our determination to offer specific things we can do as the children of God that will determine how it comes out in the end." Now just in case you may have forgotten, this is the same Bill Clinton who took his marriage covenant so seriously and exercised it in such a consistently loving manner that he dragged the office of the President into the gutter of animal lust and persistent lying. He is the one who now unctuously speaks of going forward in a spirit of humility and forgiveness! I think I would call that gall! More than 30 Baptist denominations and groups sponsored and participated in the gathering. There were several Democratic Party speakers and one Republican senator. The event was boycotted by conservative Baptists who saw the event for what it was, an exercise in old fashioned liberalism. Conservatives have never shied away from their responsibilities in ministries of mercies to a suffering humanity. What we refuse to do is to replace the Church's primary mission of preaching the gospel of redeeming grace with a social gospel and a liberal political and social agenda. I applaud the conservatives who refused to participate and become co-belligerents with Clinton and Carter and their liberal cronies. The best of humanitarian ideals cannot become the excuse for betraying the fundamental and exclusive truth of the gospel. And that is what the New Baptist Covenant's liberal agenda effectively does. |
 |
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
You can hardly read a newspaper or listen to a news commentary without running into Muslim demands for greater "liberty" for their religious beliefs and practices. In the Netherlands a proposed law banning the wearing of the burqa in public on security grounds has to be modified so that the religious liberty of 50 to 100 Muslim women will not be violated. In Britain, Muslims are graciously "offering" the country's majority the doubtful benefit of shari‘a law-translation: we are using your liberal constitution to get what we want and once we get enough we will impose our will on you. If you think my interpretation of Muslim intentions unlikely consider the following report. Egypt is a Muslim country. The United States holds it forth as a model for other Muslim countries to follow. It is not your usual Muslim dictatorship. No, this is a more enlightened land. Try telling that to Muhammad Hegazy. He was born a Muslim but converted to Christianity. However, when he sought to have his religious affiliation marked on his national identification card he found out that in law he was still a Muslim and could never be anything else. The law forbade it. The judge cited the Egyptian Constitution which makes shari‘a law the "source' of all other laws and the basis of their interpretation. Judge Muhammad Husseini concluded that it violates the law for a Muslim to leave Islam. He found that Hegazy, "can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert." The judge further ruled that since Islam is the "final" and "most complete" religion, Muslims already have full freedom of religion and are not allowed to return to the "less complete" Christianity or Judaism. This is Islam at work. Where in the Islamic world is there real freedom of thought? Where can a man weigh the evidence and decide for himself whether to embrace Christianity? Where in the Muslim world do Christians enjoy equal protection under the law? Even in a "secular" Muslim country such as Turkey, in the trial of the murderers of three Christian workers the prosecution is trying to lay the ultimate blame on the victims-they "provoked" the attackers by being Christians who dared to let anybody know they were Christians! By contrast, the West is cosseting Islam and her extremists. The British government refuses to recognize a war on terror. It refuses to speak of "Muslim terrorism," calling it instead "anti-Islamic activity." To accommodate Muslims who have entered our countries we have agreed to ban or curtail legitimate and even traditional expressions of the faith on which our nations were founded-and while we do so Islam is systematically denying the most basic rights to anybody who rejects its religious tyranny. Let there be no mistake. There are individual Muslims who are kind and moderate people. Not long ago I had the honor of speaking to one. But the religion of Islam has never shown itself willing to co-exist where it has the power to dominate. There are no exceptions. And yet liberals are falling over themselves trying to accommodate Islam. It doesn't make sense. What the West is doing is giving Muslims enough rope to hang us. And if they can, they will. |
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
About a month ago I reported that EthicsDaily.com, a Baptist internet service, named Al Gore "Baptist of the Year." Gore has recently demonstrated his ethical credentials by coming out in open support of so-called "gay marriages." I say "so-called" because first, there is nothing gay about homosexuality. Gay is a word that denotes joy and happiness; homosexuality is a culture of gloom, doom and death. And marriage is not open to redefinition. I know that the great Mr. Gore seems to have taken credit for creating the internet and has with equal justification claimed that men are causing the planet to heat up, thus threatening the world with impending disaster. But even such an evidently powerful man cannot redefine marriage. Even Gore wasn't around when the Creator made marriage what it was and is and ever must be, the union of a man and a woman. No matter what Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and others of their ilk say, the perverted sexual union of two men or two women cannot pass as marriage. After his defeat for the presidency in 2000, Gore and wife Tipper released a book, Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of the American Family, that included profiles of homosexual couples as well as traditional families. In a 2006 speech Gore referred to the "gay marriage" ceremonies performed at San Francisco in early 2004, and said, "[S]ome reacted with hatred and anger. What I saw that was just the overwhelming love, the joy, the purity of the excitement that that love was being honored." Now he has given us this gem of further ethical insight: "I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women -- to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage." I suspect that there is a lot more that Al Gore cannot see. The man is as blind as they come. What God's word calls "lust," "inordinate affection," and "evil concupiscence" Gore calls love. What the Bible says keeps a man out of heaven, Gore believes should be celebrated and sanctioned by law on earth. I say he believes all this because this is what he has said. Of course, he carefully refrained from saying any of this when he was running for President. He did not believe these things deeply enough to come out and tell the American people the truth about his positions. He is such an ethical Baptist that he did all he could to hide his pro-sodomite beliefs, at least until he could get elected. Gore poses as a Christian. He passes for a "liberal" Baptist. The truth is that he is a radical left-winger, a socialist whose brief is to destroy the message and morality of the gospel and replace them with the perverted inventions of men who share his own darkened view of life. I have refrained from making any political commentary on Mr. Gore or others in his political sphere. But this goes beyond politics. What Al Gore has done is to take a giant step of shame. He excuses his shameful position as one of "love." Those who reject it he denigrates as those who react with "hatred and anger." This lie can no more cover his shame than the fig leaf could Adam's. Gore is the real hater for he hates and despises his Creator's law and rises in rebellion to overthrow His order for a holy and happy society. Al Gore's love is on a par with his ethics: they both reek of hypocrisy. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Hindu fanatics have been launching one attack after another on any who profess to be Christians in the Indian state of Orissa. Their violent activities have been well reported and documented. Now they have issued an ultimatum to all Christians in that state: CONVERT TO HINDUISM OR DIE. Given the recent murders of Christians, no one can take this threat as anything but a deadly serious statement of intent. And such is the barbarism and fanaticism of Orissa's Hindus that we can be sure that they will do all in their power to put their intention into operation. The local and state authorities have made no more than token gestures to contain Hindu violence. Those in authority are mostly Hindus, so you have the position that politicians and police are really in sympathy with the murderers rather than their victims. So the violence keeps on exploding and there is neither the political will nor the military muscle to put an effective end to it. What is worse is that the silence from the West is deafening. Where are the great champions of human rights when you need them? We have people who will howl all day and all night about sodomites being denied the "right" to contract same sex "marriages" but they have not a word to say on the subject of Indian Christians being allowed to exercise their right to live. The governments of the United States and of Europe do big business with India. Indeed the hope of the Indian economy depends to a large extent on getting along with the West. Yet our governments seem to be entirely disinterested in raising the plight of Orissa's Christian population. It is acceptable to raise the subject of human rights with the Chinese (though I must confess usually in a weak and ineffectual way-it appears that Western nations care more for their bottom line than for any great principle of human rights) but it seems that for some reason India gets a free pass. The United Nations likes to pose as the guardian of the underprivileged. But have you heard any representations from that body on behalf of India's persecuted Christian minority? Again the silence is deafening. Perhaps even more reprehensible than the silence of governments and of secular agencies is that of America's Christians. Have we really descended so far into carnal ease that as long as we have our creature comforts we have little time or interest to spare for our brothers and sisters who are facing death at the hands of Hindu murderers? When last did you hear your pastor pray for the persecuted churches of the world? When last did you pray for them? Remember the Saviour's words, "In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." That's serious. It says that how we treat the poorest of our brethren is really how we treat Christ. Isn't it time Christians began to cry out on behalf of their persecuted brethren? Isn't it time we got the word to Hindu fanatics that the hunting season on Christians is formally closed? Why not ask the Lord what you can do, starting today, on behalf of your persecuted brothers and sisters? |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
"His life seems something of a sacred manuscript upon which the Holy Ghost has written - and is still writing one remarkable message after another." So says the Mormon blurb on the life of the cult's new 80 year old President, Thomas S. Monson. Monson will lead the world's 13 million Mormons who will revere him as a prophet and a vehicle of divine revelation. He can hardly be called a fresh face, having been at the heart of the Mormon bureaucracy for almost half a century and achieving the top post in Mormonism only in the twilight of his life. Monson comes to the job after a life time of preparation in Mormon administration. By all accounts he has business experience and acumen and has considerable powers of diplomacy. He is touted as a man of deep personal sympathies for the weak and underprivileged and has gained for his followers a respected place alongside Jewish and Christian groups as a co-belligerent in social campaigns. Having said that, Monson has been adamant that those co-operative efforts are not exercises in ecumenical religion; they are purely joint actions to alleviate social need. The question that faces Mormons and indeed the rest of us is whether the organization Monson now leads is in any way a Christian church. Mormons have styled themselves as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." That title makes a number of radical claims not one of which can be justified by Scripture or history. Is Mormonism a never mind the Church of Jesus Christ? Has it any claim at all to be recognized as Christian? If you start with the premise that Christianity is the religion of the Bible, that no church has the right to the title Christian just because it claims it, but that its claim must be validated by Scripture, then Mormonism must be rejected as non-Christian. Like all cults, Mormonism cannot be satisfied with the Bible. Given that the Bible does not countenance the weird system that Joseph Smith concocted and that Brigham Young advanced, Mormons have to appeal to the bogus Book of Mormon. It is the mark of a cult that it places some other authority over or alongside the Bible. Mormonism is a cult, not a Christian church. That conclusion is strengthened when you consider Mormon doctrine. The god of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible. In fact the Mormon view of God is obscenely crass. Mormonism rejects the central doctrine of Christianity, namely the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is thus not Christian but anti-Christian. The same could be said for its doctrine of salvation. Anything further from the Biblical doctrine would be difficult to imagine. Are Mormons "Latter day Saints?" Many of them are decent, upright people but by definition Mormons are not Christians and therefore not saints but sinners who still need to be saved. And that is the challenge facing Bible believing Christians, not only to recognize Mormonism for what it is, an unchristian cult, but to reach those trapped in its web of error with the gospel of God's saving grace in Jesus Christ. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
