Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Should Evangelical Christians Become Roman Catholics? J.P. Moreland Thinks So!

Posted by Job on November 17, 2007

*Please do not mistake me for claiming that all Roman Catholics will burn in the lake of fire. Rather, I seek to use heavy satire to convey the utter unacceptability of leaving biblical Christianity for Roman Catholicism.

In this entry Moreland makes appeals to science, charismatic Christianity, philosophy, etc. before his real agenda becomes clear: he is demanding that evangelicals become neo – Roman Catholics. His reason for taking this stand was Francis Beckwith (rather justifiably) being forced to leave his leadership of the Evangelical Theological Society after his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

He says: “In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”

Sooo … why blame Protestants and not Roman Catholics in this matter? Why should we become more like them instead of them joining us?

“The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”

Hey buddy, if being a Christian instead of a Mormon, Scientologist, or worshiper of a head of cabbage like Rerun in that episode of What’s Happening is being a problem, then color me guilty. What about you? If you were placed on trial for being a Christian, would you be found guilty?

And now Moreland goes apostate.

“Suppose an archaeologist discovered a portion of the ancient city of Jerusalem that was specifically described in the Old Testament, Moreland said:

Could the archaeologist have discovered the site without the use of the Old Testament? Once discovered, could the archaeologist learn things about the site that went beyond what was in the Old Testament? Clearly the answer is yes to both questions. Why? Because the site actually exists in the real world. It does not exist in the Bible. It is only described in the Bible and the biblical description in partial.

Likewise, Moreland argued, “because the human soul/spirit and demons/angels are real, it is possible, and, in fact, actual that extra-biblical knowledge can be gained about these spiritual entities. … Demons do not exist in the Bible. They exist in reality.”

This reminds me of the Johnnie Cochran Wookie defense on South Park. (Not that I watch South Park anymore. Nor What’s Happening reruns for that matter. Don’t waste much of your precious time pondering why.) Rather than going into exactly HOW it reminds me of it, let me play a simple substitution game with that last sentence and say “Jesus Christ does not exist in the Bible. He exists in reality” and see where that leaves the person that believes it. Want to try it? Well you go right ahead. And let me know how that works out for you. Right after judgment day. Don’t worry about a thing. Judgment does not exist in the Bible. It exists in reality. Or something.

By not researching how demons work, how to fight them, and other such issues by, for example, working with exorcists, Christian scholars are harming the church, Moreland argued. In a similar vein, he thinks evangelical scholars and the movement as a whole are rejecting “guidance, revelation, and so forth from God through impressions, dreams, visions, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom.”

Rejecting the guidance, revelation, and wisdom that Rerun got from that head of cabbage? Or Stan Cartman got from Mr. Hanky? I guess I am guilty about that as well. What about you?

“We shut that down because of charismatic excesses,” he said. “Because of abuses, we fear teaching people how to use it. We think it’s all going to be Benny Hinn or something like that.”

It can also be about the fact that Benny Hinn is actually an amateur compared to the long history of Roman Catholic mysticism.

“The sparse landscape of evangelical political thought stands in stark contrast to the overflowing garden both of evangelical biblical scholarship and Catholic reflection on reason, general revelation, and cultural and political engagement,” he said. “We evangelicals could learn a lesson or two from our Catholic friends.”

Yep, we could learn a lot about everything except how to get to heaven from Roman Catholics. Silly me for only being concerned about going to heaven and having absolutely no motivation for being a Christian or living my life for that matter apart from that. Although I do say that if I ever do decide that knowledge outside of Jesus Christ is for me, then heads of cabbage, wookies, and Mr. Hanky seem to offer a lot more promise than does Roman Catholicism.

“‘No, more provocative was Moreland’s argument about why evangelicals became over-committed to the Bible. Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism, he said, evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren’t allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture, and they’re not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture. As a result, he said, they’re engaged in “private language games and increasingly detailed minutia” and “we’re not seeing work on broad cultural themes.””

So … evangelical theologians are smart enough to realize that A) they aren’t going to find anything new in the Bible that almost 2000 years of Christian scholarship hasn’t found already and B) that even if they are going to find something new, trying to keep up with and please a world that hates and has rejected Christ is not a motive. You do know that world hates and has rejected Jesus Christ, don’t you J. P. Moreland? I can understand you not knowing that. But do you know how I found out? It was by reading the Bible. And by the way, I can deal with “broad cultural themes.” Mankind in his unregenerated state is totally depraved with nothing but vile affections and no knowledge or desire for the things of God. There, is that broad enough for you?

This is a group torn between its desire to do respectable scholarship and its desire to serve the church. Moreland’s jeremiad hit them on both fronts.” Well hey, that explains it all. The door was wide open for such an attack because it hit a nerve. Why? Because these great learned men and women are having such conflict over whether to do respectable (by whom?) scholarship and serving the church. I can solve that conundrum for you: PICK DOOR NUMBER THREE AND SERVE GOD ONLY! But wait … can you do that and still be considered “evangelical” in today’s world? The fact that this fellow was even suffered to address this conference in the first place would make sincerely doubt it.

By the way, Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham, has always promoted unity between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Recently Christianity Today has added promoting unity between Christians and fans of Harry Potter, Spongebob Squarepants, and Pulp Fiction to their agenda as well.

The problem here is the fact that a lot of biblical Christians count Roman Catholics among their close friends and family members. While sensitivity to those bonds are to be respected, claiming that biblical Christians should allow Roman Catholics to have positions of authority in our institutions or that we should accept or emulate them based on it is akin to suggesting that the Reformation should have never happened in the first place, and the Reformers were the party in error.

Update: I based the assertion that Francis Beckwith was forced out of ETS on this quote from the Christianity Today article: “The first part has not been controversial of late, but the second was the focus of the society’s recent fight over open theism and was named as a reason why Francis Beckwith could not remain as ETS president after his conversion to Roman Catholicism.” Francis Beckwith stopped by and provided a clarification:


31 Responses to “Should Evangelical Christians Become Roman Catholics? J.P. Moreland Thinks So!”

  1. Eden Hadassah said

    If you want to understand the “undertones” of this diatribe of his and see where he is leading with this, check out this strange website.
    I do not condone it. I have been reading through this site for quite sometime, and it is devisive to be sure. This site has many valid points, but the undertones are simular to what you are discribing from the interview you posted. Once you have digested it, let me know what you think.
    There are many pages you can read on this site, and how they describe the reformation and the catholic church are most interesting. These messianic believers imply that it is better to be a part of the catholic church then an evangelical one. They claim to be the “modern prophets of Israel” and even have their own prophet, which you can read his whole prophecy about Israel and other things.

    Tell me what you think.

  2. Eden Hadassah: Ummm … from the first read I see that these folks deny Trinity, repeating the lie that Trinity was a gnostic invention. So, the gnostics inserted Matthew 28:19 in the Bible? Or the Pauline Trinitarian doxology in Phillipians 2:5-11? Or God’s self – references as plural in the Old Testament? Seeing people like that causes my brain cells to freeze up, my chest to tighten, and my blood pressure to rise. But I will try my best to work through it.

  3. Eden Hadassah said

    My husband and I did had the same reaction.
    They contridict themselves through out their many articles.
    The basic message that we pulled out of their many teachings was:

    Gentiles who accept messiah Yeshua should go to catholic church and stay away from reform. Don’t mix with messianic jews because they will “idolize” you (this is true about idolizing, I have seen it first hand).
    Messianic jews find a “real” place of worship and ban together to preserve your “jewishness.”
    Messianic jews, you shouldn’t believe anything that gentile goyem evangelicals say, they are heretics just like the orthodox hasid’s.
    It took me four hours to read the prophet’s words.
    What really got my goat is their trying to validate the apostacy of the reformation by constantly quoting the Council of Trent. Again, although they knock down the catholic church, they lift them up as the authority of the church…FOR GENTILES. They say these words are for all, yet they have conveniently separated all jewish folk out from gentiles and make these very distinctions. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. They have mixed truth with error.
    This push towards converting to Roman Catholisism is so strange. I was watching the very racist Glen Beck the other day and on the show he was talking about these women who wanted to become priests, but the catholic church of course said no, so they when to a jewish synagogue and they hosted them for the pomp and ceremony of these women becoming “fathers.” How bizarre!

  4. David said

    I don’t wish to be rude, but I cannot imagine anybody displaying such a lack of reading comprehension as you have displayed in critiquing a Jewish site. Not only have you shown you have not read the website in any serious way, you completely misrepresent. The respect held for the Reformation fathers is clearly defined. I cannot imagine anybody thinking Jews encourage converting to Catholicism. There is a reference that Talmudism (if you even know what that is) is not engaged in by Catholics as it is by Protestants.

    The idolatry and paganism engaged in by Catholicism is the greatest stumbling block Jews have in their regards for Christianity. They associate it with such paganism. That site never has done anything but condemn Catholicism as pagan. It has withheld this judgment for prelates only, as they traditionally never condoned such old Roman practices.

    From my acquintance with Nabion, I assure you that site will defend itself against this bizarre and unschooled misrepresentation.

  5. David: I will allow Eden Hadassah to defend herself against your statements, but my question for you is this … how can you defend or be associated with a movement that claims that the Holy Trinity came from gnosticism?

  6. Eden Hadassah said


    Hello and blessings to you. I have reviewed the site at great lengths and as I have said, it mixes truth with error. On one hand they do not condone the catholic church but will in some strange attempt hold it valid in it’s earliest church form. I will copy and paste what I am talking about concerning my above references.
    As a jew myself, I see another agenda by the Nabions. One, is that the prophet doesn’t name specifically in his prophecy the sins of which they are now under the judgement of God. Namely, the setting up of the worship of Baal and Molech in Tel Aviv. He eludes to this by refering to Jereboam. This is most suspicious. Instead, the prophet clearly blames “the American” for luxuries and false prophets. This is a HUGE problem, seeing that the very jewish bankers that set up their worship centers of Baal and Molech are none other then those who helped form Israel in the first place. Please tell me how a prophet of God could miss such a clear word as this, and place “blame” on another country such as Britian or America when they themselves helped to build Britian and America? It is round about. Eluding to Ephraim’s sins yet never really saying what they are. How shall one repent, if they do not know the extent to which they have backslidden sinned? I will gather my links from their site.

  7. Eden Hadassah said

    Here is one:

  8. LorMarie said

    “Yep, we could learn a lot about everything except how to get to heaven from Roman Catholics. Silly me for only being concerned about going to heaven and having absolutely no motivation for being a Christian or living my life for that matter apart from that.”

    Interesting point of view (although it appears to contain wit/humor). I pondered this very issue and wrote an entry (title Would you still become a christian if…?). about it on my blog. But anyway, there are loads of Roman Catholics who firmly believe that there is no salvation outside of their church. Some evangelicals would say the same in regards to Catholics. The problem is, both sides believe they are right and will find “scripture” to back them up.

  9. Eden Hadassah said

    Here is the next one on messianic jews that I was refering to:

  10. Eden Hadassah said

    David, here is the other one that I was talking about.
    They give this history of canons and creeds, pointing out the problems of the catholic church but see if you can point to where they elude to the catholic church being the better choice for “christians” who are of the reformation movement.
    Lots of details are here, and as you read through the whole site and all the articles, including the prophecy, and agenda emerges.

    Their often crude language concerning different religious types gives their true character some light, and brings, for me, into question the validity of their mission.

  11. LorMarie: “The problem is, both sides believe they are right and will find “scripture” to back them up.” That is where you are wrong. Catholics do not assert scripture to back this up, but rather their tradition, especially the writings of Pope Leo of Rome. The only actual Bible verse that Catholics use to assert their authority is Matthew 16:18, which they 1. take grotesquely out of context and 2. ascribe all sorts of meaning to that is not present in the text and is contradicted by everything else in the Bible. All you have to do is to look at Acts. At no point did the church have centralized hierarchical authority. The centralized hierarchical church authority did not even begin to come about until the late 400s, and even then it was only in the western church, and that was a political development rather than a theological one. Leo developed the “the authority of Peter transfers to whoever is the bishop of Rome” doctrine in order to justify his own political actions (which I should point out were defensible considering the circumstances that Leo had to face in a western Roman Empire that was being overrun by invaders). Pope Gregory came along later and developed what is now Catholic doctrine (i.e. purgatory, confessions to priests, etc.). Even in the time of Leo and Gregory, there were other popes in the west, the office was not consolidated until much later, and again it was a political development not a religious one. Even when the office WAS consolidated in the west, there were other Christian churches all over the place, including but not limited to the eastern church which – despite what Roman Catholics would have you believe – NEVER was under the authority of the western church. It was the splitting of the eastern and western churches in 1054 that allowed the Roman Catholic Church to begin spouting the lie that they had always been the true church and the other churches were rebels, and even that does not account for the other churches in Europe (especially Armenia) and Africa. Get this: when the Muslims started wiping out the African and Armenian Christians, the Roman Catholic Church did not lift a finger to help them. Why? Because with those churches off the scene – or severely weakened – it made it that more easier for the Roman Catholic Church to claim that they had always been the only church under a single prime bishop – or pope. Had those large churches survived, the Roman Catholic Church would have had to compete with them.

    But the Catholics can say what they want. History and scripture says otherwise.

  12. David said

    Yes, I can say there is no trinity. The arguments, geared toward Jews, I must admit, are plentiful on the website. There is not space here to put it all. But suffice it to say that God is one. And God is Spirit. And God is Holy. You cannot have God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. That is a redundancy. At Horeb, God made his name plain: “Being I am Being” or, if you prefer, “I am that which is”— the very omnipresence of self generation of life and existence. Our own scholars struggled to translate the name of God into Greek at Alexandria. They opted for On. “Ego eimi O On.” I am BEING. God is everywhere. “Am I a God afar off? Do not I fill heaven and earth?” Even to the furthest most galaxy, God is there. From Hydrogen to Seborgium, God is there. We don’t know what a spirit is. But we know God is spirit and he is everywhere.

    The Temple could never hold God’s spirit. We knew that. Yet we knew he placed his spirit there in a special way. That was the Holy Place. It was the symbol of God dwelling amongst us. Jonah prayed “by thy temple” and he was delivered because within was the very spirit of God.

    Despite the arguments of very ill-informed rabbis, all scripture makes it plain God will walk among us. He would build his own tabernacle like unto us. He sore to Moses he would. Moses doesn’t even do a doubletake that a “prophet” will come speaking God’s own words. The Redeemer is God himself. Moses was obsessed with it. He ends his Song of Departure with it, placing God on earth. He speaks of it in his book of Job, declaring his redeemer will stand upon the earth in the latter day and he will see God with his own eyes in the resurrection. No one can see God as he is. But Moses said he would see him. He knew God would walk among us as we are.

    That is why Jesus could gaze upon the Temple, that Holy Place, and say a greater than the Temple is here. A greater than where the very spirit of God is symbolized? Only God himself can say that. God’s tabernacle was speaking for himself. Not one of stone and gold. God had built his tabernacle, as he swore he would and dwelt amongst us. God spoke for himself, and we didn’t know it. The pattern was made clear. “By thy temple.” And Jesus made it plain “In my name” you come to God. “By me,” he said.

    God is spirit and God is holy. And he made for himself a tabernacle like ours. Here he integrated his spirit, and from here he will never take his spirit. Moses saw Jesus. God kept his promise to Moses, and Moses spoke rightfully. He has seen God stand upon the earth.

    In that Day of Judgment, you all best have the sense when you look upon Jesus to know you look upon the very tabernacle of God. He looked out on the 6th day upon his creation and said “behold, it is very good.” He has done no shame, he who is formless, by making himself a body that he might forever dwell amongst us and his marvelous creation.

    God is one. And he has built his living temple, and he will never remove his spirit. You call him the Son of God. But we also called him the son of David, and we were corrected. Luke: 20:41 “And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son? 42: And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 43: Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 44: David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?”

    2000 years have passed now. You should have advanced enough to know to take correction. The son born to us would be the Everlasting Father. TheMmighty God. There is no trinity. God himself has formed his tabernacle, and he has dwelt among us and showed us his nature. When you see Jesus remember to say “Father.”

    Sorry about the length of this. As for Hadassah’s comments, I must simply say they do not reflect anything on Nabion. Perhaps English is not your first language, and certain things are misunderstood. The site will be going up in Hebrew as soon as glitches in Fusion are worked out.

  13. Eden Hadassah said


    Do you follow the sayings of Nabion?
    Within their own criterion for prophets, the prophet himself speaks in a manor that is of the King James version speech, and not modern at all. As though God speaks in King James speak. The words are indirect and not clear cut to the point. Even the prophets of the bible were very clear about the message given to the people of Israel and Judah. It is one thing for the prophet Isaiah to say to the people that their eyes will see, but not see and their ears will hear, but not hear, or else they will turn from their sin and repent and be saved.
    In this “modern prophecy”, he does not announce or bring to light the occupation of Israel and their sin against God. It is treated as though this forming of Israel in latter days is the fulfillment of scriptures, when it was in fact a direct afront to the Lord of Hosts concerning his land. They did violence to the law and violated his sabbaths. This is their sin. Instead, the only sins that this prophet seems to convey is that there are those false prophets (christians), pagan hasids, and their own idolotry TOWARDS the land itself. It addresses materialism but never names the root cause, and although it talks of impending judgement upon the state of Israel, it does not talk about messiah in a clear cut manor. It carries with it a flavor of the prophets, and many elements of it are true, but it is never clear to exact dates or times, leaving it up to interpretation, as they have cleary tried to do themselves on a number of occasions in their commentary on the prophet’s own words. In this, they have broken their own rules by looking at the current events and themselves “interpreting the times.”
    If this is a part of your site, might I suggest refraining from violating the very rules set forth on the sight as one “outside the camp.”

  14. LorMarie said

    “Catholics do not assert scripture to back this up, but rather their tradition, especially the writings of Pope Leo of Rome.”

    But what do they believe their tradition (or even the writings of Pope Leo) is based on? Also, this sounds like your perception. Has it been formally declared by the Catholic Church that the writings of Pope Leo are authoritative over the bible or does it appear to you to be that way. If this has been formally declared by them, I can see your point.

    But still, both sides believe they are right. I have heard from many Roman Catholics that evangelicals need to be converted to the “truth” (according to them). Many strongly believe that God himself has given them that mandate.

  15. David:

    So if there is no Trinity, was/is Jesus Christ deity? Or a man? Or the first thing that God created?

    Say that Jesus Christ was deity but there is no Trinity. So … when Jesus Christ was on earth, who was heard speaking from Heaven? Who did Jesus Christ cry out to while dying on the cross? And did God the Father see corruption by taking on sin and dying on the cross? When Jesus Christ said “I will return to my Father” … who was he referring to?

    Incidentally, your Nabion site flat out lies. It is a known historical fact that the Trinity doctrine WAS NOT developed by gnosticism. Quite the contrary, it is the gnostics who claim that Trinity was developed by the church! Virtually all gnostic systems REJECT the deity of Jesus Christ, and ALL gnostic systems REJECT God as He is described in the Old Testament. So you are hanging out with a bunch of liars.

    I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that this information is new to you because you have never studied early Christianity OR early gnosticism. If you have and have rejected that information just because the INCONTROVERTIBLY FALSE assertion that Trinity came from gnosticism aids you in your opposition to Trinity (and that it is convenient to you that most people are not familiar with gnosticism and cannot spot your lies) then it is you who are without excuse.

    Look, I am not spouting church creeds here. I am talking about what the BIBLE says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not only does the New Testament repeatedly refer to their being separate but one – and you did not address any of the examples that I gave you or any other – but there are various in the Old Testament as well, such as the man that met Joshua on the plains at Jericho, and Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man being presented before the enthroned Ancient of Days. You also have the Psalm of David – “My God said unto my Lord sit upon mine right hand until thine enemies are made thy footstool.” Acts clearly identifies “my Lord” as Jesus Christ and “my God” as the Father. So does Hebrews. They also deny that the “my Lord” refers to King David, an angel, or any other created being. The Catholic Church did not say this, the Bible says it. Unless you are claiming that Hebrews 1:13, Mark 12:36, Acts 2:34-36 etc. are gnostic interpolations into the New Testament texts, you and your Nabionite brethren are without excuse for your falsehoods and your justifications for them.

  16. LorMarie: Not my perception. The Catholic Church believes

    1. That the Bible is inadequate to run a church and for daily living and more guidance is required
    2. That the Bible is not the final authority, but the church is, that the church was given the ultimately authority by Jesus Christ through Peter
    3. That people cannot interpret the Bible and needs the church to interpret it for them.

    That is their doctrine. Go look it up on their website. Incidentally, you can tell first by reading the Bible (especially Acts) and second by inspecting recorded history that what the Catholics say about the institutional church is wrong. I mentioned Leo because no one before Pope Leo claimed these things for the bishop of Rome. Again, Leo was bishop in the mid – late 400s. What about the 400 years of church history before then? Did the church wait 400 years to start obeying the Bible by having the bishop of Rome lead the entire church just because Peter happened to have been the bishop of Rome?

    Of course, the Catholics will say that Peter didn’t “just happen” to be the bishop of Rome, but rather the Holy Spirit led him there. Fine. But where is that in the Bible? It isn’t. The Bible never even says that Peter was the bishop of Rome. As a matter of fact, the Bible never even says that Peter was ever in Rome! Look at the convoluted argument of the Catholics in this link:

    It is not perception. And incidentally, when Pope Leo came up with his opinion, it was rejected by the other bishops. As a matter of fact, the eastern church never did submit to the authority of the pope, and they split in 1054 because of it. Had that never happened, we wouldn’t even have the office of the pope as it exists today. I am sorry, but it is not perception, it is a plain reading of the Bible and history.

  17. djenk23 said

    Why are priests not allowed to get married if Peter(being a married man) was the first pope?

  18. djenk23: The stated reason for the celibate papacy is to imitate the example of Jesus Christ. Incidentally, it took the Catholic Church over 1100 years to fully adopt that policy (though it had been promoting it for quite awhile there was significant resistance to it), and the Eastern Orthodox church’s refusal to adopt it was one of the reasons for the split in 1054. The Catholic Church does acknowledge that the celibate priesthood is tradition rather than doctrine, and as such they do allow a limited number of married priests.

  19. Charles D. said


    Have you visited or lived in the Netherlands?


  20. LorMarie said

    First I would like to say that I am not defending the RC Church. Upon looking at the site, (this page in particular I see nothing within it calling the bible inadequate. I do see it implied that they believe the Bible is not the only authority. However, they are making a pretty strong case for that argument.

    If you read the section on being born again, you will see them declare that evangelicals and other protestants have the concept of salvation all wrong (thus, they are hellbound). You will also see them using bible verses to “defend” their claim.

  21. johnkaniecki said


    Hello and hope you are doing good. Welcome to this blog, our blog.

    When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke and the Spirit descended.



  22. Eden Hadassah said


    I have a word from the Lord for John son of Kathryn:

    This is what the Lord of Hosts says, “You are a true son of your father Jacob. You have contended with me, and have not proclaimed all that I have spoken. It is I whom you should fear, not man, yet you wrestle with my words.” declares the Lord
    This is what the Lord says, “Why have you not spoken everything about the Valley of Achor? And why do you round about the caldron, and have not spoken clearly concerning that vileness of tongue which Israel does speak, bearing false witness against her neighbors?” Says the Lord Almighty
    The Lord says unto you John son of Kathryn, “I will set forth still another riddle upon you, son of Jacob. It is a riddle spoken for those who delight in the ways of Dan, and his kin shall understand it’s meanings:
    Ham went up to Japheth’s house…breaking in, he stole Japheth’s clothes. After dressing himself, he headed out for the land of Canaan, acting and speaking like Shem. Upon entering the land he took Shem captive making him a slave. What will be his outcome? Shall Ham take things devoted to God?
    Surely you must know that the devoted things will be returned! Look to the Valley of Achor, for there is where the sheep will pasture. All will be confessed in the Valley of Achor.” says the Lord God Almighty
    “Hold not the words I have spoken to you at first, which you fear to speak.” declares the Lord

    To those who created the Nabion website, there are offenses for which you shall be held accountable. First, you put that detestable star upon your site which is abominable before the Lord of Hosts. Second, the picture you have put in the upper left hand corner shows jews making a jesture with their hands in the shape of a triangle, this is occult/esoteric kabbalah symbolism, of which you should be opposed, and has no business being on your site. Third…Nabion, are not the gentiles a part of Yeshua’s inheritance? This is expressed not only in Ezekiel’s layout of each of the tribal lots, but particularly Judah’s lot replacing Benjamin, Ephraim and part of Manassah’s lots, and changing the boundries, moving Ephraim’s lot more north and Benjamin’s lot south. Yet you have spoken abusively against the gentiles who have been grafted in. Is it not also a fulfillment of the prophet of the bible’s words concerning stick of Judah and the stick belonging to Joseph, becoming one in his hand?
    But your offenses do not end there! I am not speaking of the prophet John ben Kathryn, but of the site for the House of the Prophets. Have you taken council from the Lord concerning such things? Your site and your own speakings, in no way resembles that of the Lord’s servant Samuel. Have you considered his servant Samuel? He is the founder of the school of the prophets. Your language on the site is mocking at best, and your condesending attitude does not perceive the wisdom of the Lord’s servant David, son of Jesse. These are words unfit for a prophet.
    Fourth, and final, you can not say that the canon of scriptures is apostate and try to prove it using the council of an apostate church. Once again you break your own rules of interpretation concerning matters of the trinity. There is One God, and of our God, is His Holy Spirit, and of our God is His Son, Yeshua the Messiah. They are one. Yeshua is one with His Father, and Yeshua is Lord. This is clear, and no consensus shall be taken up on the matter. In this too, you break your own rules concerning consensus, by refering back to the authority of the apostate church.
    There is no doubt that many professed evangelicals are speaking things that the Lord has not spoken, and that their teachings are not in accordance with the word of God, but you have taken all of the churches and put them into this catagory. For this I say, the Lord rebuke you. Repent of your thoughtless words concerning those who belong to Yeshua, who willingly spilled his blood for their offenses and yours, so that they and you Nabion could once again be reconciled to our Holy and most Soverign God.

  23. For the record, I was not forced to resign my presidency of ETS. See here:

  24. Francis Beckwith:

    The article that I referenced said this: “The first part has not been controversial of late, but the second was the focus of the society’s recent fight over open theism and was named as a reason why Francis Beckwith could not remain as ETS president after his conversion to Roman Catholicism.”

    You can understand the inference that I drew based on it. I will update the post with your comment.

  25. No problem. The mistake understandable. One of the unfortunate consequences of blogging is that it does not allow us (me, you, and everyone else) to properly reflect on a matter before we start issuing our opinions in public.

    Thank you.


  26. djenk23 said


    I’ve never been off of American soil.

  27. HannahJ said


    Please check out this link: (your argument sounds very much like the Muslim one, oddly enough).

  28. Eden Hadassah said


    If you have ever been to the Nabion website, there is a prophecy by John ben Kathryn that is beautifully written, and most inspiring.
    I have absolutely no problem with what is written in it, because it is a witness to what the Lord has told me as well, but there were things clearly not put into the “speakings” that should have been included.
    It is the website that I take issue with. The word “trinity” has become a stumbling block to them. The Lord is one, and all though in an earlier comment David called Father, Son and Holy Spirit “redudancy”, I beg to differ. They are One, yet Moses did see fit to write in Genesis, “Let Us make man in Our image.” There is no redundancy in the beautiful workings of our Lord and Savior. His ways are perfectly ordered, to reflect the splendor of His Being. All things were created for him and by him, and his mercy and grace abound.
    The Nabion site has offenses which should be corrected, but I can honestly say that ben Kathyrn’s book clearly reflects the beauty and majesty of God. There are only two clear dates which he speaks clearly and they are true. These next ten and half years will be very interesting, but not as interesting as the dates (Gregorian calander 2030-2035). This is acurate.
    As I have said in other posts, I don’t disagree with everything on the site. It is more of the “attitude” which does not reflect our Lord, but reflects traditional jewish attitudes of the flesh.

  29. william said

    I only hope that God does forgive those who judge others,,,being a catholic myself,,I look forward to seeing my christian brothers and sisters in hevan

  30. […] to leave a prominent evangelical post upon this friend of his converting to Roman Catholicism, stated that evangelical Christians should abandon sola scriptura, calling it “Bible idolatry“, and suggested that among other things Roman Catholic […]

  31. Yisrael Tzedek said

    YeshaYah 52: 8: “Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for THEY SHALL SEE EYE TO EYE, when adonai shall bring again Zion”.

    Shaul’s Revelations 11: “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and THE TWO MENORAHS standing before the god of the earth”.

    There are two groups: one is not born of heaven yet and does not yet perfectly understand the correct application of some new testament holy scriptures: the other is born of heaven and perfectly understands the correct application of new testament holy scriptures: both groups are nevertheless the only Yahudim who represent the god of heaven and earth, and both groups shall be reconciled after the 1, 290 days of Yerushalaim’s subjugation by the United States of America.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: