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!

Regarding Certain Evangelical Bible Commentaries

Posted by Job on March 26, 2009

When I am perusing Bible commentaries, I wonder how many of the learned evangelical authors of such efforts are movie fans like the estimable preacher Matthew Wrickman. I wonder if they like works from such directors as David Lynch, Chris Nolan, Jon Favreau, Edward Zwick, M. Night Shyamalan  and Quentin Tarantino. Consider movies like True Romance, Memento, Mulholland Drive and Pulp Fiction. Such film directors often abandon the practice of linear storytelling, that is unfolding the plot according to a basically straight and forward moving timeline and from a single perspective. Instead, these directors use what can be called “scenic storytelling”, where the viewer is presented a series of scenes in a manner ungoverned by a single or dominant timeline or  perspective. 

Of course, a major motive for making movies in this fashion is that the director finds it more intellectually stimulating, and is much more likely to be recognized for his skill and cleverness. However, it is not merely an exercise in vanity, because the director is often convinced that his method of presentation makes the film more entertaining and the subject matter that it deals with better understood than it would have been had the story simply been told from beginning to end with a single perspective. Sometimes the director is right, sometimes the product is a mess that leaves the viewer not only confused, but feeling manipulated. Either way, it was the director’s ability and prerogative to make a film this way, and everyone acknowledges that it was this director’s work. 

Oh were the books of the Bible viewed the same by the scholars who produce commentaries on it! Instead, the opposite is the case. Any failure of a book written thousands of years ago by Palestinian Jews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to have the same straightforward literary structure as a short story written by a French or British child for her 7th grade literature class is seized upon as evidence that a book was not written by the person bearing its name. A break in logic? A change in perspective? A shift in ideology? A seeming contradiction? Ironclad proof that the Bible book was REALLY the product of the Deuteronomists, the Yahwists, the Isaiah school, the Johannine community etc. or that portions of the book were inserted or removed by later editors. 

So how is it that these same people are able to sit through a Quentin Tarantino movie, view all of its convolutions, and refrain from saying “this is where Tarantino plagiarized David Lynch” or “this is where the studio inserted a scene from another movie that was never released” or other such contrivances? If Chris Nolan is not obliged to follow the standard modern western conventions of storytelling in making his movies, why, then, is Matthew, a person who lived in an entirely different time, place and culture with thoroughly different standards and expectations or else have in many cases the meaning, intent, and text of his gospel attributed to someone other than the very apostle who was a witness to the life, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Now, of course, unbelievers who analyze the Bible have a motivation for doing so. Denying that Moses wrote the Torah, claiming that the prophetic portions of Daniel were written after the prophecies had been fulfilled, and proposing that the gospels and epistles contained only a kernel of actual historical and doctrinal truth because they were augmented and edited by the church for a good 250 years or so is all in service of the agenda of denying the truth, authority, and inspiration of scripture. For them, it is all about getting as far away from John 14:6 as they possibly can, and for this reason think nothing of holding books of the Bible to the negative scrutiny that they would never apply to, say, the theory of evolution. For them, it is not enough to deny that the Bible is true, but they also claim that the people who wrote the Bible knew that it wasn’t true, or at least not true in the sense that Christians regard it to be. So, the book of Romans or the book of Samuel was either never written by Paul and Samuel, or Paul and Samuel wrote them according to meanings and purposes that were entirely different from what has been historically attributed to them, and were also significantly altered to hide their true meaning and purpose.

Of course, you would expect a person seeking to justify his unbelief to take that position. After all, it is one thing to claim that Jesus Christ never rose from the dead. It is another thing to deal with the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John  (in addition to the epistle writers) all working independently of each other produced books that fervently, unambiguously, boldly proclaimed that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, and further attached great significance from that fact. It is easier to say “I don’t believe it” than to say “the people who wrote the Bible didn’t believe what they were writing”, particularly since – unlike the Koran – the Bible lacks a single author, but has multiple witnesses to the same truths by very diverse people over a very long period of time; witnesses who had nothing to gain – and indeed everything to lose – by adhering to their story. So, using the alleged failure of the Bible’s books to follow a “paint by numbers” literary style at every turn being proof of that the Bible is – when it gets right down to it – a fabrication produced by dishonest people looking to hide the meaning is the best explanation that they have, so they are sticking to it. 

But the question is this: why are evangelical scholars who do believe that the Bible is true so quick to adopt their opinions? I am not talking about the failure to consider arguments and evidence, to close your ears and eyes and scream “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” at the top of your lungs to drown out dissent like a toddler having a temper tantrum. Instead, what prevents evangelical scholars from simply stating that the arguments of the critical scholars should not be considered because they are built on a set of assumptions that are fatally and irreparably flawed? Again, one does not have to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ in order to reject the idea that the failure of Genesis to read like a 4th grade history book means that Moses could not have written Genesis. 

Yet, I see some evangelical scholars assert that Matthew used Mark and a “Q” source to create his gospel, and others claim that the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus Christ in John was a separate oral or written tradition put in decades – possibly centuries – later (along with similar concessions to the strong delusions of atheists on many other points). The idea of saying “look, Matthew and John were recounting events that they personally witnessed and recorded them according to their memory and arranged the material in a way that would inform and convince as many people as possible with the Holy Spirit superintending the process” … well that is not acceptable as scholarship, which means that it is not acceptable as EVANGELICAL scholarship. 

And if that is the case, then what is the reason for the existence of evangelical scholarship in the first place? Why should an evangelical produce a commentary that first declares or is ultimately based on the idea that the book is a fraud, and then go on to provide orthodox evangelical interpretations as if it were true? Maybe said evangelical scholars believe that the people who edited, added to, and removed from these books were inspired by the Holy Spirit too; that they were acting in God’s Will when they acted to keep the original message of the authors of the Bible lost to the ages. If so, why won’t they come out and say it? Simple: no one will buy their commentaries. It is one thing to assert inclusion of materials in the Bible based on the apostolic authority possessed by Peter, Paul, Matthew etc. as well as those associated with them like Luke and Mark. It is another to assert that these editors, anonymously passing on their own ideas as the ideas of others and doing so decades, centuries even, after the death of the last apostle had this sort of authority, which is none other than the authority to willfully deceive people into believing that apostles professed to witnessed events that they never saw (or never happened), or professed to hear Jesus Christ say things that they never heard Him say (or that He never said at all). In short, their doctrine of the inspiration of scripture must necessarily include the notion that the Holy Spirit inspired people to secretly lie and deceive. God forbid that such a thing be true, for let God be true and every man be a liar.

So, what is the Bible – believing Christian to do with these commentaries? What is to be done with the people who write them, and the Bible colleges that use them? That is the question.

7 Responses to “Regarding Certain Evangelical Bible Commentaries”

  1. drjpearson said

    To learn more about the insidious nature of Islam, the unholy Koran, the pagan god Allah, and the false prophet Mohammed (cursed is his name forever), read the free E-book at http://www.dr-joseph-adam-pearson.com/book.pdf

  2. Martha said

    (saw this on the web – Martha)

    PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY

    by Dave MacPherson

    When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only “godly scholars with honest differences.” The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let’s take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:

    Mid-1820’s – German scholar Max Weremchuk’s work “John Nelson Darby” (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820’s during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
    “J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn’t make out the legal part, but rested on Darby’s word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop’s biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as ‘the most subtle man in my diocese.'”
    This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the “Lord’s coming.” Darby added, concerning this coming, that “the thoughts are new” and that during any teaching of it “it would not be well to have it so clear.” Darby’s deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term – “Lord’s coming” – to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
    1830 – In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled “church” members before Antichrist’s “trial” [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled “church” members – the first instance I’ve found of clear “pretrib” teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 “The Morning Watch” (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his “Irvingite” followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit – the first plagiarism I’ve found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
    Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of “church” members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google “X-Raying Margaret” for info about her.)
    NOTE: The development of the 1800’s is thoroughly documented in my book “The Rapture Plot.” You’ll learn that Darby wasn’t original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child – symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby’s later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today’s defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn’t need later reminiscences to “clarify” its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby’s death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site and read “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers” – a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
    1920 – Charles Trumbull’s book “The Life Story of C. I. Scofield” told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield’s “The Incredible Scofield and His Book” (1988) and David Lutzweiler’s “DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield’s Life and Errors” (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred “D.D.” etc. etc.!
    1967 – Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon’s “The Origins of the Brethren” quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was “disgusted with…the falseness” of Darby’s accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that “the time-honoured method of single combat” was as good as anything “to elicit the truth” from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
    1972 – Tim LaHaye’s “The Beginning of the End” (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970).
    1976 – Charles Ryrie”s “The Living End” (1976) plagiarized Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970) and “There’s A New World Coming” (1973).
    1976 – After John Walvoord’s “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation” (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry’s “The Church and the Tribulation” (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with “misrepresentation,” “misrepresentations” (and variations)!
    1981 – “The Fundamentalist Phenomenon” (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar’s 1973 book “A History of Fundamentalism in America.”
    1984 – After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri – Joseph Flower – had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG’s were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs – but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google “Pretrib Hypocrisy.”)
    1989 – Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the “Mac-theory” (his reference to my research), giving the impression there’s no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800’s – whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite – credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie’s contribution! Moreover, I’m hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism’s territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven’t mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
    1989 – Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey’s book “The Road to Holocaust” (1989) plagiarized “Dominion Theology” (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
    1990 – David Jeremiah’s and C. C. Carlson’s “Escape the Coming Night” (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey’s 1973 book “There’s A New World Coming.” (For more info, type in “Thieves’ Marketing” on MSN or Google.)
    1991 – Paul Lee Tan’s “A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy” (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970).
    1991 – Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 – three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had “blown” his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has “positive evidence” that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only “the restitution of all things” and “the times of refreshing” (Acts 3:19,21) – which Scofield doesn’t see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
    1992 – Tim LaHaye’s “No Fear of the Storm” (1992) plagiarized Walvoord’s “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation” (1976).
    1992 – This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that “The Magog Factor” (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi’s scholarly 1982 work “Foes from the Northern Frontier.” Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called “The Magog Invasion” which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
    1994 – In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey’s “Planet Earth – 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled “Mystery Mark of the New Age” (1988).
    1995 – My book “The Rapture Plot” reveals the dishonesty in Darby’s reprinted works. It’s often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It’s easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the “additives” had been taken from Darby’s much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby’s editor, attached to Darby’s 1830 paper, actually stated that “it was not worth while either suppressing or changing” anything in this work! If his editor wasn’t open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
    Post-1995 – Thomas Ice’s article “Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History” states that my book “The Rapture Plot” is “only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse….” And David Reagan in his article “The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture” repeats Ice’s falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book “over the years under several different titles.”
    Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, “The Incredible Cover-Up” has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; “The Great Rapture Hoax” quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield’s hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry’s change, and more theological arguments; “The Rapture Plot” reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and “The Three R’s” shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
    So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON’T know what I’ve previously written?
    Re arguments, Google “Pretrib Rapture – Hidden Facts” and also obtain “The End Times Passover” and “Why Christians Will Suffer ‘Great Tribulation’ ” (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
    1997 – For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey’s book “There’s A New World Coming.” During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly “new” book “Apocalyse Code” (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book – and there’s no notice of “simultaneous publishing” in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
    1997 – This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger’s book “Beyond the Crystal Ball” (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970). After Lindsey’s book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey’s book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book “The Three R’s.”)
    1998 – Tim LaHaye’s “Understanding the Last Days” (1998) plagiarized Lindsey’s “There’s A New World Coming” (1973).
    1999 – More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey’s 1999 book “Vanished Into Thin Air” are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book “The Rapture” – with no “updated” or “revised” notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles “Deceiving and Being Deceived” and “Thieves’ Marketing” for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
    2000 – A Jack Van Impe article “The Moment After” (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey’s book “Final Warning” (1995).
    2001 – Since 2001 my web article “Walvoord’s Posttrib ‘Varieties’ – Plus” has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four “distinct” and “contradictory” posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either “classic” or “semiclassic” or “futurist” or “dispensational” – distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His “futurist” group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn’t embrace “any day” imminency. But his “dispensational” group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it’s the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints – but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter “A House Divided” in my book “The Incredible Cover-Up.”)
    2001 – Since my “Deceiving and Being Deceived” web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem” and “Morgan Edwards” as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to “discover” almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money’s worth, Google “Wily Jeffrey.”)

    FINALLY: Don’t take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book “The Rapture Plot” which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn’t “move” you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!

  3. David L. Williams said

    The trouble with such a discussion on the rapture is the confusion about the destinies of the Bride of Christ and the Jews. If people continue to not see they have different destinies, they can only come up with taking verses out of context to prove their case. When Paul was talking of a catching up, he was talking about born-again Christians, the Bride of Christ. They will escape the wrath of God.

    Other verses talk about what the unbelieving Jews will go thru. During this Jacob’s trouble period many will come to believe in Jesus. But they will still have to survive the wrath period of judgment on earth. They will have become, “Saints.”

    We need to look at prior mention to see what happened in a previous earth judgment, the flood. As Solomon said, “what has happened will happen again.” We must see that Enoch and Noah lived at the same time. But God said twice that Enoch walked with God, and He took him. A rapture, and note that Jesus did not have to touch His feet on earth to do so.

    But in Noah’s case, God said once that Noah walked with God, but he had to go into an ark and go safely thru the flood judgment.

    Likewise, the Bride will be caught up without Jesus touching the ground, but merely by calling her up to meet Him in the clouds. But the Jews will, like Noah, have to go thru the judgment.

    Note that Jesus described His Kingdom as within us(or in our midst)and could not be seen with eyes. That is a Heavenly Kingdom where he forms His Bride. But the Jews will have only an earthly kingdom, visible to eyes. (Of course, excepting those Jews who previously converted and became part of the Bride.) That earthly kingdom will last thru the millenium, after Jesus does set His feet on the ground in His second coming.

    We might also do well to remember Solomon’s song about the groom, skipping across the mountain peaks, calling his bride up to meet him in the bridal chamber.

    So, many try to convince us that they have the only truth, and that the devil has fed us this lie about the rapture. On the other hand, if there was to be a rapture, would not the devil try to convince us there wasn’t one? Personally, I’ll look up, for my redemption draweth nigh. DavWms

  4. The Prodigal Son said

    David… ~~~ ~~~ So, Christ is going to come and get you and take you up in the air w/ Him… and then return to earth at a later date ? Is that what you say ? So there will be a third coming, then ? When does the Lord make His enemies His footstool ? ~~~ ~~~ What you are saying has no basis ! For AT LEAST 1700 years NO ONE believed what you believe ! ~~~ ~~~ Christianity does not need ‘new theories’ or ‘fresh insights’ or ‘modern-day revelations’ ! Christianity is what it is – it is what it always has been, and canNOT be changed ! If the first Christians… some of whom spent YEARS with the apostles… did NOT believe what you believe, then why even call yourself ‘Christian’ ? ~~~ ~~~ You are the result of Martin Luther’s failure to find the true Church he was looking for – even though it was still in existence at that time… and remains (unchanged) to this day ! ~~~ ~~~ Love is Truth, friend… Give yourself some love !

  5. David L. Williams said

    Prod, I’m sorry you could not understand what I wrote. I made it as simple as I could. End of conversation with you on this, as is becoming the norm. DavWms

  6. The Prodigal Son said

    I understood you just fine… I merely disagree w/ you. I have made some points and asked you some questions… You have no answers, so you claim that I don’t understand (ha !). ~~~ ~~~ … And David, in order for a conversation to end… first it must begin !

  7. mattroffact said

    Once again you have created a straw man for a hollow argument. Never once have I nor any other “Evangelical Bible Commentators” followed the views of the JEDP, Deutero-Isaiah, or any such nonsense. That is not us, that is an entirely different set of Christians. If you would get off your $%$ and actually take the time to understand any small bit of Christian history, you would know that Evangelicalism is a reaction to (or correction of) such views (your shoddy research and flimflam tactics are apparent by your inability to even spell my name right). We are not the enemy, never have been. Read a Time magazine and you will see that Liberal culture hates us just as much as you (mostly because they continue to believe you and us are friends and believe the same things). In fact a major reason for the Liberal culture’s hatred of conservative Christians is because of blogs like this that spew hate and give Christians everywhere a bad name.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: