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!

Posts Tagged ‘women preachers’

Why The “We Need Female Leaders In The Church Because There Aren’t Enough Good Men” Is Just An Excuse For Rebellion And Sin

Posted by Job on August 17, 2010

Now, we have “evangelical feminists” on the move, demanding that the Biblical mandate for God-given roles to the sexes be discarded in favor of the current worldly fascination with the sort of social androgyny (the idea that there is no difference between the sexes that need to be respected) that homosexual Vaughn Walker used in his homosexual marriage advocacy from the bench. Further, in their pursuit of what is clearly an anti-Biblical agenda, they are employing the same rhetoric of the secular humanists feminists before them – as they are cut from the same cloth despite their evangelical pretensions – in claiming that Christians who support Biblical roles for males and females are contributing to spousal abuse, rape and child molestation. Of course, the recent explosion of such issues is due to society’s embrace of such notions as feminism and rejection of Biblical authority, not their fidelity to it. (I suppose that these evangelical feminists are going to claim that the early church, including the apostles who produced the New Testament, was this repository of child molesters and rapists. When you consider their outright rejection of inerrancy and Biblical authority in this matter, one would not be surprised if this is precisely what this group believes. Like the homosexual “Christians”, “evangelical feminists” ignore that these Bible interpretations have been handed down since the early church and are not the invention of a relatively recent group of bigots. Calling contemporary Christians misogynistic, homophobic child rapists for refusing to adhere to their current worldly interpretations means judging those who received the faith directly from Jesus Christ and His apostles as the same. But since honest theology and church history is not on their side, they resort to name-calling and appeals to the same body of “science” as is Freudian psychology and evolution that is used to justify homosexuality and a host of other abominations against one’s own body and other people.)

It seems that one of the more effective excuses to justify female church leadership – one that is gaining traction outside the Pentecostal and liberal theological circles that have long advocated for women pastors and leaders – is the shortage of suitable male leaders for the church. I do not deny the possibility that there is indeed a shortage of the number and type of male leaders required to staff our current ecclesiastical structure. However, the solution to that is to A) question if our (denominationally-driven) ecclesiastical structure is Biblical in the first place and B) realize that the abandonment of Biblical manhood and womanhood and a resulting environment of spiritual confusion and immaturity is a cause of this problem rather than the solution. Therefore, the way to have strong male leaders for the church going forward is for men and women to return to what the Bible commands rather than to use the spiritual condition of the contemporary church as an excuse to abandon it. Instead of looking for an excuse to justify sin and rebellion, we need to seek courage from the Holy Spirit to strengthen us to be faithful in this time of spiritual difficulty.

With that in mind, on my thread “Regarding Women Preachers: I Am Now Convinced That It Is Wrong” a Christian woman named Elsie made the following comment:

Paul says “I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.
I believe that only men have the authority to be pastors and leaders in the congregation. But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc.. When God chose these women to do a specific work, these women where humble women, godly women. I see in these days a lot of disharmony in the church with many women ministring. I don’t think they where called by God. One of the things that astonishes me is how these women dress when they stand in the pulpit. How can a man visit such congregation and stay connected with “the word” when this woman is dressed in a provocative way? There is nothing humble about that and there is nohing holy about that either. We have to be watchful and careful that we do not provoque others to fall.

I will allow her comment and my response below to serve as a rejoinder to those who might be deceived by evangelical feminism, including the argument “We need female leaders in the church because there aren’t enough good male leaders:

““I do not permit women to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I agree with the word of God, but I see here that Paul says “I do not permit”, he did not say “God does not permit”.”When Paul was saying “I do not permit”, he was speaking from the position of authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. So, what an apostle permitted or denied was based on revelation from Jesus Christ, and therefore binding to the church. That was the real meaning of the oft-misunderstood “binding and loosing” passages of Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18, which is that the apostles, being appointed by Jesus Christ and received the revelation directly from Jesus Christ, had the right to establish doctrines and practices for the early church and those thereafter. This is not to say that Paul was divine in any sense, only that he spoke in the Name of God just as did an Old Testament prophet. When Paul was giving an opinion that he didn’t want to be considered binding, he said so in verses like 1 Corinthians 7:6 when he gave his opinion that it is better not to marry. Please note that in another place (1 Titus 4:3) Paul called forbidding to marry a devil’s doctrine.

“But I also believe that in some instances God has raised a woman to prophecy and to be a judge, etc..”

That is clear. God also raises up female deacons. The issue is the offices [that the Bible restricts women from holding] of pastor and teacher, not of evangelist, prophet or deacon.

… the Bible clearly lays out the role of elder spiritually gifted women in the church, which is to instruct younger women in faith and practice and to tend to the moral and spiritual development of children. In these times Christian woman have despised the role intended and laid out by God for them in order to seek the roles that God has set aside for men. You can see the negative effects on young women and children that result from this neglect. Ironically, the confusion in the church that results in the neglect of young women and children (as confused young women and children today become the very confused people who wind up leading churches 30 years down the line) is what is used as an excuse to justify female pastors.

For instance, a lot of people claim that there should be women leaders because there aren’t enough suitable male leaders, and they use Deborah in the time of the Judges as their proof-text. What they ignore is that the lack of suitable male leaders is precisely because of the refusal of elder women to instruct young mothers and of young mothers to instruct young women. And the proof-text of this is not only that of the kings in Israel (meaning that the kings who had righteous mothers who followed the Lord themselves followed the Lord, but the kings who had wicked mothers turned away from the Lord, and this was the case regardless of the spiritual condition of the father … a godly king and a rotten queen would produce rotten a rotten kid inheriting the throne, but a rotten king and a godly queen would produce a good child who would go on to become king) but also that Deborah herself had to rule because of Israel’s spiritual apostasy, their turning against God, at the time.

So, it speaks volumes that the women who use the lack of suitable male leaders as an excuse to be pastors and teachers are perfectly willing to personally profit from the dire straits that the church is in. That makes you nothing but a spiritual scalawag or carpetbagger. (If you are not from the American South, look the terms up … they mean someone who exploits a great tragedy for personal gain.) The proper response for Christian women to the lack of good male leaders in this generation is to adhere to what the Bible says regarding instructing younger women and children so that the next generation will have strong male leaders for the church. And this is precisely what the God-fearing queens of Israel who were married to evil husbands did. They did not attempt coups against their husbands so that they could rule righteously in their husband’s stead. (Consider that the only female usurper of the throne of Israel was the Baal worshiper Athaliah.) Instead, they raised their sons to know and fear God so that righteous rule would return in the next generation. The righteous queens of Israel knew the merits of adhering to God’s plan instead of following after their own human designs. Christian women chasing feminism idolatry would do well to follow their example. This is ever so more the case of Pentecostal women for whom female pastors is commonly accepted, as Pentecostals are known for their particular emphasis on Old Testament types and examples.

So, if righteous Old Testament queens operating without the benefit of the full revelation of Jesus Christ were able and willing to do what was necessary to produce godly kings for Old Testament Israel, how much more should New Testament Christian women who have the full revelation of Jesus Christ be expected to do so? Those who reject the Bible on this issue in order to follow a corrupt and fallen worldly mindset are without excuse.

For a more exhaustive treatment of this issue, please read:

Why Women Cannot Be Preachers

And to begin conforming your life to God’s desires:

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Advertisements

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

More Evidence That Female Pastors Lead To False Churches Endorsing Homosexuality This Time From The Emergent Church

Posted by Job on August 2, 2009

From the brother at Apprising Ministries.  Please click on the link to read his important article!

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

If A Woman Cannot Be A Leader In The Church How Can Sarah Palin Lead The Religious Right?

Posted by Job on October 16, 2008

Now I do not entirely agree with Voddie Baucham’s position below that women should not have leadership roles in the private sphere i.e. government and business. I believe that the New Testament restriction applied only to the church. Baucham’s statement that a nation ruled by women is a sign that said nation is under judgment because of its immorality causing the lack of suitable males I believe applied to Old Testament Israel, which was God’s covenant people. (Of course, looking at what our own wicked culture has done to our men and boys, resulting in a large portion of the male population being unable to hold a job and lead a household, let alone run a government or business, well that certainly makes Baucham appear right and me wrong.)

So were it simply an issue of Sarah Palin being vice president or even president of our government (or for that matter NATO, the UN, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, etc.) I am fine with that because it is a secular position. That is consistent with by interpretation of Proverb 31 as well as with the fact that Lydia of Acts was a businesswoman and entrepreneur, and women supported the ministry of Jesus Christ with their economic activity. Even in practical terms, plenty of women, particularly those whose husbands have either died or abandoned them or become disabled, wind up needing to support themselves and their children, and the current church does not have a social services apparatus to provide food, housing, and education to such women and their children as the early church of Acts did. Therefore, such women either need to get jobs or get on the very government welfare programs that the religious right so hates. 

But that is secular temporal matters such as business and government, not spiritual matters such as Body of Christ ecclesiology. Scripture makes it clear: women cannot take on positions of ecclesiastical leadership. It is interesting that the primary arguments for suggesting otherwise is generally diminishing the spirituality of the church, making it more secular. One either claims that denying certain roles to women is just another manifestation of workplace and societal discrimination, or that the New Testament words in this matter only reflected Middle Eastern worldly cultural norms and was not the Holy Spirit inspired infallible Word of God.

A novel recent attempt has been to claim that the demand that women be silent and learn under subjection only applied to the home, which makes the home the only spiritual institution where God’s suzerain covenant with Adam applies, not the church (to understand the importance of the suzerain covenant with Adam that Paul mentioned that allowed the man to transgress where the woman was only deceived, which allowed woman to be held blameless – though in subjection – and for the church to be redeemed through her seed, please read http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgr3tfq_197djp7zwfh).

Now as mentioned in Why The Early Church Fathers Were Millennialists And Why The Gentile Church Quickly Rejected It For Sadduceeism because of a vacuum left in the religious right due to not only the deaths of its prominent founding members but many of the people that have since come along tainting themselves with compromise and scandal, Sarah Palin is the de facto leader of the religious right. She is not A LEADER but THE LEADER.

Now she has not asked for the position of leadership in the entire religious right, but rather has been thrust into it by the hyperbole of socially conservative Christian leaders, including those that have not spoken out on such matters in the past but have allowed themselves to become so fearful of Obama (as if Bill Clinton was any better … what makes Obama so much more fearsome than the draft dodging 1960s radical Oxford elitist Clinton eh, but we are not going there!) and excitement with the potential of conservative leadership in the form of someone other than a white male (as if the very reason why there aren’t more black/Hispanic/Asian conservative leaders isn’t, well, the very same one that causes them to fear Obama far more than they did Clinton).

But that is not to say that Palin has not been courting the religious right. After all, she is not the only pro – life religious conservative. Ron Paul has the same views – including the same ability to dissemble on homosexuality as Palin by the way -and what is more has the actual scientific background to speak form it as a medical doctor and the religious right loathes him. Tom Coburn also has the views and medical background, but the next religious right leader to talk up the fellow that actually wants to end abortion and reduce government will be the first. But yes, we know that Palin has not only courted the religious right in her state, but did so using government resources. See State paid for trip when Palin told students to pray for pipeline and As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state. So even though Palin didn’t ask to lead the national religious right, it is certainly a role that she was certainly willing to use to her political advantage in Alaska and as such has experience in. 

But again, Palin is a woman. A woman is not supposed to have such authority in the church, right? I agree that being a leader of the amorphous ill defined religious right is not the same as being leader of the Southern Baptist Convention or pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries. As someone who feels that a woman has the right to, say, initiate and run missionary organizations (a fact made more so because the vast majority of missionaries today are in fact women and said women are putting men to shame in this vital area of the Great Commission) then my challenge is less than perfect because leading the religious right is not direct ecclesiastical authority per se but rather leadership of a parachurch activity. 

Still, it is interesting to note that my very liberal views on women in leadership is not shared by many of Palin’s advocates, including the leaders of denominations that forced women out of the leadership positions of the missionary boards that they themselves started, financed, and ran with very little help (and usually only opposition) from the male leadership of those denominations. Also, there is a difference between being a leader of a parachurch organization like, say, a Christian charity (which I assert is a position akin to a deacon, and the Bible does suffer women to be deacons) and leading the religious right. Simply put: leaders of Christian charities have very little influence on church doctrine and practice other than perhaps being more effective at getting more Christians to participate and give. 

But it is past time to acknowledge that leadership of the religious right is the closest thing that we have in America to a Protestant pope, or as it were the leader of a state church. The best example is how so many evangelicals have become very accommodating to Roman Catholicism and dual covenant theologies surrounding Judaism and Israel thanks to the need to maintain religious right alliances. One truly cannot be a leader in the religious right while unambiguously stating that Roman Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, angels, and icons are grievous blasphemies and apostasies, or that Jews must accept Jesus Christ or face eternal flame. That is why religious right leaders would much rather simply bash gay rights activists and the ACLU, or for that matter are much more comfortable denouncing their political opponents as a group because of their political, cultural, ideological etc. views than denouncing individual sinners for their sin. Further still, being a religious right leader requires being in good company with people like Rush Limbaugh. Stating that an unrepentant thrice divorced former drug addict should not be accepted as a leader or authoritative voice (and the same for, say, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, et al) would be appropriate Christian speech, but it would put one very much at odds with conservatism, correct? And as a result, evangelicalism simply follows suit in refusing to oppose Roman Catholicism, tell the truth about Judaism and Israel, and putting up with Council on Foreign Relations new world order globalist occultists. The next religious right leader that asks why we send an ambassador to the Vatican or challenges Bush on putting on Muslim garb and praying in a mosque (no, they only get mad when Obama does it!) or stating that all religions worship the same God (again, imagine were Obama to say the same!) will be the first. 

So yes, Sarah Palin will be very influential in the doctrine and practice of politically active evangelicals, especially in areas regarding how they relate to the world. As a matter of fact, it has happened already. Did you note how so many religious right leaders took a far more accepting tone towards teen pregnancy because of Bristol Palin? The next religious right leader to go after Sarah Palin, Briston Palin, or Levi Johnston will be the first. And of course, if the religious right EVER tries to make illegitimacy an issue again, they will be reminded of it. And as I have alluded to, their having to give up on the issue politically will basically mean that they have to give up on it THEOLOGICALLY.

As a matter of fact, they already have. Please recall Dobson’s response: “teen pregnancy is part of the cultural landscape now, and the church has to acknowledge it and adapt to it by praying for and offering support to teen mothers.” Excuse me, but any one that read “A Nation At Risk” knows that teen pregnancy has been part of the cultural landscape since the 1950s, and further that the religious right were the last ones to suggest that the church pray for and support them, but instead demanded that such people be excoriated and marginalized in order to get them to change their behavior. 

Now again, if the religious right is a secular movement promoting culture, values, and a particular vision of government and economics, then it is fine for Sarah Palin to wield so much influence over it. But if it is a religious movement, a church movement, then I would like to see how it can be justified. But hey, then again, I was saying precisely the same thing back when many religious right leaders were wanting Mormon Mitt Romney to be their standard bearer. This includes, incidentally, prominent Southern Baptist leaders that were advising him. (Romney did not take their advice, because they wanted him to acknowledge to evangelicals that Mormonism was a totally separate faith from and completely irreconcilable with Christianity, and Romney was determined to force evangelicals to accept his faith as another denomination or branch of Christianity as part of his candidacy, but when you realize that these same evangelicals have done the same with Roman Catholicism and increasingly Judaism, then you cannot blame Romney and his Mormon backers for calling evangelicals big time hypocrites on this issue.) I recall how Romney took the house down at some C-PAC meeting after conceding the nomination to McCain. Make no mistake, based on the buzz emanating from C-PAC, Romney most definitely was going to be the standard bearer for social conservatives going forward. That is, until Sarah Palin, who by virtue of her being female and actually being a Christian has completely usurped and deposed him. (Although ironically if the financial crisis causes a McCain loss, Romney stands to be the biggest beneficiary politically.) 

So how about it political evangelicalism? How does having a woman be your de facto pope or state church leader square with what the Bible says about ecclesiastical roles for women? Will you accept Palin being your teacher just as you have been accepting humanistic pyschology and political/cultural values masquerading as (crossless) Christianity from the likes of James Dobson and Bill Bennett for the past 20 years? (Say what you want about Beth Moore, but her teaching ministry apparently does seem to be aimed at women.) So maybe, then, the Voddie Baucham video below should be considered, if only in the context of the religious right. That is assuming, of course, that such an entity based on compromise and commingling between the church and the world as the religious right should have ever existed in the first place.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments »

Tony Evans Now Hanging Out With Paula White. Oh Yes, And Andrae Crouch Too!

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

From Melvin Jones.

Giving Honor Where Honor Is Due – Or Not

 

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Lifeway Bookstores Is Right: Gospel Today Magazine IS Promoting Women Pastors!

Posted by Job on September 19, 2008

Gospel Today magazine pulled from Christian bookstores’ shelves

Now do not go overboard in your praise of Lifeway, for they also carry the heresies of not only Rick Warren, but also oneness pentecostal prosperity doctrine word of faith T.D. Jakes. But in this matter, Lifeway is 100% correct. Gospel Today made their decision easy by telegraphing the fact that they are obviously promoting being conformed to the ways of this world rather than following scripture with this quote:

“It’s really kind of sad when you have people like [Gov.] Sarah Palin and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton providing encouragement and being role models for women around the world that we have such a divergent opinion about women who are able to be leaders in the church,” Hairston said. “I was pretty shocked.” 

Not only is this worldliness, but it is deception and dishonesty, flat out lying with the willful intent to confuse, mislead, and deceive Christians. Hairston well knows that the Bible only withholds from women positions of leadership over men, including pastorates, in the church and in the home. Outside of the church and home, a woman can hold any position that she wants: CEO, president, lawyer, doctor, you name it. And the Bible practices what it preaches, for Lydia of Thyatira of Acts was an entrepreneur/businesswoman who opened her house to the very New Testament writer whom the Holy Spirit inspired to restrict women from pastorates, apostle Paul. Lydia is credited with founding one of the apostolic churches in her home and therefore played a key role in bringing the gospel to a new area, but she was not a pastor. If these people are willing to throw away what the Bible says on women pastors to follow Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin today, what other confusion and disobedience will they cast aside the Bible in order to follow tomorrow? Hillary Clinton’s embrace of universalism and abortion? Or what about Sarah Palin’s refusal to denounce the sin of homosexuality, claiming that she has “diversity in her family”, thereby implying that being homosexual is no different from being Native American like her own husband and children? The same Palin who can proclaim that God’s will is being advanced by our invading Iraq and her seeking federal money to build an oil pipeline in her state says that she is unqualified to discern and judge what the Bible plainly says about homosexuality? And we are still looking for the snipers that were shooting at Hillary Clinton in Bosnia, aren’t we? And these are the people that Gospel Today wants you to cast aside your Bibles for and follow? It is becoming ever easier to determine in this day and age who is loving Jesus Christ by keeping His commandments (John 14:15)  and who isn’t. In many cases all that is required is to open your eyes.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Ron Luce of BattleCry: Supporting Ministry of Word of Faith Jezebel Heretics Marilyn And Sarah Hickey!

Posted by Job on May 28, 2008

I used to love watching Ron Luce’s events such as “Acquire The Fire” and “BattleCry” on Christian broadcasting and generally supported their efforts: see New York Times Portrays Teenage Christians As Hatemongers. Then, I found out that Luce was among those endorsing syncretized Christianity via New Age contemplative spirituality: BattleCry’s Ron Luce Gets In On The Contemplative Prayer Scam. So, here we had another example of Christians taking what is supposed to be a bold – even coercive and militaristic – stand in secular areas like politics and culture while compromising attacks on the faith itself. For example: not long ago one of Luce’s TV shows celebrated their victory over a chain of mall gift shops selling pornographic Christmas tree ornaments. You might be interested in knowing how this victory took place. Was it converting the owner of the gift shop chain into Christianity? No. Was it converting so many customers of this gift shop chain into Christianity that selling such things would be commercially viable? No. Instead, they employed the same tactics that atheists, gay rights groups, pro – abortion people, and New Age (there’s that world again!) environmentalist Gaia mother earth worshipers use: protests, picket signs, media pressure, etc. In other words, it as Christians imposing their social, political, and cultural beliefs – not the gospel mind you but only secular beliefs! – on people that reject Jesus Christ knowing full well that a person can have those beliefs, not have Jesus Christ, and still burn for an eternity in the lake of fire. And it was not even any sort of conviction or shame over sin and blasphemy that forced this fellow to change. Instead, they used GREED as an inducement. This fellow did not stop selling pornographic Christmas tree ornaments because the Ron Luce kids caused him fear the God of Heaven. Instead, the Ron Luce kids manipulated his fear of the god of THIS WORLD to force him to change his behavior. These “Christians” used MAMMON, more specifically the fear of losing money and power, to get this fellow to do what they wanted him to do! Seriously, how different is that from witchcraft, the occult, black magic, white magic, roots, or voodoo? Well, if you give up Jesus Christ’s spiritual mission for earthly gains and glory, such a thing is inevitably going to happen, because if you obey Jesus Christ, you can reach the world in a spiritual manner by the Holy Spirit. But if you go off and do things that Jesus Christ never told you to do, you reach the world through its flesh by the flesh. 

So, it is no surprise that so many of these religious right “taking back the culture” dominionists have gotten quite comfortable with incorporating so many worldly techniques, even things from other religions, into not only their political practice but religious doctrines and practices. Using slain in the spirit false charismatic techniques so that you can do a better job of brainwashing and manipulating young children than does the anti – Christ public schools? Why not? It is beating the enemy at his own game right? See: Jesus Camp: Bewitching Our Children With False Doctrines!

The question is similar to Roman Catholicism centuries ago, why are the Pentecostal and charismatic evangelical movements so conducive to getting people to believe that A) it is our job to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to preach the gospel and obey the Bible and let God do what God has already said He would and B) to accomplish A) using secular methods? Just The Book has an excellent series on how these people are targeting our kids in this fashion, here is merely one of their many entries, and yes Just The Book (a sola scriptura title!) does invest a lot of time in investigating the links between Roman Catholic mysticism and not only charismatic mania, but how charismatic mania influences POLITICS. I am not one of those who claims that the Roman Catholic Church is mystery Babylon the great, the beast, etc. but their fingerprints are all over this movement. 

So here is the link of Ron Luce endorsing the false ministry of the Hickeys. I don’t know how long the link is going to last, so here goes the text:

In a world that seems to be turning upside down, God wants YOU to be a world – changer!“After a radical encounter with God, Sarah Bowling began to sense the need to revolutionize her World… from the inside out. “That’s where the true revolution begins,” says Sarah.

Regardless of how old or young you are, or where you live on the planet, God wants you to be concerned, confronted, compelled, corrupted, and consumed by the cause of Christ. He sees the potential in each of us to become a revolutionary.

How to Keep Your Faith in an Upside-down World can be a beginning for you; a beginning of radical relationship with God, of tremendous transformation in your own life, and a real revolution of God’s love, power and Word in your world and the world around you!” Sarah’s book will encourage you to not just be a surviving Christian, but a thriving Christian. Sarah’s message will help you excel and move forward in your Christian walk—despite living in an upside down world.

-Ron Luce, Founder of Teen Mania

So … God wants you to be corrupted by the cause of Jesus Christ? That must be the Word of Faith/prosperity doctrine translation. You know, the one that teaches that Jesus Christ had to be born again (either in hell or at his baptism), that He was raped, and other blasphemies. God wants us to be a revolutionary? In the form of dying to self, not being conformed to the world and its ways but being transformed by God’s Word, etc. But since Luce did not provide that context for us – and since he promotes WORLDLY and UNBIBLICAL ministers like the Hickeys and practices like contemplative spirituality – I cannot presume him to mean “revolutionary” in a biblical context (especially since the world itself never appears in the Bible … at least not in my translation … again maybe it appears in the Word of Faith/prosperity ones), but rather in a worldly one. And again, since Luce’s “ministry” is fond of using militaristic images – complete with teens wearing combat fatigues and having vehicles i.e. jeeps painted with camouflage designs on stage, and yes since he encourages these children to be active in the secular arena – what prevents me from deciding that Luce means “revolutionary” in the Che Guevara, Simon Bolivar, Joan of Arc sense? Or the aforementioned children’s crusade

People, Satan Is Real And After Your Kids, and among the places very where Satan is like a lion, roaring, looking for and stalking whom he may devour as it reads 1 Peter 5:8 is in these false churches and false Christian movements. This is why we need to flee false teachers and reject their doctrines people, and only seek after the Word of God and those who teach it. There is no need, no reason to compromise or make excuses, because the consequences are too severe. Marilyn and Sarah Hickey and Ron Luce: as Amos 3: 3 says, how can they walk together unless they be agreed? 

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Juanita Bynum Takes Her Demonic Apostasy Lies To Divorce Court TV Show So That She Can Ruin Even More Marriages!

Posted by Job on April 22, 2008

Key quote: “I was just trying to make it work because I don’t like losing relationships,” Bynum said.  And they call this woman a preacher … see link below.

Bynum discusses marriage on ‘Divorce Court’

 

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 151 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: