Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 6/30/18

Rather than cautioning 800 celibate Catholic priests to refrain from sexually abusing minors, Rick Warren (photo right) should be warning evangelicals and Catholics of Rome’s false gospel of sacramental grace and merit. But Warren has been the Vatican’s primary polezni durak (useful fool) “evangelical” for decades.

Jesuit priest, James Martin, is the main point man for the progressive wing of the Catholic church in its push to completely affirm active LGBT members. Martin’s name is becoming increasingly visible as the crusade for full recognition of LGBTers intensifies. I recently read Martin’s book, “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship, of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity” in order to gain some understanding of the Catholic Left’s perspective on this topic and I’ll be writing a short review soon.

As events are unfolding, it’s not preposterous to imagine a future when organized religious instruction of children will be verboten. But the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, in which all sin is allegedly washed away by physical water in conjunction with the precise recitation of the baptism incantation, is just incredibly bad Bible exegesis.

It’s easy to rip on charlatan Bakker, but just about everybody on TBN is a pea from the same pod.

This African priest felt the need to liven the mass up a bit to keep the customers satisfied, but got his hands slapped by the higher-ups. Be assured that priests outside of Europe and North America dress up the boring mass all the time on the QT, this one just got caught. But no matter how you adorn it, the blasphemous mass is still the blasphemous mass. There’s an old saying that goes something like, “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.”

Although liberal Catholic priests have been inviting Protestants to receive communion on the sly for decades, intercommunion was officially forbidden. In an airplane aisle press conference two weeks ago, pope Francis declared that individual bishops can set the intercommunion guidelines for their own diocese. Church conservatives are reeling back on their heels once again.

Phil Lawler, the conservative Catholic author of the hard-hitting critique of pope Francis, “Lost Shepherd: How Francis is Misleading His Flock” (see here), provides some insight into the deleterious effects of the widespread homosexuality within the priesthood. Forced celibacy both attracts and fosters deviancy.

Beth Moore’s name was recently bandied about as a possible candidate for president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC is a big tent and includes many faithful preachers, but also many heterodox ones. Moore is a TBN regular who pushes ecumenism, mind-emptying contemplative prayer, and regularly rubs shoulders with Word of Faith, prosperity charlatans like Joyce Meyer. We’re seeing women increasingly taking the role of pastor in churches even though God’s Word does not allow it.

These (c)hristian movies from Pure Flix and others might have some limited good content, but as a whole they push ecumenism.

“The Shack” author continues to push Universalism, but don’t object or you will be labeled a “book burner”

Anyone remember “The Shack,” both the book (2007) and the film adaptation (2017)? Of course you do! Many evangelicals were smitten with the story of (g)od’s love and “redemption.” I didn’t read the book or see the movie, but I had read quite a bit about them and wasn’t pleased. The biggest problem with “The Shack” wasn’t the portrayals of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, although they were certainly objectionable. No, the most outrageous problem with “The Shack” was that it pushed author William Paul Young’s Universalist heresy.

Below are some quotes from the book with comments from Albert Mohler from the article below:

Jesus tells Mack that he is “the best way any human can relate to Papa (God the Father) or Sarayu (the Holy Spirit).” Not the only way, but merely the best way.

In another chapter, “Papa” corrects Mack’s theology by asserting, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Without doubt, God’s joy is in the atonement accomplished by the Son. Nevertheless, the Bible consistently reveals God to be the holy and righteous Judge, who will indeed punish sinners. The idea that sin is merely “its own punishment” fits the Eastern concept of karma, but not the Christian Gospel.

The most controversial aspects of The Shack‘s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved.”

Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young’s meaning. “Papa” chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world, Mack.”

The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment

Those who objected to The Shack and its message of Universal redemption were labeled by many undiscerning evangelical Christians as sectarian book burners.

Like spots on a leopard, William Paul Young continues to promote Universalism as per the recent article below, but you may not want to object because you will be labeled a “book burner” in today’s evangelicalism.

‘The Shack’ Author Disputes Christian View That Those Who Die Without Jesus Can’t Achieve Salvation

A couple of major problems with this book

Back in May, I posted on a very good book on Roman Catholicism, “Test All Things: An Invitation to Examine Your Catholic Faith in the Light of Scripture” by Joe Mizzi. See my review here. As I perused through Mizzi’s website, Just For Catholics, I noticed that he had posted another free downloadable PDF of a book, this one titled “Whose Voice Are You Listening To?” Any book that examines Catholicism and is free to boot is right up my alley, so I downloaded it.

Whose Voice Are You Listening To?: A Comparison of the Catholic Catechism to the Bible?
By Marlene C. Crouch
Tate Publishing, 2009, 310 pages

In this book, the author compares several key Catholic doctrines with Scripture, concentrating mainly on the church’s teachings about Mary and Petrine authority, with a secondary focus on sacramental grace and eucharistic transubstantiation. There’s some excellent information here as Crouch cites many paragraphs from the Catholic catechism and contrasts them with an abundant amount of Scripture to refute the above doctrines. However, there are also some fundamental flaws in this book that cannot be overlooked.

In her introduction, Crouch urges her Catholic readers to “please know that all of (her) efforts in compiling (this information) were born out of love and compassion for (her) Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ – brothers and sisters in Christ who love the Lord and who believe the Gospel’s basic message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, but who are deceived and held in bondage under false doctrines derived from the traditions of man and who are thereby deprived of the freedom and joy of fully experiencing the magnitude of God’s love” (page 14, my italics).

However, throughout the book and especially in the chapter devoted to God’s grace, Crouch makes it clear that Roman Catholicism proclaims a false gospel of sacramental grace and merit in direct contrast to the genuine Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Which is it, Ms. Crouch? Can a Catholic be born-again in Christ by following the standard works-righteousness salvation theology of their church or not? Catholics by definition DO NOT believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE.

In the chapter on the church, Crouch takes the view that when Jesus died on the cross, He descended into hell and “preached to everyone who had died, from Adam to the thief on the cross” (p. 183). She then claims that, “Those spirits who heard his voice and believed his preaching” were saved (p.181). Crouch is saying the Old Testament souls who had not trusted in the Lord for their salvation prior to their death had a second chance, which is at odds with the general revelation of Scripture. People who believe as Crouch does cite 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 1 Peter 4:6. These are no-doubt difficult verses and require thorough and prayerful study. I know there’s some debate about where Jesus went in His spirit and what He did between the time of His death and resurrection, but this claim that the unrighteous souls who died before Jesus’ death were able to trust in Him as Savior is heterodox. Who wouldn’t trust in Christ at that point if it were possible? Wayne Grudem provides some good analysis of 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 1 Peter 4:6 in the article far below.

Because of these two very serious flaws, I can’t recommend “Whose Voice Are You Listening To?” I’m disappointed that Joe Mizzi includes this book as a free download on his website.


Mary’s Consent
Marian Apparitions
Mary’s Immaculate Conception?
Mary, Ever Virgin
The Rosary
Pray Only to God
Keys to the Kingdom and Power of God
Peter, the Rock
Peter’s Brethren
Peter, Son of Jonas
The Church

Did Jesus Really Descend into Hell?

Just in time for summer – New England Clam Dip!

Yes, blogging friends, summer is here, and I’m thrilled to be able to once again pass along the recipe for that summertime culinary delight, delicious New England Clam Dip! Break out the wavy potato chips and enjoy!


Thank you, Lord, for delicious food, all in moderation of course!

An accoutrement staple of backyard summer dining is potato chips and dip. One of my family’s favorite chip dips used to be a New England clam dip manufactured by a local cheese company named “Heluva Good” of all things. For some reason, Heluva Good stopped making its clam dip in the early aughts (2000s). Some said it was because of new FDA regulations.

My hankering for clam dip grew and grew until I finally started searching online for a clam dip recipe that was similar to Heluva Good’s. I found the one below several years ago. It’s a pretty close facsimile and very easy to make. Any time we serve it to guests they always rave about it. I could eat a whole bowl of clam dip with wavy chips in a single sitting all by myself, but my…

View original post 209 more words

Did Jesus actually promise to build His church upon lowly Peter?

In its efforts to bolster its claims regarding the alleged supremacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope, Roman Catholicism had to scour Scripture looking for validating proof texts. They found their primary “evidence” in Matthew 16:

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” – Matthew 16:13-18

Catholic apologists argue that the passage teaches that Jesus promised to build his church upon the apostle, Peter, who they claim was the first bishop of Rome, but Protestants disagree. In the original Greek text, the word used for Peter is “petros,” which means a small stone or pebble, while the word used for rock is “petra,” which means a massive rock formation. Jesus was using a play on words to indicate that while Simon was an insecure, rolling pebble, the truth that he had proclaimed, that Jesus was the long-promised Messiah and Savior, would be the massive, unmoveable truth that would be the bedrock foundation of the church.

But Protestants are not the only ones who correctly exegete this passage. Church “fathers,” Augustine, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril also interpreted Matthew 16:18 to mean that Jesus was going to build His church upon the truth proclaimed by Peter, that He was the long-awaited Messiah and Savior.

“Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.” – Augustine from “The Works of Saint Augustine” (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

But an even more convincing case against Catholicism’s self-serving misinterpretation is Scripture itself. As in most cases with God’s Word, one passage of Scripture clarifies another and that is the case for Matthew 16. Just four chapters after chapter 16 we find:

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20:20-28

If Jesus had already granted apostolic primacy to Peter in Matthew 16 as Catholics claim, then why would James and John have requested apostolic primacy in Matthew 20? Does not compute. If Catholics are right, James and John would not have bothered to request apostolic primacy as they had. We see in the passage that Jesus gently rebukes James and John for their ambition and also forbids the Catholic notions of apostolic primacy and an ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Further, in the apostle Paul’s epistles, not only is there NO mention of Peter’s alleged primacy – zero, zip, zilch, nada – but he deliberately contradicts the notion:

“And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” – Galatians 2:6

Peter was certainly a leader of the apostles and was used by God to spread the Gospel, but he was not the pope or the foundation of Jesus’ church.

Does God adopt us into His family, but then give us the boot when (not if) we misbehave?

Many people erroneously claim that ALL people are God’s children.

“We are all children of God. Everyone! Everyone!” – pope Francis, April 12, 2018

Yes, all people are certainly God’s creation, but according to Scripture, only those who are spiritually reborn by God’s grace through saving faith in Christ Jesus alone can become God’s children:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:12-13

Born-again believers are ADOPTED into God’s family and become joint heirs with Jesus Christ (Romans 8:17). Hallelujah!

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” – Romans 8:15

“And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. – Romans 8:23

“to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” – Galatians 4:5

“he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” – Ephesians 1:5

So the question is, would God ever disown or disinherit someone who has genuinely repented of their sin and placed their trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith alone and been born-again in Christ? The Lord Jesus Christ answered that question:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” John 10:27-30

A teaching of Roman Catholicism is that everyone who is baptized into their church is “born-again” and becomes a child of God, but they immediately forfeit their place in God’s family every time they commit a mortal sin. If they confess their mortal sins to a priest, they are then readmitted into God’s family. Hence they are in God’s family one week, then out of God’s family the next. Then in, then out. In and out, in and out, in and out, etc., etc., etc. Catholicism is a never-ending religious revolving door because, although they speak of grace (administered via the sacraments), salvation is ultimately merit-based, which is a worthless foundation of sinking sand.

There are even some groups within evangelicalism that teach that genuine, born-again followers of Christ can lose their salvation. We all follow the Lord imperfectly, so where exactly is the dividing line between remaining in God’s family and being disinherited? It appears to me that, for these groups, although they profess Christ, salvation is also ultimately merit-based. How do I explain someone who allegedly professed Christ, but has no fruit in their life? They never genuinely trusted in Christ and were not born-again.

Praise the Lord, I am a child of God, not because of anything I have done, but because of my Savior, Jesus Christ, and His imputed perfect righteousness. I now joyfully follow the Lord in obedience, albeit imperfectly.

Catholic priest slaps infant


Warning: Many will find this video very upsetting.

I’m not going to add a lot of words to this post. News sources report that the Catholic bishop of Meaux (France) suspended “father” Jacques Lacroix after the priest angrily slapped an infant at a baptism ceremony as caught on this video.

As a student at both Catholic grammar school and high school, I can vividly recall priests, sisters, and brothers treating children with cruelty.

The Lord Jesus Christ loves this priest and desires that he put aside his works religion and trusts in Him as Savior by faith alone, but if that priest had slapped that infant in front of the Lord Jesus Christ…

French priest filmed slapping baby during baptism retires amid condemnation

Searching for my spiritual gift?

“To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” – 1 Corinthians 12:7-11

In regards to spiritual gifts, I offer the following with a great degree of humility, recognizing everything we possess is from the Lord:

My wife and I were reading through 1 Corinthians the past several weeks. As part of that, I did some preparatory study for chapter 12, in which the apostle Paul wrote about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Boy, did that bring back memories, but it also spoke to my walk with the Lord currently.

After my wife and I accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior by faith alone back in 1983, we began attending an independent, fundamental Baptist church not too far from our home. The church had several problems, which eventually caused us to leave in 1991, but there were also several positives associated with our time there.

The pastor used an expository style of preaching. He would select a particular book of the Bible and, over time, preach on the entire text, from the opening verse clear through to the last verse. With three different books being studied each week (Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night), we got A LOT of Bible and some very thorough teaching.

I can vividly remember the pastor studying through 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.* His message was that everyone had a spiritual gift and it was up to each person to determine their particular gift so that they could use it to minister to the rest of the body of Christ. For several weeks afterwards, we had members asking each other what their spiritual gift was. Argh! It reminded me of kindergarten class. I felt a bit lost because I didn’t know what my gift was. I taught Sunday School class for primary children (grades 1-3) for about four years and was also a deacon for one year, and, although I was very blessed by both ministries, I felt like a fish out of water.

After I returned to the Lord after my long prodigal “season,” the Lord put it into my heart to reach out to Roman Catholics with the Gospel of grace and to confront the error of ecumenism within the church. For those reasons, I started this blog almost three years ago and I usually post something every day except for Sundays. However, as I wrote my posts, I often became frustrated as to why my brothers and sisters in the Lord didn’t see the obvious dangers of ecumenism as I did, until it struck me; the Lord blessed me with a degree of discernment regarding Catholicism and ecumenism, a gift which many do not have, even pastors and theologians who have a lot more training and familiarity with God’s Word and church history than I do. I don’t state that with any degree of pride. The Lord bestows His gifts upon us differently. But don’t all people who accept Christ and come out of Catholicism also have this gift? No, I’ve noticed that many ex-Catholics have a tolerant “it didn’t work for me, but whatever works for you” attitude. Am I and others who have the gift of discernment always right? Ugh. Hardly. I am not infallible and NONE of us minister in our gifts perfectly. Only Jesus is perfect. But, when I read 1 Corinthians 12 now, I am not frustrated about what my gift is as I was thirty years ago. I know exactly what it is.

Scripture exhorts ALL believers to study God’s Word to show themselves approved unto the Lord, so that they are able to discern false teaching, but many believers are forfeiting their individual responsibility and buying into the ear-tickling, topical, doctrine-lite, and even false teaching that’s increasingly prevalent in hip mega-churches.

Below is a helpful, three-part article from Tim Challies about the gift of discernment.

The Gift of Spiritual Discernment, Part 1
The Gift of Spiritual Discernment, Part 2
The Gift of Spiritual Discernment, Part 3

“Where God has given a gift, we can expect that He will also give passion…Those who look for their gifting should look to what interests them and what makes them feel passionate. As they look to their passions they may just find their gifts.” – Tim Challies

I don’t believe Christians need to wring their hands and anguish over what their spiritual gift (or gifts) is as our old pastor had directed us to. As we follow the Lord and seek His Kingdom, He will put a desire in our hearts to serve the body in the way He desires.

*Full disclosure: When it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I’m a “cessationist,” meaning I believe the showy gifts (healings, languages, raising the dead, handling poisonous snakes, etc.) were meant to demonstrate the authority of the apostles and to establish the church, and ended after the apostolic age following the establishment of the New Testament.

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup! – News & Views – 6/23/18

I believe Jeffress (photo right) would do much better by working to spread the Gospel rather than joining with conservative religious unbelievers to try to prop up the Falwellian notion of America being a “Christian Nation.”

A few days ago, Francis visited the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in Geneva to help celebrate that organization’s 75th anniversary and bolster ecumenism. There may be an exception here and there, but it’s doubtful that any minister of a WCC-affiliated church preaches the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Pope Francis used the church synods of 2014 and 2015 to prepare the way for his “Amoris Laetitia” encyclical, which guilefully lifted the ban on communion for remarried divorcees. Francis and his progressive allies are now “greasing the skids” for pro-gay accommodations at the World Meeting of Families conference in Ireland in August and at the Synod of Bishops in October. Church conservatives, led by cardinal Burke, are staging their own competing conference in opposition to the Irish event, but still lack the gumption to officially break with the pope.

Canada is several years ahead of the U.S. with its hostile attitude toward Biblical Christianity. The LGBTQ community will not tolerate the Bible’s stand against homosexuality.

Twenty years ago, if an American cardinal was removed due to sexual abuse of children, it would have been a MAJOR news story. These days its – ho-hum – a short blurb on page six.

I’ve been following this intercommunion controversy for four months. First, Francis gave liberal German prelates the green light to formalize intercommunion with liberal Lutherans. When conservatives balked, he called both sides to the Vatican only to tell them to go back to Germany and decide the matter amongst themselves. Then he put the whole thing on hold. And now, in an off-the-cuff, airplane aisle press conference (his modus operandi of choice), Francis declares the matter of intercommunion with Protestants to be up to each individual bishop! It’s simply amazing to watch Francis casually dismantle doctrines long-held to be infallible. Church conservatives are caught in a Catch-22 because unequivocal loyalty to the pope is one of their prime beliefs. Catholic apologists have always boasted that, through divine guidance, popes were incapable of leading the church into doctrinal error. Previous popes forbade intercommunion, but Francis has now overturned that in an airplane aisle. What is a Catholic to believe these days? Come out of her (Revelation 18:4), my Catholic friend, and put your trust in Jesus Christ and His unchangeable Word!

Bravo to this Catholic newspaper for defying a popular Catholic myth! Sir Thomas More is constantly presented as a champion of religious freedom because the Lord High Chancellor of England chose death rather than support King Henry VIII in his split from the Catholic church. What most Catholics purposely don’t mention is that during the early portion of Henry’s reign, when the king was faithful to Rome, More hunted and executed Protestants.

A Chick-Fil-A opened two months ago about five blocks from my workplace and I really learned to love the Spicy Chicken Deluxe Sandwich Combo. This past week, our company relocated eight miles away. I’m disappointed but my waistline is grateful.

Would Jesus have designed a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? AKA the “gospel” according to Joy Behar!

We’ve all heard the recent news regarding the Supreme Court upholding Christian baker, Jack Phillip’s right not to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The other day, I was looking through some YouTube videos and saw the one below, which featured Phillips as a guest on ABC’s morning show, “The View.” This episode was broadcast in 2017 before the case went to the Supreme Court.

For eleven minutes, he and his lawyer were grilled by the mostly-unfriendly, five-member panel. At the 4:53 mark, Paula Faris asks Jack, “What do you think Jesus would have done in that situation (i.e., asked to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple)?” Jack’s answer, that he doesn’t believe Jesus would have made a cake, is met with incredulous disdain. The panel (and audience) largely agrees with Joy Behar (photo above) when she declares, “Jesus is gonna make the cake!”

Blood-bought, born-again followers of Jesus Christ know that the Lord Jesus Christ would never condone sinful behavior by creating a wedding cake for a male couple, decorated with two male figurines on the top, etc., etc. It would not happen. Believers who read their Bibles know this.

The panel presumes to speak for Jesus, although they are not born-again in Christ and do not read His Word. They have their opinion about what Jesus would do in Phillips’ circumstance, but it’s opinion without any Biblical basis. One of the panelists, Sara Haines, takes disparaging pot shots at the Bible for its teachings about homosexuality, and celebrates that “faith has evolved” since the “thousands of years ago” when God’s Word was written. We also hear from the same panelist, who professes to have been “raised in the church” (what church?), that the Bible isn’t to be trusted because it was “translated 60-some times,” whatever that means. The Bible is a closed book to unbelievers.

The Supreme Court ruling is not the end of this. We can anticipate the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality to became an increasingly rancorous point of contention between Bible Christians and unbelievers (religious and secular).

Please watch the video below if you can spare eleven minutes. It’s an education. Jack actually does fine given the unfriendly panel and his lack of experience on television.


“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27