Rob Skiba’s Faith Statement the Mark of a Cult

Babylon Book200Popular author Rob Skiba is intentionally deceiving his followers. It is a matter of public record that I have confronted him concerning his denial of the trinity, specifically the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Terms like “trinity” have specific definitions that reasonable people agree on in order to make communication possible. Think about it this way, if I decided to redefine the word “red” to match the color green and then started stopping at green lights I would cause a traffic accident. Well Skiba is causing a theological pileup on the freeway. Recently he published a statement of faith on the internet. His disingenuousness ( I will prove)  is apparent right from the start in point number one:

I believe in one eternal God whose name is YHWH (Deuteronomy 6:4). He is the Father of the only begotten Son, Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus – John 3:16) , and He has sent His Holy Spirit to empower, comfort and encourage us in our walk with Him. I believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one (Genesis 1:1-4; Isaiah 11:1-5; John 1:1-14; 10:30; 17:11; 1 John 5:7), thus, commonly referred to as the Trinity. [1]

He wants people to read it and think he is affirming the trinity. But he really is not. The above statement is intentionally deceptive. I have undeniable proof that he does not believe what is “commonly referred to as the Trinity.” He argues vigorously against the trinity and my facebook notes comment section have a record of it. What is “commonly referred to as the trinity” is undeniably “one God in Three persons.” Here are some sources.

Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion:

Trinity. The Christian understanding of God as triune. Trinity means that the one divine nature is a unity of three persons and that God is revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ultimate basis for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity lies in the divine self-disclosure in Jesus, who as the Son revealed the Father and poured out the Holy Spirit. See also economic Trinity; immanent Trinity.[1A]

Here’s another theological dictionary:

    Trinity A reference to the doctrine that God is one and yet exists eternally in three   persons.[2]

Even a non-specialist dictionary like Webster’s gets it right:

Trin•i•ty \ˈtri-nə-tē\ n

[ME trinite, fr. AF trinité, fr. LL trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, fr. L trinus threefold] 13c

1           the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2           not cap a group of three closely related persons or things

3           the Sunday after Whitsunday observed as a feast in honor of the Trinity[3]

It doesn’t get any more “common” than Webster’s. Clearly, what is commonly referred to as the trinity is the belief in “one God in three persons.” Rob denies the Holy Spirit is a person just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. This is Rob’s comment from our facebook discussion that first alarmed me to his cultic theology.

Skiba denies Holy Spirit and calls Trinity doctrine the "real heresy."

Skiba denies Holy Spirit and calls Trinity doctrine the “real heresy.”

Note in the last paragraph he writes the majority view (one God in three persons) “is the very definition of absolute heresy.” So he has effectively called every Christian theologian over the last 1700 years a heretic. He has no respect for anyone who has come before him and, as shown in previous posts,  his cultist views are based on a surface reading of an English translation. Very poor form. But now he publishes a faith statement giving the reader the impression he affirms what he so vehemently denies? His conscience is apparently seared. He is very well aware that what he believes is far removed from what is “commonly called the trinity.” So why is Rob misleading you about his beliefs? He wants to keep his fans and followers who might (and should) leave his fold if he told the truth.

It is common practice amongst the cults. For example The Way International holds a similar stance. Ken Boa writes, “The Way often uses the right terminology but in the wrong way.”[4]  Similarly, “Theosophy proceeds deceitfully and parasitically by its practice of using (misusing) Christian terminology.”[5] Also, “Though this cult uses Christian terminology to communicate its mystical Eastern concepts to a Western audience, it is vehemently opposed to every major tenet of biblical Christianity.”[6]  If it walks like a duck then it’s probably a ___ *quack! Skiba’s deceptive faith statement is clearly cultic because it uses known Christian theology to deceive followers into thinking he affirms Christian doctrine. If you follow Rob Skiba’s teaching and attend his church you have joined ranks with these cult groups listed here. Birds of a feather…

Addendum, here’s another argument from Skiba that clearly shows he does not believe “what is commonly referred to as the trinity”:

Skiba Denies Personhood


[1] Rob Skiba, “Statement of Faith” (accessed September 24, 2013).

[1A] C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 118.

[2]Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 204.

[3] Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.

[4]Kenneth Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult (Canada; England: Victor Books, 1990), 244.

[5] Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult, 138.

[6]Boa, Cults, World Religions, and the Occult, 131.

Will Believers Who Do Not Keep the Feasts Be Janitors in Heaven?

By Cris Putnam
HRMPeople in the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) like to celebrate the Jewish feast days as described in the Torah. This seems fine to me unless someone is teaching that they are required or that not celebrating them somehow diminishes one’s spiritual stature. Unfortunately, many popular teachers do just that. The feasts of Israel are those described in Leviticus 23. The three pilgrimage feasts—the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles—demanded that every male Israelite travel to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are closely related and ran consecutively (Lev 23:4–8). The Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) followed seven weeks later, and connected the Passover of the exodus with the conquest. Both Passover and Pentecost were practiced by early Christians because Christ was crucified at the Passover, and the Holy Spirit personally descended upon the disciples on Pentecost (Acts 2). The Bible ends with the anticipation of one final feast: the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9).

Because Jesus fulfilled the Spring feasts: Passover-Pentecost with his death burial, resurrection, ascension and subsequent outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This leads many to suspect the Fall feasts: (Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles) are connected to his second coming. This is somewhat compelling but not necessary. It is speculative. God nowhere promised that Jesus would return on a certain feast day and certainly never implied that observing them is required to be found in good stead when he returns. Yet Rob Skiba instructs his Virtual House Church that this is the case and those who do not celebrate them have diminished status.

While the feasts of the Lord are interesting for prophetic study, some have wandered away from biblical theology by implying new covenant believers are required to observe the Mosaic laws regarding feast observance. Russ Houck writes that Constantine, “single-handedly stopped the New Church from observing the feasts of the Lord ordained by the Bible. Robbed of its Hebrew roots, the disconnected church became paganistic in spirit and anti-biblical in its customs.”[1] But is this really so? The teaching of the New Testament is that old covenant feast observance is no longer required. This error was dealt with by Paul when false teachers in Colasse:

“I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”(Col 2:4–8)

This is exactly what is re-occuring in our own context with teachers putting folks back under the obsolete ceremonial law by implying that feast observance is needed for spiritual advancement and sanctification. There are 3 types of OT law 1) ceremonial; 2) civil; 3) moral. While God’s moral character does not change, the old covenant stipulations were only for Israelites under that conditional covenant. The conditions were violated and the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant. Rob Skiba implies that Christians should be feast observant to be “at the right place at the right time when Jesus shows up” at the 1:07:49 mark in the video below:

He misapplies Matthew 5:16-19 (as explained by Douglas Moo below) and then at the 1:10:05 mark uses verse 19 to argue that those who disagree with him are going to be “janitors in heaven.” While I am sure that hard-working custodians take exception with Rob’s degradation of their work, Skiba implies that non-observance diminishes one’s status with God. I say balderdash. The idea that there is a spiritual reward for keeping dietary or ceremonial laws is a false teaching, it is a misapplication of scripture. Paul addressed the feasts specifically:

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” (Col 2:16)

Paul was addressing the false teachers in Colasse who were advocating a number of Jewish observances, arguing that they were essential for spiritual advancement.

“These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”(Col 2:17)

The old covenant observances pointed to a future reality that was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 10:1). Hence, Christians are no longer under the Mosaic covenant (cf. Rom. 6:14–15; 7:1–6; 2 Cor. 3:4–18; Gal. 3:15–4:7). Christians are no longer obligated to observe OT dietary laws (“food and drink”) or festivals, holidays, and special days (“a festival … new moon … Sabbath,” Col. 2:16), for what these things foreshadowed has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled in Christ. You will not be demoted for not celebrating as a Torah observant Jew.

Hebrews 8-10 explains very clearly that Christ’s atoning death on the cross was the end of the law and it is now obsolete for everyone.

“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”(Heb 8:13)

As to Rob’s eisegesis of Matthew 5:17-19, atheists and homosexuals also like to use this passage to ask why Christians no longer stone people or why we eat shellfish and pork or wear clothes made of different fabrics. The answer we give them is the same one we give to the HRM, those laws are now obsolete. I guess we should ask our feast-requirers why they don’t also stone people? It’s part of the same covenant stipulations. So what did Jesus mean by saying this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”(Mt 5:17–18)

Jesus “fulfills” all of the OT in that it all points to him, not only in its specific predictions of a Messiah but also in its sacrificial system, which looked forward to his great sacrifice of himself, this made the old obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). We are now concerned with “the law of Christ” as seen in Galatians 6:2. According to NT scholar Douglas Moo:

Christ has brought the OT law’s fulfillment. But the Christian is bound to “God’s law” (1 Cor 9:20–21; cf. “God’s commands” in 1 Cor 7:19 and 1 John 2:3-4 etc.). “God’s law” is not, however, the Mosaic Law, but “Christ’s law” (1 Cor 9:20–21; Gal 6:2), because it is to Christ, the fulfiller, the τέλος of the law (Rom 10:4), that the Christian is bound. In that “fulfillment” of the law, however, some of the Mosaic commandments are taken up and reapplied to the New Covenant people of God. Thus, while the Mosaic Law does not stand as an undifferentiated authority for the Christian, some of its individual commandments remain authoritative as integrated into the law of Christ. [2]

Christ’s death and resurrection changed everything — by emphasizing the Torah over the cross they are promoting error. The cross made a new paradigm, a new covenant! The New Covenant is celebrated by the Lord’s Supper which has supplanted the feast days.

“And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Lk 22:20)

“In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.””(1 Co 11:25)

“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.” (Heb 9:15) “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Heb 12:24)

While the feasts make an interesting study and might have prophetic significance, Christians should first and foremost celebrate the new covenant with their a local church body rather than celebrating the Jewish feast days from an obsolete covenant.

[1] Russ Houck, Epidemic Examining the Infected Roots of Judaism and Christianity: How Do We Find God with All This Mess? (volume 1) (Corsicana, TX: Negev Publishing, 2012), 220.

[2]Douglas Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments : Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. editors S. Lewis Johnson and John S. Feinberg,(Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988), 208.

Reply to Chris Pinto on Tares Amongst the Wheat

By Cris Putnam
TaresIn reply to Chris Pinto:

I would like to thank Chris Pinto for his civility in engaging my questions and concerns. My difficulty with the alleged conspiracy is the lack of a discernible pay off for the conspirator. Pinto clarified that the purpose of the conspiracy was simply to undermine Sola Scriptura, the reformation doctrine that “scripture alone” as the standard for Christian faith and practice by way of calling biblical inerrancy into question and, as a result, to promote the ecumenical movement toward a one world religion. First he clarified that the film is centered on German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf and his discovery of Codex Sinaiticus and then he connects this to Rome’s agenda to undermine inerrancy. Pinto writes:

Second, the purpose of Rome (as we understand it) was not to promote Catholic theology, but rather to destabilize the foundation of the Biblical record by shattering the concept of Biblical inerrancy.  Her reason for doing this was to open the door to ecumenical compromise and the promotion of a one world religious movement.  This is why the film ends showing the Parliament of World Religions in 1893.  This was the beginning of the modern day ecumenical movement, the promotion of the idea that there are many paths to finding God, and that Christianity should be seen as just one religion among many.

I do not understand how a manuscript copy can possibly shatter the concept of biblical inerrancy. Accordingly, I am concerned that Pinto’s definition of inerrancy is too fragile. Protestant theologians widely agree that inerrancy applies exclusively to the original autographs by the first century writers like Paul and John. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October 1978 by more than two hundred evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago. Article X states:

     We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.[1]

Thus, a later copy like Codex Sinaiticus could not really affect the doctrine of inerrancy as it reflects mistakes by later copyists rather than the original inspired authors. In the nineteenth century when Tares claims this conspiracy was being perpetrated there is evidence to the contrary.

In his encyclical Providentissimus Deus (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Pope Leo XIII emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired:

Because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. [2]

Why would the Pope write this if there was a long term plan to undermine the Bible?  This encyclical, dated November 18, 1893, was written to specifically refute what Pinto claims Rome was promoting.  Seeing the threat of Darwinism, Pope Leo XIII wrote that true science cannot contradict scripture when it is properly explained and that what seems to be proved by science can turn out to be wrong. The idea that Rome had an organized agenda to discredit the Bible and promote Darwinism at this point in history is not supported by the evidence albeit that developed later in twentieth century as documented in Exo-Vaticana.  Of course Rome has now fully embraced the Darwinian ideas that Leo XIII was standing against, an inconsistency that counts against the notion of an infallible papacy and teaching magisterium.

On the Text-type Argument

It seems inconsistent for him to quote scholars like Bruce Metzger to dispute the text type argument because textual scholars agree that Codex Sinaiticus is authentic. The only experts in Tares are KJVonlyists. So if he is willing to use the authority of Metzger to dispute the existence of text types, why not accept it for Sinaiticus? Metzger wrote that Sinaitics is an ancient, handwritten unical copy of the Greek Bible.[2a] Furthermore, Metzger expressed technical arguments over text types, which he thought to be an oversimplification, it doesn’t dismiss my previous point. Sinaiticus matches so many known ancient sources it renders the forgery claim implausible. Even so, it is widely accepted in general terms that there are three basic manuscript families. I am concerned that neither of us is qualified to accurately discuss the issues involved in textual criticism. Here is in excerpt from Dr. David Allen Black and Thomas D. Lea’s seminary level textbook The New Testament: it’s background and Message:

The Practice of Textual Criticism

Textual scholars have developed rules for carrying out their studies to arrive at the best reading. Of course, these principles cannot be applied unthinkingly, nor do all apply in each instance of textual variation. These principles are based either upon the external evidence or the internal evidence.

External evidence seeks to determine which reading is supported by the most reliable witnesses (i.e., the Greek manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers). These witnesses have been divided into three basic families or “texttypes”: the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine. Most modern scholars believe the Alexandrian text most closely approximates the original text of the New Testament. Other scholars prefer the Byzantine text.

The basic principles of external evidence include the following: (1) prefer the reading attested by the oldest manuscripts; (2) prefer the reading that is the most widespread geographically; and (3) prefer the reading supported by the most number of texttypes.

The basic principle of internal evidence is that the reading from which the other readings could most easily have arisen is probably original. This principle has several corollaries: (1) prefer the shorter reading; (2) prefer the more difficult reading; (3) prefer the reading that best fits the author’s style and diction; and (4) prefer the reading that best fits the context.

As we have said, the application of these principles is not a merely mechanical process. Skill and judgment are demanded in assessing the evidence and in determining the most probable reading.

We can be grateful that the materials for the practice of New Testament textual criticism are quite numerous. By contrast, the materials for determining the text of the writings of Plato or the Roman poet Virgil are few in number and are separated from the originals by as much as fourteen hundred years. New Testament textual criticism has assisted us by providing access to substantially the same text which the first-century writers produced.[3]

The goal of text criticism is to get back to the original autographs and because archeologists have discovered thousands more ancient sources since the reformation period, today’s scholars are in a much better position to make these determinations than a Roman Catholic monk like Erasmus working with only six late copies and the Latin Vulgate. I want to put the best defense forward in arguing for the veracity of scripture and modern conservative scholarship is our strongest ally. Pinto’s movie calls it all into question.

Playing Into the Hands of Bible Skeptics

As someone with training in apologetics, I have familiarized myself with the basics in order to address the claims popularized by Dr. Bart Ehrman, author of books like: Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them); Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why; Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. As one can readily see from the titles, Ehrman has made a career out of attacking the veracity of scripture.  Scholars like David Allen Black and Daniel Wallace are evangelical champions of Biblical inerrancy and are uniquely qualified to address the likes of Ehrman.  I highly recommend the following video:

Unfortunately, it seems that often skeptics have a better grasp on text-critical issues than the average believer. Often Ehrman’s arguments are used to destroy the uninformed believer’s faith.  I am concerned that Pinto’s film Tares Amongst the Wheat plays right into the hands of these skeptics by promoting widely discredited scholarship from Textus Receptus advocates. Without going into specifics here, a modicum of open-minded research should dispel the notion that Textus Receptus is superior.[4] Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic scholar, using only six very late manuscripts and even back translation from the Latin Vulgate when he was missing a Greek source.[5] Doesn’t it seem inconsistent that Protestant scholars like Daniel Wallace and James White are disputed in order to exalt the work of the Catholic monk Erasmus?

Putnam asked: Where’s the payoff for Rome?

The answer to his question is the ecumenical movement.  The answer could be seen in the ecumenical activities of Billy Graham in the 20th century, joining with Catholic priests and nuns in his crusades, or in the 1994 document Evangelicals and Catholics Together.  With this, it could also be seen in Assisi, Italy in 1986 when Pope John Paul II met with religious leaders from all over the world, with Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, American Indian Shamans, etc.  As he joined hands with them in prayer he told them, “We are all praying to the same God.”  An inerrant Bible that is taken too literally would be destructive of unity between the various “Christian” groups, and the differing religions of the world.  Destroying the concept of Biblical inerrancy opens the door to compromise and apostasy through ecumenism

Pinto argues that modern biblical scholarship undermined inerrancy and this led to the ecumenical movement. However, he failed to show any evidence for this connection. It seems to me that the rise of Darwinian evolution did the damage rather than biblical scholarship. It also seems like the Roman Catholic Church is in decline. If they are really going to lead a global religion then a non-linear event of transcendent proportion will need to occur (this is the reasoning behind Exo-Vaticana). Although I do not agree with Evangelicals and Catholics Together (along with John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul who I quoted in Petrus Romanus ), correlation does not equate to causation. Even so, most of those who did sign it like Billy Graham and Charles Colson also affirm biblical inerrancy. So the argument is a non sequitur—it just doesn’t follow. My original criticism stands, Tares Amongst the Wheat is a conspiracy theory without an actual conspiracy and, unfortunately, I am more concerned that it undermines conservative evangelical biblical scholarship which is our best line of defense in an increasingly anti-Christian culture.


[1] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: (accessed September 18, 2013).

[2]  Pope Leo XIII “On the Study of Holy Scripture”, (accessed September 18, 2013).

[2a]  Bruce Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman  The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)  62.

[3]Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 77–78.

[4] Douglas S. Chinn and  Robert C. Newman, “Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and The King James Version of the Bible”, (accessed September 18, 2013).

[5] Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 99–100; Kurt Aland – Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism,Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989, 4.

VFTB at the Prophecy Summit: Cris Putnam

This one of the better interviews I’ve done on Exo-Vaticana.
THE LARGEST Christian denomination on the planet seems to have a profound interest in things happening off planet — meaning outer space. The Roman Catholic Church has been involved in astronomical studies since the time of Galileo.
Listen to the interview here.

Ψευδοπροφήτης (False Prophet) Francis Encourages Atheists Again

By Cris Putnam
pope-francisPaul warned Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,” (2 Ti 4:3). Of course such misleading teaching has been occurring ever since Paul’s day but the Universalist rhetoric from Rome is becoming astounding. Pope Frank is doing back flips for the approval of the world albeit this says more about Frank than then world (Jn 15:19).

That’s right, Pope Frank is at it again… telling atheists they get a free pass to heaven without accepting the Gospel that is.  Of course, this is not the first time as he said it back in May (here and here) but the Vatican was quick to post a reply that,  “no atheists surely do go to hell” here. Appaently the so-called infallible vicar begs to differ and has written a letter to the editor of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica indicating his opinion that atheists who obey their conscience merit God’s favor and apparently are so justified to salvation.

A good Bible dictionary defines sin as “the failure or refusal of human beings to live the life intended for them by God their creator.”[1] However, Pope Frank does not understand the basic concept of sin and allows that atheists who obey their conscience (no matter how seared) are justified by their good works. Pope Frank writes:

First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action.[2]

Apparently the ψευδοπροφήτης wants us to believe the issue for those who do not believe in God is to merely obey their conscience. Not so… God demands they repent of their unbelief. While God certainly wants us to behave in morally virtuous ways, good actions are not what merits God’s ultimate approval. In justification, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer, which cancels God’s judgment on the believer. A truly biblical Christian theology leads to the conclusion expressed by Baptist theologian Dr. Millard Erickson:

Justification is a forensic act imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer; it is not an actual infusing of holiness into the individual. It is a matter of declaring the person righteous, as a judge does in acquitting the accused. It is not a matter of making the person righteous or altering his or her actual spiritual condition.[3]

So it follows that no one earns their salvation. Justification is by faith alone (Rom3:28). An idea that is expounded on and clarified in Ephesians:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.(Eph 2:4–9)

While Frank is correct that disobeying one’s conscience constitutes sin (1 Cor 8:28-29), he misses the mark by a wide margin. Scripture is clear that “everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:23). Unbelief is sin. “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6). Jesus taught that the mile-wide road advocated by Pope Frank amounts to a false Gospel:

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Mt 7:13–14).

The terms “few” and “narrow” seem to escape the pontiff. He is indeed a false prophet of the worst sort. He is pied piper to perdition encouraging the atheist in his rebellious suppression of the truth  (Rom 1:18). This is exactly the sort of false teaching we expect from the one with “horns like a lamb, who speaks like a dragon.” (Re 13:11)

[1] Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 951.

[2] “Pope Francis’ Letter to the Founder of “La Repubblica” Italian Newspaper” Vatican City, September 11, 2013 accessed September 12, 2013,

[3]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 969.