The Spirit of Antichrist: Polycarp vs. Bishop John Shelby Spong


It has been said that there are no new heresies. In light of that, apologists have a wealth of scholarship to draw upon in the works of the apostolic fathers. One such early leader, Polycarp, died for his faith when he refused to treat the emperor as a god.  It is interesting to note that Christians were called atheists by the Romans because they denied their pantheon of gods. Polycarp was martyred February 22, 156 when he would not renounce Christ. Here is an excerpt from the very oldest of Christian martyrdom accounts, The Martyrdom of Polycarp:

‘Swear by the genius of Caesar; change your mind; say, “Away with the atheists!” ’ Then Polycarp looked with a stern countenance on the multitude of lawless heathen gathered in the stadium, and waved his hands at them, and looked up to heaven with a groan, and said, ‘Away with the atheists.’ The Proconsul continued insisting and saying, ‘Swear, and I release you; curse Christ.’ And Polycarp said, ‘Eighty-six years have I served him, and he has done me no wrong: how then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?’[1]

In my study this week, I was researching the arguments concerning John’s epistles 1, 2, and 3 John. One of the supporting arguments for the Johannine authorship of 1 John is that it was quoted very early in second century by his disciple Polycarp. Polycarp was an inspired apologist who fought vigorously against heretics. He quotes 1 John 4:2-3 in reference to the Antichrist and false teachers. When it came to refuting heresy, neither John nor Polycarp minced words or bothered with pleasantries.

As I read Polycarp, it occurred to me that these words certainly travel across the many years and cultural conditions and can still find application today. I teach a Sunday school class of single adults. A year or so ago a visitor told me that, “Not everyone believes in atonement theology.” I replied with something along the lines of, “I don’t see how anyone can call themselves a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word without believing in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.” A week or so later I saw him carrying a book by the Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, Jesus For the Non Religious.

It is without a doubt that my visitor’s aberrant “non-atonement theology” was fueled by Spong’s book. Unfortunately, I think Spong convinced him. He no longer attends our church. I believe Spong is a prime example of the sorts of teachers that John was warning the first century church of. Notice the denial of classic Christian doctrines set out in the preface of his book,

The second stream flowing through both my professional life and my writing career was the recognition that the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in such core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of twenty-first-century people at best.[2]

The incarnation, atonement, and trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines. Under the classical definition, without them, the word “Christian” is unintelligible.  But he errs in that this skepticism is not a product of the twenty-first century. It’s nothing new; I think Paul addressed it especially well in 1 Corinthians 1:20-25. While there are many sound refutations of Spong’s work available online, I thought I would put Spong up against Polycarp, who warned the church in Philippi concerning the spirit of antichrist and false teachers.

The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians

7. For everyone “who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist”; and whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross “is of the devil”; and whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own sinful desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—well, that person is the first-born of Satan. Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings, and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning; let us be self-controlled with respect to prayer and persevere in fasting, earnestly asking the all-seeing God “to lead us not into temptation,” because, as the Lord said, “the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Polycarp, Phil. 7) [3]

Polycarp presented three criteria based on three essential Christian doctrines: 1) The Incarnation 2) The Cross 3) The Resurrection. He first quotes 1 John “For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist” (1 John 4:2–3). This refers to the incarnation, the doctrine that God incarnated into human flesh, Jesus Christ (Phil 2:6-8). While Spong previously expressed his incredulity in the preface, he makes his position on this doctrine crystal clear later in the book:

Therefore, when I say that God was in Christ or when I assert that I meet God in the person of Jesus, I mean something quite different from the theological definitions of the past that forged doctrines like the incarnation and the trinity, both of which depend on a theistic definition of God. So in order to get to the essence of who Jesus was and even who Jesus is, I must get beyond the traditional theistic definition of God that I now regard as both simplistic and naïve, to say nothing of being wrong.[4]

Thus, he has qualified himself by Polycarp’s first criterion.  Polycarp’s second qualification is, “Whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil;” Spong writes:

This means that anyone seeking to discover the meaning of Jesus today must be prepared to acknowledge that this story of the crucifixion is not history. While Jesus was undoubtedly crucified by the Romans, the familiar details that accompany the story of the cross are not literally true and did not actually happen. [5]

Thus, he denies the testimony of the cross meeting criterion two. Polycarp’s third warning was, “and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.” According to Spong,

The resurrection language of the gospels is literal nonsense. Earthquakes do not announce earthly vents. Angels do not invade time, space and history to roll back a stone, to make a historic resurrection announcement. A resuscitated Jesus does not walk out of his tomb in some physical form that can eat, drink, walk, talk, teach and expound on scriptures. [6]

Thus, we see Bishop Spong abundantly meeting all three of Polycarp’s criteria. Making Spong, in Polycarp’s words, the antichirst, of the devil, and first born of Satan. I suppose Spong can be grateful that modern apologists are not usually so blunt… ;) In closing, I will defer to Jude: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. ” (Jud 3–4)

 


[1]James Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 (London: SPCK, 1987), 25.

[2] John Shelby Spong, Jesus For the Non Religious,(New York: Harper Collins, 2007),  ix.

[3]Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 213.

[4] Spong, Jesus, 214.

[5] Spong, Jesus, 112.

[6] Spong, Jesus, 122.

Three Peas in a Pod: Mormonism, Transhumanism & Pelagianism

I have been challenged here by a Mormon on the topic of “Christian Transhumanism” on which my research is published at Raiders News here .  A foundational problem is that my paper was written to Christian Bible believers. My challenger is neither. While he seems to claim the term “Christian”, there are profound inconsistencies in his reasoning. They are so fundamental to his worldview, that an exchange is not likely to be fruitful. It is my sincere hope that he might recognize his error and turn to Christ but realistically my goal for responding is simply that those who are in Christ might learn from seeing his errors exposed. Perhaps I can put a stone in his shoe? Snippets of his response are in red, my responses are in black. In the first paragraph he reveals:

One aspect of this critique is accurate: Christian transhumanists do tend to be driven by a Pelegian view of sin, which is nonetheless compatible with Christianity. However, the other two aspects of the critique are inaccurate; some biblical anthropologies and educated understandings of Christian theology are quite compatible with Transhumanism.

With his blatant embrace of heresy in the very first paragraph, it’s quite tempting to say “check mate, thesis proven” and leave it at that. The British monk Pelagius (c. 354–415) declared that human effort and merit could bring about salvation without divine grace. Pelagius was vigorously opposed by the church father Augustine and deemed a heretic in 418 at the Council of Carthage.  A proper definition of Pelagianism includes that it is heretical:

Theologically, Pelagianism is the heresy which holds that man can take the initial and fundamental steps towards salvation by his own efforts, apart from Divine grace.[i]

The law of non-contradiction is quite clear that ‘A’ cannot be ‘B’ and ‘non-B’ at the same time and same place.  Thus, my opponents next statement that “some biblical anthropologies are compatible” is rendered incoherent since Pelagianism is an unbiblical anthropology. It can not be biblical and Pelagian. That said, he seems to believe that Mormons are Christians as well. Of course, that is demonstrably false and Pelagianism is a key factor. Mormon theologian Sterling M. McMurrin stated “The theology of Mormonism is completely Pelagian.”[ii] The nineteenth century work of cultic fiction known as the Book of Mormon even went so far as to alter the clear words of scripture:

Bible: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (Ephesians 2:8)

Book of Mormon: “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (II Nephi 25:23).

Of course, Mormonism is no more Christian than Islam, in fact they are quite similar, see this video here. Furthermore, it is really quite odd that there are Mormon Transhumanists being that most transhumanists are scientifically literate. DNA testing has conclusively proven the book of Mormon is a work of fiction, as there are no traces of Semitic DNA markers in North American Indians. This evidence is so damning that even high level Mormon scholars have left the cult. For an excellent documentary expose’ I highly recommend: DNA vs. the Book of Mormon.

From the beginning, Cris creates a false dichotomy between technology and Christ, claiming the two are incompatible means of conquering death and creating utopia.

There is no false dichotomy presented but a real one.  Quite the contrary, I wrote, “Thus, we have a mandate to engage in some of technologies discussed but with the explicit caveat of when it is exclusively directed toward the healing aspect of medicine.” I love technology. I just don’t agree with making an idol of it or myself. I especially do not agree with using it to supplant Christ’s job description in scripture. The Bible is crystal clear about how, when and by whom death will be conquered:

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ” (1 Corinthians 15:22–26)

The Mormon transhumanist hopes to do this through man made technology, not God.  However, it is Christ’s destiny to abolish death, not sinful fallen mankind.  He has demonstrated my point for me. It is a biblical dichotomy.

Also from the beginning, Cris establishes a narrow interpretation of Christianity, thereby assuming his own conclusion that Christianity is incompatible with Transhumanism. This is well illustrated by the one sentence of dismissive attention that he gives to the Mormon Transhumanist Association, despite the fact that it is by far the largest group of Transhumanists that identify as Christians.

Identifying themselves as “Christian” is not enough (Matt 7:22). This is the crux of matter. He criticizes me for having a narrow view. This is a charge I am more than happy to accept. If it were up to me it would not be so narrow, but I have submitted to higher authority. For it is not my idea, it was that of my Lord and Savior who said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13)

Of course Mormon transhumanism only merited this one sentence in my paper, “There is a Mormon Transhumanist association, which is hardly surprising in light of their polytheism and apotheosis doctrine.” My paper was a critique of “Christian Transhumanism” not Mormon Transhumanism. Carl Teichrib recently covered that topic. I was addressing alleged Christians. Mormons are not Christians in any sense of the word. Nearly all of his argumentation further proves my point. For example:

Also, there is potential for irony in Cris’ appeal to self-denial and humility: as it can be self-indulgent and arrogant to focus exclusively on improving one’s self, so it can be to refuse and resist improving one’s self. In positive terms, the Bible tells of a time when the dead will be raised and the living changed to spiritual bodies, incorruptible and immortal in comparison to our present bodies. This is enhancement, and it is by definition compatible with biblical ethics.

God does these things, not man! The dead will be raised by God at Christ’s return:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51–53)

We will be transformed by God at Christ’s return, not by Lincoln Cannon, Ray Kurzweil or Max More’s materialistic musings.

Cris compounds the problems with his criticism by claiming that transhumanists consider our bodies simple hardware or biological prostheses. The problem with this claim is its irony, given that he presumably holds to the common Christian notion that our bodies are precisely that: prostheses for our souls.

Again he seems woefully ignorant of what orthodox biblical Christianity holds true. I will let scripture make my case once again:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19–20)

Christians do not live for themselves but for Christ. This is why things like posthuman enhancement are opposed to sound biblical doctrine; as followers of Jesus we “present our bodies as a living sacrifice.” (Rom 12:1)

The real substance (pun intended) of Cris’ criticism is that he considers philosophical materialism to be incompatible with Christianity.

Yes, absolutely I do!

In the actual world, apart from his particular brand of Christianity, he’s simply incorrect. Some Christians are philosophical materialists, as are most Transhumanists. Clearly, in practice, the two can be compatible in this area.

This is so profoundly incoherent that I am almost at a loss for words. For meaningful discourse using language to be possible both parties must agree to the law of non-contradiction. If up is down and red is blue, reasoning is no longer possible. Accordingly, if you are a philosophical materialist you are necessarily an atheist. A typical philosophical dictionary defines it as a:

Belief that only physical things truly exist. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists, Hobbes, and La Mettrie.[iii]

God is an immaterial being. If you are a philosophical materialist then you do not believe in God. God is spirit (Num. 16:22; 2 Cor. 3:17 Heb. 12:9). God is not a man (Num 23:19). He is not composed of matter. As his attributes like omnipresence imply, he is immaterial or nonphysical. This is very clearly stated by Jesus in John 4:24, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth,” and is also implied in the many references to his invisibility (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16).[iv] Also Jesus reassures the apostles that he is not immaterial after the resurrection in Luke 24:39 by telling them,

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:39)

So we have Jesus explicitly teaching God is a spirit and also that spirits do not have flesh and bones. Thus anyone who believes God is material does not follow Jesus and is necessarily not a Christian. Christians believe Jesus.

No mere theist or even a self respecting deist, let alone Christian, is a philosophical materialist. That is an absurdity on the order of a square circle or a married bachelor. It gives me a headache imagining the massive level of cognitive dissonance that must result from such an internally contradictory worldview. Perhaps he will defend “Christian Atheism” in his next post?  In the end, heretical beliefs such as Pelagianism always lead to larger errors like Mormonism or “Christian Transhumanism.” They are man centered and self-aggrandizing as opposed to Christ centered and God glorifying.  It all leads back to the original lie in the garden,

“The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” ” (Genesis 3:4–5)


[i] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1257.

[ii],Sterling M. McMurrin. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion 1965.

[iii] “Materialism” in Philosophical Dictionary  http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m2.htm#mat (accessed 2/20/20011)

[iv]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 294.

The Supreme Supersessionist Speaks

In Vatican City on October 10th 2010 the Pope Benedict XVI opened the Synod of Bishops’ Special Assembly for the Middle East at St. Peter’s Basilica. The synod is taking place at the Vatican from Oct. 10-24 under the theme: “The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness.”

Speaking for God, the Pope said of the Promised Land is “not of this world” that Israel is not an earthly kingdom. His words are not surprising as the Roman Catholic Church has led the way in promoting the supersessionsist (replacement theology) heresy and denying national Israel’s place in God’s plan. One unfortunate consequence of this error is that it has made it extremely difficult for Jews to take seriously the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is Israel’s Messiah. The Pope’s eisegesis was recorded last Sunday:

He reveals Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (cf. Ex 3:6), who wants to lead his people to the “land” of freedom and peace. This “land” is not of this world; the whole of the divine plan goes beyond history, but the Lord wants to build it with men, for men and in men, beginning with the coordinates of space and time in which they live and which He Himself gave them.[1]

This is utter nonsense as the Biblical narrative is centered on a real material plot of land. Of course, this has political and theological overtones as the Vatican’s position has consistently been that Jerusalem cannot belong to just one state.[2] It is my view that the Pope’s theology blatantly files in the face of biblical revelation. Jesus in Luke 19:42 and Paul in Romans 11:25 explain that Israel is blinded nationally for the church age. Temporarily blinded not replaced.

In Romans 9, 10, & 11 Paul’s purpose was to explain Israel’s future. If you simply read that sequence of chapters, replacement theology is absurd. The gentile church is clearly described as “grafted into” not replacing Israel.  Paul makes this abundantly clear:

As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.  (Rom. 11:28–29)

I wonder how Paul could have made it any clearer than irrevocable?

Furthermore, the Pope’s homily is a harbinger of the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7) otherwise known as the great tribulation (Mat. 24:21). Jesus said that Jerusalem would be occupied by gentiles until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled – just prior to his second coming.

“They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Lk 21:24)

  • This is a prophecy of the Diaspora, which occurred in AD 70. The Romans spread the Jews all over the known world, selling many as slaves. This is a matter of undisputed record.
  • When Jesus says “until” that clearly infers that one day Jerusalem will be back in Jewish hands.
  • Thus it is an inferred prophecy of the reformation of Israel in 1948 and the reclamation of Jerusalem in 1967. Jerusalem certainly was under Gentile control until 1967, the fact that is now largely under Jewish control and the far reaching spread of the gospel is sure sign that the times of Gentiles are nearly fulfilled.

So where does this leave the supreme replacement theologian Benedict XVI?  One wonders how the description of the Antichrist “dividing the land for a price” (Dan 11:39) escapes the attention of Catholic exegetes. Even more, the prophetic warnings about dividing God’s land in Joel 3:2. Note that “those days and that time” clearly refers to the “day of the Lord” that Christians understand as the second coming of Jesus Christ. It is also noteworthy that God refers to it as His land.

For behold, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. And I will enter into judgment with them there, on behalf of my people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the nations and have divided up my land, (Joel 3:1–2)

I shudder to think how the Pope’s theology will stand on that day.


[1] http://www.speroforum.com/a/41366/The-Vatican-Synod-on-the-Middle-East-begins

[2] http://www.zenit.org/article-30628?l=english

Blogging With Kenny

Ken Klein sent me a reply today asking me to apologize for my video commentary to his heretical teaching on original sin. The issue is that Ken denies the orthodox biblical doctrine of original sin, as the clips in the video evidence. He opposes the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul and I called him on it. Now he is threatening to sick his attorney’s on me.  Ken’s posts are indented in block quotes, my responses are marked Logos:

—————————–

****Due the length of Ken’s post and the fact that he basically defends his use of elohim for a plurality of angelic beings, something I never disputed, it is linked here.  ****

I am impressed to say for the sake of a laying a foundation:  Jesus is my Lord and Savior.  Jesus Christ is the common denominator that gives union to all believers even through their are differences of view points.  Yes, I believe in the Trinity and I do embrace an insight on that subject.

It is unfortunate that you have not done due diligence on who I am before trying to assassinate my character.  I would ask you to take down the video because it violates copyright laws, youtube policies, and includes slanderous accusations as to my motives and character.

I forgive you.
Ken

——————————-

Logos:

Sorry but this does not address the issue that sin entered the world through Adam, through one man not because we are fallen angels working off past rebellion. Paul makes that crystal clear.  You don’t have a biblical leg to stand on.

——————————

Ken:

Expected a more thoughtful response from someone who calls themselves Logos.

———————————

Logos:

I was brief, I am really busy at the seminary this week. I don’t see how any of this addresses the real issue. I made it clear in the video: http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=206.  I am familiar with the Divine Council concept and have studied the work of Dr Michael Heiser, so the idea of little ‘g’ gods is nothing new. That was never my problem with your theology. It’s that you blatanly mocked the doctrine of original sin Ken.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE ORIGINAL STATE OF INNOCENCE AND PERFECTION

According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created with complete innocence. They had no evil in their natures or their environment. They “were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25 nasb), and they did not yet know “good and evil” (3:5). In short, they were not only guiltless of any sin but also innocent of sin.

Further, the very temptation to “be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5) implies they did not know evil before they fell. Indeed, when they ate the forbidden fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves” (3:7). According to the New Testament, by disobedience Adam and Eve became sinful (Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:14) and brought condemnation on themselves and their posterity: “The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18).3 Before this, they were flawless.

Source: Geisler, Norman L.: Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation. Minneapolis, MN : Bethany House Publishers, 2004, S. 17

In your video it wasn’t Adam’s sin. No, you said that wasn’t fair of God. Your words Ken, “It’s not fair!”  So you created this new revelation that it was our sin as as pre-incarnate angels? You are directly contradicting the Apostle Paul’s teaching.  That’s what I was responding to Ken, it was clear enough. You do not have the authority to “correct” Paul because you don’t think it’s fair, Ken.

As far as taking down the video look into : Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.

——————————

Ken:

Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.

“By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.

Ken

P.S. I’m very aware of “fair usage laws” as a film producer and you aren’t in alignment with those laws.  If you still refuse to take it down then you will hear from my attorney.

————————————–

This was the  point where I decided to take it public. I will stand on the Fair Use provision. Ken is threatening me with his attorney. I am clearly using clips of his video for criticism and commentary which is the very reason the fair use provision was enacted. You tube isn’t too sympathetic about false DMCA’s being filed.  But what is really important is exposing Ken’s false teaching and bad theology.

_______________________

Ken: Consider the very scripture you brought up to support your interpretive doctrine of “Original Sin”.  If sin had to enter through Adam, then sin had to already be in existence, and by definition cannot be original.  For something that doesn’t exist cannot enter.

————————————

Logos:

This is really your argument? Sin is a metaphysical bogeyman that pre-existed Adam. Seriously? Sin means disobedience to God’s standard. It was original to humanity, Adam being the first human. Due to that, today we have an inherited sin nature but as Dr Geisler pointed out in the entry above there was a state of innocence in the original creation.  This is not an interpretative matter Ken. You teach that all of humanity sinned as pre-incarnate angels and we are here on earth working off our error by our own righteous choice. That is wrong on many levels. It qualifies as heresy and it is the duty of apologists to refute such error. The Bible explicitly says that one transgression led to the condemnation for all men.

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. ” (Romans 5:18–19, ESV)

How do you explain this scripture Ken?

Ken: “By the way it was Eve that sinned according to Timothy.  So how did sin enter through Adam?”

According to Timothy? Sorry Ken but the Apostle Paul (the same guy that wrote “by one man’s disobedience”) wrote 1st Timothy.  I suppose you are referring to “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ” (1 Timothy 2:13–14, ESV) Paul’s point here is that Eve was deceived by the Serpent. Adam was not deceived, he knew better. Adam willfully chose to disobey. A man is the spiritual leader of his household by God’s design and when God inquired (Gen 3:9) he called Adam’s name. That’s the distinction Paul was making. This is really basic biblical theology Ken. You should know better.

Ken: We are not mocking the terrible nature of sin, but rather how the current and traditional Christian doctrine of sin is such a feeble representation of the magnitude of sin.  And the way it is represented, makes God out to look like a cruel rather than loving God.

His very nature is maligned by the poorly interpreted doctrine that you hold to.

It’s not just the “current and traditional” doctrine. It’s the apostolic teaching. It’s at the core of Biblical Christianity. It’s a non negotiable. Ken, I believe God’s revealed truth in holy scripture, “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” it is not an interpretive matter. You either believe the Bible or you do not. It’s a matter of submission to Biblical authority. You said that you don’t think it was fair that you inherited Adam’s sin. Ken you are the one maligning God’s character with, “It’s not fair”.  Actually, it’s really not fair that Jesus died for me. So I am glad it’s not fair. If it was really fair, I would go to hell.  No Ken, I didn’t choose to work off my pre-incarnate angelic transgressions. God was merciful. Ken you simply reject the clear teaching of scripture and have manufactured a new revelation to “correct” it. It’s nothing new. So did Joseph Smith, Alice Bailey, Mary Baker Eddy, David Koresh and Muhammad.  That’s what cults do Ken.


Noah’s Ark HOAX and Fallen Angel Heretics Too!

The report by Fox news that Noah’s Ark has been discovered is a hoax. I can say this with great confidence because I have it from a really good first hand source, Dr Randall Price. I took his Biblical Archeology class last semester and I am on his mailing list. Here is portion of the message I received yesterday,

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

So unfortunately it’s a big scam. I forwarded over to Dr Micheal Heiser’s Paleobabble blog so it will get more attention than on my fledgling blog.  These guys need to be EXPOSED. Speaking of people that need to be exposed….

In a totally unrelated matter to the Ark, I made a new style of Youtube video yesterday (you can actually see me) exposing the false teaching of  Ken Klein. Ken claims to have some new revelations from God that correct his perceived injustices in the Bible. Not to mention all sorts of nutty cosmology and UFO beliefs.