Category — replacement allegory

I don’t mean to mock anyone, but this was rather humorous in a bizarre way.  A gay church in South Carolina is a little upset because apparently someone thinks its a gay church. So the church’s website made it a point to say its not a “gay church”.

“Is Freedom A Gay Church? Freedom Worship Church is a WHOSOEVER (not gay), Progressive Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ. The only difference is us and most churches we do not lie about who or what we like in the name of being delivered. We walk in the truth of God as we are honest with and about ourselves in the Kingdom of God.  “Your human condition will never change the standard of God; HOLINESS IS RIGHT”

“What we like”? Is that a reference to sexual preference or  M&Ms plain?  This gay church seems obsessed with keeping the words “gay” and “homosexual” in the closet. Even the pastor’s bio is very careful not to mention he’s gay.  Not sure what the “holiness is right” in all caps and bold is about, but it appears someone has identity issues. Holiness is right, but how can a “whosoever” church teach that homosexuality is right and holiness is right in the same breath?  One isnt right but lest we be accused of being anti-whosoever, we’ll just let the scripture speak for itself.

Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, ⁵not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-7  NIV

If the Freedom Worship Church  really believed holiness was right, it would immediately cease and desist promoting (and engaging in) homosexuality as acceptable to God. It also says its doesn’t lie about who it is. If that’s true, then why is the FWC affiliated with the Atlanta based gay pentecostal denomination United Progressive Pentecostal Church? The UPPC’s leader is a homosexual who calls his gay partner the “first gentlemen”  (a parody of the first lady). How gay is that?  Instead, the church attempts to closet its homosexual affirmation in euphemisms:

We are a diverse group of people who come from varying social, economic, political, and religious backgrounds. Freedom is a “Whosoever Ministry” with all the complexities of individual situations. “The one most consistent theme of the story of Jesus in the Gospels is that Jesus included everybody [John 3:16]. The outcasts are rejected people who did not keep the details of the law, the poor, the sick, the despised – all were loved by him. Religion often takes an exclusive posture of rejection, but Jesus never did.”Through our Lord, Freedom Worship Church seeks healing for brokenness through Christian fellowship, worship, education, and prayer. We realize that a “Whosoever” ministry can not be fulfilled by word only, rather through consistent action to which we’re committed. Our doors are open and “Welcoming” to Whosoever!

There are several problem with this “outcast” analogy being used.  Jesus didn’t just accept the sick, he healed them of their sicknesses and they were no longer what they used to be. That’s called being changed. And the Apostles reinforced Jesus’ teachings per Matt 28:20. In Acts 15, they instructed the most despised of outcasts to do two things: abstain from idolatry and abstain from sexual immorality. The apostles told the despised outcasts that if they followed those two commandments, they would “do well”.

FWC should stop playing the closet game. If youre a gay church, why deceive people about who you really are? Is there something youre ashamed of?

PART ONE OF TWO POSTS

Since the church’s inception, controversies involving sexual related issues have defied the spiritual resolve of the church and its leadership (ref 1 Cor 5).  Today, with the advent of instant, accessible information, these controversies have multiplied exponentially and impacted the church’s ability to conduct balanced outreach.

GCM Watch and other ministries have documented repeatedly how the social and political demands embedded within homosexual activism has challenged the church like no other issue before it.  While some have drawn inferences to the issue of accepting blacks and women, there remains nonetheless, a fundamental and striking difference.  Gender and skin color are immutable traits, whereas sexual conduct is not.

Under the umbrella of heresy and apostasy sits the inclusion doctrine. The contemporary inclusion theory really began in the world as diversity and somehow transmorphed itself into a religious ideology. Given its origin, it doesn’t work in the Kingdom paradigm because the Kingdom  (of God) is intentionally exclusive; allowing entrance only to those who have been washed, sanctified and justified by the blood of Christ.  Jesus taught an radically exclusive doctrine with himself as the prime example (ref John 14:6). While John 14:6 does not prohibit anyone from approaching Christ, it does prohibit anyone from going forward from that point should they reject him upon discovery.

„The two tables

Inclusion is probably one of the most loaded euphemisms of our time. Ironically, inclusion applies to exclusive list of  of sexual aberrations which are now declaring themselves “acceptable” on an as is basis.  Acceptable not just to society (and all life is worthy of respect) but acceptable to God and his church. Acceptable not just to attend a church, but to govern and lead it.  While all are welcome to attend church, all are not qualified to lead and govern. Thus, our conflict.

Inclusion is a regentrified expression of universalism, an old doctrine which was rightfully branded heretical and rejected by the early church fathers.  Synergizing it (in a religious context) with homosexual rights, has given it new life.  Religious homosexuals and their allies believe that everyone is equal in the church based on such scriptures as John 3:16. While true in its broadest application its artfully mixed with a substantial amount of lies. What’s more, the motivation for the lie accounts for the aggressive nature of the doctrine.

Inclusion supposes that Jesus rejects no one and accepts everyone “at the table”. True, but the question isn’t does Jesus reject people, but what is the table.  This analogy and usage of the table is drawn from the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:15-23.

The inclusion doctrine ignores two critical about the table parable: one is in the passage, the other in a supporting passage. First, the setting for the parable is “the Kingdom of God” (vs 15). Secondly, we find that no unrighteous will inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, if the table is set in the Kingdom perspective, no one who is unrighteous will be present to eat its fare.  All are welcome to come to the table, but this coming represents what Paul taught was being “washed, sanctified and justified” in the name of the Lord Jesus by the spirit of  God (1 Cor 6:11) after arriving at the table. True spiritual equality is only attained once a person has,  through repentance, been cleansed from their sins and declared righteous by a holy God. Yet, religious homosexuals exempt themselves from repentance by declaring that their “orientation” is natural not requiring any change.

The table is transported by inclusionists out of the kingdom of God and reset in a socio-political-religious kingdom. Here’s the main problems with inclusion and their table of equality:

1. Inclusion mixes a partial truth with a sinful motive
2. Inclusion does not acknowledge man’s sinful nature and his need for repentance
3. Inclusion  treats grace as deserved rather than unmerited

Armed with this information, homosexuals then challenge the church. Please note that the challenges cut sharply at the foundational beliefs of the church such as sin, repentance, justification and redemption.  This,  in turn has prompted an increasing number of churches to redesignate themselves “welcoming and affirming”  a fast track accommodation to those who are “denied” a seat at the table.

The doctrine of inclusion relies heavily on what I call replacement allegory. Replacement allegory is a theological trick which gives the individual the unrestricted freedom to remove real or apparent contradictions between Scriptures and current beliefs.

You can read more about that here in Bishop Yvette Flunder’s retelling of wilderness story in Exodus.

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. (Prov 23:7)

In my opinion, Proverbs 23:7 is almost always taken out of context to serve our own self interests or perhaps to explain something about someone else that may or may not necessarily be true. If the statement is to be contextually understood, the latter portion of it must be included as there is no period after “he” but a colon. This simply means what follows the first part proves and explains it. In this case, the point is more about hypocrisy than destiny or character. Taken out of context, the meaning can travel to Jupiter and back.

My point? Getting an understanding of things is very important if we are to rightly divide the word of truth not only for the edification of each other but to an unbelieving world we are called to witness to. Notwithstanding the Spirit of God giving what to say “on the spot”, we should avail ourselves to further study. The false prophets of our day are smart and glib of tongue. That’s a potent factor in deception.

The power of words, the meaning of words

There’s a growing lexicon of terms related to understanding or explaining religious concepts out there. This can be attributed to in part to the conflict over truth. Some terms describe false concepts which are popping up in churches everywhere. Others describe biblical perspectives which are embedded essentials of our faith. Then too, some may help to explain some of the perspectives that are espoused on this blog from time to time by non-believers who object to our biblical conclusions about homosexual conduct.

I decided to make a post highlighting the most prominent of them. Most  have the “ism” and “ology” subtext. Hopefully, as you hear these terms being dropped here and there in your studies you will have a working man’s knowledge of what they mean and its applicability. While I believe etymology is important in most cases, we have to be careful that etymology doesn’t eclipse other factors associated with a particular word because there are many. Primarily, their placement in scripture (or their inference in scripture) along with the Holy Spirit’s “illumination” is important. But even that has a check and balance. No meaning claimed to be derived from the Holy Spirit’s leading can conflict with other scripture particularly when the meaning is clear. The Word of God is one complete and harmonious system of doctrine. Thus, etymology is not an end all, but rather an appropriate starting point.

I’ve also linked scripture references for your consideration. If you know of any additional ones, please drop it in the comment section (with a working man’s definition) and I’ll add it.

antinominanism – taken from Greek: anti nomos “against the law”. In this case it is against God’s laws regarding sexual conduct, the promotion of lawlessness in the church. A belief which manifests in several different forms but mainly exalts one’s personal experience or ” the spirit” over scripture. Psalms 19:7-9
Determinism – a philosophical doctrine which holds that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of a previous event or series of events. Philippians 2:13
heterodoxy – any doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position. Not to be used as a weapon against credible revelation, but as a deterrent against false teachings which have no root in established biblical doctrines.
perfectionism – the idea that once one has been saved, it is impossible or inadmissable to commit sin or sins. 1 John 1:6-10
existentialism – A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness of individual human experience in hostile or indifferent environments. It regards human existence as unexplainable and thus allows for one to claim human sovreignty; the “little god” teaching.  Eccl 12:12-14
epistemology – the study of how we know what we know
justification – the legal act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his or her sins. Its not that the sinner is actually sinless, but that he is “declared” sinless. Justification is granted by God alone and only by faith. Romans 5:1
fallibilism – a philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Colossians 2:2-3
fatalism - a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them 2 Kings 20:1-6
Nihilism – a radical doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own good; annihilate Psalms 24:1
probability – part philosophical, part theoretical teaching that a random sampling process will result in all outcomes equally likely to happen solely based on chance. Romans 8:28-30
solipsism- a philosophical teaching that the self is all that you know to exist  Jeremiah 17:7-9;  Colossians 2:8
apologetics – defense of the Christian faith or its biblical doctrines from external enemies 1 Peter 3:15
polemics – defense of the Christian faith or its biblical doctrines from internal enemies. 2 Cor 11:13-15; Jude 3
theology – the study of the nature of God
christology – the study of and proper understanding of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture 2 Pet 3:18
monergism – the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in an individual’s “new birth”. Monergism (Gkmono ergon “the work of one”) holds that the human will possesses no desire to holiness until it is born again, thus there is no pre-existing cooperation in regeneration.”
fundamentalism – a belief that every word in the Bible should be interpreted as literal truth. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
monogenes – a belief which suggests derivation, creation, origination of Christ. Rev 1:8
diaprax – the belief that Christian unity should and can be achieved without doctrinal consensus. Amos 3:3-7; 1 John 5:7-8
orthodoxy – can be applied across the spectrum of beliefs. In terms of Christian faith, it is adherence to a right set of beliefs as outlined in scripture.
orthopraxy – places emphasis on right conduct, both ethical and spiritual but not necessarily in opposition to faith and grace.
eschatology – The study of end times. A doctrine concerning the ultimate or final destiny of humanity and the earth including Christ’s second advent and God’s final judgment. 2 Peter 3:7-10

Like the racists of the jim crow era who falsely claimed the bible supported slavery and subjugation of black people, a United Methodist pastor in Dallas says God has made homosexuality “clean”.

According to a story in the Dallas Morning News, Rev. Diana Holbert told her diverse East Dallas congregation that homosexuality is not a big issue in the Bible and that Christians should be more focused on subjects such as health care, greed in the corporate world, and the welfare of children. [source]

Before the sermon, Holbert told listeners that she only wanted to hear from them if they had a positive response to her message. She couldnt bear any “negativity.”

She based her sermon [pdf] on Acts 10:9-28, 34-48. “‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane,’ ” Holbert said.

So does Holbert’s revisioning of Acts 10 lend itself to even the slightest sound teaching? Of course not.

Like the slave masters before her, Holbert uses a sleight of mouth to arrive at her conclusion that God made homosexuality clean. False teachers in the gay christian movement shamelessly employ a form of allegorical perspective which allows an individual the unrestricted freedom to remove real or apparent contradictions between Scriptures and current beliefs. This is how they neuter parts of the Bible that stand in the way of their cleverly crafted, but false beliefs. Practitioners of this roguish form of interpretation replace clear scriptural truth and revelation with whatever cultural context fits their presupposed ideology.

Using allegorical liberties, Holbert repositions Cornelius the centurion alongside gays creating a false parallel between the two based on the broadest commonality possible.

God often moves beyond our boundaries, guiding us to accept and to include those on the margins. We see Jesus doing that over and over with the company he kept, especially as he shared a meal, caught in the act of radical hospitality with the discards of society.
God doesn’t discard or discriminate. “The Holy Spirit is no respecter of persons,” I often heard at Hamilton Park. “If you’re not careful, the Holy Spirit might just jump on you!” It’s a scary thing, this Holy Spirit that interrupts. Scary until you realize that the Spirit is motivated 100% by love, sent by a trustworthy God to a people who think they have all the answers. I like the interruptions of this Spirit that draws us in its tether.

I wont go into how she mischaracterizes the Holy Spirit. But the only observable commonalities between Cornelius and gays are that they are human. Being human has no inherent qualifications of holiness. Respect, yes. Holiness, no. What’s more Cornelius wasn’t committing sexual immorality as a gentile, the bias against him was only because he was a gentile. Race and gender are immutable human characteristics. Sexual conduct isnt. One can change from heterosexual to homosexual and vice versa or engage in no sexual activity at all simply by choice. Thus, the comparison between Cornelius and homosexuals is a patently false one. We explained the Apostles’ restrictions to the gentiles in this post Are gay christians the new gentiles?

Holbert peppers her faux sermon with tired cultural arguments intended to divert attention from the fact that she’s doing a shell game with the scriptures in front of her. Such arguments do nothing but hype the emotional sensitivities of the listeners and keep them in “happy” in bondage.   And she has the nerve to call Dr. Jeffries “anti-scholastic.”

And what about the word itself getting caught in biblical interpretation? The word “homosexuality” never occurs once in either Testament. It would appear that this issue is a tempest in this teapot.

The chronological appearance of a word in our lexicon does not invalidate its meaning. If it did, the word gay would be invalid as well. The word gay, in association with same gender conduct, first appeared in contemporary lexicons in 1889 and was used by a male prostitute. In America, the consensus is that it was not used publicly in this context until the 1930s. What’s more the word “gay” does not appear in either biblical testament. So if we must invalidate use of the word homosexuality simply because it doesn’t occur in the bible, we must invalidate use of the word gay which also doesnt exist in scripture.

But don’t expect to hear this from Holbert or the other progay lemmings currently running around the church preaching about “love”. Their agenda is clear: dismantle God’s word no matter how low they have to stoop to do it.

                                                                                  UPDATED 12.31.07 Since we took up our watch in June, this has been a great year of exposing false prophets and their false teachings which lead people into bondage and sin. We give God the praise for allowing them time and opportunity to repent and submit themselves to His Lordship and Word. Whether they did or not is a matter between them and God. But we are committed to make the church a place where the false prophet is not comfortable deceiving God’s people. The spiritual charlatans spreading the false doctrine of sexual immorality can no longer expect to creep in while we are on the wall. We’re also thankful to all who sent us tips and supporting information. It is greatly appreciated.

Now that the year is drawing to a close, we wanted to review what turned out to be the top 10 stories of 2007 as reported by Gay Christian Movement Watch. Story rankings are based on number of individual “hits” to the story.

1. Gospel’s Bobby Jones appearing in gay movie (5481) Bobby Jones appearance as a “preacher” in the cryptic sounding movie Dirty Laundry launched an outcry and new awareness of the spiritual corrosion in the gospel music “industry”.

2. TD Jakes, Andrew Merritt linked to gay church movement (4297) Leaders of the Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies in Columbus, OH retained connections to Bishop Robert Taylor who helped establish a homosexual “radical inclusion” religious organization.

3. TD Jakes repositioning with Dr. Phil? (1542) Bishop Jakes partners with TV psychology pundit Dr. Phil. The mutual collaboration was questioned due to Dr. Phil’s false declaration that homosexuality is “inherited”.

4.  About GCM Watch (1248) Some hated us, some applauded us. It seems a lot of people wanted to know exactly what we were doing here. And why.

5. Gay christian movement adherents (1197)  You wanted to know exactly who we were “watching”. We kept our eye on the more prominent factions in the gay christian movement, their leaders, public statements and actions.

6. Another Carlton Pearson Story (1049) A story written by Ministry Today editor Matt Green was both humorus and serious as he reviewed Bishop Carlton Pearson’s false  “gospel of inclusion” doctrine and its inherent contradictions.

7. What does Kirk Franklin know? (1127) Kirk Franklin told the world that homosexuality was a major problem in the gospel music industry. But given his huge influence,  he has done little if anything at all to push for spiritual reform. We wanted to know if someone or something was preventing that.

8. TD Jakes: saving souls can wait (898) Bishop TD Jakes’ reactionary partnerships with anti-righteousness groups caused him to reveal that he really isn’t the man we thought he was. While attempting to pacify the pro-AIDS crowd, Jakes relegated soul saving to second priority.

9. Creflo Dollar protects his money in Canada (877) The Rev Creflo Dollar couldnt answer a straight question about homosexuality while in Canada. We reported that Canada’s laws against “hate speech” affected his ability to stand for righteousness, even if he would lose a few dollars in the process.

10. Bishop Flunder’s  wilderness allegory (904)  In one of the most egregious examples of bible abuse to date, lesbian Bishop Yvette Flunder twisted the Bible’s wilderness journey with a false allegory  in an attempt to legitimize sexual immorality.  

Gay church theology ranks among the most egregious forms of biblical errancy confronting the Christian church today. Its two-sided operationality  encompasses all aspects of its evil desires. Side A is an intoxicating mix of feel good philosophy,  promises of safety,  well placed cultural platitudes, and a religious veneer bathed in the coating of false love. This is the gay christian movement’s public face.  Side B, the one intentionally hidden from public view, is an agressive mix of pride, arrogance, vulgarity, vengeance, and lust. This is the gay christian movement’s private face.

Many Christians coming in contact with gay theology are unsuspecting of its deceitful web because personal biblical study isn’t being stressed in Christian churches. Gay theology, with its broad declarations of “radical inclusion” and “loving acceptance” of all people is seductive to the many hurt and wounded walking in the religious realm.  It sounds good to the ear and appeals to the carnal man. Its the same tactic used against Eve in the garden.

Satan’s intent is not to frighten man, but rather seduce him with things and words and which appear on the surface beautiful, welcoming and harmless. This is why the gay christian movement hates the tough language the bible uses to battle sin. They avoid it at all costs, while instead focusing on broad issues of love minus moral restrictions.

For the individual who in conflicted with their homosexual inclinations in light of what the scriptures teach, satan offers a compromises.  Thus, the struggle with homosexuality is resolved by “reconciling sexuality with faith”.  No such reconciliation exists in the scripture nor is it a biblical principle. The only reconciliation the bible speaks of is man’s reconciliation with God through Christ. True reconcilation comes, not by adding a sinful identifier, but by renouncing one’s sinful ways.  Yet,  satan manipulates the person’s uneducated failures and offers the compromise: you can be Christian and homosexual. We need to point out that not all of those who are gay christians are victims of simple spiritual misinformation. Some have willfully rejected truth because they refused to give up their lust for members of the same gender. Neither did they want to give up the Christian facade they had grown accustomed to. The spread of gay theology can be directly attributed to its use of cultic methods which distort, deform, and disfigure scripture. Let’s review several of the most used methods of spreading gay theology within the Christian church.

INACCURATE QUOTATION: A biblical text is referred to but is either not quoted in the way the text appears in any standard translation or is wrongly attributed. See this story.

BIBLICAL HOOK: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture. See this story.

THE FIGURATIVE FALLACY: Either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2)mistaking figurative language for literal language. See this story.

SELECTIVE CITING: Better known as “cherry picking”. To substantiate a given argument, only a limited number of text is quoted: the total teaching of Scripture on that subject would lead to a conclusion different from that of the writer. See this story.

REJECTING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: Either the Bible as a whole or texts from the Bible are examined and rejected because they do not square with other authorities – such as reason or revelation = do not appear to agree with them. See this story.

WORLD-VIEW CONFUSION: Scriptural statements, stories, commands or symbols which have a particular meaning or set of meanings when taken within the intellectual and broadly cultural framework of the Bible itself are lifted out of that context, placed within the frame of reference of another system and thus given a meaning that markedly differs from their intended meaning. See this story.

Adapted from Scripture twising methods of the cults by James Sire.