Four Incorrect Views of Christianity

The following is from Authentic Christianity, by Martin Lloyd-Jones, regarding Acts 2:37–47.

Let me put it quite simply like this: What would your answer be if I gave you a sheet of paper and a pencil and told you to put down in as few words as possible your idea of what it means to be a Christian? [...]

There are some people who quite clearly think that Christianity operates solely in the realm of the intellect. These are serious and able men and women who are concerned about life and its problems. They know that here is a traditional teaching, and they believe it their bounden duty to consider it. So they read about the Christian faith and may become very interested in it, even accepting a good deal of it. But it is all in the mind. It is all theoretical. They may greatly enjoy their study of Christianity; it may become their hobby, but it is nothing beyond that. In addition, many people devote their lives to theological study. These scholars and academics spend their time in intellectual argument, taking up religious issues and writing their books one against another or in agreement with one another. That is their whole life. [...]

At the opposite extreme, there are those for whom Christianity is purely a matter for the feelings. They have had a wonderful experience of peace or love or happiness, and they say they need nothing else. The intellectuals, of course, condemn such people. “It’s pure emotionalism,” they say. “They cannot argue seriously with you. They haven’t read the books and cannot discuss them with you. They live on the wonderful feeling they say they’ve had and deliberately try to work it up again and again.” And, of course, there is a good deal of evidence that lends considerable weight to these objections.

Then there is a third group that puts the entire emphasis upon the will. According to this view, what makes a Christian is not what people think; and if they like to play with the emotions, let them do so. Rather, they say, whether or not you are a Christian hinges upon what you do. It is the way in which you live that is the deciding factor. Are you living for the good of humanity? Are you ready to make sacrifices? Are you ready to put desire for a great career on one side in order to do something heroic and wonderful and sacrificial? That is what makes people Christians. It is a question of making a deliberate decision to improve the lot of humanity and uplift the human race. This may take you into politics or into social work—the sphere is unimportant. As long as you are giving yourself in service, what does it matter what you believe? The intellect is comparatively unimportant. Indeed, you can be certain of very few things in a world like this. The important thing is your will and your desire and what you are actually doing.

A fourth view of Christianity, a view commonly held by many people who have been brought up as Christians — I myself held it for many a year — is the view that being a Christian is a task that you have to take up and that you take up more or less reluctantly and miserably in a spirit of fear. Christianity is mainly something that spoils life. You know other people who were not brought up as Christians, and you see that they do things freely without any hesitation at all, and you wish you could be doing the same things, but you are afraid. You have been brought up in a chapel or a church, brought up as a Christian, as it were, and though you want to do these things, you cannot. This Christianity stands between you and them. [...]

So we are considering these eleven verses from Acts, and we see what an utter travesty this last view is of Christianity. This is what Luke wrote: “They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people” (vv. 46–47). Could anything be a greater contrast? This is Christianity.[pg. 64-66]

What is Fellowship?

Recently I encountered an interesting definition of the word "fellowship." A gentleman was using the term in reference to the relationship between believers and unbelievers, and the ability for believers to befriend and witness to unbelievers and sinners. Is this the case? Is this a proper definition of "fellowship"?

One of the first mentions of "fellowship" in scripture is in regards to the early Christians, a use that is repeated in Paul's letters:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [Acts 2:42]

And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. [Galatians 2:9]

The word used here both times for "fellowship" is the Greek word κοινωνία, which refers to a kind of communion or partnership. It comes from the noun word κοινωνός, which means a "sharer" or "companion," and hence signifies some level of intimacy. Within the New Testament, various forms of κοινωνία are used about nineteen times. At times it references a contribution (Ro 15:26; 2 Co 9:13), other times a kind of sharing or participation with something else (1 Co 10:16; 2 Co 6:14; Php 3:10; He 13:16). Many more times, however, it is seen as fellowship among believers or with God. 

Let's see many of the serious verses which use the word seen in Acts and Galatians:

God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship [κοινωνίαν] of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. [1 Corinthians 1:9]

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship [κοινωνία] of the Holy Spirit be with you all. [2 Corinthians 13:14]

The life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 1:2-3]

If we say we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship [κοινωνίαν] with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.[1 John 1:6-7]

The most important aspect of fellowship, seen in these verses, is that it is among believers, and this is because of the fellowship held between the individual believer and God. That is, because the individual believer is in fellowship with God, so too are all individual believers in fellowship with one another, because of that union with God. It is our union with God that enables us to have union with one another, and we have fellowship through the common faith we share and our unity in the common God.

Is it possible, therefore, for believers and unbelievers to have "fellowship"? Quite the contrary, and no where does scripture make such a possible connection. Believers and unbelievers cannot have fellowship because the unbeliever does not have fellowship with the Trinitarian God. While it is proper for us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt 5:44), as well as to assist our enemy in times of need so that we "heap burning coals on his head" (Pr 25:21-22; Ro 12:20), and we should of course witness to those who are lost...we cannot have the same relationship with unbelievers that we have with believers. My spending time with coworkers after my shift ends is not the same thing as having a meal with a family from my church - that's just the reality. We call the bonding between believers "fellowship" because, like the origins of the Greek word suggests, we are "sharers" in faith and belief, united by a common God. This kind of experience cannot happen outside of companionship with believers - in fact, there are times when it can be downright dangerous, hence Jude's warning to "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

When we try to decide how scripture defines a certain word, we must strive to avoid our own personal definitions, or definitions that have been given to us from anywhere other than scripture. We must permit scripture to speak for itself, and not strive to speak for it. God bless.

Letter to a Young Christian

The following is from a letter sent by Jonathan Edwards to a young woman newly converted, and who was curious about maintaining a religious life.

As you desired me to send you, in writing, some directions how to conduct yourself in your christian course, I would now answer your request. The sweet remembrance of the great things I have lately seen at S——, inclines me to do any thing in my power, to contribute to the spiritual joy and prosperity of God’s people there. 

1. I would advise you to keep up as great a strife and earnestness in religion, as if you knew yourself to be in a state of nature, and were seeking conversion. We advise persons under conviction, to be earnest and violent for the kingdom of heaven; but when they have attained to conversion, they ought not to be the less watchful, laborious, and earnest, in the whole work of religion, but the more so; for they are under infinitely greater obligations. For want of this, many persons, in a few months after their conversion, have begun to lose their sweet and lively sense of spiritual things, and to grow cold and dark, and have ‘pierced themselves through with many sorrows;’ whereas, if they had done as the apostle did, (Phil. iii. 12-14.) their path would have been ‘as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day.’ 

2. Do not leave off seeking, striving, and praying for the very same things that we exhort unconverted persons to strive for, and a degree of which you have had already in conversion. Pray that your eyes may be opened, that you may receive sight, that you may know yourself, and be brought to God’s footstool; and that you may see the glory of God and Christ, and may be raised from the dead, and have the love of Christ shed abroad in your heart. Those who have most of these things, have need still to pray for them; for there is so much blindness and hardness, pride and death remaining, that they still need to have that work of God wrought upon them, further to enlighten and enliven them, that shall be bringing them out of darkness into God’s marvellous light, and be a kind of new conversion and resurrection from the dead. There are very few requests that are proper for an impenitent man, that are not also, in some sense, proper for the godly. 

3. When you hear a sermon, hear for yourself. Though what is spoken may be more especially directed to the unconverted, or to those that, in other respects, are in different circumstances from yourself; yet, let the chief intent of your mind be to consider, ‘In what respect is this applicable to me? and what improvement ought I to make of this, for my own soul’s good?’ 

4. Though God has forgiven and forgotten your past sins, yet do not forget them yourself: often remember, what a wretched bond-slave you were in the land of Egypt. Often bring to mind your particular acts of sin before conversion; as the blessed apostle Paul is often mentioning his old blaspheming, persecuting spirit, and his injuriousness to the renewed; humbling his heart, and acknowledging that he was ‘the least of the apostles,’ and not worthy ‘to be called an apostle,’ and the ‘least of all saints,’ and the ‘chief of sinners;’ and be often confessing your old sins to God, and let that text be often in your mind, (Ezek. xvi. 63.) ‘that thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou has done, saith the Lord God.’

5. Remember, that you have more cause, on some accounts, a thousand times, to lament and humble yourself for sins that have been committed since conversion, than before, because of the infinitely greater obligations that are upon you to live to God, and to look upon the faithfulness of Christ, in unchangeably continuing his loving-kindness, notwithstanding all your great unworthiness since your conversion. 

6. Be always greatly abased for your remaining sin, and never think that you lie low enough for it; but yet be not discouraged or disheartened by it; for, though we are exceeding sinful, yet we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; the preciousness of whose blood, the merit of whose righteousness, and the greatness of whose love and faithfulness, infinitely overtop the highest mountains of our sins. 

7. When you engage in the duty of prayer, or come to the Lord’s supper, or attend any other duty of divine worship, come to Christ as Mary Magdalen did; (Luke vii. 37, 38.) come, and cast yourself at his feet, and kiss them, and pour forth upon him the sweet perfumed ointment of divine love, out of a pure and broken heart, as she poured the precious ointment out of her pure broken alabaster box. 

8. Remember, that pride is the worst viper that is in the heart, the greatest disturber of the soul’s peace, and of sweet communion with Christ: it was the first sin committed, and lies lowest in the foundation of Satan’s whole building, and is with the greatest difficulty rooted out, and is the most hidden, secret, and deceitful of all lusts, and often creeps insensibly into the midst of religion, even, sometimes, under the disguise of humility itself. 

9. That you may pass a correct judgment concerning yourself, always look upon those as the best discoveries, and the best comforts, that have most of these two effects: those that make you least and lowest, and most like a child; and those that most engage and fix your heart, in a full and firm disposition to deny yourself for God, and to spend and be spent for him. 

10. If at any time you fall into doubts about the state of your soul, in dark and dull frames of mind, it is proper to review your past experience; but do not consume too much time and strength in this way: rather apply yourself, with all your might, to an earnest pursuit after renewed experience, new light, and new lively acts of faith and love. One new discovery of the glory of Christ’s face, will do more toward scattering clouds of darkness in one minute, than examining old experience, by the best marks that can be given, through a whole year. 

11. When the exercise of grace is low, and corruption prevails, and by that means fear prevails; do not desire to have fear cast out any other way, than by the reviving and prevailing of love in the heart: by this, fear will be effectually expelled, as darkness in a room vanishes away, when the pleasant beams of the sun are let into it. 

12. When you counsel and warn others, do it earnestly, and affectionately, and thoroughly; and when you are speaking to your equals, let your warnings be intermixed with expressions of your sense of your own unworthiness, and of the sovereign grace that makes you differ. 

13. If you would set up religious meetings of young women by yourselves, to be attended once in a while, besides the other meetings that you attend, I should think it would be very proper and profitable. 

14. Under special difficulties, or when in great need of, or great longings after, any particular mercy, for yourself or others, set apart a day for secret prayer and fasting by yourself alone; and let the day be spent, not only in petitions for the mercies you desire, but in searching your heart, and in looking over your past life, and confessing your sins before God, not as is wont to be done in public prayer, but by a very particular rehearsal before God of the sins of your past life, from your childhood hitherto, before and after conversion, with the circumstances and aggravations attending them, and spreading all the abominations of your heart very particularly, and fully as possible, before him. 

15. Do not let the adversaries of the cross have occasion to reproach religion on your account. How holily should the children of God, the redeemed and the beloved of the Son of God, behave themselves. Therefore, ‘walk as children of the light, and of the day,’ and ‘adorn the doctrine of God your Saviour;’ and especially, abound in what are called the christian virtues, and make you like the Lamb of God: be meek and lowly of heart, and full of pure, heavenly, and humble love to all; abound in deeds of love to others, and self-denial for others; and let there be in you a disposition to account others better than yourself. 

16. In all your course, walk with God, and follow Christ, as a little, poor, helpless child, taking hold of Christ’s hand, keeping your eye on the marks of the wounds in his hands and side, whence came the blood that cleanses you from sin, and hiding your nakedness under the skirt of the white shining robes of his righteousness. 

17. Pray much for the ministers and the church of God; especially, that he would carry on his glorious work which he has now begun, till the world shall be full of his glory.” [source]

"Gay Christianity" Refuted

Below is a link to James White's presentation from last March on the presentation by Matthew Vines that supports homosexuality from the context of scripture and the Christian worldview.

The link to the entire presentation can be found here.

The Story of a Self-Proclaimed Communist

Once upon a time a gentleman came across someone who called himself a Communist. As they began to chat, the gentleman asked what had attracted the Communist to that ideology.

"Because I believe that the government should provide for the people," the Communist said.

"But do you agree with class warfare" asked our gentleman.

"Heavens no," replied the Communist.

Perplexed, but also curious, the gentleman asked, "Do you think capitalism is bad?"

"Of course not," replied the Communist, "I believe capitalism is a perfectly legitimate system of economy."

"Do you believe in private property and ownership?"

"Why should I? People should be permitted to freely own property."

"Perhaps you could help me for a moment, sir, because you say you are a Communist, and yet you have affirmed a love for all the things which Communism speaks out against."

The gentleman could tell our Communist friend was getting agitated, if just a bit, and he grew rather stern as he looked at our gentleman and asked, "Are you judging me, sir?"

"Judging? Not at all. You, however, present to be two contradictions: that which you think you are, and that which you truly are. Have you read the works of Marx and Engels?"

"Somewhat," replied the Communist, "but I find them to be irrelevant to this topic. They are two men who lived long ago, and who are now dead. Their works are antiquated by now."

"Yet their works have laid the foundation for the belief system you now uphold. You cannot simply ignore the historical development and traditions of the system of beliefs you now uphold, neither can you choose to redefine it by your own unilateral will."

"Now see here, sir," said the Communist, his voice showing he was growing quite irate, "I will not have you pass judgment on me. I know what I am, and I'm a Communist! You have no right to tell me otherwise!"

"Tell me, if I told you I descended from African tribes, would you believe me?"

The Communist looked our gentleman over and, finding him quite Caucasian, replied, "I wouldn't reckon so."

"Of course not. I could declare myself African all I wanted, but that wouldn't change the facts. Now, in a similar circumstance, you tell me you are Communist, and yet you neither uphold what Communism believes, nor do you oppose what it opposes - in fact, you present all the negative in the positive. You even belittle their founders."

"You cannot suppose what is in my heart!" the Communist cried.

"Your heart is irrelevant," the gentleman said, "the reality that is and the reality you desire are two separate things, irregardless of what your 'heart' thinks. Words have meaning, history is in stone, and it is not up to us to reinterpret what either means or says. You cannot choose to unilaterally revise what it means to be Communist any more than I can decide unilaterally means to be Caucasian. In this essence, you deny the authority of Marx, Engels, and other men in history, and choose instead to rely upon your own authority. You are not a Communist, my friend, you are simply yourself."

"And I suppose you believe yourself to be of authority on Communism?!" the Communist said in a loud voice, his rage building.

"I claim no such thing," the gentleman said, "I am simply going by what the original writers of your pet ideology have said. I have judged you by them - and they all say that you are a fake."

At these words, the Communist threw into a rage, calling the gentleman an intolerant bigot and stormed off.

Can a statement of faith be false?

A while ago, I got into a conversation with a gentleman over what constituted a true believer. His position, as he explained it, was that there was no such thing as a false statement of faith, as those who proclaim Christ as their Lord and say they believe in him will be saved. His opinion appeared to be that there was no such thing as a "false Christian." Is this the case in scripture?

Let's first review the words of the apostle John:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. [3 John 1:9-11]

The apostle John, writing to a spiritual son known as Gaius, makes mention of a man named Diotrephes. Little is known of this person, other than what is mentioned here. Diotrephes' faults are many: he seeks personal power; he denies the authority of the apostles (v. 9); he refuses to welcome traveling missionaries who need a place to stay; he hinders those who desire to help the missionaries, and even excommunicates them if they do so (v. 10).

John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.

Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. [Jude 1:17-21]

Jude has spent much of his epistle writing against the false teachers and heretics who were invading the churches. He now reminds them that the apostles had warned them about this before (v. 17), going on to give a near direct quote of 2 Peter 3:3. It is interesting to note that Peter, in his original epistle, had made mention of the prophets and Christ, and Jude now makes reference to the apostles. It is interesting to note that this shows two things: 1) the early church understood what God was doing with the writings of the apostles; 2) the writings of the apostles were seen with the same authority as the prophets and Christ, and quoted as such...but this is all getting off topic.

Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.

In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.

These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.

In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).

On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

The Story of a Christian II

Gather round, chil'ren, it's story time again.

Once upon a time there was a Christian. He ran a ministry and was well known for his preaching, which was scriptural and on the level. All this changed when our Christian started opposing someone else's ministry. In this ministry, there were some signs and wonders that were amazing people and leading many to believe. There were even supposed healings in this ministry. People were flocking to these signs and wonders, believing they to be the work of God. Many made a profession of faith because of it.

Well, our Christian was worried by all this. He was worried about the false teachings and contrary theology that came with these signs and wonders. He began to protest it, telling those within the church that they didn't need to seek for signs and wonders, but they just had to turn to the holy scriptures for guidance from God. Unfortunately, this was not met well. Layman and church leader alike condemned our Christian as an agitator, a Pharisee and a heretic. He was soon removed from his position in the city, and forced to minister outside in the country. Eventually he was even arrested and executed for his beliefs. Those who carried this out believed that they did the church a favor and that they were better off without him.

Who was this Christian? It was Jan Hus, the fifteenth century Bohemian theologian. The "signs and wonders" were a red wafer that the Roman church claimed was a Eucharistic host covered in the blood of Christ himself. It was declared a miracle and pilgrims were coming from all over to see the wafer in Brandenburg. Jan Hus openly denounced the supposed miracles, saying that it was the word of God by which Christians were to live, and from there his life spiraled downward until finally he was condemned and ordered to be burned at the stake at the Council of Constance. A year later, Martin Luther and many others would arise in the Reformation, and the truth Jan Hus had professed would finally take root, by the grace of God.

This day and age, many people want to forgo the authority of scripture, or even doctrinal purity for the sake of signs and wonders. As I said during last story time, if many so-called Christians today were consistent with their own positions, they would be against the greatest Christian teachers in history. Those staunchly condemning those who speak against the "signs and wonders" ministries in favor of the complete, and just preliminary, authority of scripture, would be like those who long ago opposed Jan Hus for his own opposition to "signs and wonders" ministries in his day. Yet it wasn't because of Jan Hus's person that his position was the correct one - it was because all that he protested worked against the authority of scripture, while his own authority came from the inspired word of God.

Christians and Cafeteria Morality

I came across this meme a few weeks ago, and - after some interaction with certain people - asked a coworker to find it for me again, as it was quickly inspiring a blog post. The meme is called something like "hypocritical Christian girl" and is popular around some online atheist circles. Despite the source material, God always has a way of making truth come out of error, and I believe there's a lot to be said from this one image.

Throughout my life, I've encountered people who held what one might call "cafeteria morality" - in other words, they would pick and choose that part of God's moral law to follow. In my atheist days, I knew a girl who would lament my unbelief, then a few minutes later talk about the physical relations she had with her boyfriend the night before. I've known people who were on the level when it came to the teachings of God's word regarding homosexuality, abortion, the definition of marriage, etc., and yet would engage in sex with other people and even have premarital sex with their future spouse.

Of course, whenever anyone begins to talk of morality, straw men and emotional arguments fly, and so I must take a moment here to dispel any possible attacks against my person rather than my position. If you are like the people I described in the previous paragraph, then know that I am not saying I am any better than you as an individual. I am also not saying I am any more justified before God because you do x and I don't do x. At the time of this writing I am unmarried and a virgin, and intend to keep my virginity until marriage. However, I have done things in the past for which I am not proud, and still struggle in certain ways that would warrant judgment. I have always agreed with the words of the apostle James that being guilty of any transgression against God's commands made you are guilty of transgressing them all (Jam 2:10). Therefore, I am not writing this post in the spirit of "I'm better than you," but rather as a call for discernment and biblical dialogue about an important matter.

We must, first and foremost, recognize that the biblical teaching regarding sexual relations is that it always exists within the confines of marriage. When Adam and Eve first met, it was written in a kind of "divine commentary" that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This was something Christ later affirmed, saying "they are no longer two but one flesh" (Matt 19:4-6).

The apostle Paul wrote on this explicitly in his first letter to the Corinthians, continually drawing allusion to the concept of "becoming one flesh." Interestingly, he begins with the theology of Christ being the husband of the church, saying we are essentially of one flesh with him (cf. 1 Cor 6:13). He states that our bodies are "members of Christ," and so we should never do anything as bad as go to a prostitute for her services, for we are in essence "becoming one flesh" with her (1 Cor 6:14-15). We are therefore commanded to flee sexual immorality, as it is a sin against our body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:18-19). To commit a sin of the flesh is to transgress against God.

With the same flow of thought, Paul moves into a discussion regarding relationships within marriage. As the apostle recognized that sexual immorality would be a greater temptation to some, he encouraged marriage (1 Cor 7:2), adding later that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9). However, this was not a case of the woman being a submissive outlet for the man's lusts - rather, this is a continuation of the "one flesh" mindset. I say this because Paul gives very clear language regarding man and woman completing one another physically: 1) the husband gives his wife her "conjugal rights," as does the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3); 2) the husband has rights over the wife's body, but the wife also has rights over the husband's body (1 Cor 7:4); 3) the husband and wife are not to deny their physical bonds except upon mutual agreement, and for moments of prayer and meditation, but even then they are meant to eventually unite together again (1 Cor 7:5). This is beautiful (and incredibly tasteful) imagery of what "one flesh" means: the wonderful bond between man and woman in marriage, submitting to one another as equals in physical intimacy. Husband and wife fulfill one another, and in this manner they truly become "one flesh." However, we must reiterate that such a beautiful bond is only possible within marriage.

Scripture has less kinder things to say about sexual relations outside of marriage. It is said many times that the sexually immoral have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8, 22:15). The apostle Paul even advised Christians not to associate with so-called "brothers" if they were guilty of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:11). He also said that sexual immorality was one of the works of the flesh, which are opposed to the desires of the spirit (Gal 5:17-21). Let's also not forget that Christ identified looking with lust at someone to whom you were not married made you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) - if the mere thinking of non-marital relations makes you guilty, how much more does the very act!

Many, of course, will ignore all these relevant passages, as well as the clear teaching of the entirety of scripture. They will then do one of two things:

1) Jump to irrelevant passages. Many will find any way they can to abuse the word of God to justify what they do - some of them outright bizarre. In one Christian forum, I read a post where a man actually used Genesis 9:7 as justification to look at pornography! Some jump to the imperfect lifestyles of men like Samson, forgetting that such men eventually received judgment for their actions. Some jump to the strong physical language of the Song of Solomon, seemingly forgetting that the dialogue is between husband and wife. Some say that prostitutes were allowed to spend time with Christ, not seeming to realize that these were repentant prostitutes who weren't continuing their trade. If a person wishes to argue the morality of sex, they will have to do so by going to the passages that actually speak on the morality of sex.

2) Present philosophical arguments. When the word of God is clearly against you, people turn to the thoughts of man, which are by their very nature corrupt (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9). They try to calculate and philosophize why sex outside of marriage would be all right, even within a religious context. One girl I was speaking to told me how she thought of buying her boyfriend's favorite yogurt while at the grocery store, and from this one experience she held the firm belief that God was all right with premarital sex. Perhaps my favorite argument used is "Surely God's OK with it if you love each other?" Paul gave us a fitting warning when, right after identifying sexual immorality as evil, he wrote: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5:6).

Knowing, then, that the scriptural teaching regarding sexual relations is that it is meant for marriage, and sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral, Christians are compelled to at least acknowledge this reality. To not do so is not only moral hypocrisy, but playing games with the moral law of God - something very severe before the eyes of the Lord. "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments," Christ said, "and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). We cannot pick and choose morality because it is simply not our place. When God says, "Don't do x, y and z," we don't get to say "Well I choose to do x and y while condemning z" because it is simply not our place.

For many, the issue is that they are quick to condemn homosexuality as a sin while they forget that homosexuality is but a part of the larger umbrella of all sexual immorality. Heterosexual sins make one just as guilty before a holy God as homosexuality. I would propose that a true Christian who struggles with homosexual desires is far more righteous before God than a supposed Christian who unrepentantly cheats on his wife in a heterosexual relationship. The former knows his sin is ever before him (Psa 51:3); the latter is blind to his own error, condemning the one brother for the speck in his eye while ignoring the plank in his own (Matt 7:4-5).

It was to such people that Paul wrote the second chapter of the letter to the Roman church. After detailing the depravity of the Gentile world, Paul turned towards the Jews and said "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Rom 2:1). He likewise wrote: "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3) These are words many supposed Christians should be asking themselves, for in condemning homosexuals and abortion doctors while justifying their own personal sexual immorality, they merely heap judgment upon themselves.

Many reading this post may be such people who claim to be Christian and yet engage in premarital sex or sexual immorality. If this is the case, you must now be aware that what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of God, and that if you are to stand against one brand of sexual immorality, you must likewise condemn your own sexual immorality and repent of it. The good news is that while you still have breath and while you still have voice, you still have the ability, by the grace of God, to repent. Know that Christ is a far, far greater Savior than you could ever be a sinner. God bless.

Are all Christians supposed to prophesy?

Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) centers his "prophetic ministry" on the idea that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. To give an example of his argumentation:

The church, from its inception on the Day of Pentecost, was to be of a prophetic nature. It is clear that the spirit of prophecy is potentially available to all..."For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn..." (1 Cor 14:31). [pg. 38; Mike Bickle, Growing in the Prophetic, 2008]

1 Corinthians 14:31 is especially used by Bickle over and over again as a kind of grand proof-text for his theology. The idea is this: Paul says "you can all prophesy," so that must mean "all of you" as in "all you Christians." Hence, all Christians should be able to prophesy, and so all Christians should be willing to participate in the "prophetic ministry" that is pouring out of IHOP-KC and into other churches.

Is this the case?

Firstly, let's not forget what Paul had said earlier, when he was discussing the important part every person played in the church:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [1 Cor 12:27-30; emphasis]

Paul's point here is that not all people are prophets - only those with the gift are. The original grammar of "Are all prophets?" suggests that the question is to be answered with a hardy "No." Bickle actually acknowledges this specific verse in his Growing book, but treats it only briefly before skimming across it to another topic. He also, on some occasions, tries to separate between prophets and those who are prophetic, even though scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and Bickle's ultimate conclusion would still contradict Paul's point.

Secondly, let's remind ourselves of the three rules of exegesis: 1) context; 2) context; 3) context. So, seeking to follow all three of these rules at once, let's review the full context of the verse quoted by Bickle.

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. [1 Cor 14:26-33]

Paul begins this section by saying that when the Corinthian church comes together, "each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" (v. 26). Paul is going back to what he said in chapter twelve, when he discussed the importance of individual roles, comparing it to the parts of the human body (1 Cor 12:14-20), and later applying this to the individual skills within the church (1 Cor 12:27-30). The purpose of this gathering together and the using of individual skills is "for building up" - that is, the edification of all in the church (v. 26). Just as every part of the human body serves some need that benefits the others, so too does every individual member of the church perform some task that benefits the others. No one is unimportant, from the pastor who gives the sermon to the old man who just comes to listen and be edified. The important thing, as Paul will demonstrate here, is that our goal be not the use of our gifts alone, but the building up of God's body through those gifts.

Paul goes into detail about the individual gifts, starting with those speaking in tongues, stating that there should be "only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (v. 27). Note again that Paul is emphasizing order in the church for the purpose of edification. In this vain, Paul states something I think many Charismatic churches forget: "if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church" (v. 28). The original Greek here is actually pretty strong - in fact, quite strong. In our modern language, Paul would literally be saying, "If there isn't an interpreter, tell 'em to shut up."

Paul now moves on to those in prophecy: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (v. 29). Note that Paul is talking about a specific group, just as he was before with those who speak in tongues. Here he is talking about the prophets, not the entire church. He says "let two or three prophets speak," and then "let the others weigh what is said" - who are "the others"? The others with the gift of prophecy. He outlines the order of this further with: "if a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent" (v. 30). In other words, Paul is starting to tell them to take turns - if someone starts to fulfill their role of prophet, don't interrupt them.

At last we've come to the part Mike Bickle always falls back on: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (v. 31). With a greater understanding of the context, let us ask: who is the you here? Is the you here the entire church? Is it every Christian who has ever lived? No - given what we've seen before, the you here refers to those with the gifts of prophecy. This is seen when Paul says "one by one," referring to the previous rule regarding those with the gift of prophecy. Paul is saying that those with the gift of prophecy should take turns - not that everyone can prophesy.

And just in case some might want to pull the "your interpretation versus his" card, here are some others who are on my side:

All - Who have that gift. [John Wesley's commentary]

For ye may all prophesy one by one,.... Not every member of the church, but everyone that had the gift of prophecy... [John Gill's commentary]

In fact, it would seem that no one has interpreted this verse to mean literally all Christians everywhere until the time of Mike Bickle and his Kansas City associates. While I am not saying that the mere novelty of something is enough to dismiss it, when we have to assume that everyone has misread a passage of scripture until more than 1,900 years after it was written, it should be enough to make us ask for discernment. Especially when, reviewing the entire context of said passage, that interpretation is shown to be an invalid one. Nowhere in scripture are all Christians commanded to prophesy, let alone is that taught in this verse. That is a conclusion that one simply can't come to when looking at 1 Corinthians 14:31 honestly.

In the past I've written that when I see someone misuse scripture, I don't immediately assume they're doing it on purpose. I assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The first one cannot be the case as Bickle has written this in a book and spoken about this in sermons, and so has had plenty of time to review the verse. The second one can't be true because anyone can see what this verse means by reading the fullness of the chapter, and no one in any previous commentaries misunderstood the verse this way. It's possible that the third one might be true, and Bickle is going off another interpretation, but then he would be guilty of gross negligence for not examining the scripture himself - something a spiritual leader should not do. The fourth one is entirely possible, given what we've seen before. If it is possible - whether intentional or unintentional - Bickle needs to come to repentance.

And if this is the case, then Mike Bickle has taken a verse out of context and abused it to give validity to his warped theological views. His views take but one spiritual gift and extend it well beyond where Paul intended it to go, and is using this to try to convince people to join his "prophetic ministry" movement, centered around IHOP-KC in Kansas City. If anyone reading this is caught up in this "prophetic movement," I encourage you to let this blog post be the beginning of spiritual discernment. Examine what is said, and examine everything by the testimony of scripture. Where a person strays from God's word, go no further - where a person complies with God's word, stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Don't let what anyone says or teach be the final word or the final clinching argument for you - let God speak, and let God guide you with His eternal and holy word.

The Biblical Definition of Sainthood

Many times, because of the influence of some older churches, I think many people have misconceptions regarding who or what is a "saint." Many think that a church has to go through a complicated list of preconditions before a person can be considered a saint, whereas others may think that you have to wait until a person is dead and be sure they died a faithful and honorable believer before you call them a saint. The mindset becomes one where there are essentially two classes of Christian: the saints, who are "super-Christians," and then the "normal Christians" on earth who are striving to meet the saints as a standard, although most are reserved to believe they never will. Although many will say that the specific saints are simply those an individual church chooses to honor and set up as an example and that all believers who have gone on to be with the Lord are considered saints, it is undeniable that separation occurs both in everyday language and application. The connotation of the word "saint" has been skewed since it's use in the early church.

Let's take a moment to briefly examine what scripture teaches regarding sainthood:

Firstly, the term "saints" always refers to Christians in toto. Paul begins his epistle to the Romans by addressing it "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints" (Rom 1:7). He addresses his first epistle to Corinth "to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). Again: "to the saints who are at Ephesus" (Eph 1:1). Again: "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi" (Phi 1:1). And again: "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae" (Col 1:2). The saints were not a special group of Christians, nor even an exemplary group of Christians - if you are a Christian, you are a saint by default.

Secondly, we are saints by our calling from God - not by our deeds. We have already looked at Paul's definition of saints as being those who are "beloved of God" and are "called" (Rom 1:7), and that saints are those "who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" and are such "by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). God likewise blessed the saints in Christ and "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" (Eph 1:4). Our state of being a saint comes from God's effectual calling unto salvation, not because we did x amount of good deeds or performed y amount of miracles.

The very Greek term translated as "saint" - hagios - means "holy" or "consecrated," and refers to something that is separated specifically for God. The idea is that while most that is in the world is made for the service of the word, that which is hagios is set apart for God. It referred not only to people, but, in a Jewish context, to vestments, ornaments, etc. The saints were those who were called by God to be holy and chosen by God to be taken out of this world (cf. John 15:19).

In many ways - within the context of the New Testament - this was God's antithesis to the Pharisees. The Hebrew root word from which the Pharisees derived their name (perushim) meant "one who is separated," and the Pharisees believed that their traditions and way of life essentially "separated" them from the society at large, leading them into a concentrated spiritual life. In a similar way, God has separated, is separating, and will separate His saints from the world and into true spiritual life. However, whereas the Pharisees separated themselves on their own accord and justified their separation by their deeds, the saints are separated by the effectual calling of God and are justified not by their deeds but by the atoning blood of Christ.

All Christians, by biblical definition, are saints, and are so by the blessing they have received from God in their salvation. We should not be afraid to use this term for brothers and sisters, and neither should we be afraid to use it for the church. It has beautiful theological implications when used in the way scripture defines it. The one thing it should teach us, above all, is that God alone deserves any glory we may possess or pretend to have. All glory comes from Him, and so all glory returns to Him. Soli Deo Gloria.

Things NOT to say to a depressed Christian...

Just some meditations from my own personal experiences in the past few years...

"Keep the faith!"

Ugh. Never ever ever ever say this to a depressed Christian. This will drive them as nuts as "Chin up and smile!" will to a secular person. It just comes across as a platitude and a sign that you don't really care for them.

"God is in control!"

No, really? I thought He was on a lunch break! Trust me, many depressed Christians are well aware of God's sovereignty, or at least some forms of it. They're aware that God is in control - the problem is at the moment they feel like their life is not. They may feel a disconnect between the sovereignty of God and the circumstances in their life. It might be best, then, to try to show them a connection, or to try to show how God is still there in their life.

"Maybe you're not really saved."

I've never had anyone tell me this personally, but I've heard or read Christian counselors suggest this. All I can say is that we shouldn't judge the status of a person's salvation on the fact they're having a bad day or even a bad month. Christians are not meant to be superficially happy, and even the greatest theologians throughout history (Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, etc.) had bouts of depression throughout their lives, either continuously or at certain points.

The worst thing a person can do to someone who is depressed is to suggest they aren't really saved. Now not only is the person depressed regarding their life circumstances, but now they have to worry on whether or not their salvation is sincere.

Christians and Conspiracy Theories

A conspiracy theory is defined:

...any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. [source; by the way, this is the only time I will quote Wikipedia]

Conspiracy theories include a wide range of beliefs, some examples being:

• Jews were behind World War II
• The government covered up alien landings in Roswell, NM
• The moon landing was faked
• The American government was behind the September 11 attacks

Many self-professing Christians have embraced conspiracy theories, upholding them as representations of the truth regarding the events to which they pertain. Therefore, I would like to move that conspiracy theories are in fact working against the Christian faith, and will attempt, God willing, to demonstrate this. Please note that, in discussing this, I am not proclaiming any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory unsaved, but am only trying to give a brotherly rebuke and call for discernment towards those who may have never had their beliefs or passions therein questioned.

First, they lead a person into a cult-like atmosphere

It should be noted beforehand that the vast majority of people enjoy at least entertaining various conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.

However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. It also becomes dangerously close to a kind of Gnosticism, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person upon acceptance of it and join the group.

Loyalty to a conspiracy, in fact, may usurp a Christian's priorities in other areas. For example, a Christian may become more passionate about a conspiracy than about the word of God, prayer, or worship life. They may even look down on or insult other Christians who do not share their viewpoint, especially if their brother or sister in Christ attempts to rebuke them or show them the error of their thinking. I have seen (and experienced) self-professing Christians who believe in conspiracy theories insult, belittle, or condemn their Christian brothers and sisters solely because they either do not believe in the conspiracy.

Such adoration of a conspiracy therefore leads to an idolatry, where the conspiracy itself is an idol distracting a person from the worship and commands of God.

Second, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth

One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"

It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.

All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.

Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. For example, a conspiracy theorist may have much to say about motives for the CIA to have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy, but they will never be able to pinpoint any direct evidence that would give probable cause that they were behind the shooting. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of murder. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.

A Christian engaging in this kind of activity, either knowingly or unknowingly, is therefore engaging in lies and purposeful deception. Like Muslims who are forced to use double standards in regards to their own faith and Christianity, Christians who engage in this activity are forced to hold double standards and inconsistencies. For those who are called to follow Divine Truth, it is a terrible and offensive thing to engage in man-made lies.

Third, for these reasons, conspiracy theories are an insult to the rationale given to us by the Lord

Galileo once famously said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." The apostle Paul instructed Christians to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21). The author of Proverbs likewise wrote: "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding" (Prov 3:13). To think, to reason, to use logic and to use our rationale - all of these were gifts from God. They are not the primary source of all knowledge, nor the sole basis of all knowledge (this was the error of the Enlightenment and later humanists), but they were nevertheless gifts given to us by God for our use. They were first and foremost given by God in order that we may be capable to know of Him, and secondarily to understand all that is around us.

With conspiracy theories, all of that is thrown out. We are instead called to engage in emotions, to engage in pride, and to follow fallacious logic for the sake of an idea separate from God. Indeed, this thinking follows the course of human logic separate from the discernment given by God, leading a person instead to appear insane. It is childish naivety on parade as grownup knowledge. As the apostle Paul wrote, "Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22).

Conspiracy theorists, of course, will demand that they are using rationale, logic and other elements of the mind, and that they are merely asking questions to get to the heart of the truth. However, we have already established that the very nature of the vast majority of conspiracy theories is grounded on fallacy and paper-thin evidence. Even when a conspiracy theorist admits this, they will still turn around and declare their belief to be the absolute truth, and will still attack, insult, belittle, or criticize anyone who disagrees with their point of view. They are forced to change behavior, even against fellow Christians, in order to defend this idol they have begun to worship. They have done so by forsaking the very intelligence and rationale given to them as a gift by God.

Again, I am not writing this to condemn anyone or declare that any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory is going to hell. I reiterate that this is merely a call for discernment, even for those who may not believe they follow conspiracy theories. God bless.