Unshakeable Trailer




Unshakeable Trailer



Check out the new fortune teller gospel tract!


You can download this for free at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48875353/fortune-gospel.zip

Monday, July 21, 2014

A Biblical Solution to the Border Crisis

As our current border crisis continues, I have been disturbed by various Christians and republicans. There are those who dehumanize these illegal immigrants by calling them various names. Another way they do this is by claiming that they are simply going to become democrats and are bringing deadly diseases to us. In this way, many are treating these children as if they were sub-human rats. This kind of attitude is contrary to Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Since these children, who happen to be illegal immigrants, are made in the image of God, we should value them the same as any healthy, American republican. I didn’t say that we should therefore let them in. All I said is that Biblically, these children are the same as us.

Some of the immigrants.


Romans 14:1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” The Bible teaches that we are to obey the law of the land, unless it directly contradicts the law of God, for we are told, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Sending back illegal immigrants to their countries (btw, it’s not just Mexico.) does not break the law of God, and keeping them here doesn’t violate it either. Right now, there is a heated debate in Washington of what we should do with these illegal immigrants. After the debate has ended, and the law for immigration is set, we should strive to obey that law - whether it sends the children back or not.

At first this seems as a simple solution - to obey the coming law of the land regarding immigration. But we must consider from what environment those children must have had to have fled it. Many of these children are fleeing from gangsters, from becoming sex slaves, etc. In short, their countries are morally and spiritually dark. These tragedies should move us as Christians to do something more.

So what is the Biblical solution to the tragedies of other nations? It is to go out to those countries and make a difference. In Mark 16:15, Jesus commands us to “...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” The only solution to the tragedies of other nations is the gospel. Think about it. If most gangsters there became saved, there wouldn’t be a significant terror. If most who are involved in making young girls into sex slaves became saved, there wouldn’t be a significant sex slave business as there is now in those countries. But even if those evils remain, souls would be saved and God would be glorified. Also, we should seek to preach the gospel to these children. The only solution is the gospel.

In conclusion, the Biblical response would be to both obey the coming law and to go to their countries and proclaim the gospel in those foreign countries. Thus, we would be following the law of the land, and the command of Mark 16:15, and we may even improve the lives of those who live there. For those of us who cannot go to those other countries to preach the gospel, we should pray for others to go out there and share the good news of Christ. We shouldn’t dehumanize these children, but should pray for their salvation. If you disagree with this solution, at least do so on Biblical ground. Not political ground, not right-wing ground, not founding-fathers gound, but on Biblical ground.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

New Evolution Poster!

I just made a printable human evolution chart starting with Lucy all the way up to modern man. The only difference between my chart and the evolutionists' charts is that important critical information on these missing links are included. So print these out for when you run into the evolutionist who claims that we came from an ape-like creature. Enjoy!

Note: Adapted from Chick Publications.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Crickets: Evolution in Action?

Crickets: Evolution in Action?

Ten years ago, crickets on two of the islands of Hawaii began to stop chirping, and recently, scientists believe that they have discovered why. The crickets have undergone a mutation that has altered their wings to prevent chirping. The reason being that a parasitic fly threatened the chirping crickets. The crickets that don't chirp don't get killed by this fly, since the fly can't find them.

Evolutionists claim that this is evolution in action. But this mutation on their wings was actually a loss of genetic information - they don't have the ability to chirp anymore. This is the opposite of evolution. Also, this is only evidence for micro-evolution (variation within a kind), since the cricket is still a cricket and not another kind of creature. And since the mutation removed genetic information, adding millions of years to this process won't ever produce macro-evolution (one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal).

This isn't evolution in action, but one of the many examples of micro-evolution. There is yet to be scientific evidence for macro-evolution.

This scientific discovery actually confirms the Bible's account of creation, "And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." ~ Genesis 1:24. Every animal and insect brings forth according to their kinds. Dogs will always produce dogs, cats will always produce cats, and in this case, crickets will always produce crickets.


Source: Nathan Bailey

Brought to you by "Evolution Is Pseudo-Science". See the original article here: on.fb.me/1tLixMt.

New Facebook Page!

Just recently, I created a new Facebook page called, "Evolution Is Pseudo-Science". It will discuss the scientific debate of creation/evolution, it will show the scientific evidence against evolution and for creation, and it will equip you to answer atheist objections to the Bible. Please "Like" it here: http://www.facebook.com/EvolutionIsPseudoScience.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Creationism Beats Evolution...or does it?

In a recent Gallop Poll (www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx), 50% of Americans believe in evolution, 42% believe in creation, and the other 8% don't care or don't know. That means that 1 in 2 people you run into believe that evolution is scientific. Sadly most of the 50% believe that God guided evolution. Creationists need to rise up and show why evolution is pseudo-science (false science), and why it doesn't fit with the Bible.

Here is the biggest reason why evolution and the Bible are not compatible: The Bible (specifically Genesis 1) has God creating everything in six, normal 24-hour days. The rest of the Bible's genealogical records from Adam to today add up to about 6,000 years. The Bible teaches that the universe is only 6,000 years old, yet evolution teaches the universe is billions of years old. They are polar opposites.


As for the scientific evidence for creation, there is one evidence that prevails above all: the human population level is too small if humans have been around for millions of years. In fact, ancient population records show that man appeared only 4400 years ago. That's about the time of the global flood of Noah.



Saturday, May 24, 2014

Why Peter Never Preached Baptismal Regeneration

Many heretics claim that Peter taught baptismal regeneration (that a sinner is saved by water baptism). There are two examples where it seems as if this is the case. The first is Acts 2:38:

““Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HCSB).

There is a very simple explanation for this verse. Notice, in Peter’s message, after the word “Repent,” there is the word “and”. This word could either mean the kind of “and” that connects two phrases, or the kind of “and” that means “and THEN”. You can see this clearly in the both the KJV and the original Greek, where “and” is used to mean “and THEN” in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1. Baptismal regenerationists wrongly assume that the former definition is true. Since we are saved by grace, and not by works (see Ephesians 2:8-9), and since baptism is a work, the only possible solution is that the word “and” means “and THEN”. Peter is telling the Jews to repent, and THEN after they repented, after they became saved and justified in Christ, to THEN“be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,. Also, the word “for” can mean “in order to gain” or “because of” (e.g. “I need to take an aspirin FOR my headache.” It doesn’t mean you take an aspirin to gain a headache, but because of your headache). In effect, Peter is telling them to repent, THEN after they repented and became saved, to be baptized BECAUSE their sins have already been forgiven. Peter isn’t teaching baptismal regeneration.

The second example heretics use is 1 Peter 3:21:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (HCSB).

There is also a very simple explanation for this verse. The key is the parenthesis. The content in the parenthesis in the verse explains the “saves you” part. The content says, “not the removal of the filth of the flesh”. The filth of the flesh is the sin that has stained us. The removal of the filth of the flesh is the removal of the stain of sin. In other words, it’s salvation, it’s justification, it’s the forgiveness of sin. It’s salvation. Peter is saying that baptism saves you, and then makes it clear that he doesn’t mean salvation as we think of it as a forgiveness of sin, but a different salvation, which is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God”. Peter isn’t teaching baptismal regeneration. I actually think this verse is excellent in showing that Peter is saying in effect that baptism doesn’t save you!

In conclusion, Peter never taught salvation by works, but salvation by grace alone in Christ alone.

Friday, May 9, 2014

A Review of "Moms' Night Out"

Moms' Night Out

Ally with her friends.
I just came back home from a local movie theater that was playing the new film, "Moms' Night Out." While this film had plenty of good comedy, I fear that the unbiblical messages sent from this film swallows any laughter that may come from watching it.

Ally's Stress Justified

The film starts off with Allyson ("Ally" for short), the main character of the movie. She is a complete clean-freak who is filled with extreme stress, because of her responsibility as a mother to three chaotic children. When she brings her stress to her husband's attention, he justifies it. This is unbiblical, as stress is a sin according to the Bible. Matthew 6:25 has Jesus saying, "This is why I tell you: Don’t worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food and the body more than clothing?" Since, "sin is the breaking of law" (1 John 3:4), and since one of Jesus' command (or law) is to not worry, worry by definition constitutes as a sin. It may be normal (because of our sin nature), but it is not right. Stress and worry are sins against God, and should never be justified like Ally's husband did. He should have done his duty as a husband by bringing her to Matthew 6:33, "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you." He should have told her to seek God's kingdom, that is to seek salvation in Him. Since Ally is allegedly a Christian, her husband should have told her to remember the salvation that has been brought to her in Jesus Christ. The cross is the remedy for stress. Matthew 19:6 says, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate." The Bible teaches that marriage is to be lifelong, while parenting a child takes only about 18 years. This shows that marriage is more important than parenting. Ally's husband should have taken her out on a date to help take her mind off of her stress, since marriage is an extremely important union. Instead, he sent her away to go with her friends.

Leaving Responsibility For Fun

Afterwards, she gets the idea to have a "moms' night out" with two of her friends to ease off her stress. Again, what should ease off her stress should be the cross of Calvary, and the remembrance of how God crushed His own Son to satisfy His wrath on her (see Isaiah 53:10). This night out includes dressing up and "having fun." But 1 Peter 3:3-4 says, "Your beauty should not consist of outward things like elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold ornaments or fine clothes. Instead, it should consist of what is inside the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very valuable in God’s eyes." Ironically, Ally had an "elaborate hairstyle", wore "ornaments" and "fine clothes", the very thing God commands against. She should be at home where she belongs with no encouragement to leave, or at least on a date with her husband. As she speaks about this night out to her husband, he encourages her to do so in order to "put on her oxygen mask." In the middle of her night out, she justifies her sinful actions of stress and avoiding her responsibility at home by saying that the Bible says to "listen to your husband." Her husband shouldn't have encouraged this behavior in the first place. Ally practiced extreme selfishness. Even at the end of the film, this behavior was never addressed at all. Also, before she went out, she complained of how she wants to look "beautiful" by wearing sparkly high heels.

Men Acting Like Boys

In the film, Ally makes it known that her husband is obsessed with video games. He is supposed to be the leader of the house, but instead he is the boy of the house.

Worldly Music

During the film, Ally and one of her friends dances to worldly carnal music in her car. This is contrary to the Biblical command in 1 John 2:15, "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him."

The Heresy Of The Carnal Christian

After a while, a biker named "Bones" shares with Ally of how he used to go to church as a child, but "drifted away from the faith". Ally never corrected him. The Bible makes it clear that Christians live like Christians, and bear good fruit. Those who "drift away from the faith" prove themselves to never be in the faith (see 1 John 2:19). This error is subtle, but deadly, as it promotes the heresy of the "carnal Christian".

Blasphemy

During the film, I noticed that they used God's name in vain twice. One was, "Oh my G-D!" Another was "Christ". This is dishonoring to God, and sin (see Exodus 20:7).

Invitation Without The Gospel

At the end of the film, a Pastor of Ally's local church (Alex Kendrick) invites a man who works for a Tattoo shop to come to his church where he would (hopefully) hear the gospel. It should be the other way around. He should have shared the gospel with that man, and then invite him to church.

Summary

In conclusion, while this film is funny, the errors in this film are deadly. It promotes stress as normal for the Christian, it promotes the so-called doctrine of the carnal Christian, it promotes men who act like boys as acceptable, it gives no gospel where it could have been shared, it blasphemes God's name, it promotes worldliness instead of godliness, and it lacks the gospel or looking to the cross. Todd Friel once said, "We are the people of the cross." The focus of this movie should have been the cross of Calvary, not the comedy. Comedy is fine, but if it is the main point of the film, something is radically wrong. Are you ready to give up the Bible and submit to error just to have a good laugh? I pray not.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Is AHA teaching heresy? | #AHA

Just recently, GospelSpam shared this post on their Facebook page. I shall deconstruct this post one bit at a time.

"The following photo was shared by AHA on their facebook page.

"

This is true. But all this picture says is that every Christian should become an abolitionist.

"The AHA false teaching as described in Part 2 of 3 of the recent Gospel Spam AHA series is clearly not limited to the founding AHA members, but is manifest in other societies."

Parts 2 and 3 have already been refuted here and here.

"The implication of the following scheme, like the implications found in Russell Hunter’s Wake Up Church! video, is that every Christian is called to be an abolitionist in a manner that meets AHA’s expectations..."

True. But AHA's expectations is to help fight abortion. It can be in small ways (like using their drop cards), or in large ways (like standing in front of an abortion clinic). This picture is not requiring everyone to stand in front of an abortion clinic.

"...and unless one is an abolitionist, their faith is dead."

No abolitionist has ever claimed that you must be an abolitionist to keep your faith alive, or to prove you are a Christian. Rather, they have said the opposite. This picture, in its proper context of abolitionism (which doesn't claim you must be an abolitionist to be a Christian), doesn't claim that unless one is an abolitionist, their faith is dead.

"Or to work the scheme backwards: “become an abolitionist because faith without works is dead because abolitionism is every Christian’s calling.”"

Loving your neighbor IS every Christian's calling.

"The charges of backdoor Galatian heresy are valid."

AHA is not teaching heresy.

GospelSpam keeps trying to find a way to reject AHA with strawman arguments.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

History of BAMH's attacks on AHA | #BAMH #AHA

By T. Russell Hunter
  1. It began with opposition to our symbol.
  2. Next there was opposition to the fact that we sold gear.
  3. Then we were opposed on the grounds that there was a rumor that we all opposed all street preaching.
  4. Then it was our name. They didn't like the word Abolitionist.
  5. Then it was our connections in history to past Abolitionists. They claimed that there were some abolitionists in the past who were not 5 point Calvinists or members of Presbyterian Churches and that "ALL" past abolitionists were pagans and unitarians.
  6. Then it was an opposition to the setting up of local societies that had members from multiple local churches working together. That's not allowed in the Body of Christ!
  7. Then it was an opposition to the church repent project as it was being planned. Even though we were inviting older experiences men down to Norman to counsel us in the creation, formation, and application of the project!
  8. Next it was opposition to AHA leadership because they had been opposed by some churches and pastors in the past (Incidentally, church leaders who thought AHA was wrong to call abortion murder, believed that compromising with abortion was the only way to maybe-eventually-gradually-abolish-it-but-probably-not-before the rapture, and believed that birth-control and IVF were in and of themselves Christian, and that supporting the rape exception was one and the same with using abortion to save the life of a mother.)
  9. After this it was opposition to church exhortation in general and a defense of LifeChurch.TV as a body of believers that we had no right to exhort in the first place (LifeChurch.TV is the only evangelical pro-life church that "AHA" has ever exhorted with signs, pamphlets, etc).
  10. Then it was opposition to AHA as a whole because some AHA leaders where members of church plants, house churches, and organic churches while other leaders had the full support of their elders. All of AHA was bad because like earlier abolitionists of slavery, abolitionists today were not members of the large presbyteries that had turned an apathetic eye towards child sacrifice or treated like a special ministry for some or political issue better left to those working in the second kingdom (politics).
  11. After that it was opposition on the grounds that AHA spent too much time exhorting professing believers to keep the commands of Christ and love their neighbors as themselves. Preaching such things was said to mere moralism and proof that AHA didn't preach the gospel at all but actually perpetuated a false gospel.
  12. After that, AHA had to be opposed for their audacious claim that professing Christians had not really failed to be pro life (vote Prolife, support CPCs, express a moral opinion against abortion from the pulpit, etc) but had failed to do all that they ought to do in regard to the decimation of the image of God and destruction of their unborn neighbors. All we asked the professing church to do was to examine themselves and repent of abortion apathy. The opposition said that this was heresy because we had elevated the keeping the commands of Christ above just being in the elect. 
  13. We are now being opposed because we do not give religious tests to everyone and anyone who adopts the ideology of abolition and wants to work with others seeking to figure out what it means to be consistently Christian in a culture that practices child sacrifice. Our opposition has decided that the best way to attack and undermine AHA as a whole is to scour the ranks of anyone associated with AHA in any way and grab a hold of their theological views and use them to label the whole movement as heretical. But get this, our opposition is grabbing a Wesleyan here and there or finding a non-cessationist here and there, or uncovering open theist who like what abolitionism stands for and does in time as it unfolds before our watching sovereign God (dumb as that is) and using these people to paint all of abolitionism as a whole as though we were full blown pelagic universalist, process theologians. 
  14. Now we are being opposed because it is wrong to claim that all disciples of Christ can and should be doing something to stand up for justice and mercy in this present evil age. Opposing abortion is just for some people. Incidentally, the only people who are really allowed to oppose abortion are those who have been working tirelessly to oppose AHA.
PS: When we respond to all of this opposition by stating the truth or exposing the lies and misunderstanding these lines of opposition are built up, we are then opposed for defending ourselves. Well… we aren't defending ourselves so much as we are doing what we always do: EXPOSING UNFRUITFUL WORKS OF DARKNESS.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Justin Edwards' attack on Abolish Human Abortion - Part 3 | #BAMH #AHA


"We’ve now arrived at the final installment and primary focus of this series on Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) and their Church Repent project. If you recall, part 1 addressed the founders of AHA, who by and large do not belong to a local church led by elders, but hypocritically are calling local churches and their elders to repent of their apathy on abortion. Part 2 addressed the Wake Up Church!  video produced by AHA founder and exhorter-in-chief, Russell Hunter, and showed how AHA calls into question the salvation of those who do not or will not do the work of abolition in a manner that meets AHA’s expectations. I likened this false teaching to a backdoor slide into the Galatian heresy, as if abortion abolition is the fruit of the Spirit and evidence of regeneration. The previous background articles were necessary to explain why Church Repent is so problematic, as the false teaching and unbiblical ecclessiology and practice are what’s driving this attack against the Bride of Christ expressed in local churches."

I've already debunked that in part one and two.

"While decrying the preposterous notion that AHA is an organization, AHA does consider itself to be a community of believers who share a common cause to abolish human abortion. Take for instance Russell Hunter’s facebook status on 4/20/14:



That AHA considers itself a community is even more problematic than our considering AHA an organization. They say they have no top-down leadership structure, and that AHA is a movement based on an ideology of abolitionism, but there takes a special kind of naivety to believe such. Everything that is “AHA” has been created by the AHA founders in Norman, Oklahoma. While AHA abolitionists may utilize their own creativity in producing various materials, they are clearly influenced by AHA founder Russell Hunter. The language used by AHA abolitionists is influenced by the teachings produced by the AHA founders. The practices of AHA abolitionists are modeled after and influenced by the AHA founders. Now, they consider themselves an organic community of professing Christians, sewn together not by truth and the Gospel, but by their cause for justice for the pre-born."

First of all, the founder is not the leader. Justin is saying this to Justify attacking AHA as a whole by attacking Russell (which is an ad hominem attack). Also, "their cause for justice for the pre-born" stems from the Gospel. They are very gospel-centered.

"You might be thinking, “how can I possibly suggest AHA is not threaded by the truth or the Gospel? I mean, just LOOK at the Five Tenets of Abolitionism!”  Whatever merits these five tenets may have, they lose their effectiveness and any meaningful application when truth is compromised and subverted by a common cause."

I agree.

"What we see occurring in AHA abolitionist circles is a willingness to set aside doctrinal purity so long as we are unified on ending abortion."

No, the only doctrinal issues they are willing to put aside are non-essentials (infant baptism vs believer's baptism, etc).

"Consider what leading abolitionist and co-founder of the Abolitionist Society of N. Idaho, Scott Herndon, had to say in a deleted comment from part 2 on April 16th:

"Those who are heaven bound would fight abortion. Otherwise they are just girly men who care NOTHING about 3500 image bearers of God being destroyed tomorrow. And the want to hang out and discuss the real meaning of repentance in Greek and Pelagianism…. ANd, they have done nothing unique to end a holocaust. And they want to talk about original sin and Russ Hunter. And they keep attacking AHA because, God forbid, AHA (whatever that is) wants to end the dismemberment of children. And they keep accusing people of things and asking the same question like 50 times. While 23,000 image bearers of God die this week. And they want to talk about Galatian Heresy. While 1.2 million are slaughtered this year. And they want to talk about elders…[emphasis added]""

Scott isn't affirming Pelagianism, or any other heresy, but is simply referring to past attacks from BAMH/GospelSpam.

"Not only does Scott Herndon affirm AHA’s position that “…those truly  heaven bound will  fight abortion…” [emphasis added], but he also displays his low view of truth and doctrinal purity."

No, he's not, he's referring to past attacks by others claiming that AHA is lead by Pelagians (which is not true).

"Moreover, on his April 20th Abolitionist Radio show with Jeremiah Smedra (an AHA board member), the co-hosts further show their lack of love for sound doctrine as they “postmodernize” biblical truth and lump Calvinism in with Pelagianism, as if both are orthodox teachings of the church:

"And Christianity in America today is very consumed with this discussion about doctrine, and truth, and what is true and what’s not true, and making sure you have the right version of truth, and that you’re standing to it, and that you’re even pointing out where the error is….there’s attacks, “you’re Arminian, you’re Calvinist, you’re Pelagian,”….there’s this whole….doctrinal fights….believers’ brawls…if we can sum it up, is it not that modern Christianity seems to be about the pursuit of knowledge, the entire focus and effort? [emphasis added]""

I contacted Scott Herndon, and this is his response, "We said that people who want to dismiss another person's argument will find a label to slap on that person that they want to dismiss. Jeremiah then gave examples of labels - Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian. We were not commenting on the orthodoxy of the labels. We were commenting on tactics and tendencies that are universal to man...Another example is the spammers claim that I am a "sinless perfectionist". Nowhere have I ever said that I don't sin or can't sin, but by slapping that label on me they can then call me a heretic and dismiss me rather than actually engage my biblical viewpoint."

"This is also the same podcast where Jeremiah Smedra asserted:

"God did not redeem you, as a Christian, to study His Word."

These men forget, that while Christ did, in part, redeem us to be zealous for good works (Titus 2:14), we cannot possibly do good works that glorify God unless we know God, and we can’t know God apart from studying His Word to do the things He ordained us to do. Knowing God as He has revealed Himself must  inform the works we do. Thus, to say “God did not redeem you…to study His Word” is to completely miss the boat on sanctification and doing anything to the glory of God. After all, Jesus Himself prayed to the Father in John 17:17,

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.""

Justin took him out of context. Justin is saying that God didn't redeem us to only study His Word, but to do good works. That was the whole point of that show.

"So it makes sense that Scott Herndon, a man who denies the doctrine of original sin (like here, here, and here, not to mention he is a disciple of Michael Pearl) and who teaches sinless perfectionism (like here), would want you to dismiss a desire for doctrinal purity because that would get in the way of the common cause to end child sacrifice."

Scott Herndon doesn't deny the doctrine of original sin, but questions it's importance in a street presentation of the gospel (as seen in Justin's "proof" links). He isn't a "disciple" of Pearl, but instead agrees a lot with his book (just not sinless perfectionism, which isn't taught in that book) Furthermore, Michael Pearl said, "I have never used the terms “sinless perfection” or “entire sanctification,” nor have I taught anything that is remotely similar." ~ SOURCE

"In essence, Scott is teaching that orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy."

No, in fact the whole point of the radio episode was to encourage a good balance between the two.

"But consider what John MacArthur says on the the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy:

The truth of the matter is your orthopraxy is a direct reflection of your orthodoxy. Your ethical behavior is a direct reflection of your dogma. Your duties flow out of your doctrine. It’s what you believe that essentially designs your behavior. [source]"

I agree,

"So it’s no wonder that AHA is the mess that it is, because they have no clear orthodoxy and even have men who teach heresy leading in their highest ranks."

They do not have "men who teach heresy leading in their highest ranks."

"Now, you may be asking, “what does Scott Herndon have to do with the Church Repent project”? Scott Herndon has everything to do with AHA and Church Repent, because AHA endorses the work of Scott Herndon and considers him to be a part of the community of AHA abolitionist believers. In fact, Scott Herndon is a leading voice of AHA through his radio show and videos he produces, which are wholeheartedly endorsed and promoted by AHA (like this one)."

I agree.

"What’s more, in closing his April 20th abolitionist radio show, Scott Herndon calls the listener to repent from “knowledge-based Christianity” to do the work of abolitionism (in a manner that AHA sees fit):

"If you are a Christian out there today…and you’re not involved in anti-abortion work in any way…you need to repent of the apathetic knowledge-based Christianity you live in, and move in the direction of practicing your faith, being a doer of the Word, and then you ought to be involved in this greatest issue of our day, the issue of abortion…"

…Acknowledge first of all you’re probably not doing much of anything else except pursuing knowledge……be an abolitionist of human abortion….wear a shirt, drop cards, talk to your family and friends, and occasionally go to a murder mill or occasionally get out on the street and talk about it.""

I don't see anything wrong with that quote.

"Around a month ago, Scott Herndon also had this to say on this facebook status, a status endorsed by AHA founder Russell Hunter:

"


I agree with the post.

"You see, Scott Herndon is a product of the teaching of Abolition Human Abortion. What you read in the quote above echos what you will read at churchrepent.com. The language he uses is also consistent with what we saw in Russell Hunter’s Wake Up Church!  video, as both Russell Hunter and Scott Herndon promote the idea that abortion abolitionism is a necessary evidence of one who is truly  a doer of the Word and exhibits true  faith that truly  works (i.e. a biblical and  thus true  Christian). And, he is considered a part (and a leader) of the AHA community of believers, not because of any unity in the truth or doctrinal purity as it is in Jesus Christ, but because of his zeal to fight abortion and protest the church."

As I explained above, Scott Herndon is orthodox.

"You might be thinking what I have shared thus far is trivial nitpicking and an attempt to discredit AHA on account of a single abolitionist. This is not the case. On the contrary, I have sought to further lay a foundation of why AHA is dangerous on account of establishing themselves as some kind of ecclessiastical authority and judge against the Bride of Christ, and to show how the commonality of AHA is not doctrinal purity as it is in Jesus Christ, but a common cause to fight abortion. This is not unlike the ecumenism we find with groups like 40 Days for Life, where Christians yoke themselves with Roman Catholics under the guise and banner of God and the Gospel."

They do not link arms with Catholics or Pelagians.

"While AHA purports to be a community of believers, they have no way of policing who’s truly in (a Christian) or out (an unbeliever or apostate). They might say only true Christians can be abolitionists (thus Catholics cannot be abolitionists), but they have no control over who identifies themselves as an AHA abolitionist or who starts their own AHA society. AHA, then, has no way of knowing or controlling whether true Christians participate in the Church Repent project. So what you have is the potential for nonbelievers participating in Church Repent, and sometimes said AHA members protesting a local church might even be in AHA leadership (like a Pelagian for instance)."

They leave that up to God's providence. And there are no Pelagians in AHA.

"This has turned any sort of biblical “orthopraxy” on its head.  It is a result of AHA being a parachurch ministry that has no biblical, church oversight, yet run by men who largely are not submitted to the local church themselves."

Actually, most of the organizers of AHA don't even live in Norman, and are submitted to the authority of their own local churches.

"Church Repent was set up by AHA in 2013 to call the church to repentance on its apathy of abortion.  As has been previously noted, the American church has indeed been apathetic on child sacrifice these last 41 years, so there is no disagreement with AHA’s view on this point. Where there is vehement disagreement, however, is AHA’s method to “wake up the church”."

Let's see AHA's method.

"AHA attempts to make a distinction between “protesting” pro-choice churches and “exhorting” pro-life churches. After reviewing their page, Exhorting Churches, one can see this is pure semantics. They have attempted to redefine their practice of protesting churches as a form of exhortation. AHA asserts,

"We do not seek to condemn anyone for not ‘doing enough,’ but rather to encourage our fellow believers in love to put their faith into practice.""

No, this isn't mere semantics. The difference is between calling a church to repent of it's apathy towards abortion, and calling a "church" to repent of it's support of child sacrifice. Big difference.

"This assumes the only way to put one’s faith into practice is abortion abolition, or in other words, if one is not an abortion abolitionist, they are not truly putting their faith into practice. According to AHA, putting faith into action looks like this, but, if a church doesn’t meet these AHA expectations of abortion abolition, it risks being protested by the AHA subculture of evangelical Christianity."

That list sounds fair.

"So how does AHA employ exhortation? Whether AHA members contact the targeted local church or not to open a dialogue as to how the local church is presently involved in abortion abolition, the end result is a protest if the local church does not comply with AHA’s expectations. While attempting to contrast the difference between “exhortation” and “protest”, AHA still shows an antagonistic disposition toward the local church:

"

AHA is not showing a bad disposition towards the local church. What AHA is doing is Biblical in calling Christians to repent.

"It doesn’t matter that they call the usage of the signs on the left “exhortation”, or that they say they are not protesting or picketing, or that they are there to “exhort them to love and good deeds” – if one shows up to a church with any of these signs on a Sunday morning, said person is protesting, picketing, exposing, and revealing their opposition to the church to the outside world. No passerby is going to say, “ah yes, look, they are exhorting that church to love and good deeds.” No, they are going to say, “look, there’s a group of protesters picketing that church.”  Redefining terms or practices does not change the reality that this methodology is protestation."

An unsaved passerby doesn't get to decide Biblical truth.

"Worse, AHA believes it is exhorting the church when it pickets local churches with these graphic signs:

"

What's bad about that?

"A stated goal from these church protests is found at the bottom of the Church Exhortation page, in Goal #5:

"We must dismantle the idea that fighting abortion is a particular “gifting” or “calling” that some Christians do but others don’t. Christians need to understand that a refusal to stand against abortion is to commit a sin of omission and fail to be truly Christian in a culture that kills its children."

Again, this is consistent with the message of Russell Hunter’s Wake Up Church!  video and other material produced by AHA – if a Christian does not meet AHA’s expectations in fighting abortion, they are in sin and are failing to be truly Christian. AHA emphasized this point yesterday, when they posted the following poster on their facebook page, which equivocates “loving your neighbor” as “fighting abortion”, and creates a commandment of its own by asserting “everybody” must do “something”, without defining what “something” is:

"

I already refuted that in part 2.

"Is this “something” that every  Christian must do (or else be in sin) what Scott Herndon commands as shown earlier in this article:

wear a shirt, drop cards, talk to your family and friends, and occasionally go to a murder mill or occasionally get out on the street and talk about it.

Or is this “something” from the list of expectations AHA provides here?  One can only assume."

Then why are you assuming, Justin?

"With AHA claiming they are practicing exhortation, it is important to take a look at what biblical exhortation looks like. The term “exhort” is taken from the Greek transliteration parakaleĊ, which is used 109 times in the New Testament. “Exhort” is actually used twenty-one times in the New Testament. Vines Expository Dictionary defines “exhort” as follows:

"Exhort, Exhortation:

primarily, “to call to a person” (para, “to the side,” kaleo, “to call”), denotes

(a) “to call on, entreat;” see BESEECH;

(b) “to admonish, exhort, to urge” one to pursue some course of conduct (always prospective, looking to the future, in contrast to the meaning to comfort, which is retrospective, having to do with trial experienced), translated “exhort” in the RV of Phl 4:2; 1Th 4:10; Hbr 13:19, 22, for AV, “beseech;” in1Ti 5:1, for AV, “intreat;” in 1Th 5:11, for AV, “comfort;” “exhorted” in 2Cr 8:6; 12:18, for AV, “desired;” in 1Ti 1:3, for AV, “besought.”""

That's correct. That's what AHA's doing, "urge[ing]" the church to repent.

"In writing his pastoral letter to Timothy, Paul instructs Timothy how he should “exhort” the members in his local church:

"Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity (1 Timothy 5:1-2).""

That's also correct.

"If pastors are to “be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12), what better way to practice these things than through the way the pastor instructs and exhorts his flock? The pastor must treat the believers in his congregation as he would tenderly and lovingly (yet sometimes firmly) treat a member of his own family – because they are his family! And as our faithful pastors are our examples of godly conduct, we should emulate their life and speech."

I agree.

"This is quite a contrast, then, in how Russell Hunter pridefully, even with contempt, addressed pastors and churches in his Wake Up Church!  video. It is also quite contrary in the methodology AHA employs in their Church Repent project. While saying they do so out of love, their disposition speaks otherwise as they protest and yell at the church through their signs. This is not how we speak to our family. Rather, take a look at how Paul reminded the Thessalonian congregation of how their leaders treated them:

"You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory" (1 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

Consider again how the congregation is to respond to their leaders:

"We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves" (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

And when any exhortation takes place, it must be done with all longsuffering and teaching, as Paul commands Timothy in his second pastoral letter:

"Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2).

This exhortation is never apart from the teaching of sound doctrine (as opposed to what AHA is encouraging), as we see Paul write in his pastoral letter to Titus regarding the qualifications of elders:

"holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9).

And exhortation is never apart from self-control, integrity, dignity, and sound speech:

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us" (Titus 2:6-8).

Dear reader, are you seeing a pattern with these Scriptures?  Do you see that these exhortations are taking place between the elders and their congregation, and the members of the local church among one another? These pastoral epistles were written to pastors and local congregations."

That is not with a contrast of Russell's video. Furthermore, these pastoral epistle were written to local churches to exhort local churches. That's what AHA is doing. There is nowhere in the Bible that says we can't call out sin in a Christian because he doesn't belong to your local church. Aren't you trying to call out sin in Russell when his doesn't belong in your local church, Justin?

"The local church is where the Bride of Christ gathers for worship, and where she is built up, equipped, and sanctified under the teaching ministry of God’s Word and practicing the one anothers. The local church is also where Christ’s sheep are protected from false teaching and false teachers."

I agree.

"That AHA claims to work under the auspices of the universal church is preposterous."

Do you even believe in the universal church, Justin?

"Their working passage of Scripture to justify this claim is Hebrews 10:24, which reads:

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,"

But they neglect the next verse which supplies the context for verse 24:

"not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

It’s quite ironic this verse is so used by AHA, when the founding members largely don’t even belong to a local assembly led by Christ-ordained elders."

Russell does belong to a local church, who want elders.

"Not to mention, the context of stirring up one another to love and good deeds is in the context of the local church and practicing all of the one anothers."

Well, it was written to one church. What else would've the author of Hebrews said? It doesn't negate the fact that Christians can exhort other Christians who don't belong to their church.

"Does this mean we cannot exhort or encourage or admonish or confront a Christian in sin who is not a part of our local church? Of course not..."

Didn't you get that impression though? I guess Justin is telling us to disregard almost everything in his article.

"but even when such takes place and there is a lack of repentance in the case of habitual sin, the only biblical remedy for the unrepentant sinner is for church discipline to take place - in the local church."

So, Justin would wait for the church to do it. What about Trinity Baptist Church, where college students were never confronted by their elder about their sin? Would Justin have us to restrain ourselves from calling out sin? I guess so. The Bible doesn't condemn calling another believer who isn't in your church to repent.

"Borrowing some notes taken from my pastor’s timely sermon last week on the doctrine of the church, the “universal church” doesn’t assemble, the local church does. The local church is an identifiable people who meet in particular locations. While the “invisible church” is comprised of God’s elect, the emphasis of the New Testament is on local churches gathered together by the Spirit of God. Meeting for bible study, home gatherings, or attending the  Together for the Gospel conference is not the church. These gatherings may have representatives from the church, but they are not a representation of the local church. The local church has structure. It has identifiable members with mutual commitment, agreement, and support. Additionally, it practices church discipline and conducts order of worship, all under the overseeing and administration of church offices (elders, deacons)."

I agree that we should submit to the local church, but not be restricted to calling out sin in our local church.

"So what do we do with an organization or subculture in evangelical Christianity that asserts itself as an ecclessiastical authority to bring the Bride of Christ in check? As if this AHA subculture has any biblical command or precedent to subvert the authority of the local church and call its members to repentance to meet AHA’s expectations of abortion abolition?"

Subvert? They are calling the pastors to repent (which will result in the congregants repenting). Who in the local church is above the pastor? Jesus Christ, and the AHA's members by the authority of God's Word can call others to repentance.

"I think a guiding principle for pastors being confronted with people identifying themselves with AHA in support of the Church Repent project can be found in Titus 1:13:

This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.""

Wow! This is out of context! Notice it is referring to "Jewish myths" which has nothing to do with anything similar to AHA.

"The teaching, modeling, and practices of AHA may have already influenced Christians in sound, biblical churches. While I don’t believe I had turned against my local church and desired great patience in hopes our church would be burdened for abortion-related ministry, there were members of the body who sought to come alongside me to share some concerns they had with AHA. But I didn’t listen, and continued in my relationship with the organization. It took the loving, but firm, rebuke from my elders to help me see the path I was headed was one of destruction if I continued to grow in my involvement with AHA. While it took a few more weeks for that to really settle in, the fruit of that meeting with my elders manifested as I grew in my discernment and eventually parted ways with AHA. Why do I share this? Because it may take a sharp rebuke from one’s elders to be sound in the faith and to keep them from going down that same path of destruction."

There isn't anything wrong with AHA (OK, there are a few things wrong that are minor). Also, becoming an abolitionist is not going down the "path of destruction [of hell]."

"But what about those who aren’t listening? What about those who haven’t heeded the warnings about AHA over the last year or more? What about the AHA founders themselves, who say they want dialogue, and they want to unify the church they are protesting? Perhaps 1 Timothy 6:3-5 is appropriate in these cases:

"If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.""

AHA is not "proud, knowing nothing...obsessed with disputes and arguments over words...[filled with] envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, [etc.]".

"Withdrawing from such people may be the only option left..."

No, because AHA isn't guilty of anything in that passage of Scripture.

"...especially for the AHA founders who largely continue in their rebellion to the local church while acting as renegades in protesting the local church."

I already debunked that in part one.

"They are showing themselves to not be holding to doctrine that accords with godliness..."

It's strange that Justin didn't give an example of this.

"... they are showing they are proud..."

In what way?

"...knowing nothing of God’s purposes in and order of the local church..."

No Justin, you are confused about the local church.

"...they are showing themselves to not love sound doctrine..."

No they aren't.

"...they have created commandments of men and insisted that abortion abolition is the necessary fruit in keeping with repentance..."

They may call it a fruit, but they don't call it a necessary fruit.

"...all of which may influence or breed bitterness in the members of a local church to turn against their pastors and anyone else who does not share their passion for abortion-related ministry."

No, it will encourage church members to influence their pastors, not to hate them.

"Admittedly, this has been a long, drawn out series addressing concerns with Abolish Human Abortion and their Church Repent project. I hope by the end of this series there has been less confusion and greater clarity as to why AHA’s teachings and practices are a danger to the local church."

AHA is not a danger to the local church in any way.

"While there has not been a shortage of weeping and gnashing of teeth from AHA’s strongest supporters, there has been exceedingly encouraging feedback that this series matters, and Christ’s people are understanding why AHA is so dangerous. Some have even stated they can no longer associate with AHA as a result of what has been addressed. I praise God for that."

I hope AHA continues.

"Yet some have not understood the reason for this series, and believe it is only stirring up division and controversy."

That's me!

"If this is you, please consider the words of Jude 1:3:

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

Because of my love for the church that Christ died for and for the precious doctrines of the Gospel, I found it necessary to write this series in order to contend for the faith. I believe I have heeded Jude in this regard, and pray you would do the same in seeking to understand why I have written what I have written."

AHA isn't destroying the faith or the gospel in the first place.

"One concern left not addressed is not a concern of my own, but of those who claim to be a part of AHA or an abolitionist society, and they take issue with some of the charges being made in this series. While I have no doubt whatsoever there are sound, biblically-faithful Christians in this movement, who do desire to love their preborn neighbors and those enslaved by sin, and who do desire for the church to awake from its apathy (this author agrees with you), these precious brothers and sisters must know that their identifying themselves with AHA unfortunately leaves them with AHA baggage."

All of the AHA "baggage" has already been refuted.

"You might not endorse the Church Repent project, or agree with how AHA communicates their message (such as language that borderlines the Galatian heresy)..."

Stop calling AHA heretics when they aren't even close to heresy.

"...but every time you wear the logo, you are identified with everything AHA represents. It is no different than wearing a 40 Days for Life t-shirt and being identified with an ecumenical, idolatrous organization. Our associations matter, and they speak on some level our worldview or beliefs."

That's why I support AHA, because it's a good community!

"I understand that AHA has some great materials. I understand that a lot of what they say is true and powerful stuff. Trust me, I wish all of the great things AHA has done or is doing was not so tainted by the perhaps small number of things that are significantly wrong. But these few wrong things overshadow the many number of good things AHA is doing because of the nature of the errors. Having said this, do not let your love for the preborn and desire to see unity in the Body of Christ trump your love for truth. We must not ever compromise the truth in order to win a cause or cultivate a facade of unity."

Why then are you saying things that are untrue, Justin?

"If you walk away from AHA, know there are other means to do this work in a God-glorifying and effective manner – one that will truly edify the church and serve to bring an end to abortion according to the perfect will of God. I hope to discuss some of these things in detail in a future article.

As for AHA’s founders, my remaining hope is that you would indeed repent from protesting the Bride of Christ. My hope is that you would consider what has been said with regards to your antagonistic disposition toward the local church. My hope is that you consider how you are communicating your message – if you believe what you have said, then repent; but if you believe you have been misunderstood, remove the things that are causing confusion and provide clarity throughout your websites to the contrary. Most importantly, immediately submit to the authority of the local church by seeking elders to place over you, that you might show humility in obedience to leaders Christ has appointed to the church, and that you might show that you are truly a part of the church that Christ died for."

All of this has been refuted already, you don't have to repeat it, Justin.

Well, that's the end of this series, I hope some confusion was cleared up by it.