Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

I don't think it's obvious that the Gay Pride rainbow flag actually is the Mark of the Beast. I do think it's obvious that there is a typological correspondence between the two. A Typological Correspondence is when two things are related in the sense that the first thing is the type, and the second thing is the fulfillment. In the Bible there are many types of Christ. A couple of examples:

1. Adam is a type of Christ in that he exercised federal headship over his children (not just his direct biological children). Jesus is the fulfillment, because He is to us what Adam should have been, but couldn't be. For more on this, see Romans 5.
2. David is a type of Christ because he was a godly king. Jesus is also a King, but He is the King who has never failed. Jesus never failed to exercise justice (Ammon), committed sexual sin (Bathsheba), etc. Jesus is what David should have been, but couldn't be. He is the King that Israel always longed for.

In the same way, there are types in the negative sense as well. Rachel Held Evans, for example, isn't The Antichrist, but she is an antichrist. The Antichrist will be like her, in that he will defy God, hate the Bible, and lead people into sin, but he will do so on a much greater scale. Other types of The Antichrist would be men such as Matthew Vines, Arius, Brian McLaren, etc.

With that understood, here's what I mean about the Gay Pride flag:

The Mark of the Beast is intrinsically idolatrous, requiring you to obey The Beast, rather than God's Law. The Gay Pride flag is a celebration of abominations.
You cannot take the Mark of the Beast without worshiping the Beast. You also cannot take the Rainbow Flag without worshiping secular humanism and sexual depravity. The Gay Pride flag is an idol.
You cannot take the Mark of the Beast and be a Christian at the same time. You also cannot be a supporter of gay pride and a Christian at the same time.
Those who refuse to take the Mark of the Beast are removed from society, and not allowed to buy or sell. The Gay Rights movement is determined to remove Christians from society by pushing us to the margins, and to stop Christians from buying or selling by removing us from the economy. This is a regular feature of their activism: exerting economic pressure to cow opponents into submission. Further, literally all of the Christian persecution of the West arises from the purveyors of the Mark—I mean Gay Pride flag.

It's possible (but still unlikely) that the Gay Pride flag actually is the Mark of the Beast, but I think it's clear that the Gay Pride flag is a type of the Mark, and that the Mark will be like the Gay Pride flag in important, significant ways.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

I've often been challenged on the idea of taking the Bible literally, and the most common example is Jesus' words in Matthew 5: "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."

I'll bite that bullet. Let's take that one literally too. Jesus is saying that it is LITERALLY better to be blind than to be addicted to porn. He's saying that it is LITERALLY better to be blind than to watch Game of Thrones, 50 Shades of Grey, or other pornographic TV shows/movies.

Jesus is disarming us. We try to say that we just can't stop sinning, and He's saying that if we still have our eyes, we haven't tried hard enough. It's a simple fact that most people caught up in sin haven't done nearly enough to get out of it. Jesus is taking all of your excuses away.

Over against false teachers like Tullian Tchividjian, Jesus is commanding us to strive for holiness. He's commanding us to do more to struggle against sin. In the words of Hebrews: "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood."

That's the standard. In our struggle against our own sin, let's give up our excuses, beg for His Strength, lean on the Body of Christ, and start making war on our sin. Literally.

Jesus did.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

When I say that feminists are barbarians, I mean that in the strongest possible sense: they are literally destroying our society, brick by brick. Let's take a look at the highlight reel.

-Genital Mutilation (euphemized as "transsexuality")
-No-fault Divorce
-The de-stigmatization of promiscuity
-The wholesale destruction of the American Family
-Same sex mirage (no, that's not a typo)

I could go on and on. In fact, nearly every crisis in modern western civilization traces its roots in a straight line back to Feminism. It takes concerted effort to produce a modern crisis that has not been caused by Feminism. Feminism is the most destructive idea in the history of the world, even surpassing Communism (a truly amazing feat, given that Communism murdered 200 million people).

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Link in original]

A new study says that Republicans are happier with their marriages. At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, this is completely predictable. If you believe (as Republicans do) that marriage is:

1. A sacred covenant
2. A lifelong vow
3. The fundamental building block of society

...marriage will be important to you, you'll take it seriously, and you'll do it better. If you believe (as Democrats do) that marriage is primarily:

1. A vehicle for grand social experiments.
2. A temporary arrangement that should be able to be dissolved at any time for any reason.

...then we shouldn't be surprised when your marriage isn't nearly as successful as the person who views it as a sacred, lifelong covenant upon which (collectively) the fate of our entire society rests. Actions follow beliefs.

Specifically, Democrats don't think marriage is important, and that translates to them not viewing their own marriage as being nearly as significant as Republicans do. It isn't remotely surprising that this produces measurably worse outcomes.

Ace #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[To clarify, the disclaimer is part of the original article.]

Disclaimer: before I begin, I wish to stress that this is a secondary issue, and I don't question anyone's salvation based on their answers to these questions. Further, I aim to examine the reaction of Christians to Ronda, not to criticize Ronda herself.

Many of my Christian friends are talking about Ronda Rousey today, so here are a few questions to help us think more carefully about her:

1. Which Bible verse leads you to the conclusion that you should celebrate women kicking each other in the face?

2. The Lord told David "You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood." How should this inform our understanding of God's character as it relates to violence?

3. A Christian man would never hit a woman. If a woman is beaten to a bloody pulp, is that suddenly acceptable if the blows came from another woman?

4. Would you want your wife, sister, or daughter to be clobbered by another woman for sport? Would you want your wife, sister, or daughter to be the one doing the thrashing? Are we to believe that elbowing women in the face will help Ronda be a better wife/mother someday?

5. Scripture declares the women are the "weaker vessel," meaning that women are designed for more gentle purposes (compare a wine glass with a goblet). How does this truth inform our opinion of a sport where women rain haymakers down on each other?

6. Most of the people reading this had a visceral reaction to Michael Vick's dogfighting activities. Have we really become a society where it is unthinkable for our dogs to fight but it's celebrated when our women fight? Secular people view Consent as the highest moral factor, but should Christians celebrate when people consent to hurting themselves and others?

7. Jael was celebrated in Scripture for being violent in a situation where violence was necessary. Where does Scripture celebrate unnecessary violence?

8. Christian men have rightly rejected sending women into the front lines of combat. If we wouldn't send women off to war, should we send them into an octagon?

9. If Ronda is permanently injured or disfigured, is it worth it for our entertainment? For a more likely scenario, if Ronda permanently injures or disfigures another woman, is that an acceptable cost?

10. God's Word holds up figures like Sarah, Mary, Abigail, and Esther as the paragons of womanly virtue. Can you imagine any of them pummeling another woman for sport? Are we to presume that pulverizing other women fits into the Proverbs 31 model?

Lindsay Harold #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

One major problem that people often have in looking at situations like babies dying in the Flood or being killed at God's command is that you aren’t looking at how God’s perspective differs from ours. God can see all of history, not just one moment of it at a time. He can see how every action and inaction affects everything else down through time.

Also, God is interested in eternity, not so much our time on earth. We tend to think of our life on earth as the main part of our existence. But to God, our time on earth is merely the beginning of an eternal existence. It’s a drop in the bucket, a speck, a mere second compared to the rest of our existence in eternity. And it’s eternity that really matters. God’s purpose is to have as many people as possible freely join Him in heaven for eternity.

So, considering God’s perspective, if someone dies early or dies a painful death and more people end up in heaven because of it, it is good. If a baby dies and goes to heaven rather than growing up to defy God and go to hell, that is good. If one person goes to hell and two end up in heaven because of that, it is good. We can’t see all of the effects of the things that happen here on earth, but God can. So until you can see with God’s perspective, you have no call to judge any of His actions.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Context: The post this comes from is entitled "In Appreciation for my Brothers and Sisters in Abolish Human Abortion". Tim's reason for the piece is to demonstrate his support of AHA, despite having some disagreements with them. The images from the original post are not included to save space.]

1. AHA is unapologetically Christian, and remarkably gospel-centered.
By far, the best thing I see in videos, posts, graphics, and other media by AHA is how much Scripture they use, and how central the Gospel is to everything they do. Where there is no prophetic revelation, the people perish (Proverbs 29:18). AHA brings God's Word to bear on everything, casting down strongholds and taking every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ. We need more of this. Thank you, brothers, for being such a good example.

2. AHA sees revival in the church as the key to ending abortion.
As the picture above demonstrates, the reason that many Christians are not motivated to abolish abortion is that they do not love their neighbors. At a minimum, loving your neighbor requires you to prevent him from being slaughtered. If any issue is worth our full attention, abortion is. They're killing children!

But don't take it from me. We know they are killing children--all of us know.

3. AHA is boldly proclaiming the truth.
When children are being slaughtered by the millions, that is not a time to be the tone police. AHA is willing to speak the truth, and they're willing to face the consequences. In an age of great cowardice, that makes them the good guys.

4. AHA is on the front lines.
It's one thing to write things on the internet against abortion. It's another thing to go to the death camps and beg mothers not to slaughter their children, or urge fathers not to allow their children to be murdered. Writing things on the internet is nice, but it takes guts to go to the death camps.

It cannot be denied that members of AHA have saved the lives of innocent children. It cannot be denied that AHA members have brought lost souls into the Kingdom. It cannot be denied that AHA does what it does for the sake of their King.

And that's what it's really about, isn't it? Serving the King. Thank you, brothers and sisters. You are appreciated. Your service is not in vain. May all of us be faithful servants, and may we always remember our bond of brotherhood, even when we disagree.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Gunther is a rhinoceros. Today, he finds himself in the middle of a jewelry store. Being a very excitable rhinoceros, he has obliterated the jewelry shop within 10 minutes of entering it. The aisles are skinny, but Gunther is plump, and a jewelry store is just a terrible situation for a rhinoceros to find himself in. He's going to break something.

As you might guess, rhinoceroses (rhinoceri?) don't end up in jewelry shops by accident. Specifically, Gunther finds himself in this jewelry shop because David put up roadblocks to herd him into this shop, and even opened the door to let him in.

In this situation, who caused the destruction of the jewelry shop?

1. Gunther, who broke the stuff in the shop
2. David, who herded Gunther into the shop
3. Both of them

One more, for good measure: let's say that I make arrangements for Butch, a very large man with a temper problem, to come into contact with several very offensive hooligans. Nature takes its course, and he gives those hooligans a sound beating. Who caused the beating?

1. Butch, who actually threw the punches
2. Me, who arranged for Butch to come into contact with these hooligans, knowing what would happen
3. Both of us

This is how God can cause things without having to pull puppet strings.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Aside from an image, this is the entire post; the ellipses are in the original]

Let's take a look at the major causes of fatherlessness:

1. No-fault divorce
2. The de-stigmatization of promiscuity
3. Stigmatization of Patriarchy (fatherly authority)

Now let's take a look at the goals of the feminist movement:

1. No-fault divorce
2. The de-stigmatization of promiscuity
3. Stigmatization of Patriarchy (fatherly authority)

I'm not saying that fatherlessness was an explicit objective of Feminism. I'm saying that if fatherlessness had been an explicit objective of Feminism...

...they wouldn't have done anything differently.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Bolding in original]

Feminism is a rejection of biblical morality and a rebellion against the commands of the Lord Jesus.

“If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” ([I John] 2:15).

In this verse, John uses “loves the world” to discuss a love of sin. Feminism attempts to normalize, promote, and affirm sinful behavior of every kind.

“We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (4:6).

Feminism is, fundamentally, a rejection of apostolic authority recorded in Scripture. Any remotely intelligible concept of “listening to” the Apostles must include agreement with the Apostles on which people are going to Heaven and which are not. When the apostles declare that the sexually immoral do not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6, I Tim. 1, Rev. 21), anyone who listens to them must affirm it. To reject the apostles’ teaching on issues of salvation is to reject their teaching wholesale. Anyone who does so is not from God.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Bolding mine]

Feminism draws several stark contrasts with the truth of revealed Scripture, rejecting biblical paradigms at every turn. In fact, for the Christian, feminism is best described as a declaration of war against the Bible’s teaching on sexuality. It should be recognized up front that feminism is not a Christian worldview; in fact it is an anti-Christian worldview. The Bible teaches that God created us Male and Female. Feminism teaches that gender is a social construct. The Bible teaches that men and women have distinct roles. Feminism teaches that the gender roles are evil and the Bible is an evil, patriarchal book. Those who hold to Feminism with even a modicum of consistency are lost. Many of them are themselves antichrists.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently admitted a Muslim student who was pursuing a doctorate in archaeology (not theology), under special circumstances. All emphases in original.]

1. As a godly man recently told me, you become what you tolerate. Think about the precedent [SWBTS president Paige] Patterson has set. Instead of "This Seminary exists to train Christian pastors to preach Christ," we've now arrived at "As long as there are more Christians than unbelievers, we're still good. They're 'sold-out evangelists,' after all." There are no brakes on this train. By Patterson's standards, the ends (people getting saved) justify the means (violating policy and admitting unbelievers). Just think how many unbelievers might get saved by going to Seminary! Why not admit 100 staunch atheists next year? Let's get them saved! If SWBTS wants to become a school that educates Muslims to spread Islam, they've certainly chosen the right course.
2. A member of the Board of Trustees spoke immediately after him, and it is clear that they support him. This means that Patterson will continue to flout policy and destroy the Seminary's mission in the process.
3. Muslims are not on our team. American Christians risk nothing by openly preaching the Gospel in front of American Muslims, but think about some possibilities: if a Muslim goes to a convocation about the underground church in Saudi Arabia, he has no reason not to call his Saudi Arabian buddy and tell him where the Christians are hiding. It is very possible that our brothers and sisters will die because of this decision.
4. Don't miss the applause at the end of Patterson's speech. The fact that so many attendants support him is incredibly troubling. In the one place where he must be held accountable, he was supported. Stunning.

It should be apparent by now that the battle for the Southern Baptist Seminaries has not yet been won. When a mere profession of Christian faith is no longer required to be admitted to our seminaries, we have lost our way as a denomination.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

There's a reason that egalitarians around the country are suddenly having epiphanies to the effect that the Bible doesn't mean what it says about homosexuality. Egalitarians have no reason to oppose homosexuality, and some of them are starting to admit it. If "I do not permit a woman to teach" really means "it's ok for women to be pastors," then "homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God" might actually mean "homosexuality is totally fine. There's a famous book that makes this very argument. In fact, it's so brave of them to be who they are." If you're willing to accommodate feminism on gender roles, why not homosexuality?

You're on a path to liberalism. Might as well admit it. Homosexuality is where egalitarianism ends.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

One of the most prevalent arguments surrounding the issue of homosexuality is over whether or not homosexuals are "born this way." Much ink has been spilled on this topic, and I've seen many Christians absolutely go to the mat trying to prove that same-sex attraction is not an inborn trait. That's a mistake. It's a mistake because the entire discussion is pointless. Really.

--If same-sex attraction isn't genetic, then it's an environmentally-produced temptation to sin. It must be resisted.
--If same-sex attraction is genetic, then it's a genetically-produced temptation to sin. It must be resisted.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Tim responds to a satirical article titled "When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ" that ridicules the idea that women are responsible for men lusting after them when they wear "immodest" clothing.]

As it says at the bottom, the article is satire. So right away, we know that suits don't even have to be reconsidered. But I have to wonder: has the author of that article read Luke 17? How can any follower of Christ trivialize something that Jesus says is "millstone around your neck" level of seriousness? If something is a big deal to Jesus, shouldn't it be a big deal to us? But let's talk about how we would respond if this was a serious article:

1. We find out if any other girls have this problem (I haven't heard of any)
2. If it is a common problem, then we ditch the suits (this is why I swim with a shirt on).
3. If it is not a common problem. then we counsel this woman since her lust is completely out of control. We teach her a biblical theology of sexuality, put her on an intense bible reading plan so that her mind can be renewed, and suggest major lifestyle changes to get her out of bondage (such as not watching TV and movies for a while).

The article's snide conceit is derived from the (relatively common) belief that no one would ever stop wearing (commonly accepted article of clothing) because it is a stumbling block to others. They're wrong. Millions of Christians do that very thing on a daily basis. And why wouldn't we (hypothetically) give up suits?

Does not holiness (being set apart) mean that we have to actually be different from the world?
Does caring for our brothers and sisters (for whom Christ died) not demand that we make sacrifices on their behalf?
Does a biblical worldview leave any room for unfettered individual autonomy as the highest good? (as opposed to submission to God)
Does "take up your cross" not require us to live differently on a day-to-day basis because God's Word demands it?

The answer to all of these questions is of course. Articles like this one are only written in America, because Americans are so pampered that we've lost any sense of proportion. We are so free and so wealthy that we treat the smallest inconveniences as major hardships.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Two people see a poor person starving to death. Here are their respective reactions:

Charitable Giver:

“That person is in need. Since I have more than I need, I will buy that person a sandwich so they don’t starve to death.”


“That person is in need. I could help them myself, but instead I’ll simply create a government that forces a rich person to buy that poor person a sandwich. That way I don’t have to help that poor person myself, and I get to feel morally superior to people who don’t force other people to buy sandwiches for poor people.”

All together now: Socialism is not sharing. Sharing is voluntary, socialism is forced.

Jesus advocated sharing, not socialism. Never did Jesus command "feed the poor with other people's money." No, Jesus commanded us to give our own money to help the poor. But we don't like to sacrifice, so we replace the beauty of sacrificial giving with the brute force of socialism.

Jesus deserves and demands that we do better.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[From a year-old post about the anti-gay comments made by ESPN's Chris Broussard, who still works for ESPN as of May 1, 2014; bolding mine.]

An ESPN the Magazine Senior Writer said that homosexuals aren't Christians and that they're living in open rebellion against God (he's right, of course).

Incredible. You can tell that he doesn't care that he's going to lose his job over this. He just committed career suicide to affirm what the Bible says. Amazing courage.

And make no mistake, dear reader: he will be fired. There's no way ESPN will allow him to keep his job after this. If they fired Anthony Federico for what was obviously an honest mistake ("chink in the armor" is a very common idiom), they'll definitely fire Broussard.

Based on what I've seen so far, I would expect that he will rejoice to have been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name (Acts 5:41). This sort of moment is going to come for every Christian in America. Here's hoping that we all have the courage stand up the way that Chris Broussard did.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Bible-believing Christian: Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, clearly, in several places.
Culture-believing Christian: You're not supposed to judge!
Bible: What do you think about the holocaust?
Culture: It was Horrible! Obviously....
Bible: Why was it horrible?
Culture: Because a bunch of people were murdered!
Bible: Why does it bother you that people were murdered?
Culture: Because Genocide is wrong! What's wrong with you?
Bible: Aren't you judging Hitler?
Culture: Well....
Bible: What's the difference between me saying that homosexuality is wrong and you saying that Genocide is wrong? Aren't both of us judging?
Culture: You're a homophobe!
Bible: Classy. Is that your judgment of me? Have you judged me to be guilty of homophobia? That's the second time you've judged today!
Culture: Stop judging me! You're not supposed to judge!
Bible: So are you going to retract your earlier statement that Genocide is wrong? Or are you going to admit that sometimes judging can be productive and helpful?
Culture: [storms off]

Tim Dukeman #conspiracy afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Since it's relevant to the first few sentences, the title of this piece is "Is Climate Change a Trojan Horse?"]

I've already posted about Climate Change more broadly, but the question in the title was posed to me, so here's my response:

"It depends on what you mean by that." Do I think that (most) liberals are intending to use Climate Change to take away our freedoms or to make government more intrusive than it already is? No. I don't think that.

Do I think that Climate Change will function as a Trojan Horse? Of course I do. I pay attention. I understand basic human nature. I've noticed that we're ruled by tyrants (wearing both red and blue ties). The fact that Climate Change is not intended to be a Trojan Horse does not mean that it will not become a Trojan Horse.

To understand the conservative perspective on this, you have to understand the significance of the Contraception Mandate. Obama and Sebelius took a law about health care and used it to functionally destroy the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. If Hobby Lobby loses that case, then Rights of Conscience are dead in America. A Health Care law was used to destroy religious freedom. Absolutely stunning. There's nothing in Obamacare that even talks about religion!

When you understand that the ruling class is willing to destroy the singular principle on which most American colonies were founded---for the sake of birth control no less, then you understand that we simply cannot give government that much power. If Climate Change is to be fixed, it must be fixed by means other than government mandate, lest that government mandate be used to move us even closer to fascism.

It is eminently possible that future historians will tell of the day that America lost religious freedom on the altar of birth control. We can only hope that other important freedoms will not be lost on the altar of Climate Change.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[The "Editor's Note" is in the original, as are all the italics and such]

Editor's Note: If you are unfamiliar with the terminology, "egalitarian" refers to people who reject the idea that husbands are to lead and wives are to submit. They also affirm female pastors.

I have yet to meet a (staunch) egalitarian who cares in the slightest what Scripture actually says. (there are a few egalitarians who simply need to be informed, but they aren't staunch about it).

What I have encountered is a lot of egalitarians who care deeply what Scripture is supposed to say.

Specifically, Scripture is supposed to say (and mean) exactly what Feminism teaches. How else will they maintain their precious cultural respectability? Not surprisingly, egalitarians are (frequently) the same folks who have suddenly discovered that Paul wasn't talking about loving, caring homosexual relationships in Romans 1, and just in time. It was about temple prostitutes, you see. When Paul said that God gave them up to "dishonorable passions," and they in turn "gave up natural relations," that was just rhetorical flair. Sometimes the Holy Spirit gets carried away.

Do all egalitarians embrace the abomination of homosexuality? Of course not. By the grace of God, some of them are inconsistent.

But the underlying way of reading Scripture is the same. If you embrace the trajectory of liberating oppressed groups, then there are all sorts of arguments for both homosexuals and women fitting that criteria. The real story is that the apostles were trying to move us to a place where men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals can all live in acceptance and tolerance. Perhaps there could be some Kum by Ya in there somewhere.

And, as we've already discussed, the fact that Scripture says the opposite (I Timothy 2 & 3, I Peter 3, Eph 5, etc.) isn't a problem for these folks because, again, there don't seem to be any staunch egalitarians who care what Scripture actually says. They only care what Scripture is supposed to say. But who knows? Maybe they're out there. Maybe there are staunch egalitarians who care what Scripture actually says. Maybe they're at 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney.

Let me know if you find one.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

You're sitting in the doctor's office, and he comes in to tell you the results of your biopsy. You have a malignant tumor, and only a massive surgery will save your life. If the cancer is not cut out, it will spread, and it will kill you.

In response to this news, you get very angry with your doctor. How dare he tell you that part of your body is bad? How dare he tell you to divide the body into good parts and bad parts? He's being very negative! Why can't he just talk about all of the good parts of your body that are working just fine? Why can't he just tell you how to eat a nutritional diet? Does anyone know what your doctor is for? He spends all his time telling you what he's against!


Everyone reading this parable immediately understands that it is utterly foolish to blame the messenger. It's not your doctor's fault that you have cancer. He's only delivering the news.

But if you replace "cancer" in the above parable with "heresy", there is suddenly less agreement. But why? Is Spiritual Cancer somehow less bad than physical cancer? Why do we attack and vilify spiritual doctors who deliver bad news? To put it more bluntly:

How many more people have to die (spiritually or even physically) before you start caring?

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[All emphases are in the original except for the underlining, which is used to clarify a quote]

If you haven't heard yet, World Vision has changed its hiring policy to allow individuals in legally-recognized same-sex marriages.


...World Vision has declared that a person can live openly, proudly, and unrepentantly in a lifestyle that the Bible calls "unnatural," "detestable," and "an abomination" and still be a Christian. Which is the exact opposite of what the Bible says:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6)

Don't miss the beautiful picture of the Gospel in these verses. Before Christ, we were caught in all kinds of sins that would keep us out of the Kingdom of God. But we have been washed, sanctified, and justified! We are not the same! We have been forever changed by the precious blood of the Lamb of God. In contrast, World Vision teaches that we can enter the Kingdom of God without being washed, sanctified, and justified, settling on a gospel that literally sends people to Hell.

Consequently, World Vision is no longer a Christian organization. It seems clear that Christian people should support Christian organizations over non-Christian organizations that do the same work. For contrast, let's examine this statement by Samaritan's Purse President Franklin Graham:

I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin.

The call to help the poor is an important one, and we must take seriously the biblical commands to do so. However, there is no reason to partner with the workers of darkness. The Bible is very clear on this point. In II Chronicles 20, The LORD sent a prophet to rebuke Jehoshaphat (king of Judah) for joining with Ahaziah (wicked king of Israel) to build ships. That's it. And if God cares about our associations when we partner with someone to build ships, how much more does God care about our associations when we do His work in His Name? This is what the Holy Spirit says:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. (II Corinthians 6)

For Conscientious Christians, the Boycott of World Vision starts today. We must not allow World Vision to proclaim a false gospel with our money. We must not support World Vision over Christian charities. We must not fellowship with darkness. We must not allow Christian Love to be mutilated, and Christian Compassion to be shipwrecked.

If World Vision wants to send people to Hell in the name of humanitarianism, they can do it on someone else's dime.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

History is replete with examples of people embracing their identity as victims, seizing power, and then using that power to reshape society.

It hasn't ended well.
--The French did it in the late 1700s. There was a Reign of Terror.
---The Russians did it in the early 1900s. We had a Great Purge.
--The Chinese did it in the middle 1900s, and their Great Leap Forward was over a huge pile of dead bodies.

The only exception to this trend is the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Instead of going to war with the people who disagreed with them, MLK sought to encourage brotherhood. In short, the Civil Rights Movement didn't fall prey to the excesses of these others because they weren't intent on punishing those who disagreed with them.

Which path will the gay rights movement take? I can't be sure, but if rhetoric is any indication, they seem quite ready to dust off the guillotines. Maybe we can also get some Hate Speech laws to punish anti-revolutionary activities? Bring back the House Un-American Activities Committee? Perhaps we can send all the enemies of equality to internment camps?

Am I speaking in hyperbole? Of course. I don't expect that the gay rights movement will seek to literally cut anyone's head off. But I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they will try to force everyone who disagrees with them out of the public square. It is the "price of citizenship" after all. I do think it's possible that religious liberty will be defined down to the point that it doesn't confer any additional rights. I do think it's possible that thousands of Christians will eventually end up in jail because the gay rights proponents wanted someone to punish, or they weren't willing to tolerate people who are on the "wrong side of history."

It's happened before.

If you're a gay rights supporter, you need to think seriously about what you're willing to do to win. If you don't think about how far you're willing to go, you're in serious danger of becoming much worse than the oppressors you fight.

Tim Dukeman #conspiracy afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Climate change is a very confusing discussion. Let's simplify. The answer to this question:

Are human beings causing all or most of the observed climate changes?

...does not matter. One more time: it does not matter if human beings are causing climate change or not. Two reasons:

1. We can't stop it.

What the alarmists don't tell you is that it does not matter how much the United States changes course if the rest of the world does not do the same thing. If the Democrats had gotten their way in 2009 and passed climate change, it would have certainly wrecked the economy (even more). And only for a chance of possibly avoiding the effects of climate change. Let me say it again: unless every other country in the world passes a cap and trade bill, it won't matter what the US does. And the odds of Putin-led Russia passing a climate change bill? Practically zero. Ditto for Communist China. The problem isn't getting fixed.

Certain economic misery for a chance of avoiding consequences that really aren't that bad. Stunning.

2. The Solution is worse than the Problem

Even the worst-case scenarios for climate change really aren't that bad. We might lose a few coastal cities. That's it. The measures necessary to address climate change are so unacceptable that it is not worth it to fix the problem. In the United Kingdom, efforts to stop climate change have literally killed people.

If climate change is real, we should be directing our efforts into moving the relevant cities to new locations that are well above sea level. It's a simple fact of history that cities move, peoples move, and times change. The ability to adapt used to be an important value for Americans. What happened to that?

So there you have it. We have a solution that's worse than the problem, and a problem that most likely won't ever be fixed. Perhaps we should reconsider drastic actions.

Finally, I'll give you my position on global warming: I support it. I support the earth getting warmer. It's too cold most of the year. The best thing you can do for the world is to emit more carbon!

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Tim responds to the following comment:

"Hey - Sorry I pissed you off enough for you to unfriend me. Wasn't my intention to troll you or just antagonize you. I was under the mistaken belief that our back and forth was engaging, enjoyable on some level for both of us. I'd begun to believe that an odd friendship was even forming. I was surprised and disappointed when I realized you'd dropped me. Mostly I feel misunderstood I think. Also I'll miss participating in the lively discussions that occurred often on your wall. When I disagreed, I tried to do so agreeably. Anyway, best of luck with seminary, marriage, and life. While I can only speak to two of those, I'm sure all three are challenging. Ryan"]

You concede zero points. There's no point in discussing with you. I can't get you to admit that feminism is behind no-fault divorce. I can't get you to admit that Christians can't support homosexuality. These are basic, obvious things.

I also don't talk math with people who won't concede 2 + 2.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

I finally got around to watching the Bill Nye The Science Guy? vs. Ken Ham debate. As many have said, it was an instance of Ham acknowledging his assumptions while Nye refused to admit that he was assuming anything. I appreciated Ham's commitment to discussing presuppositions, instead of getting bogged down with how to properly understand a rock we dug up.

But my biggest takeaway? There are a lot of sophisticated, educated Christians with letters attached to their name, and most of them look down their nose at Ken Ham, using monikers like "fundamentalist" to dismiss and deride him.

These are the same types who insist that Holy Scripture is the result of an extended Telephone Game, rather than being breathed out by God. They have very sophisticated explanations like Q Theory and J.E.D.P. Theory to explain how we got the Bible, rather than simply affirming that men wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Me? I'll take Ken Ham's simple faith and trust in God's word. You can keep your diplomas, doctorates, and high-brow vocabulary. He doesn't get it all right, but his theology is orthodox and his views on everything are founded on Scripture. How many of us can honestly say that? Is Jesus going to congratulate us: "Well done, good and faithful scholar"?

Before anyone says it, I am certainly not saying that we should embrace anti-intellectualism. I'm only saying that if your intellectualism doesn't start with the Bible, you're doing it wrong. And I see a lot of the university types starting with science, logic, reason, or even tradition. None of those things are Scripture. Start with Scripture. The rest of it will take care of itself.

Ken Ham humbly submits to God's Word and has spent his life encouraging others to believe Christ's words: "Your Word is truth." I pray that my life will be spent doing that very same thing. And if there are dinosaurs involved, all the better.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

It is so sad when I quote the Bible, but I can't get a professed Christian to say that they agree with my quote from the Bible. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination against God, so let's get a few things straight. If you think that...

You can improve on the Holy Spirit's word choice
The Scriptures which have been breathed out by God are too harsh
We should find less offensive ways to talk about sin (instead of quoting the Bible)

...we have a problem. A big problem.

I could keep going, but you get the point. In an age of great deception, it is completely unacceptable for a Christian to apologize for the Bible. It is unacceptable to refuse to affirm what the Bible explicitly says.

Please, care enough to speak the truth. Care enough to speak the perfect words of God, recorded in Scripture. The Bible is the perfect, inspired, inerrant Word of God, and believing that should affect how we talk.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Regarding the recent lesbian couple on Good Luck Charlie]

This post is more of a public service announcement than anything, since I know many Christian parents who allow their kids to watch hours and hours of the Disney Channel. It seems to be harmless. Perhaps, in the past, it was harmless.

That is no longer the case. The Disney Channel is no longer safe for your children.


If you know any Christian parents (or non-Christian parents who don't want their kids to be indoctrinated into thinking that homosexuality is morally acceptable), pass this post along to them. Get the word out.

The Disney Channel is not safe for your children. Please, protect them from Satan's lies.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[All emphases his.]

For the purpose of this post, I'm going to assume two premises:

1. Jesus is God. When I say this, I mean that Jesus is 100% God (and 100% man). He is fully God. He is not 1/3 of God. He possesses in Himself all of the fullness of divinity.

2. The orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity is true. This means that God exists in three persons, which maintain separate identities, yet remain fully one. Don't ask me how that works, exactly. But we do know that when one Member of the Trinity acts, the other two act in concert. This is the pattern throughout Scripture: we are saved by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of the sacrifice of the Son, and to the glory of God the Father, who gave His only begotten Son (who in turn gave us His Holy Spirit).

Every Christian in the world is still with me (if you're not with me, you're by definition not a Christian). The trouble seems to come in when we actually apply the truths above. We have this idea that Jesus is very, very separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions.

But Jesus is God, and the Trinity means that all three members act in concert with one another. They have the same nature, the same sense of right and wrong, and they assist in and approve of all of each other's actions. Which means:

1. Jesus closed the Red Sea, killing Pharaoh's entire army.
2. Jesus flooded the world and killed everyone except Noah and his family.
3. Jesus ordered the Israelites to slaughter everyone in (certain parts of) Canaan.
4. Jesus killed Ananias and Sapphira for lying
5. Jesus sent bears to kill the youths who mocked Elisha

...and the list goes on. It's amazing what kinds of conclusions automatically follow from the premises that all Christians already accept.

In conclusion, please don't be a Marcionite. Be a Christian. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We don't have to apologize for the "big, bad Old Testament God."

Jesus is the Old Testament God.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

Two groups of people need to read this: Liberals and Christians. If you're neither of those, you can happily keep scrolling. But if you are a member of either group, we need to get something straight. It really is amazing how much trouble you can get into for....quoting the Bible. You're surely tired of hearing about Mr. Duck Commander, so I'll make this quick. Since the controversy erupted over the GQ article, liberal websites having been digging around for more instances of Phil Robertson saying what the Bible says about homosexuality.

In contrast to Louie Giglio, they didn't have to go back 17 years to find what they were looking for. The Raw Story was able to find this clip of Phil preaching, and it was upsetting to many of the rainbow types. The quote [Business Insider writer Josh Barro] is really mad about?

"full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless."

...is a paraphrase of Romans 1. Here's Romans 1:

"They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."

For clarity, the verse isn't talking only about homsexuals (though they are included), and Phil wasn't either. I'm going to keep saying this until the liberals get it: you hate the Bible. The Bible is what you hate. It's not particular Christians who are especially "hateful." It's every Christian who takes the Bible seriously. Phil Robertson takes the Bible seriously, which is why liberals get so mad at him.

I said I was going to make this quick, so I'll wrap it up: to be a Christian, you are going to have to make a decision. If America was ever a Christian nation, it is no longer, so you must count the cost. You're going to have to decide if you want these verses to summarize your life:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5)

For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you. (1 Peter 4)

Count the cost. Living for Christ in a culture that hates God? It's going to require sacrifice. But I hope and pray that you will see that it's worth it. If those verses above don't summarize your life, this verse will:

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

A short list of things that consistent egalitarians believe:

For the first 1970 years of Christianity, every Christian everywhere got the issue of women's ordination wrong.
Since the husband/wife relationship parallels God and His people, God submits to us.
Somewhere around 1970, we finally figured out what Paul and Peter really meant about gender roles.
Logistics dictate that the buck must stop and someone must submit. Egalitarians exclude male headship, making them closet Matriarchs.
If you read Greek, you'd know that the Bible really means the opposite of what it says. Except Galatians 3:28.
20th Century scholars know how to translate Koine Greek better than 1st Century Christians.
Paul is a hypocrite who forbids Timothy/Titus to have female elders but tells the Romans that Junia is an elder.
One heavily disputed verse in Romans 16 repealed all of the Old Testament precedent of male leadership.
Sarah called Abraham "Lord" (I Peter 3) to signify the mutual submission in their relationship.
Paul forbids a woman even to pray in church unless her head is covered. He really wants women to be in charge.
Jesus picked 12 people to lead His Church, and Zero of them were women. We should not be like Jesus.

If it sounds like heresy, that's because it is.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[All bolding, italics, etc. in original]

I'll explain the Problem of Evil by quoting the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him 'God'?

Some trumpet this argument as a completely devastating critique of Christianity. They're wrong. You have two options for resolving this problem, and they both work if you have the right perspective:

1. God decides what happens, and it happens because He wills it. If this is the case, and the point of our existence is to glorify God (not please ourselves), then God is glorified by those He saves and by those he damns. God gets glory, and God wins. Evil isn't a problem, since God still gets glory by judging/destroying evil. (See Romans 9)
When bad things happen, the fair question to ask would be "Why doesn't God cause even more bad things to happen to us?" I want to make this perfectly clear: given how sinful, wicked and depraved we are, any fate other than Hell is an act of Divine Mercy.

2. Evil happens because humans freely choose to perform evil acts. If this is the case, then evil only happens because humans** did it, not God. So, again, evil isn't a threat to God. God isn't obligated to save us from our own bad choices (nor would we want Him to do so). If God intervened every time we tried to sin, then we wouldn't have any meaningful conception of free will, and we're basically back to option #1. And if I may stress this again, God is in no way obligated to save us from the bad consequences of our actions. He has already given us a law to obey. Evil only happens when we disobey that law. God wasn't even obligated to send Jesus to save us. He could have simply destroyed all of us in Hell, and He would have been perfectly justified in doing so. But, because God is rich in mercy, He saved us.

However, you must not miss the reason that God made a way for our sins to be forgiven. It's (still) all about God's glory:
Your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake. (I John 2:12)
So, either way, evil isn't a problem.


I want to stress this again: any fate other than Hell is an act of Divine Mercy. Hell is what we deserve. If God chooses not to give us what we deserve, we should be grateful.

I say this as someone who used to really struggle with this issue: if you think the Problem of Evil is a problem, if you think that God's unwillingness to prevent evil makes Him malevolent, then you have a man-centered worldview. This is wrong. It may be easy to allow the world to influence us into thinking that the universe is really about human beings, but it's not. It's about God. If you don't get that right, you won't get anything right.

**This would also address what philosophers have termed "natural evil" (tragedies such as tornado deaths). The Bible clearly teaches that the Earth has been cursed because of our sin, so, once again, this "evil" is caused by sin that humans committed.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

There's no argument to be made that an 8 month fetus is not a person. At 8 months' gestation, the baby is viable (able to survive outside the womb), developed, and roughly the size of a newborn. All of the arguments against personhood fall apart, and, unless they want to make a bizarre argument based on location, the abortion advocate has to simply concede the point.

When discussing abortion, I routinely can get the pro-abort to admit that an 8 month fetus is a person. What they will NEVER admit, however, is that it is murder to kill an 8 month fetus.

The logic is unbelievably straightforward.
Killing innocent people is murder
8 month fetuses are people
8 month fetuses are innocent.
Therefore, killing 8 month fetuses is murder. The conclusion must follow from the premises.
But they never admit it. Why? Because, almost always, support for abortion has nothing to do with rights, logic, or morality. They have an emotional attachment to the issue that defies all logic. And since liberals typically define religion in terms of an emotionally-driven belief that defies all logic.....

Liberals really should stop trying to legislate their religion on other people. That's theocracy!

Carrington Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[Tim's wife stops by to discuss a video entitled "Who You Are: A Message to All Women."]

1) You are not powerful. God is. Where in the Bible does it say that we are powerful and awesome? I know it says that we are wretched, and that we are sinful, powerless, weak, and naked (see Ezekiel 16). The Bible says that GOD is Awesome and Powerful, that it is only through Him that we are new creations, and that GOD works through us to do great things. All of those women in the Bible- Esther, Ruth, Mary, Martha. They weren't capable of doing any of those things without God. And neither are we.

2) This video is not the Gospel. In fact, it is the opposite of the Gospel. This video says that you are fine just the way you are. The Gospel says that you are in desperate need. People hate the Cross because it shows us who we really are--wicked and sinful. After being saved, Jesus is our righteousness, but we still have no righteousness in ourselves. This video is a good example of how we need to use the Bible when we are talking about God. When we don't use the Bible, we often end up perverting the Gospel and portraying God in human terms rather than as He has revealed Himself.

3) This video is directed towards all women. However, it uses terms meant only for Christians. It is through Jesus Christ that we are adopted as children (Eph. 1). Before you were saved, you were in the "domain of darkness" (Colossians 1), dead in your sins (Eph. 2), and your father was the Father of Lies (John 8). If you have not been saved, all of these things still apply to you. Knowing that, I urge anyone who has not repented and chosen to follow Christ, to do so!

4) You cannot set yourself free. Only Jesus can set someone free. Jesus said "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free." Hef sets people free when they believe in Him because He is the truth. If we want people to be free, we should tell them who Jesus is, not tell them happy-sounding things about themselves.

5) This video seeks to tell women that they are enough. But what we really need to be told about is God. The God who created us in His Image. And despite our turning away from Him, He sent His Son to die for us. Now through Jesus's death, we have been given a chance to be close to God again. Why would we throw that away and worship ourselves? That is what this video teaches. Self-worship. It teaches women that what they need is already inside of them. When what we truly need is outside of us--God. We were created to glorify God, not ourselves. The key to happiness in the Christian life is to forget yourself and seek first His Kingdom.

Many people expend enormous time and effort seeking happiness and peace. They think that if they can just believe in themselves and accept themselves, they'll be happy. But only the presence of God brings real peace. I do not want to be known as a powerful woman. I want to be known as a woman who serves a powerful God. An Almighty Creator, Master, and Saviour. Compared to Him I am utterly insignificant.

I'm okay with that.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

I was having a conversation about what it means to be a Christian, and a friend asked me, "Do you never wonder if you've got it wrong?" Here is my response:

I do wonder if I've got it wrong about a lot of things. The difference is regarding how clear the Bible is. I'll give you two examples:

[First example is fairly reasonable; he doesn't believe a Left Behind-style Rapture will occur, but admits he could be wrong since the Bible isn't totally clear. Then comes example 2...]

Homosexuality- Liberals who call themselves Christians believe that homosexuality is not sinful. Personally? I don't think so. But, in contrast to eschatology, the Biblical case is much different here. Not only are there over a dozen verses/passages in the Bible that explicitly state that homosexuality is sinful, but there are zero verses in the Bible that say anything leading to the conclusion that homosexuality is morally acceptable. So we have over a dozen verses on one side and zero verses on the other side.

This is why the issue of homosexuality is not an issue of interpretation. If it were, I would not question the salvation of those who disagree with me (and I affirm the salvation of many who disagree with me on Eschatology). No, the underlying issue of homosexuality is whether or not you accept the authority of Scripture, or if you would presume to say that God's revealed word is wrong in its dictates.

This is why those who claim Christianity but affirm homosexuality are incredibly arrogant. They acknowledge that God Himself has spoken to us, but they reject His Word and replace it with the teachings of evil men who are in rebellion against God. It is also the reason that they are not Christians. The first, most basic characteristic of a Christian is that they affirm the authority of the Bible. Those who affirm homosexuality have rejected the authority of the Bible, so they are, by definition, not Christians.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

[He quotes Revelation 19:11-21]

I want to draw your attention to the last verse: "And the rest were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse." Don't miss this: "the rest", in this context, refers to everyone except the Beast and the False Prophet. Literally everyone who has taken the Mark of the Beast and joins his army.

Jesus is going to personally execute millions of people.

If you care about Jesus' self-revelation as contained in the Bible, you must reject the liberal hippie version of Jesus. Is Jesus loving? Without question. Does Jesus extend Grace to people? Most definitely (until it's too late).

But is that all He is? Certainly not. In this case, we know that Jesus is going to be the instrument of God's wrath, and we must be willing to accept and believe Jesus on His terms, not ours.

Tim Dukeman #fundie afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

The heretical Health and Wealth Prosperity Gospel is widespread. Millions of people are flocking to these churches, and they think that they're being taught Biblical truth. Their Jesus came to give them a Mercedes, not purchase every spiritual blessing for us. They're deceived.

The Sinner's Prayer Gospel has convinced millions more that they're going to Heaven because they prayed a prayer one time in 6th grade. Their Jesus came to teach them an incantation, not to make us righteous by becoming sin on our behalf. They're deceived.

The Social Gospel has convinced millions that Jesus came to end poverty, not bear God's wrath toward sin and sinners. They're deceived.

The Gospel of Tolerance has convinced millions that Jesus came to help us all accept each other, and teach us that we shouldn't tell each other how to live. Their Jesus came to make us tolerant, not to show just how much God hates sin by becoming a curse for us. They're deceived.

The Gospel of Liberalism has convinced millions that Jesus wouldn't want us to bring our faith into the public square, and we have no right to tell someone else that their beliefs are wrong. Their Jesus is pluralistic; he doesn't teach that He is THE way, THE Truth (capital T) and THE Life. They're deceived.

The Gospel of Nationalism has convinced millions that Jesus came to make us God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving Americans. Their Jesus came to bring freedom and empire, not set up a Kingdom that is not of this world. They're deceived.
You say that you love your brothers and sisters. Do you love them enough to fight for them? Do you love them enough to risk being labeled "divisive" for them? Do you love them enough to hurt your reputation? Do you love them enough to tell them that their favorite "Bible teacher" is leading them straight into Hell? Oh, how I pray that God's people would "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ!" We don't have time to cowardly refuse to confront lies under the guise of preserving unity.
People are being devoured. If you really care, you'll grab your sword.