Islam, Reform, and Traitors in Our Midst

About Islam Religion feature

Since the infamous 9/11 of 14 years ago there have been 27,401 Islamic terrorist attacks. Did you get that?


These deadly attacks were not carried out by frustrated Baptists or disgruntled Buddhists. These attacks were carried out by devout Muslims in the name of Islam.

Earth calling Islam: we have a problem here.

There is something really wrong with a religion – really a political ideology – which results in so much bloodshed, terror, hatred and violence on a daily basis.

No other religion even comes close to this. Islam is in a class of its own when it comes to bloody terrorism.

As such, something must be done.

Some voices are calling for the reformation of Islam. Yes, well that might be something worth contemplating. Obviously Islam [Version 1] is not working out so well – at least for the rest of the world, for us infidels, etc.

However one might ask if this is even possible.

Islam is regarded as a perfect religion, and the perfect final revelation of Allah.

How can you reform that which is perfect?

Indeed, the idea of reforming Islam is seen as blasphemous to faithful Muslims.

Moreover, Muhammad is seen as the perfect model, the ideal example of what every Muslim should aspire to and be like.

So if Muhammad was a murderous warlord, personally involved in the killing of his enemies, the leader of a hundred armed raids, involved in polygamy and even marriage to children, then any good Muslim will seek to go and do likewise.

So how helpful is it to speak about reforming Islam?


– meaning for most folks to strip it of its violent, misogynist, intolerant, anti-Semitic, and fascist elements

– would be to basically destroy Islam itself.

I have written about all this at greater length elsewhere: “on reforming islam

But we still have some Western leaders and even some Muslims speaking about reforming Islam.

For example, just this past weekend in Washington DC some Muslims gathered to speak about the need for reform. As one report says:

It takes courage to stand up publicly to radical Islam, even if you’re Muslim. Maybe especially if you’re Muslim. Ask Asra Nomani. On Friday she and a dozen of her fellow Muslims went to the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and posted a declaration on the door denouncing violent jihad, rejecting Islamic statism and opposing the “ideology of violent Islamic extremism.”

The declaration announced the formation of the Muslim Reform Movement, an international organization aimed at countering the beliefs of Middle East terrorist groups like Islamic State in what the document describes as a “battle for the soul of Islam.” Was Ms. Nomani nervous? No doubt. But the recent bloodshed in Paris and San Bernardino, California, spurred by radical Islam has convinced her the Muslim community needs to confront frankly the connection between terrorism and religion, not deny that it exists.

So what are we to make of this?

Well, if it is legit, and not just more taqiyya (Islamic justified deception), then we can applaud their efforts and wish them well. But note that only a dozen made this stand. As the article goes on to say:

Whether the Muslim Reform Movement can build support is another question. Groups of U.S. Muslims have periodically held anti-terrorism rallies and marches after high-profile attacks, but the events tend to draw crowds of a few dozen, according to Jihad Watch. “Given a chance to show how Muslims overwhelmingly reject ‘extremism,’ only a handful show up, and add in whining about ‘Islamophobia’ to their protest against the Islamic State,” said the Nov. 29 article in Jihad Watch.

Indeed. So we might have a way to go yet before masses of all those so-called moderate Muslims start speaking out. Voices closer to home have been making the same call, most notably Tony Abbott just yesterday. As one write-up puts it:

Tony Abbott has controversially called for a religious “reformation” of Islam, speaking out against a “culture” that “thinks you can kill in the name of God”.

The former Prime Minister made the comments in a wide-ranging interview on the Paul Murray Live program on Sky News.

Mr Abbott said not only did there need to be a military offensive, but also a “hearts and mind” offensive to tackle the rise of radical Islam while also calling for Australians to have greater confidence in Western civilisation.

“We’ve got to work closely with live-and-let-live Muslims because there needs to be, as President (Abdel Fattah) Al-Sisi of Egypt has said, a religious revolution inside Islam,” Mr Abbott said on the program.

“All of those things that Islam has never had

– a Reformation, an Enlightenment, a well-developed concept of the separation of church and state

– that needs to happen, but we can’t do it; Muslims have got to do this for themselves, but we should work with those who are pushing in that direction.

The other thing that’s needed is a restoration of cultural self-confidence in those who are supporters of Western civilisation. All cultures are not equal and, frankly, a culture that believes in decency and tolerance is much to be preferred to one which thinks that you can kill in the name of God, and we’ve got to be prepared to say that.

All sensible enough, and well worth a try.

But as stated, whether genuine reform of Islam is even possible is a moot point. However we should support all those with a genuine desire for much-needed change, both within and without the Muslim community.

However, no matter how sensible and vitally needed such remarks might be, as can be imagined, all the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to angrily decry Abbott’s reasonable words. Indeed, there are dangerous and treasonous fools among us.

Consider one of our leading moonbat of the year contenders, Greens leader Richard Di Natale. He tore into Abbott, claiming he was “fanning the flames of division”!

Yes he actually said that.

Why do I suspect that if this guy was around in the 1930s he would have said the same about those with concerns about the Nazis? ‘Now Churchill ol’ boy, don’t you know we must just get along with Hitler, and not be so divisive?’

Another strong contender for the above-mentioned award has to be one of our most deplorable ex-politicians around, Kristina Keneally. In arguably one of the most moronic articles ever to disgrace the pages of the Guardian (already a thoroughly disgraced leftist rag), she said some utterly mindboggling tripe, beginning with these words of wisdom:

Jesus Mary and Joseph, Tony Abbott. Did you just tell Muslims that they need a theological reformation, like Christianity has had? I know it was some time ago that you were in the seminary, but surely you remember that the Reformation created Protestantism. You and I are members of the unreformed strain of Christianity, the Roman Catholic church. You and I and our 1.2 billion fellow Catholics around the world have had no reformation. We are part of a church that has steadfastly refused to embrace, in both internal structures and theological development, modern concepts like democracy or gender equality.

Yep, you read that right.

Innocent men, women and children the world over are having their heads hacked off in the name of an archaic eighth century death cult, and all poor old Kristina can do is whine about sodomite marriage. Yep, makes perfect sense.

Um news flash Kristina: Christianity in all of its forms has always upheld the biblical truth that marriage is between a man and a woman – full stop. So there is absolutely nothing to reform here. Indeed, her idea of “reform” is nothing other than the destruction of historical Christian moral teaching.

She and Di Natale make such a great couple. But the rot does not end there. Even our own Liberal Party leader has gotten bent out of shape by Tony’s remarks. Of course given that he led a campaign to backstab and depose of him, it should be clear that he has utterly no respect for the man. As one report states:

Speaking on ABC local radio, the Prime Minister said Mr Abbott was entitled to his personal opinion. “It’s a complex area,” Mr Turnbull said. “Plainly the vast, vast majority of Muslims are as appalled by extremism, and particularly violent extremism, as we are,” Mr Turnbull said. “The extremism of ISIL or Daesh, these terrorists, is utterly rejected by the leaders of the great majority Muslim nations.

Turnbull should just join Kristina and move over to the Greens. They all share the same clueless and treacherous ideology. Turnbull has been pushing pro-Islam baloney for years now, and has never had the guts or the sense to call out Islam for what it is.

So that my friends is the reason why we are in such a mess today. A few Muslims and a few ex-PMs make some sensible remarks about there being a very real problem with Islam, and they get dumped on by the nutter dhimmis that infest not just the Greens and Labor, but the Libs as well.

This is why we are losing.

This is why we regularly find blood on our streets.

And this is why more Australians, and Americans, and Europeans will die while adherents of the religion of peace scream out their love cry, Allahu Akbar.

With traitors in our midst, the jihadists just sit back and laugh.

So much of their work is already being done for them.

I however will keep speaking out.
We are in a war and we cannot remain silent.
The price is too high for silence, cowardice or appeasement.

» Source:

» Source: “muslim reform movement decries radical islam calls”

» Source: “tony abbott has called for a religious reformation of islam”

» Source: “tony abbott societies cant remain in denial about the massive problem within islam”

» Source: “labor accuses tony abbott of donald trump politics”

» Source: “tony abbott you do know you belong to a church that has not reformed don’t you?

Published: 9.12.15 / 8pm CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg | Source: "Islam, Reform, and Traitors in Our Midst"

Sin, Sleaze and Hyper Grace

Hyper-grace (03)

One of the biggest problems in the Christian church in the West today is that of antinomianism. The Greek word for law is nomos, and most folks know what the prefix anti means, so this term basically means “against the law” or just plain “lawlessness”.

The term can have various meanings, but theologically speaking it has to do with the belief that the Christian has no real obligation to, or involvement with, God’s law and righteousness. Because we are saved by grace alone, we are no longer under the law in any form, and we need not worry about the law and its demands.

grace 5Of course Paul had to deal with this error long ago. In Romans 6:1-2 he wrote: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

But in an age of so much shallow preaching, so many selfish and self-centred gospels being proclaimed, and so much dangerous hyper grace teaching being heard, it seems we now have an epidemic of antinomianism in our churches today.

Obligation-free Christian living is all the rage, where believers think that they can do whatever they like, even live like the devil, because everything is covered by God’s love and grace. The very concepts of sin, holiness, the wrath of God, and judgment to come, are almost never heard from so many pulpits today.

It is all about how God loves us unconditionally, his grace is all we need, and we should just enjoy life and have our best self now. That is the mush that is being preached more often than not, and as a result, standards of Christian behaviour seem to be at an all time low.

Christians are so blasé about their walk with the Lord, thinking God just looks down upon them and smiles a lot, that the very basic biblical notions of obedience, sanctification, holiness, and the crucified life are rapidly disappearing. Once again we see here a perfect example of lousy teaching leading to lousy living.

Orthodoxy is vital, as is orthopraxis. But when a false gospel is proclaimed, we will always see it worked out in sinful and disobedient lifestyles. Thus the constant need to guard the gospel, and make sure what we are proclaiming in fact is an expression of biblical truth.

Of course concern about this is not new. In addition to Paul dealing with it 2000 years ago, this has been the constant concern of men of God throughout church history. Let me offer just two voices who had to deal with this. They both warned repeatedly about these issues last century.

First, listen to A. W. Pink:

Healthy Christianity can only be maintained where the balance is properly preserved between a faithful exposition of the holy Law of God and a pressing of its claims upon the conscience, and by tenderly preaching the Gospel and applying its balm to stricken hearts. Where the former predominates to the virtual exclusion of the latter, self-righteous pharisaism is fostered; and where the proclamation of the Gospel ousts the requirements of the Law, Antinomian licentiousness is engendered. During the past hundred years Christendom has probably heard fifty Gospel sermons or addresses to one on the Law, and the consequence has indeed been disastrous and deplorable: a light and backboneless religion, with loose and careless walking.

Now the words of A. W. Tozer:

Antinomianism is the doctrine of grace carried by uncorrected logic to the point of absurdity.
It takes the teaching of justification by faith and twists it into deformity. The creed of the Antinomian is easily stated: “We are saved by faith alone; works have no place in salvation; conduct is works, and is therefore of no importance. What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly.

The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God.” Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian. And so fully has it permeated the Fundamental element in modern Christianity that it is accepted by the religious masses as the very truth of God.

I write all this because on a daily basis I find evidence of this very thing. All around me I see people who profess to be believers who are living just like pagans. They seem to not have the slightest heart for holiness, a passion for purity, or a desire to be fully devoted to God.

Many would have put up their hand at an emotional gospel meeting some time ago, said a brief ‘sinners’ prayer, and now think they are home and hosed with nothing to worry about. They have their life insurance all ready, so now they can go back to living just like they always have.

They sing ten choruses of “Just As I Am” and leave just as they were. No real conversion seems to have taken place, and they are just as lawless now as they were when they were non-Christians. An example of all this which I just came upon today still has me shaking in my boots.

On the one hand it is absolutely unbelievable, but on the other hand it is easily believable. Given all the hyper grace antinomianism swirling all around us, this should not be surprising at all. I refer to Christians and the new book and film series, Fifty Shades of Grey.

I just wrote on this here: “2015-02-10 | “fifty shades of sleaze”

And as I just wrote elsewhere, “If a ‘Christian’ tells you he/she has no problem reading/watching Fifty Shades of Grey, then I am quite willing to say that they are clearly not disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But what made me absolutely shudder is this:

50-shades-grey-thumbOne of our nation’s leading Christian publishers conducted a survey asking respondents to name the most influential book they had read in the past year.

A startling number of women – Christian women – said “Fifty Shades of Grey” was their favorite book of the year.

Why is that so noteworthy?

Because the “Fifty Shades of Grey” books are a written form of pornography, plain and simple. It’s a book series that’s become nothing short of a cultural phenomenon, having sold more than 100 million copies in just a few short years.

Jim Daly of Focus on the Family continues:

The demand has been so intense a feature film is set to be released on Valentine’s Day weekend and talk of it has flooded mainstream entertainment news shows. There are reports that sex scenes comprise one-fifth of the film. Of course, it would be easy to simply slap a label on the material and dismiss it out-of-hand. But there’s a deeper issue we’d be missing. How and why has pornography ensnared so many women, including Christian women?

Can you imagine that?

Women who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ saying this was their favourite book of the year? Not only should they not be reading such filth, but to actually label it as their favourite? What in the world is wrong with these women?

I will tell you what is wrong: they are just deceiving themselves. They think they are Christians but they are not. Anyone who can happily swim in a cesspool of filth and sleaze and claim to be a disciple of Christ is fooling themselves big time.

Now I just happened to have somebody elsewhere throw this line at me: “Actually, many will and have and ARE real Christian women. It’s called temptation and sin and no Christian anywhere is exempt from this. Saying a Christian is not a real Christian because they’ve engaged in something sinful is not what I would think a real Christian would say about another Christian.”

I replied to him as follows:

You miss the point big time. Yes we are all tempted and we all can fall. Our attitude is crucial here: when we sin, do we agree with God and say it is wrong and repent, or do we keep happily sinning, thinking it is no big deal? The attitude here makes all the difference in the world. The real Christian always hates sin and avoids it as much as possible. The fake Christian has no problems at all with indulging in porn like this and even justifying it.

And spare us this unbiblical foolishness that we can never exhort and encourage one another in holiness. If a brother or sister is living in sin, it is our obligation under God to warn them, speak to them, and pray for them. We are to love them enough to confront them.

But this mindset is all around us.

Sin is no big deal, because God accepts us just as we are, and makes no demands on any of us. This is antinomianism pure and simple. It is the deadly error of the hyper grace movement. It is cheap grace, and no genuine disciple of Christ should have anything to do with these damnable errors.

Biblical grace never makes excuses for sin. Real grace always leads us to holy living. Anything else is a sham.

Let me finish with a few words about real grace vs false grace from some great Christians:

The grace that does not make a man better than others is a worthless counterfeit. Christ saves His people, not IN their sins, but FROM their sins. Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.
-Charles Spurgeon

Grace is the mother and nurse of holiness, not the apologist of sin.
-Charles Spurgeon

Any concept of grace that makes us feel more comfortable sinning is not biblical grace. God’s grace never encourages us to live in sin, on the contrary, it empowers us to say no to sin and yes to truth.
-Randy Alcorn

Grace is not simply leniency when we have sinned. Grace is the enabling gift of God not to sin. Grace is power, not just pardon.
-John Piper

Published: 15.2.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Source: "Sin, Sleaze and Hyper Grace"

The False Gospel of False Grace

Hyper-grace (03)

Here is a biblical truth you can bank on: any gospel which makes it easier for you to sin, and to feel OK about sinning, is not a gospel of Jesus Christ, but comes straight out of the pits of hell. Any message proclaimed from the pulpit, printed in books, or heard in conferences, which gives the believer the idea that sin is no big deal and that we can just relax about it all is a gospel of demons.

The really amazing thing about this is we have been there and done that. This is already 2000 years old for heaven’s sake! Paul dealt with the error of cheap grace, or false grace, or hyper grace, some two millennia ago – so why are we still having this discussion?

He too had to deal with false teachers who peddled a false gospel of cheap grace. His words are so perfectly clear on this that it staggers me that we are still repeating these same diabolical errors in the church today. In the book of Romans – Paul’s great treatise on justification by grace through faith – he deals directly with this pernicious error. As he says in Rom. 6:1-2, 15-16:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? … What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey – whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

We cannot save ourselves – that is why it is all of grace. But we are also called to work out our salvation. We have a role to play. We must obey, resist sin, appropriate what Christ offers us, and so on. Spirituality is not automatic. We have much to do to see sanctification progressively worked out in our lives.

Yes, in Christ we are complete and perfect – all due to his grace – but we must work out what we already are in Him by our daily choices. We must resist and fight sin, and we must desire and pursue holiness. Obedience is a crucial part of the Christian walk, and we dare not allow a doctrine of cheap grace to trap us in sin.

Several recent articles deal with this in more detail, and are well worth citing here. New Testament professor Robert A. J. Gagnon wrote an article, “Cheap Grace Masquerading as Pure Grace” as he dealt with a pastor who pushes a damaging cheap grace message, especially in regards to homosexuality. Gagnon raises a number of important questions about all this, including:

-Is it true that transformation of our behavior was not one of the chief purposes in Jesus’ death?
-Are self-professed believers free to lead a life of sin without repentance and still be assured of “no condemnation”?
-Is it the “anti-gospel” to say that God is pleased when his people do what is right and displeased when they do what is wrong?
-Is an injunction to “fear God and keep his commandments” the message of an “anti-gospel”?
-Is it true that confessing our sins for forgiveness is a waste of time?

Let me look closer at one of his questions:

Is it true that immoral behavior on the part of self-professed believers does not move God to judgment?
Contrary to what Rev. Whitten says, immoral behavior on the part of self-professed believers does move God … to judgment. Whitten claims: “My bad works don’t move God any more than my good works move Him. He simply isn’t moved by ‘works’ of any kind. If you are motivated to do a great work for God, good luck!” Yet bad works and immoral behavior among believers do indeed move God. They move God to judgment. Initially they move God to the judgment of discipline, as in the case of the Corinthian abuse of the have-nots at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:27-34).

When the discipline of the Lord is rejected, then divine condemnation with the world becomes a real possibility. So Paul demands that the Corinthians remove from their midst the self-professed believer who is sleeping with his stepmother, as a last-ditch measure to save the man from eternal destruction, for otherwise as a “sexually immoral person” he would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 5:5; 6:9-10). The New Testament is full of warnings to believers that if they continue to live under sin’s primary control their fate will be destruction rather than eternal life.

princeMore recently Michael Brown has also asked some very important questions of Singaporean mega-pastor and hyper grace preacher, Joseph Prince. He offers nine probing questions, the first five of which are these:

1) Does God require anything from you as His child? Is there anything He says that you must do as His child other than receive His grace? If so, are there spiritual benefits that come through obeying these requirements and spiritual losses that come from ignoring them?

2) The New Testament writers often exhort us to live in ways that please the Lord. Does that mean that it is possible for us to displease Him? We agree that He relates to us as His beloved children, but is He always pleased with us? And since Paul urges us not to grieve the Spirit, does that mean that we can, in fact, grieve Him?

3) Is there anything you can do to disappoint the Lord? If the Lord always sees you as perfect in His sight, is there any way for you to disappoint Him? I’ve heard it said that we can only grieve or disappoint Him by not trusting His grace, but according to your message, hasn’t that sin been forgiven as well?

4) If God has pronounced your future sins forgiven in the same way He has pronounced your past sins forgiven, why do Paul and other New Testament writers address these very sins in their letters, and why does Jesus address them in Revelation 2-3? We know that God doesn’t bring our past sins up to us, since He has forgiven and “forgotten” them. Why then does He bring our present sins up to us in the New Testament, even warning us about the dangers of walking in those sins, if they have also been forgiven and forgotten in advance?

5) A leading hyper-grace teacher claims that the doctrine of progressive sanctification is a “spiritually murderous lie.” Does that mean that grace preachers like Charles Spurgeon, who believed in progressive sanctification, taught this alleged lie? And if “progressive sanctification” simply means to walk out our holiness with the help of the Spirit, what is so dangerous about this teaching? Put another way, do you reject the concept that the one who made us holy now calls us to live holy lives in thought, word and deed, thereby “completing our sanctification in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1)? Doesn’t Paul say we are called saints (that is who we are) and called to be saints (that is how we live)? (See 1 Cor. 1:2.)

I urge you all to read both of these important articles in their entirety. This error of hyper grace is sadly causing huge damage all over the Christian world, and is leading to far too much cultic behaviour and heretical teaching. And much of it could be cleaned up with remembering some basic Christianity 101 doctrine.

I mentioned above that in Christ we are already complete and perfect, yet we are commanded hundreds of times to work this out in our daily walk with Christ. In my article on “Standing and State” I deal with this in more detail: Standing and State

Another basic theological explanation of this is what is known as the “indicative and imperative”. We are to become what we already are in Christ. I deal with that more fully here: The Indicative/Imperative and the Christian Life

But I return to my original statement. Jesus said we can and must judge people by their fruit. If a gospel message you embrace results in a life of more sin or more acceptance and excuse-making for sin, then you can be sure that this is not a biblical gospel message, but a false gospel.

As always, we must proclaim the whole counsel of God. Yes, grace is a wonderful and liberating truth of the gospel. But it is not all of the gospel. We must always keep the biblical balance, and never emphasise one biblical truth at the expense of other biblical truths.

As Michael Brown writes in his important 2014 book Hyper-Grace, it is “crucial that we never forget that ‘grace and truth’ came through Jesus the Messiah (John 1:14, 17). It is essential, then, that we preach grace with truth rather than grace alone. Otherwise we will have a spiritual crisis on our hands. In fact, we already do have one on our hands.”

Published: 1.2.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Original Source: "The False Gospel of False Grace"

Sin, Forgiveness, and Hyper Grace

Hyper-grace (03)

Toward the end of his life the author of “Amazing Grace” and friend of William Wilberforce said this: “My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great savior.” That was of course John Newton.

I present his quote here because sadly there are always faulty and harmful theologies being pushed. In this case, there are actually some folks teaching that a Christian is not a sinner – and even more incredible, they do not need to repent and confess their sins as believers. This is often heard by hyper grace teachers such as Joseph Prince.

But Scripture teaches otherwise. All throughout the Bible the saints of God have known that they are sinners, in need of regular, ongoing confession of sin and repentance. Think of David for example. In his great prayer of repentance in Psalm 51 he says in verse 2-3:

sin-2Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.

The disciples were also fully aware of their sinfulness. Consider Peter as another example. Early on he was fully aware of his sinfulness. As we read in Luke 5:8: When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”

And even after he had been with Jesus for quite some time, we see his ongoing awareness of his own sinfulness. Toward the end of Jesus’ ministry we find this exchange with Peter as found in John 13:6-9:

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

But we can already hear the critics – especially Prince – complain that we must look to Paul for the full revelation on this. We cannot dwell on the Old Testament or the gospels. Indeed, Prince primarily focuses on Paul and his teachings, while downplaying or minimising the rest of Scripture.

There are of course two major problems with this. One, as any student of church history and theology knows, this is basically what the heretic Marcion believed. As I wrote about this second century bishop elsewhere:

He not only posited a radical disjunction between God as found in the two Testaments, but between the OT and the NT itself, and between Israel and the church. His utter rejection of Judaism and the OT was just part of his heresy. He was a major proponent of Paul – or as one historian put it, he had an “exaggerated Paulinism” – so much so that he chopped the NT canon down to just 11 books: ten epistles of Paul and part of Luke.

See more on him here: Modern-Day Marcionism

A second major problem with this is of course that Paul himself did not buy it for a moment. Indeed, Paul, like every man of God, was always painfully aware of his own sinfulness, and his ongoing need of Christ. Indeed, simply notice Paul’s awareness of sin – throughout his life as a believer.

If we put the conversion of Paul at 33, 34 or 36 AD, as most scholars now agree, then we find some very interesting things Paul says about himself as he grows in grace. Notice this progression (or regression if you will) about Paul. The older he gets, the more of a sinner he considers himself to be!

“For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:9 – written in mid-50s.)
“Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” (Ephesians 3:8 – written in early 60s.)
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the worst.” (1 Timothy 1:15 – written in mid-60s.)

Do you get that? The longer Paul is a Christian, the more he becomes aware of his own wretched, sinful condition, and his utter need for the Lord Jesus. Even three full decades after his conversion, the apostle of grace tells us he is the chief of sinners.

He did not say, ‘I was the worst’ but ‘I am the worst’. I once had a gal challenge me on this, claiming these were all in the past tense. Baloney – simply get out your Greek New Testament and see for yourself: all are in the present tense. Paul never claimed a sinless perfectionism, or believed that by being in Christ he had fully arrived.

As he wrote in Philippians 3:10-12: ” I want to know Christ – yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.”

Related to all this is of course the incredible notion that believers should never repent or confess their sins. Prince claims that if we do this we are slapping God in the face and maligning his grace. A full article is needed to rebut this silliness, but the truth is, it is people like Prince who are slapping God in the face and maligning his grace

An obvious rebuttal to all this is 1 John 1:8-10: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.”

Yet Prince simply dismisses this vital passage – in particular verse 9 – by saying, “Let’s not build an entire doctrine on a single verse.” He even makes the absurd claim that this was written to Gnostics, not believers! You know you are dealing with some real dodgy teaching when they have to come up with something that far-fetched.

This whole chapter is of course referring directly to believers; uses the present tense; and is inclusive (“we,” “our” etc). And there are of course plenty of other passages which speak to the need of confessing our sins, such as Luke 11:3-4; Acts 8:13, 20-23; 19:18; James 5:15-16 and so on.

But as I say, another article will have to be penned to deal with this more fully. But the issue is, we have some very worrying teaching and teachers in our midst today who are sadly taking aspects of biblical truth, elevating them, while ignoring or downplaying other clear biblical truths.

That is always a recipe for disaster, and that is always how the cults operate, and that is always how heresies begin. We must proclaim the full biblical gospel, and not just pick those parts which tickle our fancy. The Pauline teachings on grace of course are always wonderful truths which we need to hear.

But they must be seen in the context, not just in the context of all Pauline teaching, but the rest of Scripture as well. And a big part of the problem here is the confusion about the various aspects of salvation. The hyper grace teachers put all their eggs in the justification basket, while failing to give equal attention to sanctification.

But I discuss this carefully elsewhere: Antinomianism and the Hyper Grace Error

Yes we are justified by grace through faith alone. But that is simply the first step in the salvation process. To highlight only the very first step, while ignoring the lifelong walk of growth, obedience, holiness and conformity to Christ is not to elevate grace but to drag it in the mud.

Let me close with the words of J.C. Ryle ‎”When I speak of a person growing in grace, I mean simply this – that their sense of sin is becoming deeper, their faith stronger, their hope brighter, their love more extensive, and their spiritual mindedness more marked.”

by Bill Muehlenberg | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch Published: 17.3.15 | Original Source: "Sin, Forgiveness, and Hyper Grace"

5 Most Abused Christian Terms

It is a general rule of life that the more important or valuable something is, the more chances are it will be abused and misused. The greater something is, the more it will be attacked and slandered and misrepresented. So we would expect that Christianity would receive such treatment on a regular basis – and it does.

The Christian faith is regularly abused and misused, as are key Christian terms and concepts. And sadly this is not just being done by non-Christians, but by believers as well. We have managed to mangle and manhandle basic Christian truth and doctrines time and time again.

wordSo let me offer five key terms and words of the Christian faith which are being abused every day. Sure, there would be other such terms we could add to the list, but certainly these five would be leading contenders on any thinking Christian’s list.

Jesus. It goes without saying that Christianity is Christ, so if you want to abuse and misuse the faith, then you begin with the person. Jesus has got to be the most misrepresented and most misunderstood person around. And of course behind all these faulty portraits of Jesus is Satan himself, who desperately does not want anyone to know the real Jesus.

So he gets atheists, secular humanists, leftists, religionists, New Agers, and uninformed Christians to present a plethora of images of Jesus – none of them representing the real Jesus of Scripture. Thus we have the hippy Jesus, the socialist Jesus, the greenie Jesus, the New Age Jesus, the syrupy sentimental Jesus, and so on.

Anything but the real Jesus. Anything but the creator and judge of the world who is fully God and fully man, the second person of the Trinity, and the one who has dealt with the sin issue so that we might get right with God the Father.

Instead, create a fake Jesus and offer him around to the masses, and you have basically destroyed biblical Christianity. That is why we see this all the time. Satan does not want us to know the real Jesus so he has become expert at creating millions of counterfeit and fraudulent Jesuses.

And far too many Christians have done exactly the same. We have a Jesus who is all about love, who would never harm a fly, and would never speak ill of anyone or anything. The Jesus of the book of Revelation is entirely absent, as is much of the Jesus of the gospels, including the table-throwing Jesus.

I speak more to this here: Which Jesus? | Published: 4.10.14 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Love. Speaking of love, this is another biblical word absolutely gutted of its scriptural content, and filled with every sort of dopey and humanistic foolishness imaginable. Love is now almost entirely viewed as emotion, as feelings, as mushy sentiment.

But biblical love is always about willing the highest good for the other person. True love wants the best for the other person. And that best is of course God’s best. Thus if you really love a person, you will want them to have all that God wants for them: a relationship with himself, sins forgiven, bondages broken, lives transformed, etc.

And the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. If you genuinely love someone, you care deeply about them and are concerned about their welfare – spiritual and otherwise. Indifference and apathy are the opposites to love. But real love involves hate.

If you love God, you will love what he loves and hate what he hates. God hates sin, and so should we. God hates that which prevents people from knowing him, and so should we. To love a drug addict means hating the drugs which are destroying him.

To love your wife means hating that which would cause her harm, or puts her in danger. Thus human love, like divine love, is a jealous love, rightly understood. Such love cares enough about the individual to strongly oppose that which would harm that person. It certainly is not about tolerating everything and putting up with anything.

I speak more to this here: On Biblical LovePublished: 12.8.08 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Judge. This of course is one of the most abused words of our time. In fact, Matthew 7:1 is perhaps the most abused verse in the entire Bible. The idea that Christians should never judge is as unbiblical as you can get. Everywhere Scripture commands us to judge, to discern, to assess, and to make moral pronouncements and judgments.

Not to do so is a sign of disobedience and rebellion. All that Jesus warned about in the Matt. 7 passage was hypocritical judging: attacking someone else when you are doing the same thing. That of course is wrong, but biblical judging is never wrong.

You cannot live the Christian life if you do not judge. Paul even tells us that one day we will judge the angels, so we had better get to it now in this life. But the worldly notions of tolerance and acceptance have so seeped into the churches today that we actually think we must not judge.

That is a recipe for disaster, and that is why the Christian faith in the West is so anaemic and sickly. We refuse to judge sin in the camp, false doctrine, false prophets, and so on. Instead we just put up with all this. That is a sure-fire way to shipwreck our faith and destroy the church.

I speak more to this here: Thou Shalt JudgePublished: 8.10.08 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Sin. As already mentioned, a faulty understanding of who Jesus is and why he came will also involve a faulty understanding of sin. Indeed, one of our big problems here is that we simply no longer even talk about sin. Not only does the surrounding pagan culture have no concept of sin, but so too do most believers.

Go to any church service today and you will be hard-pressed to hear much about sin, and the corollary doctrines such as the holiness of God, the wrath of God, judgment to come, hell, the cross, and repentance. All these key biblical truths are being heard less and less in too many churches today.

We no longer take sin seriously today because we no longer take God seriously. Instead of a holy and righteous God who hates sin and detests iniquity, we have a namby-pamby God who is simply a celestial butler here to do our every bidding.

We hang on to a faulty understanding of divine love while we jettison all the other key components and attributes of God. So of course sin gets downplayed and ignored in such a situation. And then sin becomes simply whatever the world says it is: eg, being intolerant, judgemental, non-inclusive, etc.

I speak more to this here: On SinPublished: 14.9.10 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

Heresy. This may seem like a surprise inclusion to my list, but I hear this term thrown around every day, and mostly it is being grossly misused and abused. The sad truth is, far too many believers will call someone a heretic or label their beliefs heresy simply if they happen to differ from their own points of view.

Guess what folks? Someone is not a heretic if he happens to have a different slant on eschatology, or ecclesiology, or church government, or worship, or a million other secondary matters. A person is not a heretic if he happens to have a different view on the end times, be it premillennialism, postmillennialism, the rapture theory, and so on.

I am not a heretic if I support a SDA candidate for POTUS such as Ben Carson. I am not a heretic if I think we can work together with others on a temporary basis as cobelligerents to deal with things like abortion or the attacks on marriage.

I am not a heretic if I like the writings of those of other faith traditions, such as a Chesterton or a Tolkien. I am not a heretic if I find some biblical truth in aspects of Calvinism, and Arminianism, and so on. I am not a heretic if I have a glass of wine, enjoy eating meat, or listen to B.B. King once in a while.

I am a heretic if I deny the historic core beliefs of biblical Christianity, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and so on. If one denies the content of the great historic creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, then yes, we can start talking heresy. But please spare me when you attack another believer as a heretic for simply having a differing view on some secondary matters of the faith.

I speak more to this here: On Heresy HuntersPublished: 9.4.14 | Bill Muehlenberg’s | CultureWatch

One can easily come up with another five such terms, even another 25. So more articles may be forthcoming on this theme. But these five will do for a start. Let us resolve to not be guilty of such abuse and misuse of core biblical terms.

[1479 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 12.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: "5 Most Abused Christian Terms 

Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

No Gay Marriage Button

The entire case for embracing the homosexual lifestyle is built on lies, falsehoods and deception. I have now written three books on this topic, and in them I deal with these myths in great detail. In some 600 pages with around 1400 footnotes I carefully document, assess, and refute the various lies and myths put out by the militant homosexual lobby. I encourage you to get those volumes so that you have the full documentation on all this.

You will find all three here for example:

Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1495969436
ISBN-13: 978-1495969430

Dangerous Relations: The Threat of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1500516031
ISBN-13: 978-1500516031

WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage

ISBN-10: 098074184X
ISBN-13: 978-0980741841

Here I had planned to offer ten of these myths, but I stumbled upon another great article which covers similar territory and ten more myths, so I will also post the piece by Peter Sprigg as well following my ten myths. Even though there might be a bit of overlap here, these 20 points cover at least in outline form the main porkies put out by the activists.

Here then are my top ten myths:

Homosexuals are born that way. There is no reliable research indicating a genetic basis of homosexuality. At best, there continues to be a debate about what is more influential: nature or nurture. The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof or abusive parent, and so on. And many homosexuals have now fully left the lifestyle, giving lie to the claim that one cannot change.

10% of the population is homosexual. No reputable study has ever come up with these figures. Instead, the numbers always range from 1 to 3 percent. It was sexual deviant Alfred Kinsey and the homosexual activists who invented the 10 percent figure. It is not based on science but ideology and activism.

Homosexuals just want to be free to privately do their thing. Yes many do. And if this were fully true, there would be no need to write this article. But many activists are seeking to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They insist on publicly flaunting, promoting and celebrating their lifestyle, and they are using the heavy hand of the law to quash all opposition.

Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else. As I carefully document in great detail in my books, everyone is impacted by homosexual marriage. The negative results are getting worse by the day. All over the West those who dare to resist the homosexual agenda or simply affirm heterosexual marriage are losing their jobs, being fined, and even thrown into prison.

There is no slippery slope. We are already seeing the slippery slope in action. Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, all sorts of other groups are demanding that their forms of sexuality be recognised, applauded and legalised. This we have active and vocal groups calling for the complete recognition of things like polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia, objectamory, and so on. And most of these groups are using the identical arguments used by the homosexual lobby.

Marriage is only about love. Marriage is not just about love between people. Love can exist outside of a marriage: a brother can love a sister, a son can love a father, a girl can love a cat. But marriage is a special kind of love: a life-long commitment, publicly acknowledged, with the possibility of procreation. Heterosexual married love is special, as it entails the possibility of rearing and raising the next generation.

Heterosexual marriage is a recent invention. The secular left seeks to tell you that the traditional married family is a creation of America in the 1950s. This is pure nonsense. All cultures throughout human history have had a recognisable form of male-female marriage. And the institution of marriage existed even before the state acknowledged or regulated it.

Children raised in homosexual households do just fine. This is not the finding of the social sciences. Countless studies have now shown that children raised outside of the male-female marriage unit suffer greatly in every area, from poor educational performance, likelihood to move into drugs and crime, higher suicide rates, and so on. Family structure does matter, and those children raised in homosexual households are now coming out and telling their very sad stories.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Jesus spoke often about the original purposes for human sexuality as found in the opening chapters of Genesis. He affirmed and repeated these norms, and lashed out at other forms. And arguing from silence is poor form anyway: he also said nothing about rape or arson. Does that mean he approved of those things?

Love is all that matters. The Bible has a much different understanding of love than many have today. Biblical love is certainly not about lust, nor is it about getting whatever you crave. Biblical love is about willing the highest good for the other person. And it involves keeping God’s commandments. Jesus and others made it clear that to love God is to keep his Word, not break it or ignore it.

And here is the list from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council in America:

by Peter Sprigg , CP Guest Contributor March 16, 2015 Original Source: "10 Myths About Redefining Marriage" (Peter Sprigg is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.)



Advocates of redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as “myths.” The reality is often quite different.
 For example:

MYTH: A “one man and one woman” definition imposes a religious definition of marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of no religion.

MYTH: Children don’t actually need both a mother and a father.
REALITY: An overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.

MYTH: Marriage can’t be about procreation, because infertile couples are allowed to marry.
REALITY: Laws are based on the rule, not the exception. While not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do so naturally. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would have no effect on other marriages and families.
REALITY: “The law is a teacher,” and if we change the definition of marriage we will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For example:
-We would teach-wrongly-that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest.
-We would teach-wrongly-that children do not need a mother and a father.
-We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.

MYTH: Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is “discrimination.”
REALITY: Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has been permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or (through most of human history) a person of the same sex. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.

MYTH: Homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, be sexually faithful, or have relationships last a lifetime. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Scandinavia has led to a weakening of society’s commitment to marriage across the board.

MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the “protections” of marriage.
REALITY: Many of these “protections” are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies.

MYTH: Homosexuals are unable to care for their own children if they cannot “marry.”
REALITY: A biological parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. States, if they choose to, can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage. However, recent research shows that children of homosexual parents suffer significant disadvantages. It is not in children’s interest for society to actively affirm a family structure that may harm them.

MYTH: Laws “banning same-sex marriage” are the same as the old laws that banned interracial marriage.
REALITY: It is actually the supporters of homosexual “marriage” who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage. Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family setting.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would not affect anyone’s religious liberty or conscience rights.
REALITY: All taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to provide allowances for homosexual relationships, whether they want to or not. Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones, even in opposition to parental teaching. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public square.

  Source: “10 myths about redefining marriage”

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution includes a “right” to marry someone of the same sex, they – and the public – should be wary of falling for these myths.

[1595 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 13.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: "Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists"

Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

No Gay Marriage Button

Whenever you hear lefties talk about the need for open and honest debate, you can usually count on them to mean that only their point of view should be heard. It is all one-way traffic with these folks: they want to fill the airwaves and monopolise the media, and ban any dissenting viewpoints.

That is the left’s definition of free debate. And it happens all the time. The left is not interested in what the other side says or believes. What it wants is complete domination of the public arena, where differing views are squashed and censored.

This tells us all we need to know about the paucity of their arguments and the shallowness of their positions. If they are not able to allow genuine free exchange of ideas, then you know their ideology is bankrupt. But that is always how they operate: stifle dissent and shout down opposing opinions.

Consider just one brief example I came upon moments ago:

Stating an anti-transgender opinion is close to forbidden in today’s “news” pages and “news” rooms, especially after the Bruce Jenner fawning frenzy. Exhibit A? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham wrote a column truthfully titled “Caitlyn Jenner is still a mister.” notes Jay Brown of the so-called Human Rights Campaign demanded in a letter that she be fired for “hate speech, plain and simple”.

Yep, fire anybody who dares to take a non-PC and non-sodomite line on things. Forget about freedom of speech. Forget about differences of opinion. ‘You will believe my way or it’s the highway.’ Pure leftism in action – intellectual Stalinism in other words.

And this certainly happens all the time in the abortion debate as well. Just yesterday another classic example of this took place.

Consider how a pro-life group was treated when the leftist jackboots got wind of what they were doing:


A popular burger chain has apologised for allowing diners in Brisbane to donate to an anti-abortion group.
Each month Grill’d restaurants give $500 to three local charities, encouraging patrons to decide which group gets more of the money by placing a bottle top in a jar.
More than 100 organisations apply each month in Queensland.

This month, the Toowong restaurant chose the Cherish Life association as one of the three groups.
Criticism spilled onto social media, with many perplexed by the chain’s conservative approach.


Hmm. Local @GrilldBurgers has an anti-abortion group as one of its local groups this month. Not what I would have expected from them at all,

one critic tweeted.

Simon Crowe managing director of Grill’d

Founder and managing director of Grill’d Simon Crowe apologised for Cherish Life being selected and said its ideals did not align with Grill’d.

This time we didn’t apply the right vigour or discipline in deciding who gets in,” he told 612 ABC Brisbane. “Unfortunately it’s a mistake that we made at our end.

Mr Crowe said although everyone had a right to an opinion on subjects such as abortion, Grill’d was pro-choice.

We are very much about pro-choice,” he said. “We’ve removed the jar in question.

Everyone has a right to have their opinion, but in this instance our opinion is about pro-choice.

Um, that last line is such a doozey, let me run it by you one more time:

Everyone has a right to have their opinion, but in this instance our opinion is about pro-choice.

So let me see if I have got this straight: this business is so pro-choice that it will not allow any other choices except their own. They think everyone has a right to their own opinion, but they must be silenced if it differs from Grill’d. Right, Got it. Makes perfect sense to me.

Gotta love that commitment to choice:

You embrace our view on this matter or you will be silenced.
Yep, sounds fair to me.

And this phrase in this context has got to be the greatest non-sequitur of all time:
We are for choice in the abortion debate. We just do not want the one most affected by it to have any choice.
 Pro-choice simply means dead babies. The baby has no choice whatsoever. The father who may want the child to live has no choice. The mother who may be forced into this has no choice. The grandparents have no choice. There is only one acceptable choice here: kill the babies.

The article did allow a brief word from the group concerned:

Cherish Life state president Teresa Martin said the organisation wanted to use the money to give pins to students to promote education about gestation.
“There is nothing to do with a pro-life, pro-choice issue on the jar,” Ms Martin said.
“We believe women deserve real information and real choice so they can make a choice and not just be shepherded down one path.
“I feel like this is an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion people.”

It sure was orchestrated by the pro-death crowd, and their leftist media mates. This is standard operating procedure from the secular left. Shut down and shout down any contrarian voices. That is their take on freedom of speech. For the left, free speech means, ‘I have a right to speak – you shut up.’

Now because this is a private business, I do not necessarily begrudge them the right to refuse certain causes. But the glaring hypocrisy on display here and the appalling double standards certainly does get my goat. When you have folks ranting on and on about choice, all the while denying others their choices, then you know you have the usual leftish hypocrisy in action.

But there would be thousands more such cases. This is just the normal way the left goes about its business. It is called the end of freedom, free speech and democracy. Just the way the left likes it.


Teresa Martin adds this advice:

We encourage you all to send a letter of complaint expressing your dissatisfaction about the censorship of the situation to the OWNER of the chain as soon as possible:
Simon Crowe
Level 2, 4-10 Amsterdam Street
Richmond VIC 3121
or email him on:

[1013 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 12.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: “Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed” 

It Is Time To Get Real: Islam Begets Terrorism

Icon: Get Real

Which is worse: Muslims who take their faith seriously, or Western media dunces who keep making excuses for their devout faith?

by Bill Muehlenberg
Every day we hear about more terror attacks committed by Muslims acting in the name of their Islamic faith, and every day we find clueless wonders in the West trying to make excuses for their actions.

In my books, those doing the killing and terror, and those seeking to defend the killing and terror, are both morally culpable. The Western dhimmis who work overtime to make excuses for Muslim terrorists are as much to be condemned as those doing the actual attacks.

left: Amedi Coulibaly and Hayat Boumeddiene. right: Hayat Boumeddiene in a niqab with a crossbow

Whether wilfully or out of sheer ignorance, the Western media just refuses to get it. They keep shrilling for Islam, keep making excuses for the terrorists, and keep pretending that Muslims are somehow the victims in all this.

Consider this header in the online version of today’s Herald Sun:

WANTED: The young women who sign up to life of terror

would this young girl go from a bikini snapshot with her boyfriend to a niqab and crossbow? It’s the question many Islamic parents are asking – how did my child turn into a terrorist?

The article is of course discussing Hayat Boumeddiene, the Paris jihadist who is now on the run, probably in Syria. She is the one who seems to have supplied the weapons used to kill 17 people the other week, and was the girlfriend of one of the killed terrorists, Amedy Coulibaly.

The media dummies can’t seem to figure out how one minute she was in a bikini on a Dominican Republic beach with Coulibaly, and the next minute wearing a niqab and brandishing weapons of terror. Umm, are they really so clueless as to why she went off into bloody jihad? Are they really so clueless about the nature of Islam?

One simply has to read the core Islamic religious documents to answer these sorts of questions.

I grabbed my three copies of the Koran and started going through the texts which explain these things. What I offer here are just some of the texts found in the Koran which might have something to do with encouraging people like Hayat to do what she did:

⇒‘Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.2:191

⇒‘Let not believers take the infidels as friends.3:28

⇒‘Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.3:85

⇒‘Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.5:33

⇒‘Believers, do not take Jews and Christians as your friends.5:51

⇒‘I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: strike off their heads and strike all their finger-tips off.8:12

⇒‘Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.8:60

⇒‘The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.8:65

⇒‘When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them.9:5

⇒‘Make war on the infidel.9:14

⇒‘The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.9:28

⇒‘The Jews and the Christians are perverse infidels; fight them.9:29-30

⇒‘Believers, make war on the infidels living in your midst.9:123

⇒‘Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.22:19-20

⇒‘Do not make peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.47:4

These are only some of the Koranic injunctions to violence, bloodshed and terror. And I have not offered anything from the hadith or the sira. If Muslims go around killing and terrorising in the name of Allah, they have plenty of warrant to do so from their own holy texts.

Now just imagine for a moment if the Christian New Testament contained these sorts of commands to kill and attack non-believers. And imagine if Christians were involved in 25,000 Christian terror attacks since 9/11 alone. Do you really think the mainstream media would write articles like this, asking why a Christian bikini babe would turn into a murderous Christian terrorist?

Umm, I don’t think so. Even the mentally challenged folks in the MSM would very easily be able to connect the dots: the holy book of Christians is saturated with orders to attack and kill non-Christians; Christianity has been doing so for 2000 years now; thus we are not surprised that a young Christian girl goes off and gets involved in such horrific terrorism.

It all makes perfect sense. Yet when it comes to Muslims doing this exact thing, the num nums in the MSM scratch their heads and appear to be utterly dumbfounded as to why this might occur. The great majority of those in the MSM simply hate the West and hate Christianity, and are more than happy to bend over backwards in defence of Islam.

Dennis Prager recently wrote about this very thing, and is worth quoting here. He begins his article this way:

Since 9/11, the Western world’s academic, media, political elites have done their best to portray Islam in a favorable light, treating it very differently from all other religions. Criticism of every doctrine, religious or secular, is permitted, often encouraged. But not of Islam. Only positive depictions are allowed.

We’ll start with an example of pro-Islamic bias that is so ubiquitous that no one seems to notice it. Why do Western media – overwhelmingly composed of irreligious people, one might add – always deferentially refer to Muhammad as “the Prophet Muhammad” in news articles and opinion pieces?

When Jesus is mentioned, the media never refer to him as “Christ, the Lord” or as “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Just “Jesus.” In fact, “A.D.” (“anno Domini” – “year of our Lord”) has been completely dropped by the very academics and media who always write “The Prophet Muhammad.”

When the media discuss Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), they don’t refer to him as “the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Why not? Is there a single difference between his title and roles in Mormonism and Muhammad’s in Islam?

And Jews refer to Moses as “Moshe Rabbeinu,” Moses our Teacher. Why don’t the media?

This was not the case in the past. When I studied Islam and Arabic in college, professors referred to the founder of Islam as “Muhammad.” And virtually none of the great biographies of Muhammad – even among those recommended on Muslim websites – have the words “the Prophet Muhammad” in their title. There is only one possible reason and that is Political Correctness – Western elites bending over backwards on behalf of Muslims and Islam in ways they never would for another religion.

Another ubiquitous example: Before 9/11, the phrase “Allahu Akbar” was translated as “Allah is great” [or “the greatest”). Since 9/11, it has been translated as “God is great.”

This was deliberate.

Yep, let’s all just give Islam the full tick of approval, while being suspicious of and hostile to anything and everything Christian. Makes perfect sense. The MSM will make every excuse in the world for bloodthirsty Muslim terrorists, while condemning the slightest actions of Christians.

Such is the world that we now live in – at least in the West.

No wonder we are losing.
No wonder Islam is on the ascendency.
No wonder we keep experiencing jihad on our streets.

And it will only continue to get worse until we finally wake up to the real nature of Islam. But I won’t be holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

Published: 18.1.15 | Original Source:

A Closer look at Religion and Violence

Islam vs. Christianity

Since Joseph Wakim of the Australian Arabic Council has given us a public lecture on what Christianity is meant to be about, perhaps I can return the favor and offer some comments on the nature of Islam.

by Bill Muehlenberg
My main thesis is that if Mr Wakim is concerned about religions condoning violence, he really should begin much closer to home, and discuss Islam.

islam-christ-jewNow Christianity and Islam are in some ways sister religions.
Both are monotheistic faiths that share a common ancestry with Judaism. And both share a doctrine of just war theory, that is, that the State and the military does have a legitimate role in the ordering of society.

But the differences are quite pronounced.
This is especially apparent in the relationship between religion, society and the state.

They are clearly separate – or at least should be – in Christianity. But no such distinction exists in Islam.

Church and state relations – so much of an issue of debate in Western Christian nations – is not even an issue in Islam. The Muslim world is at once both a religious and a political sphere. One can choose between God and Caesar in Christianity. Both are one and the same in Islam.

Another major difference lies in how the faith is to be propagated. 
 The founder of Christianity made it quite clear that use of arms to impel conversion was totally out of place. True, this concern was not always heeded by his followers. Thus if a person kills someone today in the name of Christ, especially for religious reasons, one can rightly argue that they are perverting the very nature of Christianity and the writings of the New Testament.

It is by no means clear however if one could say the same about a Muslim who kills in the name of Allah.

The Koran and Islamic law (Sharia) both offer plenty of justification for such actions. Moreover, both the example of Muhammad and Islamic history provide support for the use of force in promoting Islam.

Consider the doctrine of jihad.

There are of course different understandings of what exactly is meant by jihad. Muslim moderates and apologists insist that jihad simply means to struggle or strive for a just cause. There is in fact a distinction in Islam between the “greater jihad” which is a kind of spiritual warfare against the selfish nature, and “lesser jihad” which means a struggle against non-Muslims.

It is this latter concept that we must deal with. Because there is no ultimate central authority in Islam, disagreement exists as to interpreting the Koran, the weight of tradition (Hadith), and the example of Muhammad. However, Koranic injunctions to fight are numerous, as they are in the various collections of Hadith. And Muhammad himself set the example of violent conquest.

September 11 was, to a great degree, a logical outcome of the concept of jihad. Some however argue that as the ultimate suicide bombing, Sept. 11 cannot be reconciled with Islam, since suicide is sinful in Islam. But many Muslims defend suicide bombing, arguing that it is not really suicide but martyrdom for Allah, something much praised in the Koran. They insist that the bombers simply use their bodies to kill others, not themselves. And those who are killed while fighting for Allah are promised a one-way ticket to Paradise. Interestingly, in Islam, no other action guarantees one’s eternal destiny.

Still, critics will often point out that Muslims are not alone in their fundamentalism.

What about Christian fundamentalists?

Defenders of militant Islam like to raise the issue of Old Testament laws to say that fundamentalism can be found amongst Christians as well. For example, doesn’t the Old Testament warrant the death penalty for various crimes?

But Jesus specifically abrogated such punishments (as in the women caught in adultery) and for 2000 years the Christian faith has operated on the concepts of love and forgiveness. Islam however continues to harshly punish various sins, with adulterers still stoned to death in places like Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, there is in Islam no instruction to turn the other cheek, nor an expectation of swords being beaten into plowshares. In addition, there is the theory and practice of assassination in Islam which is foreign to Christianity. It arose at an early period in Islam’s history, and we even get the term from a Muslim sect dating from the 11th century.

Of course the bulk of Muslims are neither fundamentalists nor terrorists, and have little sympathy for their cause. Thus mainstream Muslims and their supporters should be quite vocal in denouncing the crimes of Islam, and not just point the finger at other religions.

Published: 25.11.2004 | original source:

Violence in the Bible and the Koran

Profile: Obama (01)

There is plenty of misunderstanding about the nature of Islam – deliberate or otherwise.

by Bill Muehlenberg.
One only need turn to the speech US President Obama made on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks for yet another example of this. He used his speech to once again seek to placate Muslims.

He said in classic appeasement style, “It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al-Qaeda. We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust.

Oh, so Islam had nothing to do with 9/11?

And al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam?

That of course is the usual spin which apologists for Islam make time and time again. But it is not what the leader of the free world should be making. Indeed, he should know better. But this is just the latest in dozens of things Obama has said or done which make so many Americans wonder what exactly his religion is.

It is possible he is not even sure what it is. It certainly is not biblical Christianity. Indeed, he seems to know little about either religion. And his speech is just another example of unhelpful moral equivalence concerning the two religions.

It is the sort of muddled thinking which cannot even begin to make moral and theological distinctions. It tends to blur boundaries and results in a jaded view especially of what Christianity is all about. It repeats the foolishness that if Islam is bad, and/or has its bad elements, well so too does Christianity.

And that somehow is supposed to be the end of the story. But it isn’t. A perfectly valid case can be argued that the so-called excesses and extremes of Islam are in fact a direct outcome of Islamic beliefs and teachings. On the other hand, violent excesses done in the name of Christ can be seen to be completely unrelated to genuine Christianity.

Consider the issue of violence and its promotion in the two religions. Anyone with a smattering of understanding about both will know that there is a world of difference between the two. I have written about this issue before, showing the very real contrasts, eg.: ( a closer look at religion and violence“)

A new article assessing these differences has just appeared in the US and is worth promoting here. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam closely examines the two religions on the issue of violence. His findings are revealing.

He begins his piece this way:

“One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran.”

The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. ‘See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.’

“If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine. However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on in the marketplace of ideas. Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.”

After defining what he means by violence – and concentrating on the issue of political violence – he notes that both quantitatively and qualitatively there is a very large difference indeed between the Koran and the Bible. In the Koran such political violence is called ‘jihad’ or fighting on behalf of Allah.

Warner notes the threefold authority structure in Islam:

“Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy.

» The Sira is Mohammed’s biography.

» The Hadith are his traditions – what he did and said.

» Sira and Hadith form The Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behaviour.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

Warner then lays all this out in a series of helpful charts which I cannot reproduce here, but see the link below to see the entire article plus charts. His first chart deals with the amount of text devoted to jihad:

“It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful.”

His third chart deals with the actual number of words devoted to political violence in the three monotheistic religions.

“When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text [of the Hebrew Bible] is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament. When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible.

insert by 4cm:
words devoted to political violence

Hebrew Bible: 34,039 words

⇒ Islamic Trilogy: 327,547 words

⇒ New Testament Christianity: Nil words

The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.”His second chart deals with the life of Muhammad and the growth of Islam: “Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year.”

But then there are qualitative differences as well. “The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way.”

He concludes as follows: “It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.”

That is equally true of American Presidents as well. Until he begins to understand the true nature of Islam, as revealed in its trilogy of sources, he will never understand the war we are in and who the real opposition is. Until that time comes, the US will continue to lose the war against terror.

Related link: by Bill Warner “the political violence of the bible and the koran” Sept 2010

jihadtrilogy_72dpi muslimgrowthgraph_72dpi bible-koran-political-violence
13.09.2010 by Bill Muehlenberg | Original Article: "Violence in the Bible and the Koran"