Skip to main content

Are You Going to Church or Just to a Nice Building on a Finely Manicured Lawn?

It's time to confront the reality of "Easy Christianity", the prosperity "gospel" crowd and others that look like Christian churches but aren't. I could tell that this place of worship isn't Christian if it's held by what's obviously pseudo-Christian. A Roman Catholic parish is already obvious to me it's not Christian. A Iglesia Ni Cristo parish is already obvious to me it's not Christian. A Mormon temple is obvious to me it's not Christian. Any pseudo-Christian denomination's parish is not Christian. Any institution that teaches salvation by faith plus works is not Christian. Works salvation is a more obvious wolf and it's easier to shoot at. But do you know that we've got "churches" today that look Christian to the true Christian until they dig into their teachings?


The bigger problem is when I think that this place is a Christian church but it's really a trapdoor church. We've got many places of worship today that don't really belong to the Church. It's not a house of God. It's a place where the Gospel is not preached. Instead, you've got these heretical places where the pastor is not a man of God, where the members are not really converted and yet they claim to be born again Christians. This pastor leads sham conversions. Worse, the members think they're born again Christians but they hate sanctification and holiness. They maintain the view that you can be a Christian and still stay as sinful. When I ask them where is that in the Bible they get personal and start using red herrings, Ad Hominem, character assassinations and strawman arguments.

These churches produce false converts because they're afraid to offend lost sinners who need the hard Gospel. They just want to have a feel good organization. They think that all you have to do is to "say a prayer and you're in" without understanding the Gospel. Don't get me wrong. Some people who are genuine Christians said the sinner's prayer. It's not about the sinner's prayer but the pastor who didn't preach a watered down Gospel. This pastor isn't afraid to offend anyone with the truth about sin. Many of those who responded to the altar call and were led to a sinner's prayer had real repentance. Although they didn't cry or wail but there was some remorse. The repentance isn't perfect but it's perfected daily. That's what true conversion is. True conversion doesn't stop at salvation but it continues in sanctification. It's not just Once Saved Always Saved but also Once Saved Always Sanctified and Once Sanctified Always Sanctified.

One good  reading material is "Hard to Believe" by Dr. John F. MacArthur. That book is a real eye opener to me to all the mistakes in the kingdom of Easy "Christianity". Nothing was more horrifying to learn that today many just want a Madison Avenue Jesus. This Jesus doesn't make hard demands for sanctification. This Jesus isn't the Jesus of the Bible. This isn't the Jesus who provides grace and makes Christians grow in grace. This Jesus would just leave converts barren making good works rather optional to the Christian life rather than something that validates the Christian life. Many today think they're saved but they're self-deceived. If self-righteous people think they're saved because of their good works then you've got people who think they're saved even if they aren't regenerate to start with. If they ever bother to read the Scriptures they will realize that true salvation results to sanctification (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 2:11-14).

It's not surprising that these "churches" seek to discredit sound preachers and sound preaching. It's not surprising they hate expository preaching because it exposes their error. It's not surprising they want to dismiss the great Charles H. Spurgeon because he emphasizes true and false conversion. They just want to have a Christianity that saves people in their sins rather than from their sins. I would suppose they want to call sound preachers like Spurgeon, John Gill or other sound theologians as "Roman Catholic Jesuits" if they're anti-Catholic or "dividers of the flock" if they're pro-Vatican. They hate sound preachers because they hate sound preaching. I guess if they could get sound preachers beheaded, stoned or murdered in any way they might actually do it. Remember angry mobs have stoned the prophets who called for repentance. Remember John the Baptist was beheaded at the order of Herodias. There's nothing new with these kinds of people.

I don't care how many members these pseudo-churches have because I only care about what the Bible has to say. Matthew 7:13-14 warns this truth. Look there are many people in the broad road. Many people they're right with God because of the majority. I've had Roman Catholics who tell me that they're on the right road because they're over five billion. Just because a religious group has a lot of members doesn't make it right. Truth always remains as truth even if everybody says it's a lie. Falsehood always remains as falsehood even if everybody says it's the truth. Many of them are just a group of whiny assemblies who can't handle hard biblical truth and just want to be in their comfort zones. I'm sorry but the Christian life isn't meant to be easy. It's meant to be hard. It's not meant to be your best life now. Instead, it could be your worst life on Earth then your best life in eternity later.


See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Do Feminists Ever Realize That Women Shouldn't Use Acts of Violence Against Men?

It's irritating to be told that men shouldn't use violence on women but the other way around is okay. No, it's not okay to hit anyone regardless of gender out of anger or frustration. If men shouldn't hit women except in acts of self-defense then the other way round should apply. But you have to remember the stupidity of selective justice and selective outrage of feminists. They think men should respect them while they think discriminating against men is okay. Their quest for "equality" is nothing more than a big joke.

Why is it usually a big fuzz when a man hits a woman but not so many people react if a woman hits a man? That kind of hypocrisy is worth addressing. They say men shouldn't hit women because they are "weaker" but is it okay for a person of lower rank to attack a person of higher rank? The word submission doesn't exist in the feminist dictionary unless it's men submitting to them. Whether they like it or not the husband is t…

You Can't Preach About God's Love For Sinners Without Preaching About His Wrath Against Sin

It's a problem that so many quack preachers love to preach God's love for sinners but not about God's wrath against them because He must punish both the sin and the sinner. Everything from God's love to His wrath is dictated by the fact that He is holy and you are not. The message about God's love for sinners will make no sense if you don't preach about God's wrath against sin first. I remembered listening to "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" by Ray Comfort. There was this point where Kirk Cameron talked about what if I sold my property to save someone from a disease. If the person doesn't know anything about the disease then my selling of all my property to pay for the badly needed treatment won't make sense. Another illustration was all about the flight. You have to tell the person that the parachute is not meant to improve the flight but to tell the person that it's for emergency reasons. If you…

It's Not Okay to Be Blindly Loyal to the Pope and His Army of Pharisees

Some rabid Roman Catholics keep sensationalizing the sins of fraud pastors (as if true born again Christians ever support them) while they keep hiding the sins of their priests or Pharisees. They also say that born again Christians are blindly loyal to the pastor never mind that they are blindly loyal to the Pope and his Pharisees. Blind loyalty towards a a prosperity gospel pastor, a so-called successor of a so-called last messenger or any quack preacher is no different than blind loyalty towards the Pope and his Pharisees. Worse, Roman Catholics believe that their Pharisees are instruments in saving their souls or that the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands never mind all the priestly scandals are telling them otherwise.

I could remember how often Bible reading is discouraged (and yet some of these rabid Roman Catholics tell me I should read the Bible and I can't get wrong with it) because it could drive me crazy from reading it. Some Roman Catholics I've met &quo…

Don't Even Think About Legalizing Prostitution or Sex Trade

There's some people who seek to legalize prostitution. Some "rational" atheists are already talking about prostitution should be legalized so it could be controlled by the government. The claim that "studies" show that prohibition doesn't work is a lie straight from the pits of Hell. The Israelites were doing sin not because God forbade it but because they were disobedient and the rulers did nothing to prevent those sins. It's not surprising is that the same people who seek to legalize prostitution also want to legalize narcotics and hard liquor all in the name of "succeeding in the war against them".

The logic behind legalizing prostitution is that so the government can control them and tax them. But the problem with the quest to legalize prostitution is that it encourages the sin rather than discourage it. The problem is not the war against prostitution but ignoring Ecclesiastes 8:11. Do you know why the war against prostitution isn't wo…

Is Salvation in Peter's Hands (As Well as the Popes) Because Jesus Supposedly Gave Him the Literal Keys of Heaven?

According to a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who I'll probably dub as Mr. Whistle when I mention him) he claimed that salvation is in the hands of Peter because Jesus gave the former the keys of Heaven. The guy is clearly taking things out of context with what he says. I wonder does he even bother to check out the idioms of the Bible since some passages use a figure of speech instead of speaking everything literally?

If he can't get Matthew 16:18 correctly where he said that Peter the Rock even when the Good News Translation for Roman Catholics says otherwise (and worse for them Peter is differentiated as a rock and the Rock is clearly not him) then he also misinterprets Matthew 16:19. Let's try to understand Matthew 16:19 with the keys and what they really mean. In his interpretation he's already telling everyone that born again Christians should just go back to the Roman Catholic institution because the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands. I don&…

Atheists With Abusive Mindsets Do Exist

It's a myth over the modern world that there's no such thing as an atheist with an abusive mindset. I can see atheists who claim that abuses only come through theism. I don't deny that there's such a thing as religious people with an abusive mindset such as Roman Catholic fanatics, Islamic extremists and any form of religious extremism. The problem of the claim is that it denies the reality that there's such a thing as atheists who have an abusive mindset. One such person is the late Christopher Hitchens who claims that he has the right o treat religion with ridicule, hatred and contempt. Isn't that an example of an atheist with an abusive mindset? Sad to say, Hitchens himself is still cursing God from the pits of Hell. Christians should pray that Richard Dawkins wouldn't make the same wrong decision as Hitchens.

One horrible atheist blogger claimed he was indeed one of the most scientific people on Earth. Just reading his blog alone is so tiresome that I&…

Why This Ministry DOES NOT Support the Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baptist Church is a so-called Baptist institution founded by Fred Phelps who is a lawyer and a theologian. Is it your average Baptist assembly or is this another of Satan's brain children? I would like to present my stand why this ministry does not support the Westboro Baptist Church and why as a Baptist, I do not support them either:
The founder Fred Phelps who serves as its pastor. I do find it disturbing he says that he supports sound doctrine of good Christian preachers of the past like John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon but his doctrine is not sound at all. His preaching is definitely not balanced. While I do appreciate him attacking the Great Whore of Revelation, apostasy, ecumenism, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and a lot of sins however he is no better than the Roman Catholic institution which he frequently criticizes. Although he claims to be a Calvinist and a Spurgeon fan, however many of those who are Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer, John …