A Reformation Day Prayer/Hymn

/

This Reformation Day, let us reflect on the prayer that Martin Luther set to music in the hymn entitled "O Lord, Look Down from Heaven, Behold".

This could have been written today.

O Lord, look down from heaven, behold
And let Thy pity waken:
How few are we within Thy Fold,
Thy saints by men forsaken!
True faith seems quenched on every hand,
Men suffer not Thy Word to stand;
Dark times have us o'ertaken.

With fraud which they themselves invent
Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
In error's maze astounded.

May God root out all heresy
And of false teachers rid us
Who proudly say: "Now, where is he
That shall our speech forbid us?
By right or might we shall prevail;
What we determine cannot fail;
We own no lord and master."

Therefore saith God, "I must arise,
The poor My help are needing;
To Me ascend My people's cries,
And I have heard their pleading.
For them My saving Word shall fight
And fearlessly and sharply smite,
The poor with might defending."

As silver tried by fire is pure
From all adulteration,
So through God's Word shall men endure
Each trial and temptation.
Its light beams brighter through the cross,
And, purified from human dross,
It shines through every nation.

Thy truth defend, O God, and stay
This evil generation;
And from the error of their way
Keep Thine own congregation.
The wicked everywhere abound
And would Thy little flock confound;
But Thou art our Salvation.

Written by Martin Luther in Erfurt in 1524

The Questions Five Two Doesn't Want You To See (and won't answer)

/

Last night I took some time to read through the Five Two Network's Facebook and noticed that some people with discernment were challenging their claims regarding the Biblical basis for Sacramental Entrepreneurs. What I found to be stunningly preposterous was what the Five Two Network said in their defense of Sacramental Entrepreneurs. Here is what was posted:

GenerativeOffice

I decided to chime in and ask Five Two some tough Biblical questions in order to get them to clarify this statement. After posting the questions I went to bed. When I woke up I wasn't surprised to find that my questions had been deleted from their Facebook. Sooooooo, I reposted them and added a few more questions. Here is what I wrote:

Crushes dissent

TheQuestions

Not surprisingly, my questions and all challenging questions that were posted on the Five Two Network's Facebook page have been deleted.

If Five Two has Biblical truth on their side why do they refuse to Biblically explain their position and provide solid Biblical answers to those people who are asking the tough Biblical questions?

Could it be that they're not interested in Biblical truth but instead are feigning allegiance to Biblical truth while openly acting contrary to it?

One thing is certain, no dissent and no Biblical challenges are permitted by the Five Two Network.

In other words, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated by the community.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature

@PirateChristian

Ken Silva Interview on F4F Pilot Episode

/

In 2007 Fighting for the Faith was not a daily radio program. At that time, F4F was a concept and in 2007 I recorded several pilot episodes to begin working out the concept.

In the 3rd episode of the F4F pilots, I conducted my first radio interview and the person I interviewed was Pastor Ken Silva.

Here is the July 11, 2007 pilot episode of F4F and my interview with Ken Silva:

Time Off to Grieve

/

As many of you know, late Monday night I received the tragic news that one of my closest friends, apologist and pastor Ken Silva had died.

The news hit me very hard.

Ken and I have been friends for almost a decade and together we were two of the first and most vocal discernment bloggers (ODM's as our opponents called us) on the web. Ken and I collaborated and conspired together on many defenses of the Christian faith against the heresies of the Emergent Church movement and the abuses of the Seeker-Driven church and its leaders. Ken would often provide me with what he called "covering fire" for the work that I was doing and his favorite way to end our many phone conversations was to say, "we ride to the sound of the guns."

Without a doubt, Ken and I kept each other sane during a time when the church was slipping into greater and greater apostasy and doctrinal insanity.

Fighting for the Faith and Pirate Christian Radio are heavily indebted to the tireless and selfless research and courage of Ken Silva.

The grieving process has not been easy for me and despite my desire to get back into the fight, I am not emotionally able.

As scripture says, there is a "time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” (Eccl. 3:4). This is my time to weep and mourn the death of my dear friend. But, I do not “not grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13). No! I have hope knowing that my grieving will give way to laughter and dancing on the day when our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ appears. On that day Ken and I and all the saints will be reunited and never again be torn apart by death.

In the meantime, I need to take the remainder of the broadcast week off so that I can work through my grief.

I will be back on Monday, October 6th.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature

@PirateChristian

The AALC Passes Resolution Urging the ELCA to Repent!

/

This past week I travelled to St. Paul for the biannual convention of The American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC) and two very important things happened at that convention. The first is that The AALC elected Dr. Curtis Leins to be their Presiding Pastor. (Dr. Leins is a solid Confessional Lutheran). The second is that the AALC passed a resolution urging the ELCA to repent and seek forgiveness for their heresies. The text of the resolution that The AALC passed yesterday morning is reprinted below:

Whereas, the foundation of Lutheran doctrine has always been "Scripture Alone;" and

Whereas, the ELCA has consciously departed from the clear teaching of God's Holy Word and denied "Scripture Alone" by chasing after the false spirit of the age, such as blasphemously affirming homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and pronouncing God's blessing on same sex marriages and;

Whereas, no church body claiming Christ Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords has the authority to deny or alter God's Word or modify God's expressed definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman;  and

Whereas, silence as a church body can be misconstrued as a tacit approval of the ELCA's rebellion against the authority of God's Word;

Be it resolved, that for the sake of the truth of the gospel and the salvation of souls, The AALC urges the ELCA, on the basis of scripture to repent of their false doctrine, renounce the spirit of the age, and seek forgiveness for their blasphemies through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, The AALC urges the ELCA to bear fruit in keeping with repentance by submitting to the highest authority in doctrine and life, namely the Holy Scriptures. We further direct the Presiding Pastor of The AALC to personally communicate this position to the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA and make public, via the media, The AALC's urging of the ELCA to repent and seek forgiveness.

Rick Warren's Mulligan Theory of the Atonement: A False Gospel

/

If you didn't see Rick Warren's Christmas Sermon on Fox News then you missed a dooosie of a sermon and by dooosie I don't mean that it was a good sermon I mean that it was a bad sermon.

This year's "Christmas Sermon" at Saddleback is a perfect example of the quintessential Warren sermon.

First of all, the sermon was chock full of verses ripped from their context which were cited from really bad paraphrases like "The Message". Warren delivered these verses in such a fashion that they didn't even remotely resemble what the Bible actually says and means in the original languages. (Since, when did this practice become okay?)

Secondly, his sermon barely mentioned sin and the entire context of what we need a savior for. Instead of giving us the Biblical context of sin and the gospel proclamation of a savior being born to us Warren, like a used car salesman, listed out 3 benefits that people could receive by accepting God's "Christmas Present" to them. (Warren and his apologists call this approach the 'Positive Gospel'). Here were the promised benefits.

1. Presence - You lose your loneliness
2. Pardon - Jesus gives you a Mulligan, a 'do-over'
3. Purpose - You find out who you are (discover your purpose)

The "benefit" that I want to focus on for this post is the second one, Jesus gives you a Mulligan. Here is some video from that segment of Warren's sermon.

http://www.piratechristianradio.com/mediaplayer/player.swf

Warren says that God wants to give us a 'second chance', a do-over and a Mulligan. Is this the Biblical Gospel? Is the 'good news' of the New Testament the proclamation that Jesus is offering you and me an opportunity for a 'do-over'? Before you answer, consider the implications of this 'gospel' very carefully.

I play golf nearly every week. My USGA Handicap Index is a 15.3. You could say that I have a lot of experience with Mulligans. Here is how a Mulligan works. When a golfer stands on the tee box, addresses the ball then takes a swing and finds to his dismay that rather than heading straight down the fairway his ball instead flies off into the woods or into a house or into a water hazard. Making a mistake like this on the tee box is not only embarrassing, it can be very costly. When a golfer finds himself in this situation (if his playing partners are feeling forgiving) he can invoke the Mulligan and re-tee his ball and take another swing. There is a catch. If your second shot is just as ugly as your first, there are no third chances. You cannot take a second Mulligan.

So if you take Warren's Mulligan metaphor and mistakenly think that is what the Biblical gospel is all about then you are going to believe a false gospel.

The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus Christ came to Earth and died on the cross so that you can have a 'do-over'. If that were the case then our salvation would still be based upon us and our keeping of God's law. That is like saying that we messed up the first time, so Jesus is giving us a 'second chance' but if we mess up another time there is no hope for us. Quite frankly, I don't need one do-over, I need hundreds of do-overs every day.

This whole do-over/Mulligan metaphor that Warren used is at best wrong and at worst is a 'false gospel'.

So what would be an appropriate Golf illustration that conveys the truth of the Biblical Gospel?

If you want to use a golf analogy to convey the true 'Good News' of the scripture it would sound like this.

Pretend you are a terrible golfer (for most there is not much imagination needed here). Now pretend that your eternal salvation depends on you scoring a perfect round of Golf (par or better for the entire round) at Bethpage Black (arguably the toughest golf course on the planet) and the course has been set up for U.S. Open conditions (7400 yards long, 8 inch rough and greens so fast it's like putting in a bath tub). But, wait just to make things even more difficult, the devil has thrown in gail force winds that are swirling and gusting as high a 60 miles an hour.

To give you an idea of how difficult this feat is, Tiger Woods at the 2002 U.S. Open at Bethpage Black, with practically perfect weather conditions was the ONLY golfer with a score that was UNDER par. Phil Mickleson was the only other golfer that scored an even par for the tournament. Every other golfer was above par for the tournament. But under these course conditions not even Tiger Woods has any hope of being saved. Sadly, even if Jesus gave you a Mulligan then there would still be no hope of your being saved. One 'do-over' would be quickly gobbled up at Bethpage Black under these conditions.

So then how can you be 'saved' in this scenario?

The Biblical Gospel teaches us that even under these impossible conditions, Jesus Christ shot the perfect round of golf for you at Bethpage Black and is offering you HIS scorecard as your own. He's already taken your scorecard, the one with all the sins on it, and he's atoned for those sins on the cross. In return, He will give you His perfect scorecard and let you sign your name to it as if you were the one who shot that round.

Do you see the difference between these two golf metaphors and the implications they carry regarding the Gospel?

The 'gospel' Warren preached this Christmas was the 'gospel' of the Mulligan and the do-over. But this is really no gospel at all. It puts our salvation back on our shoulders and puts us in an impossible situation by requiring us to get it right the second time.

The Gospel that the Bible teaches isn't about 'do-overs', its about what Christ has already DONE for you. He has won your salvation and is offering you a full and true pardon, complete forgiveness and His perfect righteousness as a gift.

There is a big difference between Warren's Mulligan Theory of the Atonement and the Biblical Gospel. Which are you going to put your trust in?

Debate Challenge to Mark Jones & Rick Phillips

/

In light of the controversy surrounding charges of antinomianism against those who, like myself, hold to a law/gospel paradigm, brought by those who subscribe to Mark Jones' sanctification schema which explicitly states that "good works are necessary FOR salvation", and in view of that fact that Jones and his most prominent supporters have been incessantly calling for a debate on these maters, I challenge Mark Jones & Rick Phillips to debate myself and another Lutheran pastor/theologian of my choosing to debate the question, "Are Good Works Necessary FOR Salvation?"

The debate will be held at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana

Date: To be determined by the consensus of the participants

Format: To be determined by the consensus of the participants

Mark Jones & Rick Phillips should contact me via email at talkback@fightingforthefaith.com should they choose to accept this debate challenge.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature
@PirateChristian

A Response to Carl Trueman

/

I must confess that it grieves me to write this post because I am a huge fan of Carl Trueman and have the deepest respect for him as a Christian scholar. None of what I am about to say changes any of that.

Carl Trueman took a few minutes on his blog last night to respond, in part, to Tullian's interview on F4F.

In his post, Trueman defends his "Practical Questions" post and denies that it was slanderous. The reason that Trueman puts forward as to why his post wasn't slanderous is that it "was made up mainly of questions". Said Trueman:

Questions can certainly be loaded and problematic (as in 'When did you stop beating your wife?') but it is very difficult for them to be slanderous or to break the Ninth Commandment. Slander and lies involve false assertions. To state the obvious, questions are not assertions.

I would remind Dr. Trueman that loaded questions are far more than problematic, they do in fact make tacit assertions. For instance the question 'When did you stop beating your wife' tacitly asserts that the person who is being asked the question is a wife beater. If the person being asked such a question protests and says, "how dare you say that I am a wife beater," the person who asked the question will not be able to plausibly deny that they were making a tacit assertion by saying, "I was only asking a question." The person asking such a question knows full well that question itself not only assumed but tacitly asserted the charges of wife beating.

In this same way, Trueman's questions were not mere questions. They were in fact, loaded questions and were making tacit assertions. What they were tacitly asserting egregiously misrepresented Tullian's theology. As Tullian himself pointed out during the interview he doesn't speak one word (grace) but he speaks two words (law and grace). This is not a new development in his theology nor is this fact missing in his books, sermons or conference lectures. Trueman knows this. But his questions, by omitting the fact that Tullian speaks law before he speaks grace, tacitly asserted that Tullian only speaks grace and created the false perception that Tullian and "radical gracers" who share his theology would somehow find themselves in a theological quandary when providing pastoral counseling to parishioners who wrestle with besetting sins.

The post, from beginning to end, threw Tullian's theology on the horns of a false dilemma by omitting the very real fact that Tullian is not merely a gospel preacher, he's a law then gospel preacher.

In short, I stand by the statements made by Tullian and myself in the interview regarding the slanderous nature of Trueman's loaded questions.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature
@PirateChristian

Was Louis Berkhof an Antinomian?

/

A challenge to Mark Jones’ theological definitions.

Having read Jones' book on antinomianism I'm surprised by the lack of criticism that he's receiving from within the Reformed Camp for his extremely poor theological precision. What I mean is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that chapter five of Jones' book, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest is a protracted argument defending the thesis that good works are necessary for salvation. Here are a few quotes from chapter five:

"If faith is an antecedent condition required of sinners in order to receive pardon of sins—that is, justification and faith are not synonymous—then, as Reformed theologians insisted, good works, prepared in advance by God (Eph. 2:10) and done in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9–14), are consequent conditions for salvation. In other words, to insist that believers perform good works only as their thankful response to the triune God for all that he has done for them may give the impression that they are not actually necessary for salvation."[1] (Emphasis Added)

"In the end, there can be little doubt about the Reformed consensus on this matter. Good works are necessary for salvation."[2] (Emphasis Added)

As a Confessional Lutheran Pastor I am bound by the Lutheran confessions to reject as "false and improper" Mark Jones' contention that good works are necessary for salvation. Article IV of the Formula of Concord directly answers the question as to whether or not good works are necessary for salvation and what the Lutheran theologians had to say on this matter is worth noting:

"Here we must take great care not to draw works into the article of justification and salvation and mix them in with it. Therefore, it is proper to reject the propositiones that good works are necessary for the salvation of believers or that it is impossible to be saved without good works. For these [propositions] are totally contradictory to the teaching de particulis exclusivis in articulo iustificationis et salvationis [on the exclusive clauses in the article of justification and salvation], that is, they oppose St. Paul’s expressions that completely exclude our works and merit from the article on justification and salvation and ascribe everything to God’s grace and the merit of Christ alone, as it was explained in the preceding article. Likewise, these [propositions] regarding the necessity of good works for salvation deprive troubled, distressed consciences of the comfort of the gospel, give them reason to doubt, and are in many ways dangerous. On the other hand, they strengthen the presumptuousness of one’s own righteousness and the trust in one’s own works. The papists adopted these ideas for this purpose and used them to their own advantage against the pure teaching that faith alone can save. Thus they are also opposed to the standard of sound expression [cf. 2 Tim. 1:13], as it is written, “Salvation belongs only to those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). Likewise, in article six of the Augsburg Confession [VI, 3], it is written: a person “shall be saved . . . not through works but through faith alone.”[3]

The Lutheran Confessions then go on to summarize the Bible's teaching that salvation, from beginning to end, is by grace through faith alone:

"so that we may be sure and certain of the promise not only that we receive righteousness and salvation but also that we retain it, Paul attributes to faith not only the access to grace but also the basis for our standing in grace and our “boasting in the glory which is to come” (Rom. 5:2). That is, he attributes everything—the beginning, middle, and end—to faith alone. Likewise, Romans 11:20: “They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith.” Colossians 1:22, 23]: He will “present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue . . . in the faith.” 1 Peter 1:5, 9]: “You are protected by the power of God through faith for salvation,” and “you are receiving the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”

Since, in all theological discourse and polemics, precise definitions are necessary, it would appear to me that Mark Jones has, in part, defined orthodoxy in such a way that unless one confesses that good works are necessary for salvation, then by definition that person is an antinomian. Ergo, all Confessional Lutherans, myself included, are antinomians.

This indeed raises the stakes of the current debate within the Reformed camp re: Antinomianism and Tullian Tchividjian because those prosecuting Tullian and charging him with being an antinomian had better be prepared, if they're consistent, to not only wage this war against Tullian, but against all Confessional Lutherans, and Reformed Systematic Theologian, Louis Berkhof.

I spent some time this morning reviewing what Berkhof wrote regarding the necessity of good works and found that the doctrine that he put forward in his Systematic Theology agrees with the Lutheran Confessions. Said Berkhof:

"THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS. There can be no doubt about the necessity of good works properly understood. They cannot be regarded as necessary to merit salvation, nor as a means to retain a hold on salvation, nor even as the only way along which to proceed to eternal glory, for children enter salvation without having done any good works."[5] (Emphasis Added)

This quote alone demonstrates that Louis Berkhof, by Mark Jones' definition of orthodoxy, was not only a Radical Gracer but also an antinomian.

Maybe the real problem is not that Tullian is an antinomian, but that Mark Jones is a legalist.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature
@PirateChristian

---

1. Jones, Mark (2013-11-10). Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (p. 64). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.

2. Ibid p. 69

3. Kolb, R., Wengert, T. J., & Arand, C. P. (2000). The Book of Concord: the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (p. 578). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

4. Ibid. pp. 579–580

5. Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 543). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Are you a Sabbath Keeper or Sabbath Breaker?

/

The Torah, and the Torah only, defines what it means to keep or break the Sabbath. Here's what it teaches.

Sabbath must be observed from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday - “from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32)

No work can be done on the Sabbath. It is wholly a day of rest - “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD.” (Exodus 31:15)

If you turn your furnace on during the winter on the Sabbath, you're a Sabbath breaker - “You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” (Exodus 35:3)

If you bake or boil food on the Sabbath, you're a Sabbath breaker - “On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.” (Exodus 16:22–23)

If you travel far from your home, you're a Sabbath breaker - “Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” (Exodus 16:29)

You don't keep the Sabbath unless you enforce the Sabbath with the death penalty - “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” (Exodus 31:15)

“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” (Numbers 15:32–35)

You don't keep the Sabbath unless your priest sacrifices two lambs every Sabbath - “On the Sabbath day, two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with oil, and its drink offering: this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering and its drink offering.” (Numbers 28:9–10)

Based on how the Torah defines what it means to keep the Sabbath, who can say that they're a Sabbath Keeper?

What is the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit & Why is it Unforgivable?

/

I recently interviewed / debated Brian Powers, a self-professed anointed man of God and televangelist. During the conversation Powers leveled the charge against me that I was blaspheming the Holy Spirit for not recognizing his anointing and prophetic powers. This claim by Powers shows that he's confused about what the Bible teaches regarding the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately many Christians are also confused about this. Therefore, I'm going to take a moment and answer a couple of questions, "what is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and why is it it unforgivable?"

In order to answer these questions we must take a look at the fuller context of Matthew 12:30–32 here is what it says:

“Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:22–32)

With this fuller context in mind we can see that that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to so resist the saving work of Christ and the gospel rather than fall on your knees in penitence and sorrow for your sins and seek the forgiveness of sins offered through Christ (see John 16:8–10). Those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit vehemently resist the work of the Holy Spirit and claim that it is evil and the work the of the devil. 1 Corinthians 12:3 further makes this clear by showing us that the Holy Spirit’s work is to bring sinners to repentance and faith in Christ. It says:

“Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Martin Luther understood the Office and Work of the Holy Spirit and rightly summarized this work in the Small Catechism when he said:

I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins—mine and those of all believers.

Since the Holy Spirit’s work is to convict us of our sins and comfort us through The Gospel, to resist His work and ascribe it to the devil and despise His work to the point of believing that it is demonic cuts one off from the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins. This is why it is unforgivable.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη σοι,

Signature
@PirateChristian

Is Vision Casting Biblical

/

What is Vision Casting? Where does it come from? And is Vision Casting Biblical?

Below are three audio resources that will help you understand Vision Casting and more importantly, why it is NOT a Biblical practice.

The first resource is from my hour long interview on the Issues, Etc. radio program. In this interview, the major teachers and proponents of vision casting are quoted and Biblically refuted.

http://piratechristianradio.com/RadioEmbed/VisionCasting.html

Download this interview by clicking here.

The second resource is from the archives of Fighting for the Faith where I answer a listener's email and demonstrate how vision casting distracts churches from Christ's mission and vision for the church.

http://piratechristianradio.com/RadioEmbed/VisionCasting2.html

Download this interview by clicking here.

The third, and final resource is from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller's interview on the Issues, Etc. radio program. In this interview, Pastor Wolfmueller exposes the Bible twisting that takes place in order to support the idea of Vision Casting and then he demonstrates, Biblically how vision casters are really nothing more than false prophets.

http://piratechristianradio.com/RadioEmbed/VisionCasting3.html

Download this interview by clicking here.

The Bottom Line

Vision casting is NOT a Biblical practice. Instead, it is a dangerous practice that by necessity turns a pastor into a false prophet the result of which will lead a congregation away from Jesus Christ's mission and vision for the church.