The Myth That All Religions Lead To God

          The belief that all religions worship the same God is rooted in the relativistic nature of our culture, which has sadly even influenced many who profess to be Christians. The world in which we live is saturated with the idea that all belief systems are equally valid. People naturally perceive themselves as already being good. This is the end result of man believing that he is the final arbitrator of truth. Individualism has been emphasized in an extreme way. People who express disagreement with the religions of others may as a result be considered arrogant.

          The idea that all religions lead to God is logically indefensible, since they contradict each other at the most basic tenets. Further, the religions of this world do not even claim to serve one god who presides over humanity. Regardless of what belief system that one espouses, he inevitably makes an absolute truth claim. Everybody else must be wrong. A rejection of opposing views is what follows from faithful adherence to any given worldview. Logical consistency and coherence demand a rejection of all opposing claims upon accepting one set of ideas.

          Christianity is unique among the religions of this world in that its message of salvation is one of God's unmerited grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Others teach salvation to be merited in part on the basis of righteous deeds. Christianity is the only religion which posits a realistic view of our sinful nature. The Judeo-Christian worldview is unique in that its God desires to have a personal relationship with man. Truth is very much a real thing. Something can be either true or false. It cannot be both ways in the same way at the same time.

           The gospel is open to all who call upon the name of the Lord. No one deserves to inherit the kingdom of God, since we have sinned against Him. Christianity is an inclusive religion in the sense that the atonement of Jesus Christ is applied to all who believe on Him for salvation. Christianity is exclusive in that it presents Him as being the only way to being reconciled with God. It is exclusive in the same sense as every other religion, namely, by making truth claims.

          If Christianity is true, then it follows that every other existing belief system is false. If any of the other religions of this world are right, then it follows that Christianity is false. If Christianity is false, then Christians are the most pitiable of all people (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). They have no real hope. If there are multiple ways to salvation, then the gospel itself becomes redundant. Thus, this pluralistic thinking is a threat to the Christian faith. No compromise or negotiation is permissible on this matter.

Abandoning Our First Love

"In considering the apostasy, we have seen its root in the loss of the first love, whereby a separation was made between the Lord and the Church,— the Head and the body, — and He was hindered in the exercise of His headship. Through the same loss of love, the Holy Ghost, sent by the Son, was unable to fulfill His mission. After a time the expectation of the Lord's speedy return passed away, and also the hope of it; and the Church made it her work to bring all the world under subjection to Christ before His return.

Thus the history of the Church has not been that of a community of one heart and mind, carrying out the will of its Head under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and steadily growing in love, holiness, wisdom, and power; but of a community divided against itself, forgetful of God's purpose, filled with ambition to rule in this world, and covetous of its pleasures and honours. The Holy Ghost has not been able to do His full work in the Church, and therefore her witness to the world has been partial and feeble. The Head, though nominally honoured, has passed more and more from the thought of the Church as her living and ruling Lord, and from the knowledge of men as the King of kings.

We have seen in the movements and tendencies of the present time the preparation for the final fulfillment of the Scripture predictions. Modern pantheistic philosophy is leavening the public mind with its denials of a personal God, of man's moral freedom, and of immortality. Modern science, particularly in its evolutionary phase, is denying a Creator and a creation, and can find in the Universe no Divine purpose, only an endless evolution, in which man appears for a moment as a shining bubble, then disappears for ever. The Bible is put aside by many as a book outgrown, with its doctrine of sin and its legendary miracles and history. Much of modern literature is imbued with the pantheistic spirit, or is critical and skeptical, and, when not positively irreligious is indifferent to religion."

(Samuel Andrews, Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Their Final Conflict, “Summary and Conclusion,” part IV, originally published in 1898)

Stay Away From The One New Man "Bible"

          The One New Man Bible, translated in 2011 by William J. Morford, is often promoted as a recovery of the “Jewish roots” of Christianity. In reality, it reflects the theological agenda of the Hebrew Roots Movement and is marketed within charismatic circles, including those influenced by the New Apostolic Reformation. The translation attempts to reframe the New Testament through Hebrew categories, frequently redefining words and concepts, while downplaying the historical fact that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. This approach distorts the text rather than clarifying it.

          A hallmark of this movement is the insistence on rendering the name of Jesus as Yeshua. While this is the Hebrew form of His name, it is not the ordinary usage among Christians historically, and its elevation often signals an attempt to Judaize the faith. The underlying problem with the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it encourages Christians to observe Mosaic customs, claiming that Jesus did not fulfill and terminate the Old Covenant but rather reaffirmed it. Adherents argue that Christianity has apostatized by incorporating Greco-Roman philosophy, yet these claims collapse under the weight of the New Testament itself.

          The Apostle Paul taught clearly that Gentiles need not seek circumcision (1 Corinthians 7:17–19; Galatians 5:6; 6:15). The church of Jesus Christ includes both Jew and Gentile equally (Galatians 3:26–29). Nowhere does Scripture require Gentiles to keep the Law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 2:14). We are not under Law but under grace (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25; 5:16–18). Christ is the fulfillment of the Law for all who believe (Romans 10:3–4). The gospel does not depend on works of the Law (Romans 3:27–28; Galatians 2:16–21), nor are believers sanctified by them (Galatians 3:1–6). Paul rebuked the Galatians for reverting to Mosaic practices, calling such behavior “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8–9). Likewise, the epistle to the Hebrews exhorts Jewish Christians not to return to the old religious system.

          There is nothing wrong with Christians supporting Israel politically, but it is a grave error to seek to place oneself under the Law of Moses. Scripture warns that those who attempt to keep the Law must do so perfectly (Romans 3:20; Galatians 5:1–3; James 2:10–11), which is impossible due to human sinfulness. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) rejected the Judaizers’ demand that Gentiles be circumcised to be saved. The Hebrew Roots Movement is spiritually dangerous because its premises contradict the gospel of grace and are emphatically condemned by the New Testament.

          The concept of the “New Man” is also heavily promoted within charismatic circles, particularly among leaders associated with the New Apostolic Reformation and the Latter Rain movement. These groups often reinterpret biblical figures such as Gideon and Joshua as prototypes for a spiritually elite generation destined to exercise dominion and usher in God’s kingdom on earth. Terms like “Joshua Generation,” “New Breed,” and “Man-Child Company” are used to describe this supposed class of believers, portrayed as uniquely empowered by the Spirit. Such theology blurs the line between biblical sanctification and spiritual elitism, suggesting that certain individuals possess a higher spiritual status than others. The One New Man Bible is promoted by Sid Roth, a charismatic figure closely associated with Morford, further entangling the translation with questionable theology.

          William J. Morford’s own doctrinal positions confirm these concerns. He explicitly denies the Trinity, writing, "It is past time to recognize that the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not Scriptural. The Trinity came into Christian thought as former Heathens took over leadership of the Church in the second and third centuries..." This rejection of a foundational Christian doctrine compromises any credibility that he may have had in translating the Bible.

          The footnotes of the One New Man Bible also contain serious errors. For example, Morford claims that the “image and likeness of God” includes a physical representation, a view that contradicts Scripture. Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that humanity was created in God’s image, but the New Testament clarifies that this likeness refers to spiritual and moral qualities, not physical form (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). God is Spirit (Deuteronomy 4:15-16, Numbers 23:19, 1 Kings 8:27). Another example is Morford’s assertion that traditional Bible translations render “Law” incorrectly and should instead use “Torah.” However, the New Testament’s consistent use of the Greek term nomos is accurately translated as “Law,” since nomos in Koine Greek denotes legal codes, binding regulations, and covenantal stipulations. Rendering it as “Law” preserves the semantic contrast Paul and other writers make between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant of grace (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:23–25). To substitute “Torah” would obscure this linguistic distinction, collapsing the broader Greek concept of nomos into a narrower Hebrew category and misrepresenting the intent of the inspired text. Morford even attacks textual reliability by claiming in the glossary of his translation that the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 is not genuine, despite unanimous manuscript evidence supporting its authenticity.

          In view of these errors, it is evident that the One New Man Bible is not a product of sound scholarship. It distorts the New Testament by imposing Hebrew categories on Greek texts, promotes theological errors such as the denial of the Trinity, and aligns itself with movements that undermine the gospel. For these reasons, Christians would be wise to steer clear of this translation and instead rely on faithful versions grounded in the original languages and the historic witness of the church.

"Our Reasoning Capacities Are Highly Unreliable"

"But the real surprise is that Oppy apparently rejects the assumption. He says it’s obvious (!) that our reasoning capacities are “highly unreliable” in the domain of philosophy. Yet he makes this claim as part of a philosophical rebuttal of Plantinga and Reppert, in the course of a philosophical case for naturalism, in a philosophical book written by a professional philosopher. If our reasoning capacities are highly unreliable in the domain of philosophy, what on earth does Oppy think he’s doing? This isn’t so much cutting the branch you’re sitting on as felling the tree and grinding the stump.

...Still, Oppy’s right about one thing: if our cognitive faculties are the product of undirected naturalistic evolution — which is to say, if evolutionary naturalism is true — then it’s highly unlikely that those faculties are reliable when it comes to philosophical matters. That’s a big problem for philosophical naturalists like Oppy."

James Anderson, Adventures in Branch-Cutting

Is The Sinner's Prayer Biblical?

          There is a fairly recent development in church history that has pervaded mainstream methods of evangelism known as the sinner's prayer. It is a recited gospel invitation meant to convict unbelievers of sin and to assure new converts of having been delivered by God from their sins. We frequently hear zealous pastors during their sermons calling people in their audiences to repeat after them a formulaic prayer with the intention of ensuring the salvation of listeners.

          The first and foremost problem with the notion of a sinner's prayer is that nowhere does Scripture assure people of salvation on the basis that they recited a prayer. It nowhere guarantees salvation to people who recite a specific sequence of words. For example, nowhere do we see the apostles in the Book of Acts assuring people of salvation just because they recited a formula of prayer. There is more to conversion in that it involves the human heart and the Spirit of God.

          Justification in the sight of God is not obtained by ritualistic means, but by faith. If reciting the sinner's prayer is a biblical practice, then why did the Apostle Paul fail to mention that concept in his basic presentation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)? We cannot immediately assure people who have recited a prayer of salvation because we cannot look at their hearts. We do not know whether others have truly surrendered themselves to God.

          Furthermore, the sinner's prayer has given many unsaved individuals a false assurance of salvation. It has given people a wrongful sense of security in regards to their true standing with the Lord. That is the most spiritually dangerous state to be trapped in. At best, the sinner's prayer contains elements of truth mixed with error. The worst aspect of this is that people end up spending eternity in hell because of self-deception.

           This is not to communicate the idea that every individual who has recited a sinner's prayer is a false convert. Rather, we ought to cease implementing that method in witnessing to unbelievers because it is both unbiblical and deceptive. In fact, it was not until the nineteenth century when a lawyer named Charles Finney invented the sinner's prayer. The concept has been drastically popularized by evangelists such as Billy Graham.

           It is certainly biblical to guide somebody in prayer and repentance. It is certainly biblical for a sinner to ask God for His forgiveness. The confession of sin is very much a biblical concept. We can also have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13). However, assuring a person of having a righteous standing before God on the basis of repeating a prayer is misguided. We are saved by the atonement of Jesus Christ. We receive Him by faith (John 1:12-13).

The Spurious Origin Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

        The Roman Catholic dogma that Mary remained a virgin throughout her lifetime was most likely a consequence of the early church adopting low views regarding human sexuality and marriage. The rise of asceticism, monasticism, and already existing Gnostic beliefs played a foundational role in the development of Mary's perpetual virginity. Many early Christians embraced positions on the issue of marriage versus virginity that many today would readily consider to be strange and irrational. After centuries of disputes involving christology, the Second Council of Constantinople officially declared the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ to be "ever virgin."

        The church father Jerome argued that marriage was inferior to virginity and celibacy. He stated, "Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills Paradise" (Against Jovinianus, Book I). Augustine believed that marital relations could be accompanied by ungodly lusts, but he did not condemn marital relations as inherently sinful. Basil the Great acknowledged that many in his time believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, although he personally rejected this teaching. Moreover, there was a small Arabian sect known as the Collyridians, which appointed women as priests to offer sacrifices of bread to Mary, whom they worshiped and believed to be a perpetual virgin. Athanasius and John of Damascus focused on ascetic practices without specifically denigrating marriage.

        It is worth considering this excerpt from the late-second to mid-third century scholar Origen on the underlying source material for this dogma:

        “And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end.” (Commentary on Matthew, 17, emphasis added)

        The idea of Mary remaining a virgin for her entire life is based on non-inspired sources, not the biblical text itself. Therefore, one has to read this teaching into the New Testament in order to make it fit, even though it does not. The basis for it is totally unreliable. Note how the Roman Catholic Catechism defends the perpetual virginity of Mary:

        "Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression." (# 500)

        Thus, we see that Roman Catholic officials have resorted to apocryphal literature in order to substantiate their claims. The beliefs Origen himself encountered have been kept alive to this very day. The perpetual virginity of Mary is simply another one of those uninspired traditions that grew up around the New Testament. With this approach to validating doctrine, one may as well justify non-Christian teaching by citing extra-biblical sources such as the Quran or Jewish Kabbalah.

The Passion Translation Exposed

Another new custom Bible is The Passion Translation by NAR [New Apostolic Reformation] Apostle Brian Simmons. In [commentator] Holly Pivec’s "Important facts about The Passion Translation" she points out that Brian claims Jesus appeared to him and blew on him to commission Brian to write this new translation. She continues:

He says: “he breathed on me so that I would do the project, and I felt downloads coming, instantly. I received downloads. It was like, I got a chip put inside of me. I got a connection inside of me to hear him better, to understand the scriptures better and hopefully to translate.”

On this same TV program, Simmons claimed Jesus revealed to him a new chapter of the Bible. This happened when he was translated to the library of heaven where he saw more books than you can imagine. One stood out called John 22. It told about the greatest revival the world is yet to see. God promised Simmons that one day He’ll bring Simmons back to heaven and give him this book.

Alisa Childers points out in “Here’s Why Christians Should Be Concerned About The Passion Translation of the Bible” “…the sole translator of TPT, Brian Simmons, is not trained in the biblical languages, and lacks the credentials necessary to produce an accurate translation of the Bible.”

Another thing that sets TPT apart from these other single-author translations is that Simmons claims that Jesus visited him personally, took him to the library of heaven, and asked him to write the translation. He claims to have received “downloads,” and “secrets of the Hebrew language” from Jesus Himself. Simmons even admitted that he has minimal background in biblical languages and needed the Lord’s help to translate.

That is the advantage of producing a custom Bible. You don’t need to be bothered with such mundane things as knowing the original languages, and in fact, knowing the original languages would almost certainly be an impediment to your imagination, or whatever entity is downloading information to your mind. It frees you up to add new bible chapters – or at least teach others that there are unrevealed chapters which will be added as an update later. Who can deny your experience? Who can argue with your own custom Bible? It’s a very convenient new tool to let NAR Apostles and prophets off the hook for being false prophets by simply rewording the warning Jesus gave in Matthew 7:15 and following:

Constantly be on your guard against phony prophets. They come disguised as lambs, appearing to be genuine, but on the inside, they are like wild, ravenous wolves! You can spot them by their actions, for the fruits of their character will be obvious. (TPB)

The passage in the real bible is actually a warning to be on guard for FALSE PROPHETS – which of course the NAR prophets are! The definitions of false prophets are given by Moses in Deuteronomy 13 and 18. The hearers of Jesus’ warning would have had these passages memorized. The warning has nothing to do with the so-called “fruits of one’s character.” One cannot judge a false prophet by his ungodly or bad “character,” since, as Jesus points out, they will look just like sheep!! Sheep are true believers. These false prophets would seem outwardly like Godly men, doing good works while hiding their true characters! The false prophets that Jesus warned would come would probably be carrying Bibles, claiming to do miracles, utilizing Christian lingo, acting nice and Christian-y, and maybe even casting out demons in Jesus’ name. In fact, that is what Jesus said in Matthew 7:22-23:

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

http://midwestoutreach.org/2018/06/28/the-custom-bible-company/

Affirmation Of Miracles Among The Ancients Was Not A Result Of Wrongly Perceiving The Universe

"...it may be stated at once that this view is quite wrong about facts. The immensity of the universe is not a recent discovery. More than seventeen hundred years ago Ptolemy taught that in relation to the distance of the fixed stars the whole Earth must be regarded as a point with no magnitude. His astronomical system was universally accepted in the Dark and Middle Ages. The insignificance of Earth was as much a commonplace to Boethius, King Alfred, Dante, and Chaucer as it is to Mr. H. G. Wells or Professor Haldane. Statements to the contrary in modern books are due to ignorance."

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, pg. 78