Like cascading dominoes, the intentional departure from believing the Bible is inerrant has plunged the church of the 21st century down the treacherous slippery slope of accommodation and compromise.

* Why have so many evangelicals identified themselves as new evangelicals?

* What is the relationship between Fuller Seminary, the Purpose Driven Church, and the Emergent Church Movement?

* How is the Emergent Church push for globalization harmonizing with the new world order in these prophetic last days?

Addressing these and many more questions with riveting case studies coupled with staggering and sobering documentation, the author unfolds the shocking progression of ideas that were birthed in a nest of aberrant church beliefs. 

Order & More Info

The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent

by Dr. Erwin Lutzer

 

Islam is on the rise all over the West, including America. In this compelling new book, bestselling author Erwin Lutzer urges Christians to see this as both an opportunity to share the gospel and a reason for concern.
 
 We have now reached a tipping point--the spread of Islam is rapidly altering the way we live. These changes are cause for alarm, for they endanger our freedoms of speech and religion.

 

Order & More Info

The Errors of the Emergent Church
 

Emergent/postmodern philosophy has invaded nearly every once-safe denomination. In this seminar DVD, Eric defines Emergent thinking and terms, concisely exposing the leaders and errors of the Emergent Church.

Watch clip from DVD

Order & More Info

See All Products




Visit and Subscribe to Our Channel
 

Thursday night (Dec 19, 2013) I posted on Twitter: "Re: Luke 6...I stand amazed at Bill O'Reilly's ignorance. One shouldn't piously quote the Bible and do so desperately out of context." Following several more Tweets on Friday, I posted this: "O'Reilly doubles down on his misinterpretation of Luke 6:37. Phil Robertson merely paraphrased Scripture. Now, who is the pin head?"

The advocates of political correctness in our society, who intolerantly push tolerance, are certainly a major player in the unfolding Duck Dynasty vs. A&E Network story. I'll discuss the tolerance issue in another article which will hopefully be posted in the next few hours. But here I want to discuss the commentaries Bill O'Reilly of Fox News aired on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Dec. 19 & 20, 2013, concerning Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and Jesus' statement "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged" in Luke chapter 6. In case you missed the controversy that provoked O'Reilly's words, it stems from comments made by Robertson about sexual orientation in a recent GQ magazine interview.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged?

As I mentioned in my Twitter posts on Friday, I'm particularly disgusted with those who speak without any knowledge or understanding of the Bible - yet proclaim themselves experts. This is just what Bill O'Reilly did on his program Friday night, Dec. 20th. O'Reilly even claimed credence to speak about "judge not" based on the fact that he authored the book Killing Jesus. During the "Talking Points Memo" segment of Friday's program he stated, "Talking Points believes Mr. Robertson has the constitutional right to define his religious beliefs, but is misguided by targeting specific groups for damnation. Jesus was quite clear that all judgments about the consequences of sin are to be made by God and God alone." He went on to say, "We are all sinners. Because of that, the Gospel of Luke 6:37 mandates, mandates that Christian human beings refrain from judging others." (1)

While we humans cannot arbitrarily make judgments about an individual's eternal destination, Scripture clearly does so as sinful activities and the fate of those who participate in them are outlined on numerous occasions in the New Testament. (2) Other than perhaps making some edgy comments, Phil Robertson's only mistake with the GQ interviewer was presuming that he could speak his mind by roughly paraphrasing the Bible and in so doing cite biblical precepts concerning homosexuality. On the other hand, O'Reilly's mistake was apparently not knowing what the Bible actually teaches and attempting to build a case on one short passage taken completely out of context. If O'Reilly's exegesis of Luke 6:37 on TV is an example of the biblical scholarship in his book, I suggest that you do your best to avoid it. It could be replete with "pin head" theology!

Confused about "Judging?"

The related comments on our ministry's Facebook page serve to illustrate that though many seem to understand, Christians certainly do not stand united on the issue of "judge not." Folks, such as O'Reilly, who are under the impression that the Bible teaches we believers are not to employ judgment on moral or spiritual issues need to understand the context of Jesus words in Mt 7:1 & Lk 6:37. Jesus was bemoaning hypocrisy and self-righteousness in these parallel passages. He was not inferring that we should never exercise judgment about sin and its consequences. In fact, a few verses later in Matthew (7:13-14) Jesus denotes that every human being is either going into eternity through the narrow gate or through the wide gate (i.e. Heaven or Hell). In the passage Jesus implores people to come through the narrow gate because the broad way leads to eternal destruction. But that's not all. The Epistles speak in far more specific terms naming particular sins and lifestyles that, unless a person engaged in them repents and comes to Christ to receive forgiveness, will result in eternally damnation.

Whether one likes it or not, the Bible actually gives Christians the criteria by which we ARE to judge deeds, words, and lifestyles and it comes directly from Jesus.

As the Pharisees once again stood by trying to devise a way to take him Jesus said: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

In all three passages I've sited (Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37, Jn 7:24) Jesus was addressing central flaws inherent with our fallen Adamic nature: hypocrisy, condemnation, and self-righteousness. He may well have been looking directly at the self-righteous, hypocritical Pharisees themselves when he stated "Judge not" in Luke's account or "judge righteously" in John 7. And though we do not have any indication of their presence in Matthew's record of events, they were very likely listening during the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5-7. The Bible warns against hypocrisy and the practice of judging others unrighteously, but the Bible actually endorses the practice of righteous judgment for the sake of correction which includes the identification of what sin is and warning others of its consequences.

Some, such as today's PC crowd who want to stifle anyone engaged in righteous judgment, often repeat "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged" in hopes of deflating zealots or turning opinion against them. Others cherry pick the phrase out of context using "judge not" to attempt deflecting declarations about sin while building a straw man defense against their ideological opponents. Still others choose to ignore clear teaching found throughout the New Testament by picking out passages such as "judge not" in an attempt to attach false authority to their statement while in fact they are actually engaged in undermining biblical integrity. About the case in point and regardless of the motivation for planting such a deep flag on his interpretation of "judge not," one would think that someone on Bill O'Reilly's staff would know enough Bible to have headed him away from the theological train wreck he's insistently presided over in his handling of Luke 6:37. For the sake of those he may have ill-affected by his gaff, I hope he'll publicly retract, or better yet, correct his lame theology. But considering the dogmatism he's projected, he may well either triple down on his "judge not" error during Monday night's program or perhaps he'll just conveniently never mention his position on it again.

Phil Robertson's Offense

I have extensively studied the GQ magazine interview that sparked this firestorm. Frankly, it's a backhanded hit piece on the Robertson's and a diatribe against hunters, backwoodsmen, and especially "Bible thumpers" as the family is referred to in the article. It's also not a very well written piece and I need to forewarn anyone tempted to read the GQ article due to the X rated language gratuitously used by the writer. Thus, I have chosen not to link to it here. One thing I can tell you is that the GQ article confirms that Phil Robertson is exactly who we see him to be on "Duck Dynasty." He's brash, quirky, frank, bold, and he isn't afraid to buck conformity. He's refreshingly outspoken concerning his faith, his love for Jesus Christ, and the ultimate respect he holds for God's Word. Like many of us, Phil understands the moral plight America is in and believes that Jesus is the only answer. Yes, he may not state things the way others would have him to and his presentation style and let-it-all-hang-out persona and appearance may put some people off. (Ivy League he isn't!) But no matter how awkwardly Phil Robertson may have communicated it in GQ, his only offense was simply repeating the teaching of the Apostle Paul as found in first Corinthians 6 - a fact that appears to be totally lost on O'Reilly.

It states, 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I also suggest a thorough reading of the first chapter of Romans which is rightly known as the key doctrinal book of the New Testament. Here, the Apostle Paul clearly leads us by example judging lifestyles and activities. Paul also illustrates the steps that lead to one being given over to a reprobate mind, lists some of the sins involved, and clearly pronounces the fate awaiting those who decide to ignore God (See Rom. 1:20-32). (3)

But What's Factoring O'Reilly?

Is this affair just an example of why some pundits should avoid portraying themselves as theologians or is there something deeper out of place here? Where did O'Reilly arrive at his conclusion concerning Luke 6? From Catholic School? From his Priest? Perhaps from societal pressure or through the influence of some liberal theologian? I may be incorrect, but I believe I've smelled this smell before. Bill O'Reilly appears offended by the mere replication of what the Bible says and chose to criticize Phil Robertson by utilizing what is undeniably the pagan world's favorite and most misquoted verse in the entire Bible - "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Regardless of "why," I simply can't be silent when it comes to a blatant, strident, and repeated misuse of Scripture by a personality who arguably holds influence and sway with millions. Bill O'Reilly isn't right on every issue, but on this one he's absolutely wrong.

Factoring the Consequences

What if people take the advice pronounced by O'Reilly concerning Luke 6:37 and convince others to follow his aberrant commentary? It would be detrimental enough if just one Christian might foolishly follow O'Reilly's theology and ignore God's command to warn the world about everlasting separation from God. However, the effects could be eternally devastating for far more than just one soul. What if some are impeded or intimidated from following the prompting of the Holy Spirit to warn others concerning what the Scriptures teach the eternal outcome of sin is? Consider that if we refuse to walk in obedience do we not then sin against God by denying what His Word and His Spirit clearly instructs us to do? Fellow Christians, no matter how much we may like or respect a person, if anyone - minister, friend, family or TV commentator - expresses an opinion contrary to Scripture (such as O'Reilly did on Luke 6 - not once, but twice) reject the teaching, rebuke them, and if they persist, warn others.

Footnotes:

1       Watch Dec. 20, 2013 "Talking Points Memo" at http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=3553#

2       All it takes to be eternally damned is to (1) commit one sin and (2) reject Jesus' offer of eternal life which is available to all men through repentance and acceptance of Him as Savior. Trusting in Jesus brings full pardon and forgiveness and activates the free and fully paid for gift of salvation which Jesus Himself purchased through His death and bodily resurrection.

3       Romans 1:20-32

Follow Eric Barger on Twitter @ericbarger77 and on Facebook at Eric Barger/Take A Stand! Ministries. Get it all at www.ericbarger.com.

 ________________

Bring Eric to Your Church or Community in 2014!

Impact Your Church with"Take A Stand! Ministries (Click the video above.)

Contact us to bring Eric's cutting-edge "Take A Stand!" Seminars for your church or conference.

Scheduling Information

Read About Eric Barger

 Contact us about Scheduling

_____________________