There are several things that I want to write about, but I have been quite busy lately and have not had much time to do so. Things should be settling down now, so hopefully I will have a little more time to write some posts. When I first started blogging, I wondered what I would write about and if I would consistently be able to come up with enough subjects to post about. Now I have a whole list of things that I want to write about and the list keeps growing! Now I just need to find the time to sit down and focus so that I can research and write some intelligent posts.
I want to write some posts concerning Leonard Sweet. He is another postmodern author who has become influential with many in the Christian community. While Brian McLaren is one of the foremost spokesmen for the emerging church, Leonard Sweet is also having a profound influence on many churches that are not necessarily identified as “emerging”. But in my estimation, Sweet’s philosophy and teaching is just as dangerous. I hope to post this information soon.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Emerging Christian “Hippies”
Well, it seams that what the emerging crowd is actually doing is taking a nostalgic stroll back in time to the ‘60s. Scott Hill over at Fide-O, in his post, “Things That Make You Go HUH?”, mentioned in his closing statement “The emergent “conversation” is nothing but a bunch of “christian” hippies trying to be cool”. This is quite fitting and a good analogy to the emergent menagerie. He is not alone in being at a loss to clearly define the Emergent church. None of the rest of us can come up with a clear definition either. Neither can the “emergents”. And, just like rebellious adolescents, the emerging crowd is still trying to “find” themselves and have no clue about what they want to be when they grow up. Of course, it seems that the emerging folks take pride in that fact, as if the inability to define them means that they are beyond scrutiny. After all, according to them, they are still just a “conversation”. Not so! Let’s put it this way. If you were walking down the street and observed an unknown hideous substance oozing from around a sewer drain, you certainly would not need to clearly define what the substance was in order to come to the conclusion that you probably should not touch it. Anyone with a minimal amount of common sense would determine that it is probably not good for their well-being to even touch it, let alone ingest the stuff! After all, consider the source – it would be coming from a sewer. The same goes with most of the teaching of the emerging crowd. What is “oozing” from the movement is definitely not good for anyone’s well-being.
We can only hope that these emerging “hippies” will someday awaken from their drunken stupor induced from the copious amounts of their intoxicating postmodern brew, and exlaim (to borrow the line from Pecadillo’s blog), “I drank what?!”
We can only hope that these emerging “hippies” will someday awaken from their drunken stupor induced from the copious amounts of their intoxicating postmodern brew, and exlaim (to borrow the line from Pecadillo’s blog), “I drank what?!”
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Not Everyone is Emerging.
It is refreshing when I find pastors that exercise good discernment, especially with the postmodern emerging phenomenon. Dr. James MacDonald has a good article posted on his radio ministry's web site in response to the Emergent church. Of course, some of his statements are a little more gracious than I am toward some of the leadership of emergent, such as Brian McLaren. But nonetheless, his assessment is right on and I am glad that he is speaking out.
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Growing Interest in Medieval Mysticism
There seems to be a rapidly growing interest in the writings of medieval mystics within the church today. This is especially true in the emerging church movement, but is becoming prevalent throughout evangelicalism. Basically, mysticism is an attempt to attain direct knowledge of God apart from objective truth and instead relying on subjective experience to acquire spiritual truth. Scripture speaks out against such speculative and subjective experiences as a basis for acquiring truth. (Colossians 2:18-19) Sometime in the future, I intend on posting more on the subject of mysticism and its infiltration into the church.
But this is going to become an issue of increasing concern as time goes by, as the church continues to move further away from Scriptural truth. I have noticed more and more that some are turning to the mystics of the medieval church for spiritual guidance. Some time ago, in a sermon my pastor was preaching, he gave reference to a book written by Brother Lawrence, a 17th century Roman Catholic Monk entitled, “Practicing the Presence of God”. In the sermon, our pastor did not disclose the fact that Brother Lawrence was a Catholic monk. I remembered something about this book from a few years ago, but I had to research the information again. I then emailed my pastor warning him about the questionable teaching of the book (which is really based on medieval mysticism) and the doubts concerning Brother Lawrence’s conversion. Here is the content of the letter:
"I just wanted to comment on last Sunday’s sermon (Oct. 17). The content was good and the video presentation supported the message well.
However, I was troubled by your mention of Brother Lawrence’s writing, “The Practice of the Presence of God”. You mentioned Bro Lawrence’s writing TWICE as if to emphasize it in such a way as if you were trying to encourage people to read this book. What you failed to mention was that Brother Lawrence was a Roman Catholic Monk! I realize that salvation is not reliant upon what church one may attend, but it does depend on what one believes about Biblical saving faith.
I certainly appreciate Bro Lawrence’s attitude in his desire to commune with God, and his apparent departure from some of the more ritualistic aspects of the monastic lifestyle in the Roman Catholic Church. His desire to prayerfully commune with God continually is certainly commendable. However, his writings seem to lack sufficient Scriptural substance especially where Biblical salvation is concerned. I looked up some information on Brother Lawrence and found “The Practice of the Presence of God” online. There is nothing mentioned in the writing about Bro Lawrence coming to the realization that he was a sinner and needed to trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation. In fact, the following quote indicates more of a salvation by works philosophy.
“and that as he was conscious of his readiness to lay down
his life for the love of GOD, he had no apprehension of danger. That
perfect resignation to GOD was a sure way to heaven, a way in which
we had always sufficient light for our conduct.” (Emphasis Added)
“The Practice of the Presence of God”
Brother Lawrence
Contrary to what seems to be implied here, Jesus is the only sure way to heaven. I investigated a little further into information concerning his conversion. Here is what I found:
“In the winter seeing a tree stripped of its leaves and considering that within a little time the leaves would be renewed, and after that the flowers and fruit appear, he had received a high view of the Providence and Power of God, which has never since been effaced from his soul. This view had perfectly set him loose from the world and kindled in him such a love for God that he could not tell whether it had increased in the more than forty years that he had lived since.”
As related by M. Beaufort
Even in this account of Brother Lawrence’s “conversion”, there is no mention of him coming to saving faith. There is no mention about him trusting in the finished work of Christ.
Unfortunately, it seems that Bro Lawrence embraced a mysticism that set aside the truths of Scripture. This is on par with other medieval “mystics” who did much of the same thing. It seems that these people, in the absence of Biblical truth and faced with the dead, dry Roman Catholic dogmas, were left to try to cling to anything that would fill the empty void that only God can fill. What is tragic is that there really is a mystical dimension to our relationship with Jesus Christ. There is a legitimate experience of being in the presence of God, but it is ALWAYS within the framework of Biblical truth. What is most disheartening is that the false experience can in many ways mimic the real thing, robbing the unwary seeker of that wonderful legitimate experience of God. What is really tragic is that at the end of life, the only thing that awaits those who do not experience genuine saving faith is a bleak eternity separated from God. I also have doubts about the late Mother Theresa’s so-called experiences as well. It seems that she too, embraced a false spirituality. Despite all her talk about prayer and compassion for people, judging by her writings, she still embraced the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. She was certainly a wonderful, compassionate person, whose life can teach us much about self-sacrifice and love for others. However, these qualities in and of them self, do not save anybody. I would also not recommend her writings to be read by evangelical Christians as sources of Scriptural truth. I realize that we cannot judge what is actually in the heart of a person. I cannot look into the heart of anybody and determine if they are really saved or not. But we can and should, scrutinize their doctrine in light of Scripture.
Brother Lawrence’s writing has become another tool the Catholic Church uses to lure undiscerning people back into the Roman Catholic faith. Since his writing says nothing that would counter Roman Catholic doctrine, the Catholic Church can capitalize on the lure of the mystical attraction of publications such as “The Practice of the Presence of God”. Observe the following website inviting the visitor back into the arms of the “Mother Church”!
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/welcome.html
(If you scroll or search to the bottom of the page under “Spirituality”, there is a section “Some excellent Catholic devotional works include”. There you will find “The Practice of the Presence of God” listed.)
These types of “mystical” writings have become a favorite of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. They serve their purpose well to present a type of spirituality that seems to mimic a genuine experience of Christianity and adds a little “spark” to the cold dead unbiblical doctrines of Catholicism.
We need to be cautious and exercise discernment. We need to be like the first century Bereans in Acts 17:11. We also need to keep in check our disenchantment with legalistic churches of the past. We must not allow our frustration with the legalism that unfortunately pervaded many of the fundamentalist churches to cause us to throw out the truth in exchange for something that seems like a refreshing change. Let’s not throw out the proverbial “baby with the bath water”. There are plenty of writings by solid Bible believing writers over the past 400+ years that provide excellent examples of abiding in Christ, yet are grounded in Scriptural truth. I am alarmed that we are beginning to ignore the solid history of evangelical Christianity in exchange for false medieval mysticism.
It seems that there is serious question as to whether or not Brother Lawrence embraced Biblical saving faith. I believe it is extremely dangerous to view any of his work as Scriptural authority and to recommend it others, regardless of how “spiritual” it may sound on the surface. "
This is not a time for Christians to just absorb whatever they are taught – as never should be the case – but this is a time where we, more than ever, need to be discerning and search the Scriptures diligently.
But this is going to become an issue of increasing concern as time goes by, as the church continues to move further away from Scriptural truth. I have noticed more and more that some are turning to the mystics of the medieval church for spiritual guidance. Some time ago, in a sermon my pastor was preaching, he gave reference to a book written by Brother Lawrence, a 17th century Roman Catholic Monk entitled, “Practicing the Presence of God”. In the sermon, our pastor did not disclose the fact that Brother Lawrence was a Catholic monk. I remembered something about this book from a few years ago, but I had to research the information again. I then emailed my pastor warning him about the questionable teaching of the book (which is really based on medieval mysticism) and the doubts concerning Brother Lawrence’s conversion. Here is the content of the letter:
"I just wanted to comment on last Sunday’s sermon (Oct. 17). The content was good and the video presentation supported the message well.
However, I was troubled by your mention of Brother Lawrence’s writing, “The Practice of the Presence of God”. You mentioned Bro Lawrence’s writing TWICE as if to emphasize it in such a way as if you were trying to encourage people to read this book. What you failed to mention was that Brother Lawrence was a Roman Catholic Monk! I realize that salvation is not reliant upon what church one may attend, but it does depend on what one believes about Biblical saving faith.
I certainly appreciate Bro Lawrence’s attitude in his desire to commune with God, and his apparent departure from some of the more ritualistic aspects of the monastic lifestyle in the Roman Catholic Church. His desire to prayerfully commune with God continually is certainly commendable. However, his writings seem to lack sufficient Scriptural substance especially where Biblical salvation is concerned. I looked up some information on Brother Lawrence and found “The Practice of the Presence of God” online. There is nothing mentioned in the writing about Bro Lawrence coming to the realization that he was a sinner and needed to trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation. In fact, the following quote indicates more of a salvation by works philosophy.
“and that as he was conscious of his readiness to lay down
his life for the love of GOD, he had no apprehension of danger. That
perfect resignation to GOD was a sure way to heaven, a way in which
we had always sufficient light for our conduct.” (Emphasis Added)
“The Practice of the Presence of God”
Brother Lawrence
Contrary to what seems to be implied here, Jesus is the only sure way to heaven. I investigated a little further into information concerning his conversion. Here is what I found:
“In the winter seeing a tree stripped of its leaves and considering that within a little time the leaves would be renewed, and after that the flowers and fruit appear, he had received a high view of the Providence and Power of God, which has never since been effaced from his soul. This view had perfectly set him loose from the world and kindled in him such a love for God that he could not tell whether it had increased in the more than forty years that he had lived since.”
As related by M. Beaufort
Even in this account of Brother Lawrence’s “conversion”, there is no mention of him coming to saving faith. There is no mention about him trusting in the finished work of Christ.
Unfortunately, it seems that Bro Lawrence embraced a mysticism that set aside the truths of Scripture. This is on par with other medieval “mystics” who did much of the same thing. It seems that these people, in the absence of Biblical truth and faced with the dead, dry Roman Catholic dogmas, were left to try to cling to anything that would fill the empty void that only God can fill. What is tragic is that there really is a mystical dimension to our relationship with Jesus Christ. There is a legitimate experience of being in the presence of God, but it is ALWAYS within the framework of Biblical truth. What is most disheartening is that the false experience can in many ways mimic the real thing, robbing the unwary seeker of that wonderful legitimate experience of God. What is really tragic is that at the end of life, the only thing that awaits those who do not experience genuine saving faith is a bleak eternity separated from God. I also have doubts about the late Mother Theresa’s so-called experiences as well. It seems that she too, embraced a false spirituality. Despite all her talk about prayer and compassion for people, judging by her writings, she still embraced the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. She was certainly a wonderful, compassionate person, whose life can teach us much about self-sacrifice and love for others. However, these qualities in and of them self, do not save anybody. I would also not recommend her writings to be read by evangelical Christians as sources of Scriptural truth. I realize that we cannot judge what is actually in the heart of a person. I cannot look into the heart of anybody and determine if they are really saved or not. But we can and should, scrutinize their doctrine in light of Scripture.
Brother Lawrence’s writing has become another tool the Catholic Church uses to lure undiscerning people back into the Roman Catholic faith. Since his writing says nothing that would counter Roman Catholic doctrine, the Catholic Church can capitalize on the lure of the mystical attraction of publications such as “The Practice of the Presence of God”. Observe the following website inviting the visitor back into the arms of the “Mother Church”!
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/welcome.html
(If you scroll or search to the bottom of the page under “Spirituality”, there is a section “Some excellent Catholic devotional works include”. There you will find “The Practice of the Presence of God” listed.)
These types of “mystical” writings have become a favorite of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. They serve their purpose well to present a type of spirituality that seems to mimic a genuine experience of Christianity and adds a little “spark” to the cold dead unbiblical doctrines of Catholicism.
We need to be cautious and exercise discernment. We need to be like the first century Bereans in Acts 17:11. We also need to keep in check our disenchantment with legalistic churches of the past. We must not allow our frustration with the legalism that unfortunately pervaded many of the fundamentalist churches to cause us to throw out the truth in exchange for something that seems like a refreshing change. Let’s not throw out the proverbial “baby with the bath water”. There are plenty of writings by solid Bible believing writers over the past 400+ years that provide excellent examples of abiding in Christ, yet are grounded in Scriptural truth. I am alarmed that we are beginning to ignore the solid history of evangelical Christianity in exchange for false medieval mysticism.
It seems that there is serious question as to whether or not Brother Lawrence embraced Biblical saving faith. I believe it is extremely dangerous to view any of his work as Scriptural authority and to recommend it others, regardless of how “spiritual” it may sound on the surface. "
This is not a time for Christians to just absorb whatever they are taught – as never should be the case – but this is a time where we, more than ever, need to be discerning and search the Scriptures diligently.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Rick Warren’s Erroneous Views
“16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed.”
(Isaiah 9:16, NKJV™)
Nearly everyone is familiar with Rick Warren’s popular book, “The Purpose Driven Life” that seems to be all the rage today. While there are certainly some good things in the book, it has glaring weaknesses. Overall, the book just seems to exude with a man-centered theology. Warren’s use – or should I say misuse – of Scripture is prevalent throughout the book. It is not that there are not some very good points made in the book, but it lacks in substance. Unfortunately, many of the good points tend to overshadow many of the errors. A great deal of discernment is necessary when reading through the material. The closer that error comes to the truth, the more dangerous it becomes. But I am seeing very little benefit from the material due to the inherent shallowness and subtle error. Tim Challies has an excellent review of the book posted on his website. Phillip Johnson also has offered his opinion of the book as well on his blog.
But beyond the book, there are many things that disturb me concerning some of his comments and philosophy. In fact, many things are downright heretical. Just the other day, I came across a post on Slice of Laodicea (see "Rick Warren Speaks on Peter Drucker, Catholicism and the Fundamentals of the Faith") that exposed some of Rick Warren’s views. As I clicked on the links, I certainly became acquainted with his skewed doctrinal and theological views. His view of the fundamentals of the faith is appalling. He was featured at a conference at the Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle conference on religion, politics and public life. According to Warren, the Fundamentals of the Faith “is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity”. What Rick Warren is calling “legalistic” and “narrow”, is the document drawn up back in the 1920s to define the fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity in response to the onslaught of liberalism. Here are the five fundamentals:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The Virgin Birth.
3. The Blood Atonement.
4. The Bodily Resurrection.
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.
These doctrines cannot be compromised in any way without denying biblical faith.
Many people are unaware of the extent of Warren’s errors. I have heard people mention that they may not agree with everything he says, but that he was basically on track with the fundamentals of the faith and basic theology. In fact, this was my former view as well. But things that I have read prove otherwise.
What is really revealing is the section on his website for Holy Family Parish that is featured on his site that sponsored two Purpose Driven events this last week. If you go out to their website, you will find a description of who they are.
“Welcome to Holy Family's presence online. We're a Catholic parish community striving to continue the work of Jesus Christ in the world. Rooted in Catholic tradition, we celebrate liturgy by sharing the Word and Eucharist in a dynamic, creative and contemporary way.”
Apparently, you can embrace heresy and yet actively participate in promoting and giving advice on how to be a Purpose Driven Church.
To illustrate how evangelicals are being duped into believing Catholicism is just another evangelical church, just look at the slogan displayed on Holy Family’s web page. It reads, “An Evangelical Church in the Catholic Tradition.” In other words, they are trying to say, “Hey, we are one of you, we just embrace a little different expression of the same thing.” Couple this with an endorsement by a well known evangelical leader such as Rick Warren, and the deception is even greater!
Here is a quote from Warren in the interview:
“I think, though, it's what Augustine said: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." And I think that's how evangelicals and Catholics can get together.”
Wrong! Catholics are very wrong on certain essentials such as sola fide and sola scriptura. Evangelicals have no business getting together with Catholics, particularly with initiatives that deal with spiritual matters. I agree with declaring liberty with non-essentials, however, the differences with Catholicism do not deal with non-essentials as Warren implies, but rather they are essentials. Here is another statement made by him concerning Catholicism.
"And, you know, growing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, "Well, I'm not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?” "
Also, in the same interview, Rick Warren discusses the issue of breaking down barriers between different groups. He promotes an attitude that it really does not matter what you believe. He quotes a statement made by T. D. Jakes who holds a modalistic view of the trinity as well as affirming much of the Word of Faith teaching.
"And we were talking about this barrier breaking down between black, white, Pentecostal, different groups, and T.D. Jakes – you know who he is – and T.D. Jakes said, "One of the things television did is it allowed people to watch each other's services from a distance and go, 'That's okay.' "
For a good article on the concerns about T. D. Jakes, I would recommend reading the Christian Research Journal article, “The Man, His Ministry, And His Movement: Concerns About The Teachings Of T. D. Jakes”
Rick Warren is wrong on so many points, but he wears a “mask” of basically conservative evangelicalism. There are many things that are objectionable that were discussed in the Pew Forum interview. I would encourage you to read the transcript carefully. The church needs more than ever to exercise discernment and carefully examine what some Christian leaders are teaching today.
(Isaiah 9:16, NKJV™)
Nearly everyone is familiar with Rick Warren’s popular book, “The Purpose Driven Life” that seems to be all the rage today. While there are certainly some good things in the book, it has glaring weaknesses. Overall, the book just seems to exude with a man-centered theology. Warren’s use – or should I say misuse – of Scripture is prevalent throughout the book. It is not that there are not some very good points made in the book, but it lacks in substance. Unfortunately, many of the good points tend to overshadow many of the errors. A great deal of discernment is necessary when reading through the material. The closer that error comes to the truth, the more dangerous it becomes. But I am seeing very little benefit from the material due to the inherent shallowness and subtle error. Tim Challies has an excellent review of the book posted on his website. Phillip Johnson also has offered his opinion of the book as well on his blog.
But beyond the book, there are many things that disturb me concerning some of his comments and philosophy. In fact, many things are downright heretical. Just the other day, I came across a post on Slice of Laodicea (see "Rick Warren Speaks on Peter Drucker, Catholicism and the Fundamentals of the Faith") that exposed some of Rick Warren’s views. As I clicked on the links, I certainly became acquainted with his skewed doctrinal and theological views. His view of the fundamentals of the faith is appalling. He was featured at a conference at the Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle conference on religion, politics and public life. According to Warren, the Fundamentals of the Faith “is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity”. What Rick Warren is calling “legalistic” and “narrow”, is the document drawn up back in the 1920s to define the fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity in response to the onslaught of liberalism. Here are the five fundamentals:
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The Virgin Birth.
3. The Blood Atonement.
4. The Bodily Resurrection.
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures.
These doctrines cannot be compromised in any way without denying biblical faith.
Many people are unaware of the extent of Warren’s errors. I have heard people mention that they may not agree with everything he says, but that he was basically on track with the fundamentals of the faith and basic theology. In fact, this was my former view as well. But things that I have read prove otherwise.
What is really revealing is the section on his website for Holy Family Parish that is featured on his site that sponsored two Purpose Driven events this last week. If you go out to their website, you will find a description of who they are.
“Welcome to Holy Family's presence online. We're a Catholic parish community striving to continue the work of Jesus Christ in the world. Rooted in Catholic tradition, we celebrate liturgy by sharing the Word and Eucharist in a dynamic, creative and contemporary way.”
Apparently, you can embrace heresy and yet actively participate in promoting and giving advice on how to be a Purpose Driven Church.
To illustrate how evangelicals are being duped into believing Catholicism is just another evangelical church, just look at the slogan displayed on Holy Family’s web page. It reads, “An Evangelical Church in the Catholic Tradition.” In other words, they are trying to say, “Hey, we are one of you, we just embrace a little different expression of the same thing.” Couple this with an endorsement by a well known evangelical leader such as Rick Warren, and the deception is even greater!
Here is a quote from Warren in the interview:
“I think, though, it's what Augustine said: "In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." And I think that's how evangelicals and Catholics can get together.”
Wrong! Catholics are very wrong on certain essentials such as sola fide and sola scriptura. Evangelicals have no business getting together with Catholics, particularly with initiatives that deal with spiritual matters. I agree with declaring liberty with non-essentials, however, the differences with Catholicism do not deal with non-essentials as Warren implies, but rather they are essentials. Here is another statement made by him concerning Catholicism.
"And, you know, growing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, "Well, I'm not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?” "
Also, in the same interview, Rick Warren discusses the issue of breaking down barriers between different groups. He promotes an attitude that it really does not matter what you believe. He quotes a statement made by T. D. Jakes who holds a modalistic view of the trinity as well as affirming much of the Word of Faith teaching.
"And we were talking about this barrier breaking down between black, white, Pentecostal, different groups, and T.D. Jakes – you know who he is – and T.D. Jakes said, "One of the things television did is it allowed people to watch each other's services from a distance and go, 'That's okay.' "
For a good article on the concerns about T. D. Jakes, I would recommend reading the Christian Research Journal article, “The Man, His Ministry, And His Movement: Concerns About The Teachings Of T. D. Jakes”
Rick Warren is wrong on so many points, but he wears a “mask” of basically conservative evangelicalism. There are many things that are objectionable that were discussed in the Pew Forum interview. I would encourage you to read the transcript carefully. The church needs more than ever to exercise discernment and carefully examine what some Christian leaders are teaching today.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Interesting Invitational Music
Awhile back, Steve Camp posted on his blog a satirical list of top ten signs that indicate you were in a bad church. The second sign, “Worship team performs their favorite Led Zeplin medley; with an altar call of “Stairway to Heaven”, is really not far off from reality. At least not at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church. Scott Hill over at Fide-O, apparently visited Saddleback about a dozen times and shared his list of “15 Things I Learned at Saddleback.” One of them was “I learned 'The Living Years' by Mike and the Mechanics makes for a very sentimental invitation song after you have preached a message on respecting the elderly.” Yes, apparently they really did play that song for an invitation!
The more I learn about Rick Warren and his ministry, the more concerned I get. At one time, I thought that Rick Warren was basically solid theologically, even though I did not necessarily agree with everything he said or did. At least he seemed better than Bill Hybels and Willow Creek. But I think that is what many people think. Unfortunately, that may not be the case. The more I read about his philosophy and teaching, the more I realize he is not as sound as many think.
I recall when his book came out , “The Purpose Driven Church”. The book made some good points, but there were many things that I did not like about it. I recall a statement in the book that set me on edge, where he essentially slammed expositional teaching. And then of course we have his latest effort, “The Purpose Driven Life”. I received a copy of the book as a gift. The book proved to be a great disappointment. It did make some good points, but I just thought that it turned out to be quite shallow and just seemed to ooze with a man-centered theology. He often misused numerous passages of Scripture and used so many different translations of the Bible, many of which were loose paraphrases that had a tendency to distort the text of Scripture. The reason Rick Warren concerns me so much is that he is one of the most influential Christian leaders in America. The church better start exercising discernment and return to the preaching and teaching of God’s Word, rather than latching onto the latest fads of the moment!
The more I learn about Rick Warren and his ministry, the more concerned I get. At one time, I thought that Rick Warren was basically solid theologically, even though I did not necessarily agree with everything he said or did. At least he seemed better than Bill Hybels and Willow Creek. But I think that is what many people think. Unfortunately, that may not be the case. The more I read about his philosophy and teaching, the more I realize he is not as sound as many think.
I recall when his book came out , “The Purpose Driven Church”. The book made some good points, but there were many things that I did not like about it. I recall a statement in the book that set me on edge, where he essentially slammed expositional teaching. And then of course we have his latest effort, “The Purpose Driven Life”. I received a copy of the book as a gift. The book proved to be a great disappointment. It did make some good points, but I just thought that it turned out to be quite shallow and just seemed to ooze with a man-centered theology. He often misused numerous passages of Scripture and used so many different translations of the Bible, many of which were loose paraphrases that had a tendency to distort the text of Scripture. The reason Rick Warren concerns me so much is that he is one of the most influential Christian leaders in America. The church better start exercising discernment and return to the preaching and teaching of God’s Word, rather than latching onto the latest fads of the moment!
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The Threat from Within
It seems that many in Evangelicalism perceive that the threats to the church are coming from outside the church, but the real impending danger is coming from within. When you think about it, history shows that threats from outside the church seldom destroy it. The church at Smyrna in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2:8-11) suffered from persecution, but the Lord has no words of condemnation for this church. The heavy persecution did not destroy it, but rather purified and strengthened it. Compare this with Laodicea. (Rev. 3:14-22) That church was rich and thought they needed nothing, existing in their comfort zone. They were lukewarm and the Lord has no words of commendation for them. Churches in countries where they are heavily persecuted are generally strengthened spiritually. Also consider the strong condemnation given to Pergamos and Thyatira due to their spiritual compromise, tolerating false teachers. Thyatira was dominated by plenty of love and works, but those things will never make up for religious apostasy.
Paul warned the Ephesian elders that false teachers would arise from within their ranks who would lead people astray. This is exactly what is happening today. There are numerous influential teachers that are bringing false teaching into the church.
“28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31, NKJV™)
The most effective strategy that Satan can use to attack the church, is to recruit men from within. This is the greatest danger because these men generally posses certain “credentials” in the form of seminary degrees or they have become popular in the Christian community. Many of these men have become leaders in fast growing churches and as a result, many people are impressed by their results. Most disturbing is the charisma these men possess. People are easily taken in by their winsome personalities.
Take for instance, Brian McLaren, who is now one of the official leaders in the “emerging church” movement. His teaching is riddled with error. He appears to maintain a doctrinal position where he tries to be as ambiguous as possible, seemingly avoiding taking sides in any theological “camp”. Despite his attempts to be as vague as possible, when you examine what he says, his teaching is nothing but heretical. He often tries to claim that he embraces historic biblical Christianity, while in practice he ends up denying the fundamentals of the faith. His teaching creates confusion by introducing more questions than answers. In the process of “borrowing” from many different traditions, as he proposes in his book “A Generous Orthodoxy”, the true message of the gospel becomes muddled and the fundamental doctrinal teaching of Scripture becomes obscured.
McLaren has authored several books including "A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey". I wrote a post some time ago explaining the dangers of the philosophy that McLaren promotes through the book. I also have a link to an article in the Christian Research Journal in that post to a review of the book by Doug Groothuis. One of his more recent works, A Generous Orthodoxy is essentially an attempt to get the reader to borrow from any theological “tradition” regardless of the doctrinal position of that group.
If you want to get an idea of what Brian McLaren’s philosophy is, watch the video of the PBS special "The Emerging Church" and read the transcript. Also, read the transcript of the PBS interview with McLaren. Pay close attention to the way that he handles such things as homosexuality and the concept of hell.
What McLaren promotes is all too often par for the course in the postmodern “emerging” church movement. I have covered this topic in several posts on my blog, The Postmodern Journey to Apostasy.
Much of what is taught by these teachers is truth intermingled with the error so much so that it tends to mask the error. Little by little, error is slowly introduced into the church. A relatively minor error is introduced into the church and a few people are somewhat shaken, but that soon passes. Then something a little more erroneous is introduced and again, some people are a little concerned, but things eventually settle down. It seems that people eventually adapt to the change. This happens repeatedly, slowly eroding away truth. Usually, the slide to apostasy is not sudden, but is a gradual process as churches begin letting down their guard. Churches just don’t suddenly wake up one day and decide that they are going to set aside the Bible and deny biblical teaching. It usually results from a gradual drift as a result of spiritual apathy and laziness.
Paul warned the Ephesian elders that false teachers would arise from within their ranks who would lead people astray. This is exactly what is happening today. There are numerous influential teachers that are bringing false teaching into the church.
“28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31, NKJV™)
The most effective strategy that Satan can use to attack the church, is to recruit men from within. This is the greatest danger because these men generally posses certain “credentials” in the form of seminary degrees or they have become popular in the Christian community. Many of these men have become leaders in fast growing churches and as a result, many people are impressed by their results. Most disturbing is the charisma these men possess. People are easily taken in by their winsome personalities.
Take for instance, Brian McLaren, who is now one of the official leaders in the “emerging church” movement. His teaching is riddled with error. He appears to maintain a doctrinal position where he tries to be as ambiguous as possible, seemingly avoiding taking sides in any theological “camp”. Despite his attempts to be as vague as possible, when you examine what he says, his teaching is nothing but heretical. He often tries to claim that he embraces historic biblical Christianity, while in practice he ends up denying the fundamentals of the faith. His teaching creates confusion by introducing more questions than answers. In the process of “borrowing” from many different traditions, as he proposes in his book “A Generous Orthodoxy”, the true message of the gospel becomes muddled and the fundamental doctrinal teaching of Scripture becomes obscured.
McLaren has authored several books including "A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey". I wrote a post some time ago explaining the dangers of the philosophy that McLaren promotes through the book. I also have a link to an article in the Christian Research Journal in that post to a review of the book by Doug Groothuis. One of his more recent works, A Generous Orthodoxy is essentially an attempt to get the reader to borrow from any theological “tradition” regardless of the doctrinal position of that group.
If you want to get an idea of what Brian McLaren’s philosophy is, watch the video of the PBS special "The Emerging Church" and read the transcript. Also, read the transcript of the PBS interview with McLaren. Pay close attention to the way that he handles such things as homosexuality and the concept of hell.
What McLaren promotes is all too often par for the course in the postmodern “emerging” church movement. I have covered this topic in several posts on my blog, The Postmodern Journey to Apostasy.
Much of what is taught by these teachers is truth intermingled with the error so much so that it tends to mask the error. Little by little, error is slowly introduced into the church. A relatively minor error is introduced into the church and a few people are somewhat shaken, but that soon passes. Then something a little more erroneous is introduced and again, some people are a little concerned, but things eventually settle down. It seems that people eventually adapt to the change. This happens repeatedly, slowly eroding away truth. Usually, the slide to apostasy is not sudden, but is a gradual process as churches begin letting down their guard. Churches just don’t suddenly wake up one day and decide that they are going to set aside the Bible and deny biblical teaching. It usually results from a gradual drift as a result of spiritual apathy and laziness.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The Positive Effects of a Godly Upbringing
The Pyromaniac has a great post that explains the events that influenced the life of Charles Spurgeon that shaped him to become the great preacher that he was. Let us not underestimate the great influence we can have on our children and the importance of a godly home life in shaping our children’s character!
Friday, August 12, 2005
Lessons from the Church at Ephesus
1 “To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: 2 “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; 3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. 4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. 6 But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’ (Revelation 2:1-7, NKJV™)
I know that the evangelical church is in a mess today and we need more than ever to diligently guard the truth. However, we need to be careful that in our endeavor to battle for the truth that we do not neglect our fellowship with Christ and keep our hearts tender for the Lord. We can get so caught up in the battle that our service becomes more mechanical and loveless, and we can drift into dead orthodoxy. While the Lord certainly commends the Ephesians for their stand on the truth, he CONDEMNS leaving their first love – Himself! The danger can be so subtle. We get caught up in battling and can neglect our time in fellowship with our Savior. If our love for the Lord begins to wane and we begin serving more out of duty, we run the danger of becoming cold and loveless. This also affects our relationships with other people resulting in a poor witness and testimony. (1 Cor. 13:1)
This reminds me of the passage in Matthew with Mary and Martha. Martha was busy laboring away, but was so preoccupied with the task at hand that she neglected the most important thing – spending time with Jesus.
“38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.” 41 And Jesus answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10: 38-42, NKJV™)
Much like Martha, we too can get so caught up in the work that we essentially shove Jesus aside in the process. We get into a rut and our service becomes a dull routine. Yes, we ARE certainly to stand firm and labor for the truth, but let us not forget to make time for our fellowship with the Savior. Let us also not forget the battle is ultimately the Lord’s, not ours. Just as the Lord had ownership of the battles that Israel faced (1 Samuel 17: 46-48; 2 Chronicles 20:14-16), He is also in charge of the battle that we are involved in. We are essentially His soldiers taking orders from Him. And guess what? We know from Scripture that He will be victorious in the end! (Revelation 19-22) Even if it seems that everything is in total chaos at times, in reality the Lord has everything under control and He will triumph in the end. It is very encouraging to reflect on those passages of Scripture. No matter what happens, we are secure in Christ and will be spending eternity with Him as He rules and reigns for forever.
The Lord warns the Ephesians that if they did not repent, he would take away their witness and their ministry would no longer be a light to others. The remedy was to repent and “do the first works”, to return to the fervent love and zeal they had when they first began with Christ.
This, however, is NOT an excuse to avoid battling or laboring for the truth. Unfortunately, I hear a lot of this today. We simply need to be reminded not to neglect our relationship with Jesus.
I know that the evangelical church is in a mess today and we need more than ever to diligently guard the truth. However, we need to be careful that in our endeavor to battle for the truth that we do not neglect our fellowship with Christ and keep our hearts tender for the Lord. We can get so caught up in the battle that our service becomes more mechanical and loveless, and we can drift into dead orthodoxy. While the Lord certainly commends the Ephesians for their stand on the truth, he CONDEMNS leaving their first love – Himself! The danger can be so subtle. We get caught up in battling and can neglect our time in fellowship with our Savior. If our love for the Lord begins to wane and we begin serving more out of duty, we run the danger of becoming cold and loveless. This also affects our relationships with other people resulting in a poor witness and testimony. (1 Cor. 13:1)
This reminds me of the passage in Matthew with Mary and Martha. Martha was busy laboring away, but was so preoccupied with the task at hand that she neglected the most important thing – spending time with Jesus.
“38 Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.” 41 And Jesus answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. 42 But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10: 38-42, NKJV™)
Much like Martha, we too can get so caught up in the work that we essentially shove Jesus aside in the process. We get into a rut and our service becomes a dull routine. Yes, we ARE certainly to stand firm and labor for the truth, but let us not forget to make time for our fellowship with the Savior. Let us also not forget the battle is ultimately the Lord’s, not ours. Just as the Lord had ownership of the battles that Israel faced (1 Samuel 17: 46-48; 2 Chronicles 20:14-16), He is also in charge of the battle that we are involved in. We are essentially His soldiers taking orders from Him. And guess what? We know from Scripture that He will be victorious in the end! (Revelation 19-22) Even if it seems that everything is in total chaos at times, in reality the Lord has everything under control and He will triumph in the end. It is very encouraging to reflect on those passages of Scripture. No matter what happens, we are secure in Christ and will be spending eternity with Him as He rules and reigns for forever.
The Lord warns the Ephesians that if they did not repent, he would take away their witness and their ministry would no longer be a light to others. The remedy was to repent and “do the first works”, to return to the fervent love and zeal they had when they first began with Christ.
This, however, is NOT an excuse to avoid battling or laboring for the truth. Unfortunately, I hear a lot of this today. We simply need to be reminded not to neglect our relationship with Jesus.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
More on the Frog in the Kettle
Satan’s conversation with Eve in Genesis 3 may not seem very subtle at a casual glance. There was a response to my last post that pointed this out. It seems that Satan questioned the Word of God outright. In fact, compared with some of the errors that are prevalent today, it certainly does not seem to be that subtle. But the term subtle here is used in the sense of being crafty. This also illustrates an effective tactic that Satan uses to twist the Word of God. There is a crucial lesson to learn here. First, let us examine the texts in Genesis 2:16-17 and Genesis 3:1-5 to see Satan’s crafty scheme.
“16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."”
Genesis 2:16-17, NASB®
“1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, " From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " 4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."”
Genesis 3:1-4, NASB®
The words describing the serpent carry the meaning of subtle in the sense of being crafty or sly. For instance, in Genesis 3:1, the Hebrew word, “aruwm” translated “subtil” in the KJV, “cunning” in the NKJV and “crafty” in the NASB, carries the meaning “subtle”, “crafty”, “sly”.
God’s command to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 was that he could freely eat of any tree in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:1, Satan begins by twisting the Word of God with the false statement that God commanded that they could not eat of any of the trees of the garden. This was contrary to God’s actual command. Also notice that Eve adds to the command by saying that they could not touch it. But God did not say that they could not touch it. Since the command was given to Adam and God had placed Adam in charge, it could be that Adam added the restriction not to touch it in order to protect her. Or maybe the addition was simply an indication that she did not fully understand the command. Satan could have figured that her lack of understanding made her vulnerable, so here was his chance. But notice when he first questions Eve how he twists the prohibition to extend to all of the trees in the garden. In his conversation with Eve, he introduces doubt and confusion on the Word of God. At this time, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Satan. When Eve met up with the serpent, it is interesting that she does not appear at all disturbed at the notion of a talking animal. Perhaps they were in awe of God’s creation and Eve figured that this was but one more wonder in His creation. Of course, God did not create talking animals. The ability of the creature to speak was Satan’s doing. Satan indwells the serpent here in order to deceive Adam and Eve for the purpose to entice them to disobey God. Here was Eve in the garden and this crafty and seemingly interesting creature approaches her engaging in this conversation. This creature appears intelligent and seems to know about God. Through the course of the conversation, she probably began questioning her understanding of God’s command. She probably began thinking that “maybe I really got everything wrong, and here is this enchanting creature enlightening me on this topic. Hey, you know, maybe he is right, this stuff really looks desirable. Well it can’t be all that bad can it? After all, it will make us all the wiser. Why would God not want us to have something so good?”
While Satan seems in a very direct manner to attack God’s Word and His character, there is much more going on here. Satan cleverly sets Eve up before making a direct assault on the Word of God. He begins with the false notion that God was depriving them of anything good (i.e. restricting them from all of the trees). From that point, he then takes it a step further with the logic that it does not seem plausible that God would prohibit them from partaking from this particular tree, especially since it seemed so desirable and seemed to have so much to offer. After all, if they would take part of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then they will be so much wiser and be like God. Satan presents the notion that God was holding out on them!
"3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully."
2 Corinthians 11:3-4, NASB®
When Paul addresses the Corinthians with his concern about their vulnerability to false teaching, he uses the same basic term that was used to describe the serpent in Genesis 3.
In 2 Corinthians 11:3, the word “craftiness” in both the NKJV and NASB, is translated from the Greek word “panourgia”, which means “craftiness” with the sense of being specious, meaning that it merely possesses a look and feel of truth, but is in reality false wisdom. Satan made his argument seem plausible, but it was indeed false.
If you look at issues such as the “emerging church” movement, you see a similar pattern to what Satan used. It starts with the questioning of God’s Word, especially through the use of deconstruction. Then we have the introduction of blatantly false claims, once the confidence in the Word of God is shaken. Little by little, God’s truth is called into question. A little whittling away of truth here and there over time, and heresy finds its way into the church. I will elaborate on this in some future posts. But I believe that many of the problems in evangelicalism can be traced to the shallow understanding of God’s truth. If Eve’s apparent misquote of God’s command is an indication that she lacked a thorough understanding of the Word of God, then this should be a lesson for us that we need to thoroughly understand God’s truth. Words are important and precision is necessary in order to accurately and precisely communicate the message. Subtly change the words and you can alter the message. This is why I am such a stickler for formal equivalency – as opposed to dynamic equivalency or paraphrasing - in Bible translation. I am not a fan at all of so-called paraphrase Bibles.
This is why it is extremely important that we thoroughly understand the Word of God. Unfortunately, a growing number (dare I say majority?) of Christians barely possess even a cursory understanding of biblical truth. No wonder Christians today are so vulnerable to false teaching. I can hear the serpent’s “hiss” all around us!
“16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."”
Genesis 2:16-17, NASB®
“1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, " From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " 4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."”
Genesis 3:1-4, NASB®
The words describing the serpent carry the meaning of subtle in the sense of being crafty or sly. For instance, in Genesis 3:1, the Hebrew word, “aruwm” translated “subtil” in the KJV, “cunning” in the NKJV and “crafty” in the NASB, carries the meaning “subtle”, “crafty”, “sly”.
God’s command to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 was that he could freely eat of any tree in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:1, Satan begins by twisting the Word of God with the false statement that God commanded that they could not eat of any of the trees of the garden. This was contrary to God’s actual command. Also notice that Eve adds to the command by saying that they could not touch it. But God did not say that they could not touch it. Since the command was given to Adam and God had placed Adam in charge, it could be that Adam added the restriction not to touch it in order to protect her. Or maybe the addition was simply an indication that she did not fully understand the command. Satan could have figured that her lack of understanding made her vulnerable, so here was his chance. But notice when he first questions Eve how he twists the prohibition to extend to all of the trees in the garden. In his conversation with Eve, he introduces doubt and confusion on the Word of God. At this time, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of Satan. When Eve met up with the serpent, it is interesting that she does not appear at all disturbed at the notion of a talking animal. Perhaps they were in awe of God’s creation and Eve figured that this was but one more wonder in His creation. Of course, God did not create talking animals. The ability of the creature to speak was Satan’s doing. Satan indwells the serpent here in order to deceive Adam and Eve for the purpose to entice them to disobey God. Here was Eve in the garden and this crafty and seemingly interesting creature approaches her engaging in this conversation. This creature appears intelligent and seems to know about God. Through the course of the conversation, she probably began questioning her understanding of God’s command. She probably began thinking that “maybe I really got everything wrong, and here is this enchanting creature enlightening me on this topic. Hey, you know, maybe he is right, this stuff really looks desirable. Well it can’t be all that bad can it? After all, it will make us all the wiser. Why would God not want us to have something so good?”
While Satan seems in a very direct manner to attack God’s Word and His character, there is much more going on here. Satan cleverly sets Eve up before making a direct assault on the Word of God. He begins with the false notion that God was depriving them of anything good (i.e. restricting them from all of the trees). From that point, he then takes it a step further with the logic that it does not seem plausible that God would prohibit them from partaking from this particular tree, especially since it seemed so desirable and seemed to have so much to offer. After all, if they would take part of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then they will be so much wiser and be like God. Satan presents the notion that God was holding out on them!
"3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully."
2 Corinthians 11:3-4, NASB®
When Paul addresses the Corinthians with his concern about their vulnerability to false teaching, he uses the same basic term that was used to describe the serpent in Genesis 3.
In 2 Corinthians 11:3, the word “craftiness” in both the NKJV and NASB, is translated from the Greek word “panourgia”, which means “craftiness” with the sense of being specious, meaning that it merely possesses a look and feel of truth, but is in reality false wisdom. Satan made his argument seem plausible, but it was indeed false.
If you look at issues such as the “emerging church” movement, you see a similar pattern to what Satan used. It starts with the questioning of God’s Word, especially through the use of deconstruction. Then we have the introduction of blatantly false claims, once the confidence in the Word of God is shaken. Little by little, God’s truth is called into question. A little whittling away of truth here and there over time, and heresy finds its way into the church. I will elaborate on this in some future posts. But I believe that many of the problems in evangelicalism can be traced to the shallow understanding of God’s truth. If Eve’s apparent misquote of God’s command is an indication that she lacked a thorough understanding of the Word of God, then this should be a lesson for us that we need to thoroughly understand God’s truth. Words are important and precision is necessary in order to accurately and precisely communicate the message. Subtly change the words and you can alter the message. This is why I am such a stickler for formal equivalency – as opposed to dynamic equivalency or paraphrasing - in Bible translation. I am not a fan at all of so-called paraphrase Bibles.
This is why it is extremely important that we thoroughly understand the Word of God. Unfortunately, a growing number (dare I say majority?) of Christians barely possess even a cursory understanding of biblical truth. No wonder Christians today are so vulnerable to false teaching. I can hear the serpent’s “hiss” all around us!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The Frog in the Kettle
The Pyromaniac’s postings on the state of evangelicalism have been excellent and he has articulated the issues well. He discusses the issue of how the church has become obsessed with constantly following the latest fads. I agree with his assessment. However, while it is true that these fads eventually run their course and fade away, they nonetheless do their share of damage to the church. The church does not go unscathed, and suffers damage with each successive bout of pragmatism.
A famous experiment was once conducted that involved placing a frog in a kettle of water. Don’t know who ever thought up this experiment, but it serves as an excellent illustration. If the frog were placed in a pot of boiling water, the frog would immediately jump out so as not to be scalded. Then the frog was placed in the water while it was yet cool. As the frog sat contently in the water, the water was heated one degree at a time. The frog adapted to the gradual changes in temperature until it boiled to death!
The church can be likened to that frog. Christians sit nice and comfortably in their churches, while the leadership implements changes devised by the latest “experts” and popular authors. The changes are so subtle and incremental that Christians adapt to each successive round of change until they eventually boil to death in heresy!
Suddenly springing heresy on people does not work well since people will immediately resist and cry out. But introduce subtle changes over the course of time and Christians will incrementally adapt to the new environment. Of course, spiritual apathy on the part of believers plays an important part as well.
Satan uses a clever strategy in order to dilute the truth. Satan used this successfully back in Genesis 3:1-5, with the statement “yea, hath God said?” He subtly introduces doubt on the Word of God. He does not launch an outright attack on God’s Word, but introduces an apparent clarification, with his own little twist. He promises “enlightenment”.
This is how Satan distorts the truth. The Corinthians were in danger of succumbing to this tactic in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 prompting a heartfelt warning from Paul. The most deceptive lie is the one that comes closest to the truth. The truth tends to mask the error.
It is crucial that believers immerse themselves in the Word of God. The more they know the truth, the more they will be able to spot the error when it comes along. We need to be like the first century Bereans in Acts 17:11, who “searched the scriptures daily” to discern whether the things taught were true.
A famous experiment was once conducted that involved placing a frog in a kettle of water. Don’t know who ever thought up this experiment, but it serves as an excellent illustration. If the frog were placed in a pot of boiling water, the frog would immediately jump out so as not to be scalded. Then the frog was placed in the water while it was yet cool. As the frog sat contently in the water, the water was heated one degree at a time. The frog adapted to the gradual changes in temperature until it boiled to death!
The church can be likened to that frog. Christians sit nice and comfortably in their churches, while the leadership implements changes devised by the latest “experts” and popular authors. The changes are so subtle and incremental that Christians adapt to each successive round of change until they eventually boil to death in heresy!
Suddenly springing heresy on people does not work well since people will immediately resist and cry out. But introduce subtle changes over the course of time and Christians will incrementally adapt to the new environment. Of course, spiritual apathy on the part of believers plays an important part as well.
Satan uses a clever strategy in order to dilute the truth. Satan used this successfully back in Genesis 3:1-5, with the statement “yea, hath God said?” He subtly introduces doubt on the Word of God. He does not launch an outright attack on God’s Word, but introduces an apparent clarification, with his own little twist. He promises “enlightenment”.
This is how Satan distorts the truth. The Corinthians were in danger of succumbing to this tactic in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 prompting a heartfelt warning from Paul. The most deceptive lie is the one that comes closest to the truth. The truth tends to mask the error.
It is crucial that believers immerse themselves in the Word of God. The more they know the truth, the more they will be able to spot the error when it comes along. We need to be like the first century Bereans in Acts 17:11, who “searched the scriptures daily” to discern whether the things taught were true.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Wanted: A Few Good Men – Can You Handle the Truth?
The Pyromaniac has been posting a series on the state of the Evangelical church. The articles are right on target with defining the key problems in evangelicalism. Many of us have been bombarded with the latest trends and fads being thrust on us from the pulpit of many of our churches. I don’t know about everyone else, but I am getting quite fed up with the nonsense.
Evangelicalism is in urgent need of a return to biblical truth and biblical ministry. We desperately need a return to the truth of Scripture, but it will require men to take a firm stand and exercise discernment, employing sound wisdom and judgment guided by God’s truth. What we need are a few good men like the men of Issachar in 1 Chronicles 12, who had a keen understanding of the times in which they lived.
“32 of the sons of Issachar who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their command;” (1 Chronicles 12:32, NKJV™).
These were men who understood the times in which they lived and could provide Israel with sound judgment and guidance in order to win the battle at hand. This was not a case where they were trying to find ways to engage in pragmatism, attempting to blend Israel with the culture of their day. Not long ago, I herd someone imply this in a dire attempt to justify a pragmatic approach to ministry in reference to adapting to the postmodern culture. In fact, the preacher went so far as to say that the men of Issachar probably dressed in the “garb” of the day, with the implication that they were focused on trying to engage the culture. I thought to myself, “Well of course they dressed in the garb of the day, what else do you think they wore”. But I doubt that the men of Issachar were scoping out the culture to adopt the coolest fashion of that time to prove that they were as hip as everyone else. If you could imagine the men of Issachar cruising around the countryside, saying “Hey, gettin’ phat for God”! People in every generation dresses in the basic fashion of the day. Look at paintings of Jonathan Edwards or pictures of Charles Spurgeon. They all dressed in the “garb” of the day. I hate it when preachers really push the text of Scripture to try and make it support the latest fads, trends or gimmickry. Unfortunately, with the lack of discernment today, most people just sit back and think “Wow that was profound.” But the men of Issachar were not focused on fads or gimmickry. Their thoughts were centered on the battle at hand and were keenly aware of the challenges and dangers they faced. They knew how to guide Israel in troubled times as they prepared to engage in battle. Today, we too, should be focused on the battle for truth. I am not advocating that we should drop evangelism and the mission of making disciples in order to devote all of our time in constant battle over every minor issue at hand. But the type of error that exists today threatens the purity of the gospel message that people desperately need to hear. Furthermore, the church is threatened by “wolves” that are ready to devour the flock of God with their aberrant teaching. The issues are not minor, but critical. The church is faced with everything from liberalism, “seeker-sensitive” pragmatism, the Word-Faith debacle, and the latest, the Emerging Church movement that in many respects is nothing more than repackaged liberalism. More than ever before, we need to understand the times and be willing to battle for the faith.
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3, NKJV™)
The term “contend earnestly”, means to literally do battle. This is not exactly a pleasant thing to do and is often quite grueling. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was keenly aware of this since he fought vehemently against the errors that were creeping into the church in his day. He even experienced rejection from his own brother due to his stand for the truth.
“Controversy is never a very happy element for the child of God: he would far rather be in communion with his Lord than be engaged in defending the faith, or in attacking error. But the soldier of Christ knows no choice in his Master's commands. He may feel it to be better for him to lie upon the bed of rest than to stand covered with the sweat and dust of battle; but, as a soldier, he has learned to obey, and the rule of his obedience is not his personal comfort, but his Lord's absolute command. The servant of God must endeavour to maintain all the truth which his Master has revealed to him, because, as a Christian soldier, this is part of his duty. But while he does so, he accords to others the liberty which he himself enjoys.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Address at the Tabernacle, 1861
What we need today are more men of this caliber who are willing to engage in battle with discernment of the times and understand the strategy the church should take in light of the dangers being faced. There is nothing wrong with understanding the culture in which we live, in fact it can help us get an idea of the magnitude of the challenges that we face and how to navigate the dangerous waters. Understanding the culture can give us insight concerning the challenges of communicating with the people of this generation. I am not advocating totally ignoring the culture. This is indeed a part of “understanding the times”. But pursuing the challenge to communicate with the culture should never interfere with or alter the message, nor should it take preeminence over the proclamation of truth. For example, since people in our culture today do not like to be told they are wrong and do not seem to respond well to propositional truth, we are told that we should avoid those things when communicating with people of this generation. Scripture teaches that we are to do otherwise.
“2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4, NKJV™)
The word “preach” is translated from the Greek word “kerusso”, which means to proclaim something openly, verbally, with authority, an urgent message that needs to be heeded and obeyed. This is to take place regardless of what the culture wants. Just focusing on engaging in a philosophy that seems to draw a crowd is deceiving. Numeric results marked with emotionalism and sentimentality is not a good indicator of success in reaching the culture. The real test is whether those who profess to be followers continue to walk with Christ, keeping His Word. (John 8:31)(1 John 2:24) The pursuit of pragmatism causes us to circumvent the truth of God. It only clouds the message of Scripture and weakens the church. It muddles the message of the gospel, so much that the world gets a distorted view of God. Certainly, some methods of delivering the message can change over time. For example, we are now utilizing the power of the internet in order to proclaim the truth of God’s Word. Television and radio have been used for many years. There is nothing wrong with utilizing new methods as long as those methods do not alter or distract from the proclamation of God’s truth. The methods must harmonize with the message, not detract from it.
We have been informed by the church growth experts for more than a decade that we need to treat people as consumers, being sensitive to their “felt” needs. The implication is that we can entertain and coax people into the Kingdom of God. But according to Barna research, while the population has only increased 15% since 1991, the number of the “unchurched” has increased by an astounding 92%! You would think that the church would learn that it just is not working. It is interesting that in Barna’s article, he admits that “Stirring worship music won’t attract them because worship isn’t even on their radar screen.” and “Church events cannot effectively compete with what the world has to offer.” But here is a statement made by Bill Easum of “21st Century Stategies”, claiming that we need to engage the “unchurched” in worship. This is from an article by Easum outlining his observation of the trends for the 21st Century church.
“focuses worship primarily on what a person experiences about God instead of what a person learns about God. This trend is confirmed by the growing unchurched, biblically illiterate, ethically void, population growing up outside of the influence of Christianity. Their basic need is to experience the presence (immanence) of God, not to be educated about God or the church. Emphasis is placed on stirring the heart and emotions, not educating the head.”
“The Church of the 21st Century” by William M. Easum
But man in his unsaved state lacks any ability to worship God. The natural man is dead in his sins and trespasses, and cannot seek God or do anything to please God. (Romans 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14)
Because the church has so neglected the truth of God’s Word, people in the church lack discernment to ward off false teaching. The influx of false teaching can be likened to disease that enters the body due to the failure of the body’s immune system. When there is a total breakdown, the body is left vulnerable to any disease that may attack it. The condition is called AIDS. John MacArthur preached a two-part series some time ago entitled “Spiritual AIDS”, where he likened the spiritual condition of the church to the human malady called AIDS. It has been awhile since I listened to that message, but I recall him saying that as with the physical condition, when the body loses the ability to ward of disease, it is usually not AIDS itself that kills the person. It is usually the other diseases that the body cannot defend itself against that does it in. This is a good analogy of the condition that threatens the church today. Due to a shallow understanding of God's Truth, Christians today lack the level of discernment necessary to distinguish between truth and error. Consequently, the church is becoming plagued with various sorts of doctrinal "disease".
Paul instructed Timothy to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”(2 Timothy 2:15, NASB®). The way that we can be approved of God is by handling the Word of God with great care, striving to interpret it with precision and accuracy. Until leadership in today’s church takes this message to heart, the church will continue to falter. What the church needs today is for more men to step up to the plate who are willing to properly and accurately handle the Word of God and boldly proclaim it.
Evangelicalism is in urgent need of a return to biblical truth and biblical ministry. We desperately need a return to the truth of Scripture, but it will require men to take a firm stand and exercise discernment, employing sound wisdom and judgment guided by God’s truth. What we need are a few good men like the men of Issachar in 1 Chronicles 12, who had a keen understanding of the times in which they lived.
“32 of the sons of Issachar who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their command;” (1 Chronicles 12:32, NKJV™).
These were men who understood the times in which they lived and could provide Israel with sound judgment and guidance in order to win the battle at hand. This was not a case where they were trying to find ways to engage in pragmatism, attempting to blend Israel with the culture of their day. Not long ago, I herd someone imply this in a dire attempt to justify a pragmatic approach to ministry in reference to adapting to the postmodern culture. In fact, the preacher went so far as to say that the men of Issachar probably dressed in the “garb” of the day, with the implication that they were focused on trying to engage the culture. I thought to myself, “Well of course they dressed in the garb of the day, what else do you think they wore”. But I doubt that the men of Issachar were scoping out the culture to adopt the coolest fashion of that time to prove that they were as hip as everyone else. If you could imagine the men of Issachar cruising around the countryside, saying “Hey, gettin’ phat for God”! People in every generation dresses in the basic fashion of the day. Look at paintings of Jonathan Edwards or pictures of Charles Spurgeon. They all dressed in the “garb” of the day. I hate it when preachers really push the text of Scripture to try and make it support the latest fads, trends or gimmickry. Unfortunately, with the lack of discernment today, most people just sit back and think “Wow that was profound.” But the men of Issachar were not focused on fads or gimmickry. Their thoughts were centered on the battle at hand and were keenly aware of the challenges and dangers they faced. They knew how to guide Israel in troubled times as they prepared to engage in battle. Today, we too, should be focused on the battle for truth. I am not advocating that we should drop evangelism and the mission of making disciples in order to devote all of our time in constant battle over every minor issue at hand. But the type of error that exists today threatens the purity of the gospel message that people desperately need to hear. Furthermore, the church is threatened by “wolves” that are ready to devour the flock of God with their aberrant teaching. The issues are not minor, but critical. The church is faced with everything from liberalism, “seeker-sensitive” pragmatism, the Word-Faith debacle, and the latest, the Emerging Church movement that in many respects is nothing more than repackaged liberalism. More than ever before, we need to understand the times and be willing to battle for the faith.
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3, NKJV™)
The term “contend earnestly”, means to literally do battle. This is not exactly a pleasant thing to do and is often quite grueling. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was keenly aware of this since he fought vehemently against the errors that were creeping into the church in his day. He even experienced rejection from his own brother due to his stand for the truth.
“Controversy is never a very happy element for the child of God: he would far rather be in communion with his Lord than be engaged in defending the faith, or in attacking error. But the soldier of Christ knows no choice in his Master's commands. He may feel it to be better for him to lie upon the bed of rest than to stand covered with the sweat and dust of battle; but, as a soldier, he has learned to obey, and the rule of his obedience is not his personal comfort, but his Lord's absolute command. The servant of God must endeavour to maintain all the truth which his Master has revealed to him, because, as a Christian soldier, this is part of his duty. But while he does so, he accords to others the liberty which he himself enjoys.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Address at the Tabernacle, 1861
What we need today are more men of this caliber who are willing to engage in battle with discernment of the times and understand the strategy the church should take in light of the dangers being faced. There is nothing wrong with understanding the culture in which we live, in fact it can help us get an idea of the magnitude of the challenges that we face and how to navigate the dangerous waters. Understanding the culture can give us insight concerning the challenges of communicating with the people of this generation. I am not advocating totally ignoring the culture. This is indeed a part of “understanding the times”. But pursuing the challenge to communicate with the culture should never interfere with or alter the message, nor should it take preeminence over the proclamation of truth. For example, since people in our culture today do not like to be told they are wrong and do not seem to respond well to propositional truth, we are told that we should avoid those things when communicating with people of this generation. Scripture teaches that we are to do otherwise.
“2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4, NKJV™)
The word “preach” is translated from the Greek word “kerusso”, which means to proclaim something openly, verbally, with authority, an urgent message that needs to be heeded and obeyed. This is to take place regardless of what the culture wants. Just focusing on engaging in a philosophy that seems to draw a crowd is deceiving. Numeric results marked with emotionalism and sentimentality is not a good indicator of success in reaching the culture. The real test is whether those who profess to be followers continue to walk with Christ, keeping His Word. (John 8:31)(1 John 2:24) The pursuit of pragmatism causes us to circumvent the truth of God. It only clouds the message of Scripture and weakens the church. It muddles the message of the gospel, so much that the world gets a distorted view of God. Certainly, some methods of delivering the message can change over time. For example, we are now utilizing the power of the internet in order to proclaim the truth of God’s Word. Television and radio have been used for many years. There is nothing wrong with utilizing new methods as long as those methods do not alter or distract from the proclamation of God’s truth. The methods must harmonize with the message, not detract from it.
We have been informed by the church growth experts for more than a decade that we need to treat people as consumers, being sensitive to their “felt” needs. The implication is that we can entertain and coax people into the Kingdom of God. But according to Barna research, while the population has only increased 15% since 1991, the number of the “unchurched” has increased by an astounding 92%! You would think that the church would learn that it just is not working. It is interesting that in Barna’s article, he admits that “Stirring worship music won’t attract them because worship isn’t even on their radar screen.” and “Church events cannot effectively compete with what the world has to offer.” But here is a statement made by Bill Easum of “21st Century Stategies”, claiming that we need to engage the “unchurched” in worship. This is from an article by Easum outlining his observation of the trends for the 21st Century church.
“focuses worship primarily on what a person experiences about God instead of what a person learns about God. This trend is confirmed by the growing unchurched, biblically illiterate, ethically void, population growing up outside of the influence of Christianity. Their basic need is to experience the presence (immanence) of God, not to be educated about God or the church. Emphasis is placed on stirring the heart and emotions, not educating the head.”
“The Church of the 21st Century” by William M. Easum
But man in his unsaved state lacks any ability to worship God. The natural man is dead in his sins and trespasses, and cannot seek God or do anything to please God. (Romans 8:5-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14)
Because the church has so neglected the truth of God’s Word, people in the church lack discernment to ward off false teaching. The influx of false teaching can be likened to disease that enters the body due to the failure of the body’s immune system. When there is a total breakdown, the body is left vulnerable to any disease that may attack it. The condition is called AIDS. John MacArthur preached a two-part series some time ago entitled “Spiritual AIDS”, where he likened the spiritual condition of the church to the human malady called AIDS. It has been awhile since I listened to that message, but I recall him saying that as with the physical condition, when the body loses the ability to ward of disease, it is usually not AIDS itself that kills the person. It is usually the other diseases that the body cannot defend itself against that does it in. This is a good analogy of the condition that threatens the church today. Due to a shallow understanding of God's Truth, Christians today lack the level of discernment necessary to distinguish between truth and error. Consequently, the church is becoming plagued with various sorts of doctrinal "disease".
Paul instructed Timothy to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”(2 Timothy 2:15, NASB®). The way that we can be approved of God is by handling the Word of God with great care, striving to interpret it with precision and accuracy. Until leadership in today’s church takes this message to heart, the church will continue to falter. What the church needs today is for more men to step up to the plate who are willing to properly and accurately handle the Word of God and boldly proclaim it.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Good Resources on Catholicism
A good book to read that explains the doctrines of the Catholic Church in light of Scripture is “The Gospel According to Rome” by James G. McCarthy. There is also an excellent video entitled “Catholicism:Crisis of Faith”, where many Catholic clergy as well as laity experienced a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ after they were faced with a crisis of faith. In this video you will hear their testimony and how Catholic teaching differs from the biblical teaching on salvation and many other key doctrines. I showed this video to a small group Bible study that I led. It was certainly an eye opener for many. I think that it is imperative that Christians understand the differences, especially today with the ecumenical push.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The Fallout From Ecumenical Compromise
If there are any questions about the Roman Catholic Church’s intentions in regard to their ecumenical efforts, it would be profitable to examine the “Decree on Ecumenism” from the Vatican II council. Here is an excerpt from that decree illustrating Rome’s intentions to pull all churches back under her authority.
“The term "ecumenical movement" indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.”
“When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”(Emphasis Added)
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
Decree on Ecumenism
Second Vatican Council
It is the Catholic Church’s intention to court evangelicals in an effort to win them back to Catholicism.
The effects of ecumenism on the evangelical community are causing wide scale compromise concerning the essentials of Biblical faith, especially concerning salvation by grace alone (sola fide). There are numerous examples of the effects of this compromise on the evangelical community. There have been some who have been won over to the Catholic Church through this ecumenism. I realize that it is likely that those who convert to Catholicism never were really a follower of Christ to begin with. Those that are Christ’s are those that continue following the teaching of Scripture and conduct their life in a manner that honors God.(1 John 2:19) However, this does not exonerate us of our responsibility to warn others. Paul could say with confidence that he was free from responsibility for the indiscretion of people who failed to heed his warning(Acts 20:26-31). There are those whom God appoints to act as watchmen to warn people of impending danger. God commanded prophets in the Old Testament to act as watchmen to faithfully warn the people and deliver the message commanded by God. Ezekiel was commanded to warn the people regardless of whether or not they listened.(Ezekiel 3:17; 33:2-7) God requires that leadership is to fulfill that same function of watchman today.
The president of the Christian Coalition in Alabama, John Giles, is now a convert to Roman Catholicism. An article in the May 25,2004 edition of the “The Decatur Daily News” describes his journey to the Roman Catholic Church. He described his experience attending Mass in a Catholic Church.
"I have to admit to you that the whole time that I was in that church service, I was reduced to tears, and I couldn't explain it," Giles said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.
"In fact," he jokes, "you would have thought I had been spending the whole weekend down at the House of the Rising Sun down in New Orleans, that I had all this sin in my life that I had to get out."
The Decatur Daily News
Online Edition, May 25, 2004
“Christian Coalition chief is now Catholic”By Kyle Wingfield Associated Press Writer
There are well-known Evangelical leaders who have been downplaying the significance of the differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. Billy Graham, for example, has made some outlandish statements concerning the RCC over the years, implying that the differences are minor and that the Catholic Church is really not much different from evangelical churches. I am not trying to discredit everything Dr. Graham does. Many people have been brought to Christ over the years through the effort of his ministry. His ministry also played a part in my own conversion. No, I did not get saved at a Billy Graham Crusade, but prior to my conversion I had watched Billy Graham on television on a couple of occasions and what I heard began planting seeds in my heart. But I can’t help but wonder how many other people have gotten a distorted message through some of the things that he has stated concerning Catholicism over the years.
Upon receiving his honorary degree at the Roman Catholic Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, Graham stated:
"The Gospel that built this School and the Gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation."
'The Gastonia Gazette' Nov. 22nd 1967
In a January 1978 interview with McCall’s magazine, Graham had this to say:
“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders - people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition - has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction. I've found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance. They believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do I. They believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and the coming judgment of God, and so do I. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition.”
It is commonplace for those who attend and come forward at Billy Graham Crusades, if they were affiliated with a Catholic church, to be referred to a Catholic Church for follow up.
The compromise does not end with co belligerence with Catholics either. It also includes a nod of approval for other world religions as well. In an appalling interview with Robert Schuller on May 31, 1997, Graham made the following statement:
SCHULLER: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
GRAHAM: Well, Christianity and being a true believer you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.
SCHULLER: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying!
GRAHAM: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.
SCHULLER: (his face beaming) I'm so thrilled to hear you say this! There's a wideness in God's mercy.
GRAHAM: There is. There definitely is.
In the 1978 interview with McCall’s magazine, Graham stated:
"I used to believe that pagans in far off countries were lost going to hell if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT. I believe that there are other ways of recognizing God through nature for instance and plenty of other ways of saying 'yes' to God."
The Roman Catholic Church also finds merit in the other world faiths as well. I find it interesting that some evangelicals are basically agreeing with the Catholic Church. I believe that we are heading into the final days of apostasy very rapidly, and we are going to see more efforts to unite with various false religions of the world as well as so-called Christian groups that deviate from biblical truth.
“The term "ecumenical movement" indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.”
“When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity. This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”(Emphasis Added)
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
Decree on Ecumenism
Second Vatican Council
It is the Catholic Church’s intention to court evangelicals in an effort to win them back to Catholicism.
The effects of ecumenism on the evangelical community are causing wide scale compromise concerning the essentials of Biblical faith, especially concerning salvation by grace alone (sola fide). There are numerous examples of the effects of this compromise on the evangelical community. There have been some who have been won over to the Catholic Church through this ecumenism. I realize that it is likely that those who convert to Catholicism never were really a follower of Christ to begin with. Those that are Christ’s are those that continue following the teaching of Scripture and conduct their life in a manner that honors God.(1 John 2:19) However, this does not exonerate us of our responsibility to warn others. Paul could say with confidence that he was free from responsibility for the indiscretion of people who failed to heed his warning(Acts 20:26-31). There are those whom God appoints to act as watchmen to warn people of impending danger. God commanded prophets in the Old Testament to act as watchmen to faithfully warn the people and deliver the message commanded by God. Ezekiel was commanded to warn the people regardless of whether or not they listened.(Ezekiel 3:17; 33:2-7) God requires that leadership is to fulfill that same function of watchman today.
The president of the Christian Coalition in Alabama, John Giles, is now a convert to Roman Catholicism. An article in the May 25,2004 edition of the “The Decatur Daily News” describes his journey to the Roman Catholic Church. He described his experience attending Mass in a Catholic Church.
"I have to admit to you that the whole time that I was in that church service, I was reduced to tears, and I couldn't explain it," Giles said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.
"In fact," he jokes, "you would have thought I had been spending the whole weekend down at the House of the Rising Sun down in New Orleans, that I had all this sin in my life that I had to get out."
The Decatur Daily News
Online Edition, May 25, 2004
“Christian Coalition chief is now Catholic”By Kyle Wingfield Associated Press Writer
There are well-known Evangelical leaders who have been downplaying the significance of the differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. Billy Graham, for example, has made some outlandish statements concerning the RCC over the years, implying that the differences are minor and that the Catholic Church is really not much different from evangelical churches. I am not trying to discredit everything Dr. Graham does. Many people have been brought to Christ over the years through the effort of his ministry. His ministry also played a part in my own conversion. No, I did not get saved at a Billy Graham Crusade, but prior to my conversion I had watched Billy Graham on television on a couple of occasions and what I heard began planting seeds in my heart. But I can’t help but wonder how many other people have gotten a distorted message through some of the things that he has stated concerning Catholicism over the years.
Upon receiving his honorary degree at the Roman Catholic Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, Graham stated:
"The Gospel that built this School and the Gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation."
'The Gastonia Gazette' Nov. 22nd 1967
In a January 1978 interview with McCall’s magazine, Graham had this to say:
“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders - people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition - has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction. I've found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance. They believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do I. They believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and the coming judgment of God, and so do I. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition.”
It is commonplace for those who attend and come forward at Billy Graham Crusades, if they were affiliated with a Catholic church, to be referred to a Catholic Church for follow up.
The compromise does not end with co belligerence with Catholics either. It also includes a nod of approval for other world religions as well. In an appalling interview with Robert Schuller on May 31, 1997, Graham made the following statement:
SCHULLER: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
GRAHAM: Well, Christianity and being a true believer you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.
SCHULLER: What, what I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying!
GRAHAM: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.
SCHULLER: (his face beaming) I'm so thrilled to hear you say this! There's a wideness in God's mercy.
GRAHAM: There is. There definitely is.
In the 1978 interview with McCall’s magazine, Graham stated:
"I used to believe that pagans in far off countries were lost going to hell if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT. I believe that there are other ways of recognizing God through nature for instance and plenty of other ways of saying 'yes' to God."
The Roman Catholic Church also finds merit in the other world faiths as well. I find it interesting that some evangelicals are basically agreeing with the Catholic Church. I believe that we are heading into the final days of apostasy very rapidly, and we are going to see more efforts to unite with various false religions of the world as well as so-called Christian groups that deviate from biblical truth.
Friday, July 01, 2005
The New Downgrade
Steve Camp wrote an excellent article entitled “The New Downgrade? Twelve Dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence”, where he pointed out the dangers of ecumenical co-belligerence. Under well intentioned efforts to battle the culture war, well known evangelical leaders have watered down the truth, reducing faith to a lowest common denominator and unwittingly diminished the power of the Word of God. Instead of intensely laboring for eternal matters, too many evangelicals are vying for political power in an effort to restore the moral fabric of our nation. It is not that battling against moral decay is wrong, but never at the expense of doctrinal purity and certainly not in place of the life changing message of the gospel. Evangelicalism is making the mistake of thinking that they can win a culture war, while accomplishing little more than compromising the doctrinal integrity of the church. Furthermore, how is it, as Steve points out, that we are battering the lost with accusations blaming them for acting like lost people? How else would they act? He aptly points out that we do nothing more than alienate the very ones that need to hear the saving message of the gospel. That is the only thing that can genuinely transform them. Even if we succeed in engaging them in behavior modification, they will still be lost people separated from God by their sins.
It is interesting that Charles Haddon Spurgeon faced similar issues in his time. He fought vehemently against the adoption of methodology in the church that was based on worldly wisdom that threatened to undermine sound doctrine and theology. Spurgeon fought valiantly, but his firm stance certainly did not win him any favor with fellow church leaders including his own brother. Spurgeon likened biblical truth to “the pinnacle of a steep, slippery mountain. One step away and you find yourself on the downgrade. Once a church or individual Christian gets on the downgrade, momentum takes over. Recovery is unusual and only happens when Christians get on the 'up-line' through spiritual revival.”
It certainly appears that we are on another “downgrade” today. It is such a sad shame that the church does not learn from history. But then again, most people in the church never study history. As it has been wisely said, those that ignore history are most likely to repeat it.
I was going to elaborate more on the dangers of ecumenical compromise by the end of the week, giving some examples of the harmful effects, but it will have to wait until Tuesday. I will be spending time with family over the 4th of July weekend. Have a safe 4th of July.
It is interesting that Charles Haddon Spurgeon faced similar issues in his time. He fought vehemently against the adoption of methodology in the church that was based on worldly wisdom that threatened to undermine sound doctrine and theology. Spurgeon fought valiantly, but his firm stance certainly did not win him any favor with fellow church leaders including his own brother. Spurgeon likened biblical truth to “the pinnacle of a steep, slippery mountain. One step away and you find yourself on the downgrade. Once a church or individual Christian gets on the downgrade, momentum takes over. Recovery is unusual and only happens when Christians get on the 'up-line' through spiritual revival.”
It certainly appears that we are on another “downgrade” today. It is such a sad shame that the church does not learn from history. But then again, most people in the church never study history. As it has been wisely said, those that ignore history are most likely to repeat it.
I was going to elaborate more on the dangers of ecumenical compromise by the end of the week, giving some examples of the harmful effects, but it will have to wait until Tuesday. I will be spending time with family over the 4th of July weekend. Have a safe 4th of July.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Unsung Heroes
This is an exciting time for our church. We are about to move into our new building in a couple of weeks after meeting in the gymnasium of an elementary school for the past 5 ½ years. This past Sunday, we took some time to reflect on the past 5 ½ years and took time to recognize the effort of those who have contributed by serving behind the scenes. These are those who are not generally in the forefront, but are really the backbone of the church. The people who are involved organizing and running the children’s ministry, the people who perform all the miscellaneous chores, including the set-up team that is responsible for arriving extra early to set up the facility so that we are able to conduct the Sunday morning service. This includes those who must be up at 5:30-6:00 AM to hitch up the trailer to the truck to haul the portable church equipment to the school. These are the “unsung heroes” that seldom get notice of the hard work and effort, those who work behind the scenes that perform the duties that enable us to do what we do. I know that there are those on the set-up team that have worked at this steadily over the past 5 years. It will certainly be nice having a permanent facility that is ours and does not require the constant set-up effort each Sunday. It will also be a great tool for ministry that should open up many opportunities.
Many people contribute significantly to the ministry of the church in various ways, according to the gifts and talents that God has given them. The church is likened to the body having many parts that contribute their part in the overall functioning and health of the body. Every part plays an important role. The parts that are not as visible and presentable are given greater respect for their necessity. (internal organs) No part can deem another as unimportant. But they all work together for the proper functioning of the whole body.
“14 For in fact the body is not one member but many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.” (1 Corinthians 12:14-25, NKJV™)
Each of us has a spiritual gift or talent that God has given us to use for His glory and to edify the body of Christ. Just because you may not be in a highly visible area of ministry does not mean that your contributions are less important. If it were not for the people that contribute significantly behind the scenes, the church would not be able to function effectively. Hats off to the faithful unsung heroes.
Many people contribute significantly to the ministry of the church in various ways, according to the gifts and talents that God has given them. The church is likened to the body having many parts that contribute their part in the overall functioning and health of the body. Every part plays an important role. The parts that are not as visible and presentable are given greater respect for their necessity. (internal organs) No part can deem another as unimportant. But they all work together for the proper functioning of the whole body.
“14 For in fact the body is not one member but many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.” (1 Corinthians 12:14-25, NKJV™)
Each of us has a spiritual gift or talent that God has given us to use for His glory and to edify the body of Christ. Just because you may not be in a highly visible area of ministry does not mean that your contributions are less important. If it were not for the people that contribute significantly behind the scenes, the church would not be able to function effectively. Hats off to the faithful unsung heroes.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Emergent Church Now an Official Structured Movement?
Well, this is certainly interesting. The Emerging church now has a National Director, Tony Jones and a Chairman of the Board of Directors who is none other than – ready for this (drum roll....) – Brian McLaren! And they have previously shunned becoming structured – something they have criticized what they call “traditional” churches for.
Hmmm. I wonder if some are still going to try to claim that Brian McLaren doesn’t speak for them.
You can read more on this at EmergentNo in the post “The Emergent Church Movement Appoints a National Director”.
Hmmm. I wonder if some are still going to try to claim that Brian McLaren doesn’t speak for them.
You can read more on this at EmergentNo in the post “The Emergent Church Movement Appoints a National Director”.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Ecumenical Danger
Phillip Johnson earlier this week discussed the issue concerning the ecumenical cooperation of evangelicals with groups marginally associated with Christianity such as Roman Catholics. Some of the comments generated by that post have compelled me to post on the subject here. It seems that many evangelicals do not grasp the gravity of the issue as it pertains to the truth becoming obscured due to our apprehension to magnify the truth of God’s Word for fear of breaking the alliance with those groups. Ecumenical co belligerency for the sake of championing moral and social causes has the unfortunate tendency to place the importance of Biblical truth on the back burner.
The general public identifies as being closely tied to Christian values such things as taking a stand on moral issues such as abortion and pornography. This is due to the fact that it is usually Christian groups that are the most outspoken on these issues, especially since Christianity stakes its claim on absolute truth concerning right and wrong. When these causes are undertaken under the auspice of Christian virtue, it creates the illusion that we are on the same page with groups such as Roman Catholics when it comes to the Gospel, especially when those participants bear the label “Christian”. These moral crusades are often labeled as such. (e.g.: Christian Coalition, etc.) The world does not recognize the differences. Anybody who names the name of Christ is considered a Christian. Laying aside crucial differences only obscures the truth and adds to the confusion concerning the message of the Gospel. Not only does the world get a distorted view of what it means to be a Christian, but also people within the church have become inept at distinguishing these differences.
What I have observed is that a growing number of Evangelicals are confused concerning the crucial doctrinal differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. In fact, even within evangelical churches the crucial differences are seldom discussed. A few years ago I was attending one of the adult Sunday school classes at the church I was a member of at that time. One of the men attending made a comment about Mother Theresa and made the statement that she was a great born again Christian. The leader was one of the pastors of the church. He replied with a statement that affirmed the man’s comment, saying, “Yes, you are so right.” I went up to him at the end of class to confront him on the issue. He did a lot of back peddling and emphatically stated that it was the man in the class that believed Mother Theresa was a believer, not him. I told him that he was agreeing with the man by affirming his statement. About that time the gentleman that made the statement was approaching the pastor, so it was a convenient opportunity for him to “ditch” me and engage in a conversation with this particular gentleman. I am not attempting to tarnish Mother Theresa’s legacy as a great humanitarian. But she continued to embrace the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. I know that we cannot look into anyone’s heart like God can and know his or her spiritual condition in terms of saving faith. I cannot judge what is in one’s heart, but I can judge their doctrine. If her writings are an indication of what she really believed, then it appears that she did not adhere to Biblical saving faith.
Evangelicalism has made the excuse that they are merely cooperating with Catholics for social causes. However, this has extended to spiritual causes over time as well. Look at Promise Keepers. Let me say that I am grateful for those men who have been reached with the Gospel and whose lives have been changed as a result of PK. But I am increasingly concerned with the overt ecumenical dialogue that I fear is misleading many of the men who participate. The movement deliberately makes a point not to discuss the crucial differences and avoid any language discussing doctrinal issues that would offend Catholics (as a general rule, the movement is doctrinally weak). In fact, some of the men who participate in the leadership of the movement are devout Roman Catholics. I fear that many of these men are continuing to embrace the false Roman Catholic view of salvation.
In addition, we need to understand the real motives behind the ecumenical movement. It is the Roman Catholic Church that is the predominant force pushing the ecumenical movement. This is one of the outcomes of Vatican II. I grew up Catholic and I was the first in my immediate family to be saved. I remember when my mother would bring home church bulletins from the Catholic Church. In some of these bulletins was information on how to carry on dialogues with non-Catholics for the sole purpose to win them back to the Catholic Church. Rome’s intent is to woo Evangelical Protestants back to the “Mother Church”. The ecumenical dialogue is not some innocent plea to band together merely to battle the culture war, but rather a dubious attempt to win us back to what they consider the “one true church”. In fact, Keith Fournier’s book “Evangelical Catholics” is essentially a ploy to win Evangelicals and ex-Catholics back to “Mother Church”. An ample amount of literature is published in order to accomplish this. There are many Catholic web sites such as “The Mystical Rose Catholic Page” that has an entire page dedicated to attempting to win people back to the RCC.
It is also interesting that Catholics are now adopting many of the Evangelical terms that we use – “Born Again”, “Saved”, etc. Of course they also adopt their alternate meanings to harmonize with Catholic dogma. This is in order to dupe Evangelicals into thinking the Catholic Church is just another Evangelical church.
We need to exercise discernment and not be deceived by the flattering dialogue from the Roman Catholic Church, especially if it is under the guise of noble endeavors like battling the “culture war”. It is likely that I will comment further on this subject in future posts.
The general public identifies as being closely tied to Christian values such things as taking a stand on moral issues such as abortion and pornography. This is due to the fact that it is usually Christian groups that are the most outspoken on these issues, especially since Christianity stakes its claim on absolute truth concerning right and wrong. When these causes are undertaken under the auspice of Christian virtue, it creates the illusion that we are on the same page with groups such as Roman Catholics when it comes to the Gospel, especially when those participants bear the label “Christian”. These moral crusades are often labeled as such. (e.g.: Christian Coalition, etc.) The world does not recognize the differences. Anybody who names the name of Christ is considered a Christian. Laying aside crucial differences only obscures the truth and adds to the confusion concerning the message of the Gospel. Not only does the world get a distorted view of what it means to be a Christian, but also people within the church have become inept at distinguishing these differences.
What I have observed is that a growing number of Evangelicals are confused concerning the crucial doctrinal differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. In fact, even within evangelical churches the crucial differences are seldom discussed. A few years ago I was attending one of the adult Sunday school classes at the church I was a member of at that time. One of the men attending made a comment about Mother Theresa and made the statement that she was a great born again Christian. The leader was one of the pastors of the church. He replied with a statement that affirmed the man’s comment, saying, “Yes, you are so right.” I went up to him at the end of class to confront him on the issue. He did a lot of back peddling and emphatically stated that it was the man in the class that believed Mother Theresa was a believer, not him. I told him that he was agreeing with the man by affirming his statement. About that time the gentleman that made the statement was approaching the pastor, so it was a convenient opportunity for him to “ditch” me and engage in a conversation with this particular gentleman. I am not attempting to tarnish Mother Theresa’s legacy as a great humanitarian. But she continued to embrace the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. I know that we cannot look into anyone’s heart like God can and know his or her spiritual condition in terms of saving faith. I cannot judge what is in one’s heart, but I can judge their doctrine. If her writings are an indication of what she really believed, then it appears that she did not adhere to Biblical saving faith.
Evangelicalism has made the excuse that they are merely cooperating with Catholics for social causes. However, this has extended to spiritual causes over time as well. Look at Promise Keepers. Let me say that I am grateful for those men who have been reached with the Gospel and whose lives have been changed as a result of PK. But I am increasingly concerned with the overt ecumenical dialogue that I fear is misleading many of the men who participate. The movement deliberately makes a point not to discuss the crucial differences and avoid any language discussing doctrinal issues that would offend Catholics (as a general rule, the movement is doctrinally weak). In fact, some of the men who participate in the leadership of the movement are devout Roman Catholics. I fear that many of these men are continuing to embrace the false Roman Catholic view of salvation.
In addition, we need to understand the real motives behind the ecumenical movement. It is the Roman Catholic Church that is the predominant force pushing the ecumenical movement. This is one of the outcomes of Vatican II. I grew up Catholic and I was the first in my immediate family to be saved. I remember when my mother would bring home church bulletins from the Catholic Church. In some of these bulletins was information on how to carry on dialogues with non-Catholics for the sole purpose to win them back to the Catholic Church. Rome’s intent is to woo Evangelical Protestants back to the “Mother Church”. The ecumenical dialogue is not some innocent plea to band together merely to battle the culture war, but rather a dubious attempt to win us back to what they consider the “one true church”. In fact, Keith Fournier’s book “Evangelical Catholics” is essentially a ploy to win Evangelicals and ex-Catholics back to “Mother Church”. An ample amount of literature is published in order to accomplish this. There are many Catholic web sites such as “The Mystical Rose Catholic Page” that has an entire page dedicated to attempting to win people back to the RCC.
It is also interesting that Catholics are now adopting many of the Evangelical terms that we use – “Born Again”, “Saved”, etc. Of course they also adopt their alternate meanings to harmonize with Catholic dogma. This is in order to dupe Evangelicals into thinking the Catholic Church is just another Evangelical church.
We need to exercise discernment and not be deceived by the flattering dialogue from the Roman Catholic Church, especially if it is under the guise of noble endeavors like battling the “culture war”. It is likely that I will comment further on this subject in future posts.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Blogging Advice for the "emerging" Folks.
Phillip Johnson has a post that reflects the gist of many of the pro-ec (emerging church) blogs - expressed in good-humored satire, of course. The pro-ec crowd is not going to like this one. But with much of what I have seen with the "emerging" crowd, they have it coming. It's just that I have observed from many of the "ec" blogs that they are....well....blogs with an attitude. I would describe them as being more akin to a rebellious teenager.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Fundamentalism’s Downfall
Fundamentalism started out on the right path toward the early part of the 20th century as a movement dedicated to Biblical truth in opposition to the onslaught of theological liberalism. However, towards the last half of the 20th century, it degenerated into a movement dominated by incessant infighting, legalism and general lack of love for one another or anyone else for that matter. It was due to this unfortunate drift away from merely standing for the fundamentals of Biblical Christianity that caused many to distance themselves from the movement, preferring to call themselves just Evangelicals. Really, both stood for the essential doctrines of the Christian faith and the lines of distinction between the two are often somewhat blurred.
Phillip Johnson recently led a workshop at the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference entitled "Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism" where he chronicled the history of fundamentalism and elaborated on its failures. The transcript of the workshop can be found at the SharperIron.
As Phil explains, the term Evangelical is a term that dates all the way back to the Reformation and was applied to those adhering to the proclamation of the Gospel and Biblical truth. In reality, a fundamentalist is also an evangelical, at least according to the historical definition.
This article really mirrored many of my sentiments as well. Basically, as it pertains to standing for the fundamentals of the faith, yes I am a fundamentalist. But if it means becoming encumbered with all the excess baggage that really has nothing to do with biblical truth, count me out. I would rather just be called an evangelical if that is the case.
Long ago, when I was considering going to a Bible college, I visited a fundamentalist school. It did not take me long to decide that I really wanted nothing to do with attending there. The place just seemed “ooze” with legalism and really a disingenuous attitude in general. Much of what I saw really had little to do with biblical truth and there just seemed to be a feeling of a general phony attitude. I am not talking about some basic rules to maintain order, but the place just seemed to reek with the game of playing church. I also knew of a girl who attended one of these ultra-fundamentalist schools who was really turned off by it and ended with her dropping out. She just could not take what she saw as a lot of spiritual and moral decay. I think it really hurt her spiritually for quite awhile. Again, these feelings had nothing to do with any opposition to fundamental Bible truth, but with the legalism that mirrored the attitude of the Pharisees.
I also did my “time” in a legalistic fundamental Baptist church. It is so ironic that although they talked a lot about the Bible, were fairly “conservative” and stood for the “fundamentals”, the preaching was extremely topical and shallow. Many of the people really did not have a good working knowledge of the Bible. They knew a few verses and knew how to repeat whatever the pastor said. I also observed that there tended to be a lot of “easy believism”. This was so tragic. Many of the people seemed to just learn how to follow rules and play church. There were some that would accuse other fundamentalists of being what they called compromising “New Evangelicals”, over issues that were generally not really related to Scripture. Or it was due to a misunderstanding of what they said. Some even classified John MacArthur as one of those compromising evangelicals!
I believe that this attitude really drives people away from Bible believing faith and into movements such as the “emerging” church. However, while the “emerging” church does point out some valid concerns, their general tendency to depart from biblical truth makes me cringe. There is no way that I could identify myself with that movement.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that more fundamentalists begin to realize the problems that have crept into the movement, and earnestly seek to truly get back to defending fundamental Scriptural truth.
Phillip Johnson recently led a workshop at the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference entitled "Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism" where he chronicled the history of fundamentalism and elaborated on its failures. The transcript of the workshop can be found at the SharperIron.
As Phil explains, the term Evangelical is a term that dates all the way back to the Reformation and was applied to those adhering to the proclamation of the Gospel and Biblical truth. In reality, a fundamentalist is also an evangelical, at least according to the historical definition.
This article really mirrored many of my sentiments as well. Basically, as it pertains to standing for the fundamentals of the faith, yes I am a fundamentalist. But if it means becoming encumbered with all the excess baggage that really has nothing to do with biblical truth, count me out. I would rather just be called an evangelical if that is the case.
Long ago, when I was considering going to a Bible college, I visited a fundamentalist school. It did not take me long to decide that I really wanted nothing to do with attending there. The place just seemed “ooze” with legalism and really a disingenuous attitude in general. Much of what I saw really had little to do with biblical truth and there just seemed to be a feeling of a general phony attitude. I am not talking about some basic rules to maintain order, but the place just seemed to reek with the game of playing church. I also knew of a girl who attended one of these ultra-fundamentalist schools who was really turned off by it and ended with her dropping out. She just could not take what she saw as a lot of spiritual and moral decay. I think it really hurt her spiritually for quite awhile. Again, these feelings had nothing to do with any opposition to fundamental Bible truth, but with the legalism that mirrored the attitude of the Pharisees.
I also did my “time” in a legalistic fundamental Baptist church. It is so ironic that although they talked a lot about the Bible, were fairly “conservative” and stood for the “fundamentals”, the preaching was extremely topical and shallow. Many of the people really did not have a good working knowledge of the Bible. They knew a few verses and knew how to repeat whatever the pastor said. I also observed that there tended to be a lot of “easy believism”. This was so tragic. Many of the people seemed to just learn how to follow rules and play church. There were some that would accuse other fundamentalists of being what they called compromising “New Evangelicals”, over issues that were generally not really related to Scripture. Or it was due to a misunderstanding of what they said. Some even classified John MacArthur as one of those compromising evangelicals!
I believe that this attitude really drives people away from Bible believing faith and into movements such as the “emerging” church. However, while the “emerging” church does point out some valid concerns, their general tendency to depart from biblical truth makes me cringe. There is no way that I could identify myself with that movement.
It is my sincere hope and prayer that more fundamentalists begin to realize the problems that have crept into the movement, and earnestly seek to truly get back to defending fundamental Scriptural truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
