Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Did Jesus "Agree To Disagree" On Doctrine?

Have you ever heard someone tell you "we'll just have to agree to disagree"? I came across that notion today and remembered a blog post I read last year by S.J. Walker . I thought I'd quote it again because its good.


"If a man is one who, for any reason at all, rejects the Law,and Gospel of Grace through Christ, I would rather he do his worst to me for my adherence to it. Let him who will not surrender to God Almighty do his level best to destroy my reputation, to make me appear the fool, and if time and circumstance allow, let him even seek my life. But I will not have a man who refuses to surrender to God in faith, attempt to tell me that he "disagrees, but respects my opinion", for such a man is a smiling liar. It is not respect! Not respect, but cowardice. Respect of this opinion would render this man broken. He is a man who cannot find the nerve to kill me or harm my reputation, so he claims a peaceful respect.

I would rather, above all else, to see that man saved! But if not saved, I
would prefer to see him honest for once at his death.

There would be no greater failure of mine than to "agree to disagree" while the very gate of Hell closes between a poor lost sinner and myself--a sinner too, but saved by Grace."


On minor issues of conscience we can "agree to disagree" but in matters of biblical doctrine, we must stand for the Truth and not cave. If two people disagree on doctrine, someone is wrong. This rightly assumes that Truth IS knowable, too, by the way. Often "agreeing to disagree" is merely a conversation stopper because the topic is too close to home or its getting a little heated. Most "Christians" today rather dump all talk and search for God's Truth than wade knee-deep into a discussion. Its as if there's no passion for truth at all. But certainly there's a passion for self-preservation.

I think that "agree to disagree" tries to shut down the Truth as mere opinion and ejecting the knowability of Truth.

Here's a question: Did Jesus ever use that phrase, "We'll just have to agree to disagree"? If not, then why do so many professing Christians do so on doctrinal issues?

Certainly in the chapter of the "Woes" Jesus gives to the Pharises He says:


Mat 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

Mat 23:16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

Mat 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

This doesn't sound like agreeing to disagree on Jesus' part. For that matter, the Pharisees didn't seem to want to agree to disagree with Him either.

Here's more Scripture:

Joh 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Isa 45:19 I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in vain.' I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Eph 5:17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Today's "Christians" Would Judge & Condemn The Apostles Paul and John

I found this at Christian Research Network and couldn't resist posting it, as I had also written my own "letter to Paul" and "letter to John" from today's "Christians" had they received their letters today. It dawned on me one day a while ago how "Christians" today would thrash these godly apostles for naming names and telling not only entire churches but several churches (the letters were circulated) to watch out for certain men. Christians who follow their example today are judged for being judgmental and narrow-minded. I guess following their example is only limited to what the liberals consider acceptable and positive, even though warning Christians about certain false teachers is the most loving thing a person who loves God and Truth and the sheep, can do.

Here's mine:

Paul's letters:

2Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

Today's response:

“Dear Paul,

Your Second Letter to Timothy was too gossipy. Can’t you just be unified with Alexander? After all, God knows his heart. You are judging and you should repent. And you claim to be an apostle!:

Sincerely and with Love,

Non-judgmental modern Christians who love better than you.


And John's letter:

3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. 3John 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

Today's "Christian":

"Dear Apostle John,

Your letter was too gossipy. Did you even talk personally with Diotrophes? Did you get HIS side of the story? You need to stop naming names and cause divisions. Love Diotrophes and be united.

Love,

Modern Christians Who Love Everyone More Than You Do



Now, here is Sacred Sandwiches' version (which is so funny because this is EXACTLY the mentality of "Christians" today--and really its pathetic:



Dear Christianity Today:

In response to Paul D. Apostle’s article about the Galatian church in
your January issue, I have to say how appalled I am by the unchristian tone of
this hit piece. Why the negativity? Has he been to the Galatian church recently?
I happen to know some of the people at that church, and they are the most
loving, caring people I’ve ever met.

Phyllis Snodgrass; Ann Arbor, MI
————————————————————————
Dear
Editor:

How arrogant of Mr. Apostle to think he has the right to judge these
people and label them accursed. Isn’t that God’s job? Regardless of this
circumcision issue, these Galatians believe in Jesus just as much as he does,
and it is very Pharisaical to condemn them just because they differ on such a
secondary issue. Personally, I don’t want a sharp instrument anywhere near my
zipper, but that doesn’t give me the right to judge how someone else follows
Christ. Can’t we just focus on our common commitment to Christ and furthering
His kingdom, instead of tearing down fellow believers over petty doctrinal
matters?

Ed Bilgeway; Tonganoxie, KS
————————————————————————–
Dear
CT:

I’ve seen other dubious articles by Paul Apostle in the past, and
frankly I’m surprised you felt that his recurrent criticisms of the Church
deserved to be printed in your magazine. Mr. Apostle for many years now has had
a penchant for thinking he has a right to “mark” certain Christian teachers who
don’t agree with his biblical position. Certainly I commend him for desiring to
stay faithful to God’s word, but I think he errs in being so dogmatic about his
views to the point where he feels free to openly attack his brethren. His
attitude makes it difficult to fully unify the Church, and gives credence to the
opposition’s view that Christians are judgmental, arrogant people who never show
God’s love.

Ken Groener; San Diego, CA
—————————————————————————-
To the
Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off
their own privates? What kind of Christian attitude is that? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO
—————————————————————————-
Dear
Christianity Today:

The fact that Paul Apostle brags about his public run-in with Peter
Cephas, a well-respected leader and brother in Christ, exposes Mr. Apostle for
the divisive figure that he has become in the Church today. His diatribe against
the Galatian church is just more of the same misguided focus on an antiquated
reliance on doctrine instead of love and tolerance. Just look how his
hypercritical attitude has cast aspersions on homosexual believers and women
elders! The real problem within the Church today is not the lack of doctrinal
devotion, as Apostle seems to believe, but in our inability to be transformed by
our individual journeys in the Spirit. Evidently, Apostle has failed to detach
himself from his legalistic background as a Pharisee, and is unable to let go
and experience the genuine love for Christ that is coming from the Galatians who
strive to worship God in their own special way.

William Zenby; Richmond, VA
——————————————————————————
Kind
Editors:

I happen to be a member of First Christian Church of Galatia, and I
take issue with Mr. Apostle’s article. How can he criticize a ministry that has
been so blessed by God? Our church has baptized many new members and has made
huge in-roads in the Jewish community with our pragmatic view on circumcision.
Such a “seeker-sensitive” approach has given the Jews the respect they deserve
for being God’s chosen people for thousands of years. In addition, every Gentile
in our midst has felt honored to engage in the many edifying rituals of the
Hebrew heritage, including circumcision, without losing their passion for Jesus.
My advice to Mr. Apostle is to stick to spreading the gospel message of Christ’s
unconditional love, and quit criticizing what God is clearly blessing in other
churches.

Miriam “Betty” Ben-Hur; Galatia,
Turkey
——————————————————————————-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Christianity Today
apologizes for our rash decision in publishing Paul Apostle’s exposé of the
Galatian church. Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers
would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such
unpopular biblical truth. We regret any damage we may have caused in propagating
the doctrines of Christ.

Widsom To Consider For Your Children

I must caution you

(Excerpt from a letter of Legh Richmond to one of his children)

Take care of too frequent interaction with the world. I write with a heart full of love--but I must caution you. There is nothing more dangerous to young Christians, than indiscriminate interaction with the ungodly. In such society--it is far more likely that we would receive evil, than impart good. Prudence and prayer are then especially needful; for we may more easily conform to the world--than bring the world to conform to us. Happy are those who have the least to do with it, except in the way of absolute duty and necessity.

May no trifles ever wean your affections from the unspeakably important subjects of eternity. Idols are bewitching, dangerous things--and steal away the heart from God. The most lawful things may become idols--by fixing an unlawful degree of affection upon them. The world, even in its apparently harmless form, is a terrible snare to the young and untaught mind.

My wish and endeavor has been to cultivate intelligent pursuits, in connection with piety, with my children, as recreations; instead of allowing and encouraging the trifling and often corrupting amusements of the world.

Biblical Ministries Should Not Get Help From Pagans

3Jn 1:3 For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth.
3Jn 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
3Jn 1:5 Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are,
3Jn 1:6 who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.
3Jn 1:7 For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.
3Jn 1:8 Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.

(LITV) For on behalf of His name they went out, taking nothing from the nations.

Many "ministries" hook up with pagans whether it be the government or groups or individuals, to get their help. This would include anything from donations, to fundraising, to marketing. I find it interesting how appropriate this passage of Scripture is.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

More Evidence Of The Merge

More Evidence of The Merge (thanks to Slice of Laodicea for the heads up):

Institute on Religion and Democracy: Washington, DC—An Episcopal priest who has received a Buddhist lay ordination has been elected bishop in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, who has served in the diocese since 2001, was elected on the first ballot and received 88 percent of the delegate votes.

The results of the election are now sent for consent to all bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees across the Episcopal Church, in what is usually viewed as a rubber-stamp procedure.

Forrester, who has been identified by his former bishop Jim Kelsey as ‘walking the path of Christianity and Zen Buddhism together, is not the first Episcopal clergyman to practice dual faiths. In 2004, Pennsylvania priest Bill Melnyk was revealed to be a druid; while in 2007 Seattle priest Ann Holmes Redding declared that she was simultaneously an Episcopalian and a Muslim. Both Melnyk and Redding were eventually inhibited from priestly duties.

Unquote.

IRD president said in part:

Quote:

Buddhism is not merely a series of practices, saying so devalues it. Buddhism is an entire worldview.

These interfaith innovations go far beyond witnessing and respecting other faith traditions. They seek to blend Christianity with other belief systems in a way that ultimately compromises the message of the Gospel.

While church leaders may respect other faiths, their vow of Christian ordination has always meant an exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.

Unqote.

"Respect" of other religions ends up accepting other religions. God says this is prohibited. There is nothing to respect. God does not respect lies and deception, so why do "Christians" think they should? What is respectable in religions that reject Jesus Christ?

If people respect the Roman Catholic Church on any level, accepting its history, fathers, ecumenical councils, baptism, etc., they will indeed respect other religions, and in many cases come to accept such religions. As a matter of fact, here's what the RCC says:

Rome’s Nostra Aetate given in Oct. 1965 by “Pope” Paul 6th : The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions [Hinduism, Buddism]… The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth...

RCC Catechsim #843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

RCC Cat. # 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Roman Catholicism embraces other pagan religions, because it is itself pagan, even if they use Christian words and a few verses from Scripture. They have a works religion as do those they embrace. We are not to embrace any of that. The road to eternal life is narrow and hard and few that find it.

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. 10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you NOT TO ASSOCIATE with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Persecution of Christians By Chinese Communist Protestant Church

Apparently Franklin Graham and Louis Palau have supported a knowingly communist Protestant church in China. After warnings to not participate in the megachurch, they went ahead and did it, preaching there in May 2008.

Now this Protestant church is persecuting real Christians.

Go to Slice of Laodicea for the story.

For the history of Protestant persecution of Baptists go here (starting with #22) and here.

Its Much Easier To Be A Theologian Than A True Pastor

An excerpt from a letter of Legh Richmond to his son


"The teaching that promotes godliness." 1 Timothy 6:3

"The knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness." Titus 1:1

It is much easier to be a 'Bible scholar'--than a sincere Christian. It is much easier to be a 'theologian'--than a true pastor. Theology itself, important as are its themes--sinks into a mere science of literary attainments, unless accompanied by an earnest and devotional application of its principles to the soul.

Friday, February 20, 2009

There Are Very Few God-Fearing Christians!

Why is it?
(Arthur Pink, "Fearing God in His Sovereign Majesty")

"An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before his eyes!" Psalm 36:1

Why is it that, today, the masses are so utterly unconcerned about spiritual and eternal things, and that they are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? Why is it that defiance of God is becoming more open, more blatant, more daring? The answer is, because "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).

Again, why is it that the authority of the Scriptures has been lowered so sadly of late? Why is it that even among those who profess to be the Lord's people, that there is so little real subjection to His Word, and that its precepts are so lightly esteemed and so readily set aside?

Ah! what needs to be stressed today--is that God is a God to be feared! Happy is the person who has been awed by a view of God's majesty, who has had a vision of . . .

God's unutterable greatness,
His ineffable holiness,
His perfect righteousness,
His irresistible power,
His sovereign grace!

Time was, when it was the general custom to speak of a believer as "a God-fearing man". That such an appellation has become extinct--only serves to show where we have drifted.

Nevertheless, it still stands written, "Like as a father pities His children, so the Lord pities those who fear Him!" Psalm 103:13

When we speak of godly fear, of course, we do not mean a servile fear, such as prevails among the heathen in connection with their gods. No! We mean that spirit which Jehovah is pledged to bless, that spirit to which the prophet referred when he said, "To this man will I will look--even to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at My Word." Isaiah 66:2

Nothing will foster this godly fear, like a recognition of the sovereign majesty of God!

"I tell you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you--this is the One to fear!" Luke 12:4-5

A Pretty, Cultured Sort of Evangelism

A pretty, cultured sort of evangelism (Legh Richmond, "Domestic Portraiture" January 6, 1825)

For the most part, we are a nation of Christians by profession--and a nation of heathens in practice.

There is to be found in the religious world--what may be termed--a pretty, cultured sort of evangelism, which too well combines luxurious ease, and serving of the world, and the flesh--not to say of the devil also. But such kind of religion will not prepare the soul for sickness, death, and eternity. At best, it will leave the soul a prey to the most fearful delusions of false peace.

The way that leads to eternal life is much more narrow than many of our modern professors are aware of--the gate is too straight to allow all their trifling, and self-will, and worldliness, and carnal-mindedness, to press through it. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14 ~Grace Gems

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Christlam: The Merge Has Begun

A Little Leaven has this disturbing video on "Christlam" which is a combination of "Christianity" (Pentecostalism) and Islam (the anthropologist interviewed has witnessed praying to Mary and lighting candles, which obviously is Roman Catholic, too).

I discovered this combining of two different religions last Spring in the "Frontiers Missions" magazine. I wrote about it here and here.

Isa in the Quran isn't Jesus. Isa is a Muslim myth.

2Cor. 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Cor. 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Cor. 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor. 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Cor. 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

We are saved in Truth for God is the God of Truth:

Jas 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth BY THE WORD OF TRUTH, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Col 1:4 since we HEARD of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the THE WORD OF TRUTH, THE GOSPEL , Col 1:6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole IT IS BEARING FRUIT AND GROWING --as it also does among you, since the day YOU HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH,

Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins."

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Joh 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The Road to Eternal Life is narrow and hard and few that find it, folks. There IS no combining truth with error.

As Warren Smith said:

Dr. Harry Ironside, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Memorial Church from 1930-1948, emphasizes the fact that truth mixed with error results in “all error”...

“Error is like leaven, of which we read, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and, therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.” (quoted in The Berean Call, April 2008)

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Philosophy, Psychology, and the Bible

Col 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

More on philosophy.....

I have often heard intellectuals say "all truth is God's truth". Is this a true statement?

Here are some excerpts from an article that deals with this very thing.

Quote:

Those who integrate psychology with Christianity declare, "All truth is God’s truth." Under this umbrella statement, they embrace the speculative notions of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Abraham Maslow, Albert Ellis, Carl Rogers, and a host of other psychological theorists, depending upon their own individual biases.

Theologians have made this expansion of God’s truth quite respectable under such terms as "natural theology" and "general revelation," and Christian psychologists enthusiastically embrace them.

Lately, however, the important theological category of general revelation has been broadened to include all truth-claims made as a result of human efforts to understand the many aspects of the created order. Those who have broadened the category argue that the Scriptures are indeed the "special" revelation which God has left to us and that, because God is the Author of the entire created order, whenever men discover "truth" in that order, we can refer to that humanly discovered "truth" as "general revelation."

[Doug]Bookman identifies the very dangerous ramifications of the argument that replaces the biblical doctrine of general revelation.

First . . . by defining general revelation as that body of truth which is gained by human investigation and discovery, the argument is guilty of neglecting the element of non-discoverability which is intrinsic to the biblical notion of revelation and supplanting that notion with its exact antithesis. Further, the approach is dangerous in that it attributes to the truth-claims of men an authority which they do not and cannot possess, and renders it virtually impossible to bring those truth-claims under the authority of the one standard by which God demands that they be measured.

Second, the argument . . . is confused in its definition of the term "general." By mistakenly taking that term to refer to the content of the category (rather than to the audience to which the revelation thus denominated is available), the apologists who employ this argument commit two fallacies which are destructive of orthodox theology: first, they expand the category to include all manner of truth-claims which have no right to be thus honored; and second, they eviscerate the character of revelation by including in the category truth-claims which are admittedly lesser than the truths of Scripture, which demand that finite and fallen men measure them to determine their validity, and which at best can possibly issue in a higher level of insight into the demands of living.

Bookman concludes that:

. . . as described in Scripture, general revelation is truth which is manifestly set forth before all men (Rom 1:17-19; 2:14,15); it is truth so clear and irrefutable as to be known intuitively by all rational men (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1: 19); it is truth so authoritative and manifest that when men, by reason of willful rebellion, reject that truth, they do so at the cost of their own eternal damnation (Rom 1:20; 2:1,15). For this seamless, flawless and majestic tapestry of God-given truth is substituted a patchwork of "lesser" truths, of truth which "is obtainable at least in part," truths which "are not delineated for us by God" but are "discovered by fallible humans." . . . Surely such a concept of general revelation represents a ravaging of the biblical concept.
Coe [John Coe, a faculty member of Rosemead School of Psychology] quite clearly denies the effect of sin upon the fallen mind of man. Bookman identifies as absolutely basic to Coe’s argument the proposition that "fallen man retains the ability and propensity to deduce truth from the created world and thus to arrive at conclusions which are as authoritative as the Scriptures themselves."

More central to the issue of biblical anthropology, however, is that Coe’s argument involves a denial of the biblical insistence that divine truth is foolishness to the natural man (1 Cor 2:14), that apart from regeneration man’s understanding is darkened and alienated from the life of God (Eph 4:17), that all men are enemies in their minds until God transforms them through the work of salvation (Col 1:13)...
Bookman summarizes this issue of Coe’s bibliology in a personal letter to us, in which he says:

The issue here relates very directly to the character of inspired Scripture. Wisdom literature, such as that which is represented by the sage in the book of Proverbs, is one of many precious and profitable genres of biblical literature. But the recorded message of the sage, no less than that of the prophet, the Gospelist or the writer of a New Testament epistle, is authoritative and dependable simply and only because it was breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). The prophets received their messages by means of dreams (Num 12:6); that doesn’t suggest that the dreams of men today are just as authoritative as those of the prophets. The sage normally received his message by means of observation; it is erroneous to conclude that therefore the observations of any man are as authoritative and/or dependable as those observations of the sage which are recorded in the pages of sacred Scripture.

Note carefully that the debate here is not whether any of the observations made by human beings might be true. Rather, the debate is whether the observations of men today ought to be regarded as possessing the absolute certainty and/or normative authority which the Bible possesses in all of its parts. The words of the sage are not certain and authoritative because they were discovered by observation, any more than the words of Jude are certain and authoritative because he cites them from the apocryphal book of Enoch (Jude 14). The words of all biblical writers are authoritative because the recording of them was done under the careful supervision of the Holy Spirit which is known as "inspiration." To regard the words of men as possessing the same sublime dignity and ultimate authority that the words of the Bible possess is remarkably dangerous.
End quote.

Before you pass John Coe off as some liberal that certainly doesn't reflect those who REALLY know Scripture and stand for "Sola Scriptura", look at this.

Robert Morey has said, “Just because someone says, “I believe in sola scriptura,” does not mean he really believes in it. If he elsewhere says that the Bible is not the final authority in faith and practice, he has denied in substance what he supposedly affirmed as a slogan. Heretics have always done this. What they affirm with the right hand is what they deny with the left hand. It does not matter what doctrine is at stake.”

"The basic theological and philosophical problem with organizations such as The White Horse Inn, Modern Reformation magazine, Westminster Seminary, Ligonier Ministries, Table Talk magazine, Stand to Reason radio, Summit Ministries, and Coral Ridge Ministries is not simply their failure, but their refusal to be captive to the Word of God. The “Reverend Doctors” think they are smarter – or at least more widely read – than the Holy Spirit himself, and so they promote the wisdom of men, not the wisdom of Christ. The Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians and Colossians are the death-knell of all non-revelational theories of knowledge." - Trinity Foundation

Natural Theology's Fallacy:

Natural theologians constantly commit one of the simplest errors. They take an idealized and romantic modern concept of human “Reason,” that developed during the Renaissance, particularly during the French Revolution, and insert it back into biblical times and even attempt to insert it into biblical texts. But is it possible that ancient writers, most of whom died thousands of years before the Renaissance, knew of and believed in modern Renaissance romantic ideals of an exalted and abstract “Reason,” before whom all must bow, including God?

Ideas have a history that we cannot ignore. We can trace when, where, and through whom an idea first appeared in history. Newton’s idea of the “law of gravity” and Einstein’s “theory of relativity” are good examples of this.

The attempt to take a modern idea and push it back thousands of years before it appeared in history is a grave mistake. If someone claimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was taught in the Bible, they would be grossly mistaken. But this is exactly what those who believe in Natural Theology, Natural Law, and Philosophy do all the time.

The French Natural Philosophers had abstracted, idealized, romanticized, and then absolutized human reason into an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible, “Reason.” They took man’s limited and faulty ability to think about issues and then came to a conclusion and elevated it into the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. “Reason” was the measure of all things, including God. They had replaced “God” with “Reason.” During the French Revolution, people were dragged before the “bar” or bench of a rationalist judge who proclaimed their guilty verdict in the name of “Reason.”

This is one of the fundamental methodological errors of J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, William lane Craig, Greg Koukl, Francis Beckwith, et al. They cite such texts as Isa. 1:18 (”Let us reason together”) and Acts 17:2 (”Paul…reasoned with them”), to prove (sic) that the modern Renaissance concept of “Reason” can be found in the Bible. They assume that the mere presence of the verb “reason” in such passages is sufficient proof that the authors of Scripture knew of and believed in the Renaissance concept of the noun “Reason.”

First, it is outrageous for them to insert a modern idea into ancient biblical times and texts.

Second, none of them even attempt to do any exegesis of the texts they cite. It would appear that they never bothered to check the Hebrew or Greek. They cite texts much like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Third, even if we pretended, in a moment of insanity, that modern Renaissance ideas like “Reason” could magically appear in ancient biblical times and texts, this would still require hard exegetical work to support it.

Nearly all the Hebrew and Greek words translated “reason” have nothing to do with human “reason” per se but are simple conjunctions. They are grammatical, not anthropological, in nature.

Unquote.

Morey goes on to use a Hebrew and Greek examples using Greek and Hebrew. Then he says:

Quote:

One last comment is in order. Some Natural theologians have argued that if we reject the Renaissance abstract concept of “Reason,” we are denying that man can “reason” from point A to point B. But this argument is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

To reject an abstract idealized “Reason,” i.e. Rationalism, is not the same thing as rejecting man’s capacity to “reason.” The biblical authors viewed man’s capacity to think through issues and to come a conclusion as a reflection of the image of God. While they believed in “reasoning,” this does not mean they knew or believed in “Reason.”

Another Natural theologian objected to our use of the lower case “r” and the capital letter “R.” But his objection fell flat when we asked, “If the use of capital and lower case letters bothers you, does the distinction between the capital “G” and the lower case “g” in “god” and “God” bother you as well?”

In conclusion, the authors of Scripture did not know of or believe in the modern Renaissance concept of an abstract absolute “Reason.” Any attempt is to read that concept back into the Bible is sheer ignorance at best and gross deception at worse. Thus, Natural Theology is a total sham.

Unquote.

Dr. John Robbins of The Trinity Foundation says: "Decades ago Francis Schaeffer warned the church about Thomas Aquinas and ‘nature eating up grace.’ By this he meant that if you give ‘natural revelation’ an epistemological inch, it will displace Scripture."

I would suggest two other articles to read:

http://biblicalthought.com/blog/why-natural-theology-fails/

http://biblicalthought.com/blog/raphaels-school-of-athens/


Morey mentioned that ideas have a history. This includes psychology. Consider this:

"The End of 'Christian Psychology" :

"After Jung repudiated Christianity he became involved in idolatry and the occult. He renamed and replaced everything having to do with biblical Christianity with his own mythology of archetypes. As he developed his theories, his archetypes took shape and served him as familiar spirits. One such personal familiar spirit that helped Jung develop his theories was Philemon." -Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, op. cit., pp. 170-199.

"Jung also participated in the occult practice of necromancy. Jung mythologized Scripture and reduced the basic doctrines of the Christian faith into esoteric gnosticism. Freud was also involved in idolatry and the occult. He collected a large number of ancient Greek, Roman, Oriental, and Egyptian artifacts, including rows of statuettes arranged on his desk and around his office."

Also go here for a treatment of the history and founding fathers of psychology by Dr. John Street, Chairman of the Biblical Counseling Department at The Master's College.

The basic foundation for psychology is humanism and the occult. Claiming either has truth about man's condition before a Holy God is outrageous and anti-biblical. There is no combining Truth with error. Shame on those who think they can.

The Palins Are Back Spouting Their Feminism

“Get beyond the ideal of abstinence,” the 44 year old, new grandmother said. “Hey, life happens.” –Governor Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, 2-16-09 in reference to her teen daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. Bristol told Fox that she has “no immediate plans to marry.” More on this issue at Slice of Laodicea.

By the way, this notion of giving up ideals is EXACTLY what some Democrat said yesterday re: the Californian Republicans holding up the proposed state budget by one vote, which would tax us out the wazzo and increase spending. He said the Republicans should give up their idealism and do what's right for the State. I noted to my daughter how the Democrats are UNWILLING to give up THEIR ideals of socialism, but they want the Republicans to. Hypocrits. If you give up your principles, then they aren't principles!

I have been asking for a LONG TIME now, what makes a person "conservative" or a "Christian"? Because they claim they are? Or because their behavior matches up with what they proclaim?

Sarah Palin makes my point which I've noted this past week: when you have a "Christian" who compromises, you will find that there's a relationship at stake.

The feminism which I said Palin holds to, is manifesting itself clearly yet again. But like more and more "Christians", biblical doctrine AND practice is merely optional. God's judgment is coming folks, and it will start within His household. HE ain't winking.

P.S. Bristol and it seems Sarah, (where IS Ted in all of this???) seem to deny 1) the command of God to NOT fornicate, and 2) reject the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians.

They are no different than the God-hating world. What an UTTER shame.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Reject Philosophy And Look To Christ Alone

Col 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority

Today our pastor taught from Col. 2:8-10. This portion of Scripture speaks about rejecting philosophies and empty deceitful words, and stick with the supremacy of Christ Jesus. Within philosophy lies psychology which is highly accepted among many professing Christians. In fact, many "churches" have relgated the MINISTRY of encouragement and exhortation, to professional "counselors" who in turn try to mix philosophy with Biblical truth--causing tremendous confusion and false hope, and worse, turn people away from the supremacy of Christ and the Scriptures. Here's what John MacArthur has noted and is worth thinking about:

MacArthur on Colossians 2

Verse 9, “For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you’ve been made complete.” This refers to whatever systems men invent, whatever ideologies, philosophies, psychologies, theories, religions. And they’re innumerable, aren’t they? Cults and isms and schisms abound all over everywhere. Everybody’s got his own little hip-pocket idea of God and truth and Christ and how the Bible fits in, etc., etc., etc. Philosophers, authors, playwrights, novelists, academicians, movie producers, talk show hosts, psychologists, sociologists, religious leaders ad infinitum, ad nauseam have their opinions about everything. There is this endless verbosity, isn’t there, streaming across our radios and our screens and in the literature that we read from books all the way to newspapers and everybody has his view of life and everybody has his view of morality. And no matter what view you espouse and you put it in the column in the newspaper, there’s going to be a stack of letters to the editor and you’re going to have at least 15 people spinning their own thing in response to yours. No wonder people find it difficult to know where to land, to know what to believe in a world with so many opinions. And, of course, we now live in a post-modern world which means that there really is no truth, no true truth, no absolute truth. Everybody comes up with his own idea of what truth is and you’ve got your truth and you’ve got your truth...that’s great, I’m so glad you have your truth and I’m so glad I have my truth. And it’s just everywhere. And so, Paul says, “Look, see to it that no one takes you captive.”

It’s a rare word, sulagogeo, it means to carry you off like plunder. Sula is the word booty, treasure; ogo is to carry away, don’t let anybody haul you off, take you captive. It was used in later Greek writings, it’s rare around the biblical times, but it was used in later Greek writings to refer to kidnapping, or plundering a house, or seducing a maid, or taking people captive in a war. Don’t let anybody kidnap your mind, kidnap your soul, seduce or plunder you by philosophy, the study of wisdom, human reason. Don’t let anybody move you away from Christ by viewpoints, world views, values, morality, principles that come from human wisdom. He says this philosophy is empty deception. You could read it this way, “See to it that no one seduces you, plunders you, robs your soul through human wisdom, even empty deceit.” Philosophy is empty deceit. It is an empty lie. It is a delusion because it sounds good, it attracts the mind, it seduces the mind, it has certain properties of rationality, but it has no spiritual value at all. Why? Because verse 8 says it is according to the tradition of men. It’s human. If you want to know divine truth, if you want to know supernatural truth, don’t go to a human source. It’s that simple. Because all you’re going to get out of a human source is human wisdom. And human wisdom does not transcend time and space. It is just inadequate human thinking and, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, the natural man understands not the things of God. How can he know them? They’re spiritual. They’re not in his dimensions.

It’s amazing how often people will say, “Well, I think this about God, and I think that about God.” Well just why would I believe what you think about God is authoritative? How did you, by the way, get out of your time/space environment to say that about God and think that you actually knew the truth? We’re talking about transcendent God, we’re talking about a God who is outside our world. I’m going to have to have information about God that He Himself has delivered. We live in a box, time/space box. We bang around in here and we draw all kinds of conclusions. But nobody ever gets out and God is on the outside. The only way we will ever know God is not that some of us can crawl through a hole somewhere and say, “Oh, you know, there He is,” it’s not going to happen. The only way we could ever know is if God invaded the box from the outside, and He did. And He gave us a revelation in Scripture, and then He gave us a revelation in human flesh, Jesus Christ. And that’s God bursting into our world.

What are you going to find out of philosophy? I’ve often said this about philosophy, philosophy is the search for the truth but you never find it. If they ever found it, class would be over. It would be over. So you get a degree for looking. It’s inadequate. You can’t get there from here. It is...he says further... “According to the elementary principles of the world.” It’s...it’s earthbound. It’s just this system talking to itself. It’s not transcendent. It’s not from the outside. Rudiments means ABCs, it’s baby talk. It’s amazing to think about that. But you talk about a philosopher and usually you’re talking about the elite minds of any age, or any society, those who are the philosophers are usually considered to be the great brain trust, you know, the people who are off the chart on the IQ test, the geniuses who think in levels of complexity that stagger most of us. But the truth is, no matter how intelligent they are, no matter how capable they are of processing information and retaining it in their heads and sorting it through and drawing conclusions, they may stagger us with that, they’re still in the box and it’s nothing but the ABCs of the world. In a sense, it’s baby talk, the kind of thing you hear the mumbling, stumbling baby talk of one who hasn’t the capability to make any connection with the rational world. They think they’re advanced, they’re not. They’re primitive. They’re not advanced, it’s just the opposite, they’re retarded when it comes to truth. Human wisdom may be an exhibition of brain power but it has no ability to grasp the truth which is beyond human capability. And so what happens is, it’s proud about its baby talk and it is truthfully nothing more than the infantile musings of poverty-stricken minds. You can’t know the truth about eternity, you can’t know the truth about origins, you can’t know the truth about consummation of the ages, you can’t know the truth about heaven and hell, you can’t know the truth about the world of God unless God comes and tells you...and that’s what this is, a supernatural book. And He came not only in the truth written, but in the truth incarnate in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Philosophy does not advance man, it goes the other way. It regresses him, it keeps him ever increasingly infantile. So beware of philosophy.

MacArthur says elsewhere:

“First Corinthians 2:9-10 says, "...Eye hath not seen [You can't discover truth by empiricism], nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man [You can't discover truth by rationalism], the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Science is empiricism; philosophy is rationalism. According to 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, neither of them will ever discover ultimate truth.

The historian Schlatter says, "Everything that had to do with theories about God and the world and the meaning of human life was called `philosophy' at that time, not only in the pagan schools but also in the Jewish schools of the Greek cities." He is saying that the term philosophy was used of every single theory about God and the world in that era. It was the common term. So, anyone who had any new theory about God, or any new theory about the world--its origins, its meaning, and its destiny--was considered a philosopher with a philosophy.

Josephus, the historian of that day, has shown that any elaborate system of thought and moral discipline was called a philosophy. He says, "For there are three forms of philosophies among the Jews. The followers of the first school are called Pharisees, of the second Sadducees, and of the third Essenes" (Jewish War II. viii. 2). That leads me to think that the Essenes may have been propagating their philosophy in Colosse.

You don't need to be captured by philosophy--you can be complete in Christ. You can throw away human philosophy, all the traditional religions of the world, and all the man-made forms and theories. "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in Him..." (Col. 2:9-10a).

At the Fall of man, we fell into a sad state of incompleteness. An unsaved man is spiritually incomplete because he is totally out of fellowship. He is morally incomplete because he has no standard of conduct. Even if he did, he couldn't live up to it. And he is mentally incomplete because he is incapable of knowing the truth. So man is spiritually, morally, and mentally incomplete.

Jesus Christ enters the scene, and Paul says, "And ye are complete in Him...." In 2 Peter 1:4 Peter says, "...ye might be partakers of the divine nature...." Think of it! You have become a partaker of the divine nature. A man instantly becomes spiritually complete and has fellowship with God. The life of God is now in him. He becomes morally complete; not because he is perfect practically, but because he recognizes the authority of God's will. He now has a standard and the energizing of the Holy Spirit to give him the strength to obey. And he is mentally complete; not in the sense of knowing everything, but in the sense of having the truth and the resident truth teacher--the Holy Spirit. Christians are partners in the divine life. What an incredible truth!

When you became a Christian, you received everything you needed. Peter says we have "all things that pertain unto life and godliness..." (2 Pet. 1:3b). You don't need any higher knowledge. You don't need the words of Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith. You don't need the Book of Mormon. You don't need the words of Annie Besant, Madame Blavatsky, Judge Rutherford, or anybody else. You don't need Mr. and Mrs. Filmore or Sun Myung Moon to add to what you have. You don't need anybody because you are complete in Him.

Go here for a history and a look at the failing attempt of psychology by Dr. John Street.

"A little state control wouldn't hurt anybody" - Jerry Moonbeam Brown, California attorney general

In discussing the "Fairness Doctrine" (code for Conservatives: shut UP):

"You are starting to sound as though you want a little state control over the media," Savage added.

Brown then exclaimed, "Well, a little state control wouldn't hurt anybody."

--as reported by World Net Daily

Welcome to the People's Republic of CaliMexico.


I'm telling you, the liberals hate any dissenting view. As I pointed in the article "Professor of Speech Class Cuts Off Student's Speech ", liberals, no matter WHERE you find them, be it school, media, politics, or "Christianity", do NOT want the Truth to be spoken. They are the most intolerant and hypocritcal bunch of people around.

A little socialism is good? Yes that's what the Libs think. This certainly is NOT what the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independance, nor the Constitution declared. In fact, socialism FAILED and nearly killed the Jamestown and Mayflower colonies, because it encouraged laziness and a horrible work ethic and thus they nearly starved to death because of it.

There's a reason he earned the nickname "Moonbeam" here in California. He's off his rocker. Unfortunately, most liberals are too, and they voted for this socialist. Jerry Brown needs to be fired. NOW.

Remember his words, because they are the liberal agenda. As I said before, "Green IS the new red". This is what I meant.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Pathological Positivity Toward Error

"Where is the line between pathological positivity and the unnecessary non-identification of error in the evanjellyfish world? And it ought to get them to thinking, “when am I so caught up in finding alleged good that I miss what is so obviously wrong?” - Ken Silva

This was in response to someone who was whining about a discernment ministry that warns Christians of error. It seems those that complain the loudest are the ones who are in the wrong and hate the Light to shine on their darkness. I notice that these are the same people who are the biggest hypocrits, judging others for judging.

Those who are on the side of Truth will rejoice in Truth. This is what agape love does (1Cor. 13). If they rather stab Christians in the back for revealing "deeds of darkness" in light of the Truth, then they ARE the enemy.

Scripture says:


Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Eph 5:7 Therefore do not become partners with them;
Eph 5:8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
Eph 5:9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true),
Eph 5:10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
Eph 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Eph 5:12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

1Jn 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.  Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you NOT TO ASSOCIATE with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.

2Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

Tim Keller Joins Emergents and Gary the Lion (Lamb) at Eponential '09 Conference

Exponential 09 Conference to Feature a Speaker Whose Biggest Regret is Not Clubbing a Church Lady With a Baseball Bat

What's interesting isn't just that this "shepherd" wants to repeatedly hit people over the head with a bully club and rip them apart (he earns the name Gary the Lion), but that this conference has Emergent Church leaders (Erwin McManus, Alan Hirsch, Ed Stezter)spewing their ever-so-relevant garbage (note the Las Vegas stage set behind Gary the Tiger--now that's pretty relevent, don't you think?).

And Francis Chan as well as Tim Keller, the "Reformer" is standing right alongside them.

Thos that deny either men are going Emergent need to wake up and acknowledge the truth. Between the pagan-friendly-emergent junk going on at Keller's "church", and the men and women both Chan and Keller share the platform with at these emergent functions, speaks for itself.

Professor of Speech Class Cuts Off Student's Speech

Here's an excerpt from a news article on how the professors of higher education and liberalism are shutting down anyone that speaks against their hallowed views. Since I got this in my email, I don't know the url for the source, but I did some searching and found the Alliance Defense Fund, who is sueing on behalf of the student and is mentioned in this news piece, has information on the specifics of this cas at their website.

Quote:

Prof calls Christian student 'fascist b------' Lawsuit filed after speech met with: 'Ask God what your grade is'

By Bob Unruh

A student at Los Angeles City College has filed a lawsuit against the institution after a professor called him a "fascist b------" and told him to "Ask God what your grade is" following the student's speech about morality.

The case has been filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Jonathan Lopez after his encounter with Professor John Matteson in a speech class.

The lawsuit alleges Lopez was participating in a class assignment to give a speech on "any topic" from six to eight minutes.

"During the November, 24, 2008 class, Mr. Lopez delivered an informative speech on God and the ways in which Mr. Lopez has seen God act both in his life and in the lives of others through miracles. In the middle of the speech, he addressed the issues of God and morality; thus, he referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and also read a passage from the Bible discussing marriage," the ADF explained.

At that point, the professor interrupted him and refused to allow him to finish his speech, ADF said. Matteson then called Lopez a 'fascist b------" and dismissed the class.

Later, the professor left an evaluation form on Lopez's backpack without a grade, instructing him to "Ask God what your grade is."

Yet several weeks earlier, Matteson has announced to the class, in connection to the California vote Nov. 4 in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only, that, "if you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist b------."

End quote.

My observations:

1. As with other professors of higher learning that I know personally, when their buttons are pushed, they go ballistic. They are no more rational or unemotional than the next person. There is no difference between them and those who haven't reached the ivory towers of knowledge.

2. The sarcasm drips off the professor's pen. He wants the last word. Again proving point number one. In addition, it shows his arrogance.

3. The Light of Truth was a little too bright for this man's dark heart, and apparently a few others in the class. Good for the student.

4. The professor shows his utter and total hypocrisy. This is a SPEECH class, yet because he didn't like the content, he cut the student off. In addition to this, he claims it was prostylizing, yet he and his ilk do it ALL THE TIME (like global warming, evolution, and how much they hate George Bush). Therefore in their minds prostylitizing their agenda only is allowed (have you tried disagreeing with global warming, feminism, or evolution lately?). All of this done while whining about free speech, free thought, and tolerance. This is the group of people who call people like me "narrow minded" "judgmental" and "intolerant". I, however, never claim to be anything BUT. They, do. Thus they are the flaming hypocrits.

5. It used to be that higher education was the place to "think outside the box." Dangerous as that was because in the old days that meant going against common sense and traditional values and principles, they have become what they once decried, only worse. While claiming to be "open minded" they harrass, persecute, and insult those who ARE exercising their "free speech" and "individual thought", going against the majority view. This also happens in the scientific community where if you dare speak out against Evolution or dare question it, you will not only loose your job, but will not get another one. See the documentary with Ben Stein, "Expelled".

Plagerism In the Pulpit: its more common than you think

I can't tell you how GLAD I am that someone has FINALLY taken on the sin of plagerism in the pulpit.

ITS ABOUT TIME!

Here is the article. I got the heads-up from Slice of Laodicea this morning. But this has been a concern of mine for years.

I remember about six years ago, while our church at the time was without a pastor (that is another problem, but I'll save that for another time). They had "guest speakers" come and speak for four weeks at a time (yet another problem, considering out of about 9 elders, two of whom were professors at a local seminary, hardly ever taught---Scripture demands that the elders are able to TEACH). One guest came and taught. He came under the approval of past association with a well-known pastor in the LA area. Assuming he was faithful, he started his sermons. Week one was ok. Week two was ok. Week three was when he apparently had no time to study, because that's when he plagerized from "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I know, because just prior to that my husband and I were looking at that book. We looked at each other and afteward laughed in absolute astonishment that this man passed off his message as his own, when in fact it was someone else's. He never gave any credit at all to McDowel.

If that weren't bad enough, later I was talking to a former elder and his wife at the same church. I said how it bothers me that pastors plagerize. These two people said it doesn't bother them. And the man is a librarian at a local Christian college! HELLO??????? I maintained my position that is deceitful and its lying. I couldn't believe this couple wasn't upset with plagerism. But then, after all, ALL pastors do it. HUH? No they don't and if they do, they disqualify themselves from that position. Lying is not only wrong but violates Scripture:


1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Someone who steals another man's sermons proves he is not able to teach, is not above reproach, and is not respectable. Period. It also shows a lack of conscience before God, man, and a lack of desire to spend time in Scripture. He is a hireling at best, a wolf at worst. But he's NO shepherd of God's people.

This guest speaker continued to get worse. His fourth and final week he told a lot of stories, mentioned one verse out of context, and that was it. He did this for both services. The elders later sent out a letter of apology. Of course, the elders were ultimately responsible for this, because he should never had been asked to teach, nor allowed to continue for the second service that last Sunday. And the elders should've been the ones teaching every week. But the problem is, most men don't WANT to preach.

The article I link to at the top of this entry mentions laziness. I agree. But its broader than that. Its laziness by pastors everywhere, even if they don't plagerize. I've seen this happen with well-known pastors and local pastors: they go on a speaking engagement, have no time to spend in Scripture, so they use an old sermon, update it a tad perhaps, and then present it to the sheep (not their sheep).

I have a problem with that. It shows laziness and a lack of taking seriously this group of sheep. Maybe there's a lack of time involved, but that only leads back to the issue of being a hireling. Why aren't the elders of that church doing the teaching? Is there nothing new in Scripture they can be bothered to spend time studying? Have they truly exhausted ALL of Scripture so now they must resort to used sermons? It is laziness on both the speaker and elders' part. Even on the part of the congregation.

If congregations are willing to accept lies as "from God", stolen property as "honoring Christ", then they are willing for anything to be given to them, as long as the code words are used. Its no wonder deception is in the churches. It is putting Christ Jesus' name on what is deceptive and dishonest and that is taking HIS name in vain.

God help them. HE is the God that sees...and HE sees EVERYTHING.

What's a sheep to do? Do your research. You can Google a key phrase from the speaker and see if its been in a sermon from before. If it does, it will show up and you'll see more than just a phrase, but likely a paragraph more. Also, talk to the elders and if they don't confront the speaker or pastor, YOU DO IT.

**Update***

I came across this blog and thought her entry also echo's my own experience and concerns.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Darwin's Unbelief In His Own Words: They Still Echo in "Christianity"

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Excerpts from Scientific America:

Quote:

Editor's Note: This article, translated from German, originally appeared in Spektrum. We are publishing it as part of our tribute to Charles Darwin on his 200th birthday.


One day, as we were walking together, he [zoologist Robert Grant] burst out in great admiration for Lamarck and his views on evolution. I listened in silent amazement, without being affected in any way emotionally. I had read my grandfather's zoonomy earlier, and it had contained similar views. Nevertheless, it is quite probable that the fact that I was exposed at an early age to such views and heard them being praised made it easier for me to uphold the same ideas in a different form in my Origin of Species.

Accordingly, I read with care Pearson on the creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible. I might have said with entire truth that I had no wish to dispute any dogma; but I never was such a fool as to feel and say, "credo quia incredibile" ["I believe because it is incredible"]. If I think of how vehemently I have been attacked by the orthodoxy, it is very amusing to think that I had once entertained intentions of becoming a priest.

On board the Beagle I was completely orthodox, and I recall how several officers laughed at heartily when I quoted the Bible as an irrefutable source on some point of morality. But during the period from 1836 to 1839, I had slowly come to understand that the Old Testament, with its evidently wrong history of the world, its Tower of Babel, its rainbow as a sign, and tendency of ascribing to God the sentiments of a revengeful tyrant, were no more worthy of credence than the holy scriptures of the Hindus or the beliefs of a savage. Despite all my powers of deluding myself, it became more and more difficult to find proof enough to satisfy me.

And that is how faithlessness stalked me and took hold over me slowly, till I became totally disbelieving.

Disbelief crept in on me so slowly that I did not feel any discomfort, and since then, never have a doubted for even a single second the correctness of my conclusions. And I cannot really understand, either, how anyone might want to believe that Christianity were true, because if it were, then, in the plain terms of the text, it is said that people who do not believe would be punished for eternity, and that would include my father, my brother and almost all my best friends. And that is a terrible doctrine!


The answers are original quotes from Charles Darwin from a variety of sources, including The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online, who died in 1882.

Unquote.

1.) Darwin's reading started to influence his thinking. WE MUST BE CAREFUL of what we read!

2.) His doubts started slowly. Doubting God's Word is sin. It is unbelief. It is what Satan did with Eve, for in doubting God's Word, one doubts the authority of God Himself.

3.) He says what I've been saying: there was not enough proof to satisfy him. I put it slightly differently: there is never enough evidence for a skeptic, nor enough Scripture for the scholar.

4.) He rejects God's wrath because Hell would mean that his loved ones sould be lost. Where you have compromise, you always have a relationship at stake.

The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith....--Spurgeon


Robert Shindler, publisher of the Sword and the Trowel said:

The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. "To the law and to the testimony," is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him...

But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;

Friday, February 06, 2009

Ted Haggard: Wants God and Christians To Wink At His Rebellion

Excerpts from a news article at The Christian Post:

Disgraced pastor Ted Haggard didn’t hold back when criticizing the Christian right during a recent interview, in which he accused the movement of acting ungospel-like and having the wrong understanding of human sexuality.

“I think the religious right is increasingly impotent right now in America,” Haggard said on ABC's World News Sunday. “And it’s going to have to return to the Gospel in order to regain strength.”

The former evangelical leader said there is a gap between evangelical leaders and the Gospel, and stressed that the real message of the Church is that Jesus came to heal imperfect humans.
“Jesus is good news, not bad news,” Haggard told ABC's Dan Harris.


But a gay sex and drug scandal brought down the evangelical leader in 2006. Many had directed their criticism not only at Haggard, but at the evangelical community for its hypocrisy. Before his fall, Haggard had often publicly railed against homosexual relations.

Now after being “shunned” by the Christian right, as Haggard described his situation, his tone regarding same-sex relations has become notably softer.

Although he still does not believe that same-sex marriage is biblically permissible, he is now supportive of same-sex civil unions.

“Just as the church made a horrible mistake several centuries ago insisting that the earth is flat,” Haggard said on ABC, “I think the church may make a major mistake in our generation saying that sexuality should be this and nothing else.”

He went on, “The Church has to look at humanity realistically. We all got to humble ourselves and do everything we can to serve people in need. Not to dictate them; not to hate them; not to punish them.”

Since his fall, Haggard has expressed bitterly that he expected the Christian community to be more forgiving of his sins than they have been.

End quote.

The problem is, Haggard is justifying his sin and is complaining that real Christians won't accept his sinful rebellion of lies and deceit. He needs to shut his mouth and pray for God's mercy, because as he stands now, he is under God's wrath, earning hell. He has not shown any godly sorrow nor repentance, but rather a continual lust for the limelight and acceptance, tearing down what God has declared.

Let's revisit what God says about homosexuals:

1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Co 5:13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ contains the NEED for salvation which is SIN. Sin would include sodomy, adultery, etc. as well as sin in thought and deed. We are born as sinners, born hostile toward God. If one does not understand WHY he is under God's wrath, he will not understand he needs to BEG for God's mercy and salvation. Haggard, as a "pastor" doesn't even know this fundamental truth. He ought to start reading the Gospel of John and Romans.

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Green Is The New Red: Here Come The Environmentalist Dictators Saying Only Two Kids Per Family--Welcome To China

News story from Times Online: excerpts:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.


Its a true saying: Green is the new Red. This is totally communistic and should be outright rejected by all normal people.

God gives us children and HE wills; the government is not in the business to decide for us. We fought decades of Communism (which btw, is alive and well in Cuba and China for instance...and trying to make a comeback in Russia)..and for what? To go back to the vomit? Well then, just rebuild the Berline wall and be done with it.

These "enviornomentalists" are not for a better environment. They WORSHIP the environment (earth, sky, etc), deplore humans, are dictators, and worst of all, God-haters. They want everyone to follow their narrow rules of high regulation, yet they want the freedom to dictate to the rest of us. All this is build on faulty science, lots of myth, and paganism.

Porritt needs to go live in China or Cuba for the rest of his communist life and stop trying to dictate the rest of us how he thinks we should live. Isn't that the hue and cry of liberals? Aren't they the first ones to say Christians with principles and integrity, that we are sticking our noses into everyone's business by proclaiming what is right and wrong based on Scripture (i.e., that homosexuality is bad and wrong as is sexual immorality)?

This new religion of mixing paganism with politics and bad science is wrong and needs to stop.

Go to Junk Science for a reality check on the myths of global warming and other nonsense the left is rabidly shoving down our throats along with their buddies in the media and Hollywood.