Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
Ecc 1:3 What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?
Ecc 1:8 All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
Ecc 1:14 I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
Ecc 2:11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.
Ecc 2:22 What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun?
Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Perhaps some Americans are now forced out of their comfort zone to realize, things aren't getting better and they are not in control. Perhaps some might come to the end of themselves and cry out to God. Now's a good time to proclaim God's Sovereignty!
Here are excerpts from a news story By ALAN FRAM and EILEEN PUTMAN, Associated Press Writers Sat Jun 21, 3:14 PM ET. I emphasized in bold.
WASHINGTON - Is everything spinning out of control?
Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year's presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order — and hope.
Even so, a battered public seems discouraged by the onslaught of dispiriting things.
"It is pretty scary," said Charles Truxal, 64, a retired corporate manager in Rochester, Minn. "People are thinking things are going to get better, and they haven't been. And then you go hide in your basement because tornadoes are coming through. If you think about things, you have very little power to make it change."
Recent natural disasters around the world dwarf anything afflicting the U.S. Consider that more than 69,000 people died in the China earthquake, and that 78,000 were killed and 56,000 missing from the Myanmar cyclone.
Americans need do no more than check the weather, look in their wallets or turn on the news for their daily reality check on a world gone haywire.
Floods engulf Midwestern river towns. Is it global warming, the gradual degradation of a planet's weather that man seems powerless to stop or just a freakish late-spring deluge?
It hardly matters to those in the path. Just ask the people of New Orleans who survived Hurricane Katrina. They are living in a city where, 1,000 days after the storm, entire neighborhoods remain abandoned, a national embarrassment that evokes disbelief from visitors.
Food is becoming scarcer and more expensive on a worldwide scale, due to increased consumption in growing countries such as China and India and rising fuel costs. That can-do solution to energy needs — turning corn into fuel — is sapping fields of plenty once devoted to crops that people need to eat. Shortages have sparked riots. In the U.S., rice prices tripled and some stores rationed the staple.
It's not the first time Americans have felt a loss of control.
American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s.
"All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."
Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.
Why the vulnerability? After all, this is the 21st century, not a more primitive past when little in life was assured. Surely people know how to fix problems now.
Maybe. And maybe this is what the 21st century will be about — a great unraveling of some things long taken for granted.
Endquote.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Man cannot give true comfort, answers, and peace to the increasing unrest, failures, and spiritual darkness clouding over our country. But I can see how a world ruler could easily step in and "save the day". People are getting desperate and they will continue to do so, as God moves history according to His plan and will. They will look for answers in politics, the economy, and religion (anything but the Truth of Scripture). Folks, this includes professing "evangelical Christians". The junk in the world is the junk in the "Christian" bookstores.
I'm so glad we know what's ahead, for HE is faithful to Himself and His children, and we know Jesus Christ the Lord will return as King, Judge, and Warrior! Do NOT put your hope in man, whether its a politican, government, schools, even your church leaders or friends and family. Put your trust in He who is faithful and True:
Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and He has a name written that no one knows but Himself.
Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which He is called is The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following Him on white horses.
Rev 19:15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 On His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
John MacArthur: Expository Preaching Cuts All Cultural Worldviews Because Scripture Is Authoritatively Proclaimed
Pro 30:5 Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Below is an excerpt of an interview with John MacArthur from the Pulpit Magazine. John explains why expository preaching is best way to preach:
"Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures."
In dealing with the Post-Modern culture, does a faithful pastor change the method Scripture has given, to relate to the current thinking or to prime the pump so they are less resistant to the Gospel? No. There is but one Gospel, one Message, and we see that throughout Scripture. Contrary to Tim Keller's multiple gospels and presentations (he has to first figure whether he's talking to the "circumsized" (religious people) or "the uncircumcised" (Post-modernists--which leads me to wonder, what unregenerate person today is not Post-Modern anyway?).
The article continues:
QUESTION: What are the unique challenges or difficulties of preaching to a postmodern culture?
First of all, you have to understand that when you talk about a postmodern culture, that’s an academic assessment of the culture. The average Joe doesn’t have any idea what that means. All he knows is he’s pretty much free to think and do whatever he wants. That’s how postmodernism filters down to the guy in the pew. It’s not a philosophy—it’s a lifestyle. The average guy just knows that the culture doesn’t care what he does. The movies he sees don’t make a moral judgment on anything except racism or somebody’s intolerance. So he’s free to do whatever he wants in the society, and nobody can tell him what to be or what to do, and the bottom line is that he should feel good about himself. That’s what filters down.
But all this goes completely against the grain of his conscience and his reason, and ultimately what he knows to be true. The unbeliever’s conscience is a reality, and even reason tells him that there have to be some absolutes.
The bottom line is that expository preaching confronts the amorality of postmodernism with an authoritative message of absolute truth. It’s not a question of debating. It’s not a question of trying to find some way to sneak that in. It’s an issue of confronting this kind of thinking with the absolute authority of Scripture and then letting the Spirit of God make the application to the heart.
QUESTION: What are the advantages of expository preaching in a postmodern culture?
Expository preaching is the only thing that is going to change anything. There isn’t any other way to affect people positively aside from hitting them with that kind of authority. In my own preaching, my objective is not to court the postmodern mind. My objective is to confront it—to hit it stone cold in the face with truth. It’s irrelevant to me how the person thinks. It’s only relevant to me how they need to think. So I’m not going to play around with their sensitivities to postmodernism.
At a recent Bible conference, I spoke on the exclusivity of the gospel, and I set forth the distinctiveness of Christianity. And afterward some guys who were seminary students and philosophy majors came up to me and said, “What’s really interesting about your message is that you gave us a philosophy of thinking, a worldview. But we’ve never heard anyone give that kind of worldview without a very intricate philosophical defense.” And I said I didn’t need to give an intricate philosophical defense, because this is exactly what Scripture says, and there is no need to defend it. You just proclaim it. See these guys were struck by the fact that what they heard was an absolute authoritative statement of a worldview that takes on postmodernism, without having to fuddle around and make all kinds of philosophical and rational arguments, and without having to answer every objection that arises.
So the advantages of preaching expositionally and authoritatively in a postmodern culture are the same as they are in any environment where there is error—you bring an authoritative word to bear upon how people think.
What are these seminarians learning in school? What a disaster!
Scripture is sufficient, it is all powerful, it must be held in the highest place of esteem over all people, thoughts, books, schools, professors, etc.
Ps. 1:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Below is an excerpt of an interview with John MacArthur from the Pulpit Magazine. John explains why expository preaching is best way to preach:
"Well first, because it is a biblical mandate. It doesn’t fluctuate with culture, with expectations, with times or seasons. Expository preaching is the best way to preach the Bible. If every word of God is pure, if every word of God is true, then every word needs to be dealt with. And expository preaching is only way you actually come to grips with every word in the Scriptures."
In dealing with the Post-Modern culture, does a faithful pastor change the method Scripture has given, to relate to the current thinking or to prime the pump so they are less resistant to the Gospel? No. There is but one Gospel, one Message, and we see that throughout Scripture. Contrary to Tim Keller's multiple gospels and presentations (he has to first figure whether he's talking to the "circumsized" (religious people) or "the uncircumcised" (Post-modernists--which leads me to wonder, what unregenerate person today is not Post-Modern anyway?).
The article continues:
QUESTION: What are the unique challenges or difficulties of preaching to a postmodern culture?
First of all, you have to understand that when you talk about a postmodern culture, that’s an academic assessment of the culture. The average Joe doesn’t have any idea what that means. All he knows is he’s pretty much free to think and do whatever he wants. That’s how postmodernism filters down to the guy in the pew. It’s not a philosophy—it’s a lifestyle. The average guy just knows that the culture doesn’t care what he does. The movies he sees don’t make a moral judgment on anything except racism or somebody’s intolerance. So he’s free to do whatever he wants in the society, and nobody can tell him what to be or what to do, and the bottom line is that he should feel good about himself. That’s what filters down.
But all this goes completely against the grain of his conscience and his reason, and ultimately what he knows to be true. The unbeliever’s conscience is a reality, and even reason tells him that there have to be some absolutes.
The bottom line is that expository preaching confronts the amorality of postmodernism with an authoritative message of absolute truth. It’s not a question of debating. It’s not a question of trying to find some way to sneak that in. It’s an issue of confronting this kind of thinking with the absolute authority of Scripture and then letting the Spirit of God make the application to the heart.
QUESTION: What are the advantages of expository preaching in a postmodern culture?
Expository preaching is the only thing that is going to change anything. There isn’t any other way to affect people positively aside from hitting them with that kind of authority. In my own preaching, my objective is not to court the postmodern mind. My objective is to confront it—to hit it stone cold in the face with truth. It’s irrelevant to me how the person thinks. It’s only relevant to me how they need to think. So I’m not going to play around with their sensitivities to postmodernism.
At a recent Bible conference, I spoke on the exclusivity of the gospel, and I set forth the distinctiveness of Christianity. And afterward some guys who were seminary students and philosophy majors came up to me and said, “What’s really interesting about your message is that you gave us a philosophy of thinking, a worldview. But we’ve never heard anyone give that kind of worldview without a very intricate philosophical defense.” And I said I didn’t need to give an intricate philosophical defense, because this is exactly what Scripture says, and there is no need to defend it. You just proclaim it. See these guys were struck by the fact that what they heard was an absolute authoritative statement of a worldview that takes on postmodernism, without having to fuddle around and make all kinds of philosophical and rational arguments, and without having to answer every objection that arises.
So the advantages of preaching expositionally and authoritatively in a postmodern culture are the same as they are in any environment where there is error—you bring an authoritative word to bear upon how people think.
What are these seminarians learning in school? What a disaster!
Scripture is sufficient, it is all powerful, it must be held in the highest place of esteem over all people, thoughts, books, schools, professors, etc.
Ps. 1:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.
JC Watts & Armstrong Jones Play The Racist Card
Now JC Watts, who I used to like, is playing the race card.
Besides that, apparently he used to be a Southern Baptist Convention pastor before becoming a politician ( didn't realize that before--that in itself is clue #1; anyone who gives us "the call" wasn't called and to be a politician you have to lie--both disqualifiers for being an elder).
He's also playing politics really well, by using the "I didn't say *that*" line, when asked about voting for Obama, when that's all that is left to infer.
Good thing he's not behind a pulpit. Apparently being an undershepherd wasn't good enough for him. Now he can hound the GOP for their "lack of reaching out to the Blacks".
Armstrong Williams also may vote for Obama for the racist issue too. Give me a break.
They're all killing me. Bunch of compromising racists. Glad I left the GOP in the dust.
Fear God.
Vote Biblically.
Don't Compromise.©
Besides that, apparently he used to be a Southern Baptist Convention pastor before becoming a politician ( didn't realize that before--that in itself is clue #1; anyone who gives us "the call" wasn't called and to be a politician you have to lie--both disqualifiers for being an elder).
He's also playing politics really well, by using the "I didn't say *that*" line, when asked about voting for Obama, when that's all that is left to infer.
Good thing he's not behind a pulpit. Apparently being an undershepherd wasn't good enough for him. Now he can hound the GOP for their "lack of reaching out to the Blacks".
Armstrong Williams also may vote for Obama for the racist issue too. Give me a break.
They're all killing me. Bunch of compromising racists. Glad I left the GOP in the dust.
Fear God.
Vote Biblically.
Don't Compromise.©
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Parchment & Pen Offers Sufficiency Of Probability
Websters's: Indubitability:too evident to be doubted : unquestionable. Yes, I had to look up the big fancy word.
Michael Patton : The Sufficiency of Probability
In part he says (after giving an illustration of slapping his kids behind when they are looking then claim he didn't do it, but rather some guy who ran into the room then ran out):
There was celebration at Descartes seeming defeat of the skepticism of his day. His “I think therefore I am” looked as if it provided a bridge to attain the type of certainty to which humans have never been privy. His methodology, which became known as “the Cartesian method,” was adopted in large part by those in the West. And thus began the Age of Reason, where certainty—indubitable certainty—reined supreme.
Christianity was never bound by any sort of indubitability from a human perspective. We have never been required to check the lock on any door. In fact, no one actually can or does live by such a method in the acquisition of truth.
But alas, we often think we are supposed to. We have turned “the evidence that demands a verdict” into “the evidence that produces indubitability.” At least that is what we are pressured into doing.
Once this method does not produce absolute certainty, once we cannot account for the door being unlocked, we find ourselves wondering why we are being forced to check the door in the first place. Yet we do it anyway. When the door is unlocked, those who are epistemically conditioned to find this substantial, either, like my children, enter into a state of suspended belief, doubt, or skepticism or opt for a “leap of faith” that demands no evidence, and then sneer at those who do demand evidence as if it is passé.
Probability is sufficient. We neither need to go into intellectual hibernation and accept our beliefs on blind faith. Nor do we need to suspend our belief until all the objections are answered (we don’t need to check the door).
What I posed to my children was merely a possibility to explain the slap, but possibilities do not create probabilities. We are responsible in this life to act upon the revelation given to us, not to seek absolute indubitability.
We are neither postmodern skeptics nor modern rationalists. We find value in both skepticism, when truly warranted, and rationality, when the probability is conditioned by God to be such.
In other words, our belief in Christ’s resurrection should not be sidetracked simply because someone presents an alternative possibility. Yes, we engage these alternatives, but we don’t give them more credit than they deserve. Those who say that the Christian story borrowed from other religions or that Christ’s body was thrown into a shallow grave have simply presented other possibilities that are often no more sufficient to warrant credibility than my “look, the door is unlocked.” Possibility, yes. Probability, no.
Don’t be shaken by unlikely theories.
Don’t hypocritically require indubitability.
Don’t think that all possibilities are equal.
Don’t opt for a “leap of faith” type of faith.
Don’t become unglued because all we have is probability.
Unquote.
Yet again Patton feeds on doubt and skepticism, rather than the Truth we KNOW. Scripture doesn't deal with probabilities, but knowable Truth.
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo 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.
1Jo 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him;
2Pe 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows Him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it....
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:
Act 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
Probabilities, even possibilities are not part of Truth. Instead they consider falsehoods.
Php 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Are we to think on "what if's" or what is probably true? No. We are to KNOW the Truth and then THINK ON IT.
It is NOT possible that the body of Jesus was thrown into a shallow grave. Why? Because God Himself told us what happened: Jesus rose from the dead by the power of God. Therefore we destroy any argument to the contrary; any "alternate" view, because it slaps the face of Truth given clearly by God.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
There is a reason we are to have childlike faith.
There is never enough evidence for a skeptic and Scripture is never enough for a "scholar" nor skeptic. That is their condemnation before God.
(It would seem to "be fair" that Patton must also use"sufficiency of probability" to what is false. Just how far is he willing to go? He already admits to giving some veracity to the "possability" that Jesus did NOT resurrect.)
Michael Patton : The Sufficiency of Probability
In part he says (after giving an illustration of slapping his kids behind when they are looking then claim he didn't do it, but rather some guy who ran into the room then ran out):
There was celebration at Descartes seeming defeat of the skepticism of his day. His “I think therefore I am” looked as if it provided a bridge to attain the type of certainty to which humans have never been privy. His methodology, which became known as “the Cartesian method,” was adopted in large part by those in the West. And thus began the Age of Reason, where certainty—indubitable certainty—reined supreme.
Christianity was never bound by any sort of indubitability from a human perspective. We have never been required to check the lock on any door. In fact, no one actually can or does live by such a method in the acquisition of truth.
But alas, we often think we are supposed to. We have turned “the evidence that demands a verdict” into “the evidence that produces indubitability.” At least that is what we are pressured into doing.
Once this method does not produce absolute certainty, once we cannot account for the door being unlocked, we find ourselves wondering why we are being forced to check the door in the first place. Yet we do it anyway. When the door is unlocked, those who are epistemically conditioned to find this substantial, either, like my children, enter into a state of suspended belief, doubt, or skepticism or opt for a “leap of faith” that demands no evidence, and then sneer at those who do demand evidence as if it is passé.
Probability is sufficient. We neither need to go into intellectual hibernation and accept our beliefs on blind faith. Nor do we need to suspend our belief until all the objections are answered (we don’t need to check the door).
What I posed to my children was merely a possibility to explain the slap, but possibilities do not create probabilities. We are responsible in this life to act upon the revelation given to us, not to seek absolute indubitability.
We are neither postmodern skeptics nor modern rationalists. We find value in both skepticism, when truly warranted, and rationality, when the probability is conditioned by God to be such.
In other words, our belief in Christ’s resurrection should not be sidetracked simply because someone presents an alternative possibility. Yes, we engage these alternatives, but we don’t give them more credit than they deserve. Those who say that the Christian story borrowed from other religions or that Christ’s body was thrown into a shallow grave have simply presented other possibilities that are often no more sufficient to warrant credibility than my “look, the door is unlocked.” Possibility, yes. Probability, no.
Don’t be shaken by unlikely theories.
Don’t hypocritically require indubitability.
Don’t think that all possibilities are equal.
Don’t opt for a “leap of faith” type of faith.
Don’t become unglued because all we have is probability.
Unquote.
Yet again Patton feeds on doubt and skepticism, rather than the Truth we KNOW. Scripture doesn't deal with probabilities, but knowable Truth.
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo 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.
1Jo 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him;
2Pe 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows Him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it....
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:
Act 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
Probabilities, even possibilities are not part of Truth. Instead they consider falsehoods.
Php 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Are we to think on "what if's" or what is probably true? No. We are to KNOW the Truth and then THINK ON IT.
It is NOT possible that the body of Jesus was thrown into a shallow grave. Why? Because God Himself told us what happened: Jesus rose from the dead by the power of God. Therefore we destroy any argument to the contrary; any "alternate" view, because it slaps the face of Truth given clearly by God.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.
There is a reason we are to have childlike faith.
There is never enough evidence for a skeptic and Scripture is never enough for a "scholar" nor skeptic. That is their condemnation before God.
(It would seem to "be fair" that Patton must also use"sufficiency of probability" to what is false. Just how far is he willing to go? He already admits to giving some veracity to the "possability" that Jesus did NOT resurrect.)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A "Reluctant Vote" Is Still A "Yes Vote" And That's All The GOP Sees
The SBC members sound like they will "reluctantly vote" for womanizing, adulterer, liberal John McCain. I have to ask, what does a "reluctant vote" look like? Is it a shakey "x"? Is it a very tiny "x" next to McCain's name? Does the "X" say, "Hey I may be an X but I really don't want to be here!"? Is there a pile for votes marked "Reluctant Votes" ? I mean, come on. All the whining and complaining means nothing, NOTHING, if you still vote for the ungodly, womanizing, no-integrity, compromising RINO.
The ONLY vote McCain will see is the "x". He doesn't give a rip about how reluctant or supportive the voter is. He just wants that X next to his name.
So all of you guys who will be voting for the liberal RINO while "holding your nose", just remember, he's HAPPY for your vote and doesn't care how hesitant you are. Your reluctance goes unnoticed. As does your "nose-holding" and whining.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Fear God, not man.
Vote biblically not pragmatically.
Don't compromise.
The ONLY vote McCain will see is the "x". He doesn't give a rip about how reluctant or supportive the voter is. He just wants that X next to his name.
So all of you guys who will be voting for the liberal RINO while "holding your nose", just remember, he's HAPPY for your vote and doesn't care how hesitant you are. Your reluctance goes unnoticed. As does your "nose-holding" and whining.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Fear God, not man.
Vote biblically not pragmatically.
Don't compromise.
Creationism..Intellegent Design...Strengths & Weaknesses: the De-Evolution (Compromise) of the "Creationist" Stand
From the New York Times:
DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”
The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”
I would call that the de-evolution of anti-evolutionists. Well, actually, they are not Creationists or for Creation; increasingly they are just anti-evolution, since they have dropped "creation" from their terms and they merely want options available regarding how the teaching of evolution is done. The movie "Expelled" is an example of this.
Seriously, they are such compromisers, how can they expect the Lord to bless their movement? They are trying to be sneaky and not mention God nor a literal Six Day Creation and therefore not getting what they want anyway. As one begin label doesn't work, they find one even less so. Now there's no mention of Creation at all. Just question evolution's strengths and weaknesses. Exactly where are the strengths of a false notion like evolution?? Scripture says no lie is of the Truth.
I just wish Christians (I know others are also want Creation--other religious groups) would get guts and put out clearly what they hold to and be done with it. Take the heat, take the insults, take the persecution for holding out bodly that Jesus Christ the Lord is Creator. Instead they are fearing man.
As it is, the Evolutionists are winning because they haven't changed their message or termonology...the "Christians" have. Sort of like with RCC. It didn't change but Christians have slowly been compromising with it.
DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”
The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”
I would call that the de-evolution of anti-evolutionists. Well, actually, they are not Creationists or for Creation; increasingly they are just anti-evolution, since they have dropped "creation" from their terms and they merely want options available regarding how the teaching of evolution is done. The movie "Expelled" is an example of this.
Seriously, they are such compromisers, how can they expect the Lord to bless their movement? They are trying to be sneaky and not mention God nor a literal Six Day Creation and therefore not getting what they want anyway. As one begin label doesn't work, they find one even less so. Now there's no mention of Creation at all. Just question evolution's strengths and weaknesses. Exactly where are the strengths of a false notion like evolution?? Scripture says no lie is of the Truth.
I just wish Christians (I know others are also want Creation--other religious groups) would get guts and put out clearly what they hold to and be done with it. Take the heat, take the insults, take the persecution for holding out bodly that Jesus Christ the Lord is Creator. Instead they are fearing man.
As it is, the Evolutionists are winning because they haven't changed their message or termonology...the "Christians" have. Sort of like with RCC. It didn't change but Christians have slowly been compromising with it.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Richard Mouw's Restless God
In an article posted a few days ago at the Reformed Church of America's website, they report of Richard Mouw's remarks to the General Synod's conference last week.
General Synod vice president Carol Bechtel introduced Richard Mouw, as "a prominent Reformed theologian and president of Fuller Theological Seminary. "
It said:
Mouw spoke to synod delegates Saturday evening on what it means to be both Reformed and missional. "It is so important for us as Reformed Christians who follow a restless Savior, a restless God, to be restless in following God in being missional," he said.
"I love the Reformed confessions," he added. "There is a sovereign God; human beings are incapable of saving themselves; and salvation is by grace alone."
He said Reformed Christians need to guard against the tendency in today's culture to affirm a finite God, to preach a gospel of self-salvation.
Since when is God "restless"? Restless is defined as:
1: lacking or denying rest : uneasy 2: continuously moving : unquiet3: characterized by or manifesting unrest especially of mind restless pacing
Unquiet: 1 : not quiet : agitated, turbulent
This isn't the God of peace, the God of rest.
Php 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
Php 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Php 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Rom 15:33 May the God of peace be with you all. Amen. Rom 15:33 May the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
Heb 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Isa 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever. 18 My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting places.
2Co 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2Co 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
The article went on to say, "He referred several times to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A #1: "What is your only comfort in life and in death? That I am not my own, but belong--body and soul, in life and in death--to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. "
This isn't surprising whatsoever to me, as Reformers are very man-centered people who'd much rather quote a catechism or confession or a famous professor rather than Scripture. Its empty words of man's opinion, but it seems that most consider, in the words of a friend, Scripture as the milk and theologians as the meat.
It is no wonder, then, that Mouw has a low view of God and a high view of man. No wonder he thinks its up to men to persuade others to ...well I don't know what. He's infamous for apologizing to the Mormons on behalf of Evangelicals. That was the same meeting Ravi Zacharius preached in the Mormon pulpit and Michael Card sang songs of worship. It was named, "An Evening of Friendship."
There he said: "Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. "
Richard Mouw is an impediment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who, is NOT the brother of Satan, a created being, but rather is Eternally God the Son, the Second Person in the Trinity. There is no common ground between the two camps. It seems Mouw doesn't understand the fundamentals of The Faith.
Increasingly and at a rapid pace, this passage is becoming the war-cry of true believers to men such as Mouw who are false teachers:
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,
Considering his views on Mormons, one must wonder to whom would Mouw advocate being "missional"? If he's not willing to tell the Mormons they are liars and deceivers because they say Jesus is merely a created being, and that they have a false gospel, ie, they have damnable doctrines of demons, then he won't tell anyone their need of the Truth. Then again, he can't give what he doesn't have.
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
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.
Gal 1:10 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.
So much for being "missional". And more than that, God is not restless. He is Sovereignly in control of all His creation. He's not behind schedule, impatient, uneasy, or troubled. Such a painting of God is a lie. In fact Scripture says He knows the end from the beginning and He is working all things to the conformity of His will and purpose. His timing is always perfect because HE is perfect. Then again, Mouw's god reflects the gods of false religions, if not at the very least the Open Theist god if not the Mormon one.
General Synod vice president Carol Bechtel introduced Richard Mouw, as "a prominent Reformed theologian and president of Fuller Theological Seminary. "
It said:
Mouw spoke to synod delegates Saturday evening on what it means to be both Reformed and missional. "It is so important for us as Reformed Christians who follow a restless Savior, a restless God, to be restless in following God in being missional," he said.
"I love the Reformed confessions," he added. "There is a sovereign God; human beings are incapable of saving themselves; and salvation is by grace alone."
He said Reformed Christians need to guard against the tendency in today's culture to affirm a finite God, to preach a gospel of self-salvation.
Since when is God "restless"? Restless is defined as:
1: lacking or denying rest : uneasy 2: continuously moving : unquiet
Unquiet: 1 : not quiet : agitated, turbulent
This isn't the God of peace, the God of rest.
Php 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.
Php 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Php 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Rom 15:33 May the God of peace be with you all. Amen. Rom 15:33 May the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
Heb 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Isa 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever. 18 My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting places.
2Co 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2Co 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
The article went on to say, "He referred several times to Heidelberg Catechism Q&A #1: "What is your only comfort in life and in death? That I am not my own, but belong--body and soul, in life and in death--to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. "
This isn't surprising whatsoever to me, as Reformers are very man-centered people who'd much rather quote a catechism or confession or a famous professor rather than Scripture. Its empty words of man's opinion, but it seems that most consider, in the words of a friend, Scripture as the milk and theologians as the meat.
It is no wonder, then, that Mouw has a low view of God and a high view of man. No wonder he thinks its up to men to persuade others to ...well I don't know what. He's infamous for apologizing to the Mormons on behalf of Evangelicals. That was the same meeting Ravi Zacharius preached in the Mormon pulpit and Michael Card sang songs of worship. It was named, "An Evening of Friendship."
There he said: "Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. "
Richard Mouw is an impediment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who, is NOT the brother of Satan, a created being, but rather is Eternally God the Son, the Second Person in the Trinity. There is no common ground between the two camps. It seems Mouw doesn't understand the fundamentals of The Faith.
Increasingly and at a rapid pace, this passage is becoming the war-cry of true believers to men such as Mouw who are false teachers:
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,
Considering his views on Mormons, one must wonder to whom would Mouw advocate being "missional"? If he's not willing to tell the Mormons they are liars and deceivers because they say Jesus is merely a created being, and that they have a false gospel, ie, they have damnable doctrines of demons, then he won't tell anyone their need of the Truth. Then again, he can't give what he doesn't have.
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
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.
Gal 1:10 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.
So much for being "missional". And more than that, God is not restless. He is Sovereignly in control of all His creation. He's not behind schedule, impatient, uneasy, or troubled. Such a painting of God is a lie. In fact Scripture says He knows the end from the beginning and He is working all things to the conformity of His will and purpose. His timing is always perfect because HE is perfect. Then again, Mouw's god reflects the gods of false religions, if not at the very least the Open Theist god if not the Mormon one.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
What I loved from Robert Morey's " A Few Thoughts On Apostasy"
I read this blog entry today and was struck at how right on Robert Morey is. MAN, I'm loving this guy's boldness! He sees what I see and he's a straight shooter like me. BRING IT ON brother!!!
What I loved from "A Few Thoughts on Apostasy" by Robert Morey
My only hurdle is to choose which parts to post...they're all really GOOD. I suggest you just go read the whole thing. Its short, but loaded with truth and boldness. And we can all use that more as the days grow dark. I've added just a couple of comments in brackets and italics. ~Denise
Quote:
The question of whether we should question the salvation experience of those who teach false doctrine is an important question that is increasingly an issue today. The moment you question the salvation of anyone, you are attacked on every hand as being mean. Yet, those who condemn us for doing so have never dealt with the following questions.
1. Did Jesus question the salvation of the religious leaders and teachers of his day?
2. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
3. Was He right or wrong to do so?
4. Was He mean and unloving?
5. Should we follow his example and walk as he walked?
6. Did Jesus tell us to judge some people to be false prophets, dogs, and pigs?
7. Did Paul follow the example of Jesus and cast doubt on the salvation of people in the church who claimed to be “brothers?”
8. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
9. Did Paul call some professing Christians “false brethren?”
10. Did he tell us to follow him as he followed Christ?
11. Did John, the Apostle of Love, tell us to question the profession of salvation made people? “He that says, “I know him” but ….”
12. Did Peter cast doubt on the conversion of professing Christians in his day?
13. What did he say to Simon in Acts 8?
These questions help us to frame the issue of whether we should, at this time, in the light of their recent teachings, question the salvation of J. P. Moreland, William Craig, and their disciples. Given what they are now teaching, we must put a huge question mark over their head. Frank Beckwith is a good example. He was not thrilled when I cast doubt on his salvation. But now that I have been 100% vindicated by his apostasy to popery, my doubts and warnings were right on target.
When I was Chairman of the membership committee of the ETS, I often doubted the salvation of such men as Gundry, Pinnock, etc. who denied the inerrancy of Scripture. They were offended when I told them that I did NOT accept them as fellow Christians. I have always been open and honest about such things. I told Frankie Schaeffer on a radio program several years ago that he was apostate and on his way to hell. He got all offended that I refused to accept him as a Christian. But now that he openly rejects the gospel and has joined the Orthodox cult, I have been vindicated 100%.
The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
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.
a. In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors! [Sounds like Reclaiming The Mind's Michael Patton to me]
b. Those who deny the ontological deity of Christ try to deceive people at first by pretending they do believe in the deity of Christ. It is only upon careful questioning that the truth comes out. [I've been called an Inquistionist for questioning someone who's sounding very strange in doctrine and gives me red flags all over the place.]They only accept a functional meaning of the deity of Christ in that he functioned as a revelation of God, just as the heavens do. But they deny that Jesus was ontologically GOD as well as man.
c. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk. Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day! [No kidding! I have too...by Matt Slick. His twist is that if a person just doesn't know about the resurrection, then they are still saved, but if the person rejects the resurrection then they are not saved. This is word play and he's been caught red-handed by many people online. He still holds to this view, after all he didn't know Jesus was "physically resurrected for two years after he was saved" Scroll down to Surphing # 3 paragraph C for one instance.]
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are “nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice...
I hope these words are not twisted to mean I think I can judge their hearts. That is something only God can do.
But I am bound by the Word of God to judge their theology.
I can do no other.
Robert Morey
End Quote.
AMEN!
Upon reading about the defection of Evangelical Theological Society's president, Dr. Frank Beckwith to Rome, his resume screamed WARNING! Did anyone see this besides Morey?
Reclaiming The Mind's "Converse With A Scholar" ministry (founder is Michael Patton), offered Beckwith on their program online on February 28, 2008. I wonder if this is why Patton was all over the map on the RCC, basically defending it in his unsure, "irenic" yet unbiblical way, in his interview with James White on The Dividing Line:
James White: An RCer rejecting sola fide, as Rome has not only denied but taught works, does that person have eternal life?
Patton: I would say yes they do, but they have a much harder, like the Corinthians. They were polytheist Christians (hear it at time marker 1:15:40). They need the full gospel. They can, though. I'm not saying anybody does.
Unquote.
It has long been my view that those who turn the Narrow Road into the Broad Road do so because they have a loved one or a friend who's lost and they rather have him or her on the way to heaven, so they make the road broader than what Scripture says it is. Indeed, this may be the case here.
I've also realized that those who are huge readers of men's books and are at the higher levels of academia are some of the most liberal-infested minds around, including the Reformed schools. It is because they are exposed to error so much, just to be "fair and balance" that they end up swallowing the lies. Look at the authors Frank Beckwith has cozied up with: W.L. Craig = Open Theist; JP Moreland says some Evangelicals are "over committed to Scripture"; Koukl says Scripture isn't sufficient, we need other things like the wisdom of Pagans and psychology.
Let's not forget it was the Evangelical Theological Society that aided and abetted Open Theists Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. So WISE were the scholars of the ETS that they never could get enough votes to throw them out of their affluent little group. I have NO patience for such garbage as ETS. It needs to be destroyed, never to be heard of again. Truly.
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.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
What I loved from "A Few Thoughts on Apostasy" by Robert Morey
My only hurdle is to choose which parts to post...they're all really GOOD. I suggest you just go read the whole thing. Its short, but loaded with truth and boldness. And we can all use that more as the days grow dark. I've added just a couple of comments in brackets and italics. ~Denise
Quote:
The question of whether we should question the salvation experience of those who teach false doctrine is an important question that is increasingly an issue today. The moment you question the salvation of anyone, you are attacked on every hand as being mean. Yet, those who condemn us for doing so have never dealt with the following questions.
1. Did Jesus question the salvation of the religious leaders and teachers of his day?
2. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
3. Was He right or wrong to do so?
4. Was He mean and unloving?
5. Should we follow his example and walk as he walked?
6. Did Jesus tell us to judge some people to be false prophets, dogs, and pigs?
7. Did Paul follow the example of Jesus and cast doubt on the salvation of people in the church who claimed to be “brothers?”
8. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
9. Did Paul call some professing Christians “false brethren?”
10. Did he tell us to follow him as he followed Christ?
11. Did John, the Apostle of Love, tell us to question the profession of salvation made people? “He that says, “I know him” but ….”
12. Did Peter cast doubt on the conversion of professing Christians in his day?
13. What did he say to Simon in Acts 8?
These questions help us to frame the issue of whether we should, at this time, in the light of their recent teachings, question the salvation of J. P. Moreland, William Craig, and their disciples. Given what they are now teaching, we must put a huge question mark over their head. Frank Beckwith is a good example. He was not thrilled when I cast doubt on his salvation. But now that I have been 100% vindicated by his apostasy to popery, my doubts and warnings were right on target.
When I was Chairman of the membership committee of the ETS, I often doubted the salvation of such men as Gundry, Pinnock, etc. who denied the inerrancy of Scripture. They were offended when I told them that I did NOT accept them as fellow Christians. I have always been open and honest about such things. I told Frankie Schaeffer on a radio program several years ago that he was apostate and on his way to hell. He got all offended that I refused to accept him as a Christian. But now that he openly rejects the gospel and has joined the Orthodox cult, I have been vindicated 100%.
The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
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.
a. In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors! [Sounds like Reclaiming The Mind's Michael Patton to me]
b. Those who deny the ontological deity of Christ try to deceive people at first by pretending they do believe in the deity of Christ. It is only upon careful questioning that the truth comes out. [I've been called an Inquistionist for questioning someone who's sounding very strange in doctrine and gives me red flags all over the place.]They only accept a functional meaning of the deity of Christ in that he functioned as a revelation of God, just as the heavens do. But they deny that Jesus was ontologically GOD as well as man.
c. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk. Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day! [No kidding! I have too...by Matt Slick. His twist is that if a person just doesn't know about the resurrection, then they are still saved, but if the person rejects the resurrection then they are not saved. This is word play and he's been caught red-handed by many people online. He still holds to this view, after all he didn't know Jesus was "physically resurrected for two years after he was saved" Scroll down to Surphing # 3 paragraph C for one instance.]
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are “nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice...
I hope these words are not twisted to mean I think I can judge their hearts. That is something only God can do.
But I am bound by the Word of God to judge their theology.
I can do no other.
Robert Morey
End Quote.
AMEN!
Upon reading about the defection of Evangelical Theological Society's president, Dr. Frank Beckwith to Rome, his resume screamed WARNING! Did anyone see this besides Morey?
Reclaiming The Mind's "Converse With A Scholar" ministry (founder is Michael Patton), offered Beckwith on their program online on February 28, 2008. I wonder if this is why Patton was all over the map on the RCC, basically defending it in his unsure, "irenic" yet unbiblical way, in his interview with James White on The Dividing Line:
James White: An RCer rejecting sola fide, as Rome has not only denied but taught works, does that person have eternal life?
Patton: I would say yes they do, but they have a much harder, like the Corinthians. They were polytheist Christians (hear it at time marker 1:15:40). They need the full gospel. They can, though. I'm not saying anybody does.
Unquote.
It has long been my view that those who turn the Narrow Road into the Broad Road do so because they have a loved one or a friend who's lost and they rather have him or her on the way to heaven, so they make the road broader than what Scripture says it is. Indeed, this may be the case here.
I've also realized that those who are huge readers of men's books and are at the higher levels of academia are some of the most liberal-infested minds around, including the Reformed schools. It is because they are exposed to error so much, just to be "fair and balance" that they end up swallowing the lies. Look at the authors Frank Beckwith has cozied up with: W.L. Craig = Open Theist; JP Moreland says some Evangelicals are "over committed to Scripture"; Koukl says Scripture isn't sufficient, we need other things like the wisdom of Pagans and psychology.
Let's not forget it was the Evangelical Theological Society that aided and abetted Open Theists Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. So WISE were the scholars of the ETS that they never could get enough votes to throw them out of their affluent little group. I have NO patience for such garbage as ETS. It needs to be destroyed, never to be heard of again. Truly.
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.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)