Unfortunately, when someone I am aquainted with, said his seminary class is having him read JI Packer I said he's a heretic.
Apparently I touched God's anointed author.
I offended the guy who is proudly taking a seminary class and I offended others by what I said.
If a teacher comes from the Romanish Anglican "church", signs the Evangelica And Catholics Together document and continues to defend his position as well as continues to push inter-faith relations between the RCC and Christians, then that is heresy. Its causing a schism away from Truth. But Packer has done more than that.
As Ken Silva notes in his article on JI Packer, Packer's defense of signing the Inter-faith ECT:
“Why I Signed It,” an article for the ecumenical neo-evangelical publication
Christianity Today: …though I was not a drafter of the document, I endorsed it. (as cited at Online source)
So I ought to have anticipated that some Protestants would say bleak,
skewed, fearful, and fear-driven things about this document — for instance, that
it betrays the Reformation; that it barters the gospel for a social agenda …
Why, then, should any Protestant, such as myself, want to maximize mission
activity in partnership with Roman Catholics? Traditionally, Protestants and Catholics have kept their distance, treating each other as inferiors; each
community has seen the other as out to deny precious elements in its own faith
and practice, and so has given the other a wide berth. There are sound reasons
why this historic stance should be adjusted. First: Do we recognize that good evangelical Protestants and good Roman Catholics — good, I mean, in terms of their own church’s stated ideal of spiritual life — are Christians together? (as cited in Online source)
End quote.
One's church doesn't determine what "good" is; God does. "Isa 45:19 ...I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right. "
Silva continues to note in an exchange between John Ankerberg and John MacArthur:
JA: one of the things that we told Chuck, and Jim Packer, and Bill Bright,
JM: Well, I think that is in grave error! And just going back, if I can
and that was this statement [from the ECT]: “We together, Evangelicals and
Catholics, confess our sins against the unity, that Christ intends for all His disciples” (ECT). Now the assumption in that statement is that Evangelicals and Catholics are all Christ’s disciples. What do you think of that assumption?
make the point solidly, to borrow the language of the Apostle Paul, “Any attempt
at self-righteousness, no matter how noble the effort, no matter how frequently
the “God” vocabulary is used and the divine is brought into it—any attempt at
self-righteousness, Paul classifies as “skubalon” (Greek), in Philippians 3.
That word is about as vivid a word as he could possibly use. It could be
translated “rubbish”—the most accurate translation is “dung”…
What you have got [with Roman Catholicism] is a whole system built on “skubalon” and you can’t throw your arms around that system. You can’t embrace it, and simply say, “Well, they talk about Jesus, and they talk about God, and they talk about faith, and they talk about grace, and we have got to embrace them. And if we don’t embrace them then we are violating the unity of the Body, and we are being ungracious to other disciples.” That is a frightening misrepresentation of the distinctiveness of “Justification by faith, and faith alone” …
It is a false religion, it is another religion. When you throw your
arms around that you literally have to undo any doctrinal distinction. In fact, ECT doesn’t just do that implicitly, they do that explicitly. In the document, in effect, they say, “we have to accept all baptized Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. In an article that followed that up in Christianity Today, J. I. Packer said, “We should acknowledge as brothers and sisters in Christ, anyone who lives to the highest ideals of their communion.” My response to that is the opposite. I maybe could fellowship with a bad Roman Catholic, that is, one who has rejected the system, but was still in the church and came to know Christ. But one who holds the highest ideals of Roman Catholicism—on what grounds do I have spiritual unity? (Online source)
2Co 6:15 " What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? " Could Scripture be any more clear? Why is this "theologian" so blind to the simple truth of purity in doctrine and practice with God?
As Silva shows us, JI Packer says in "Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue":
To be sure, fundamentalists within our three traditions are unlikely to
join us in this, for it is the way of fundamentalists to follow the path of
contentious orthodoxism, as if the mercy of God in Christ automatically rests on
the persons who are notionally correct and is just as automatically withheld
from those who fall short of notional correctness on any point of substance. But this concept of, in effect, justification, not by works but by words — words,
that is, of notional soundness and precision — is near to being a cultic heresy in its own right and need not detain us further, however much we may regret the fact that some in all our traditions are bogged down in it. (as cited at Online
source)
Yet the Bible says:
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Rom 4:5 And to the one WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:24 and are justified by His grace AS A GIFT, through the redemption that IS IN Christ Jesus,
In contrast the Roman Catholic Catechism from the Vatican says:
RCC 1992 …Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life
RCC 1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
RCC # 2027 we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
RCC Cat. #2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
Rome's view of justification is hardly biblical. Its quite the opposite; its damnable.
Moreover it has never changed its view:
RCC Catechim #846…the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation...
RCC # 846 Hence they COULD NOT be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
Silva says: J.I. Packer who in 1996 endorsed a book by Roman Catholic “apologist” Peter Kreeft called Ecumenical Jihad: On the back cover on my personal copy we read:This racy little book opens up a far-reaching theme. With entertaining insight
Kreeft looks into the attitudes, alliances and strategies that today’s state
of affairs requires of believers. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike
need to ponder Peter Kreeft’s vision of things–preferably in discussion
together. What if he is right?- J.I. Packer
Silva goes on to say:
Kreeft, an apostate “once a Dutch Reformed Protestant, [who] converted to Catholicism” (Online source), ”right” when he says of a false World Religion offering sacrifices to demons, not to God (see—1 Corinthians 10:20):
there is Christian-Muslim ecumenicism… Nothing in the Jewish Scriptures
contradicts Christianity, but some things in the Qur’an do. Yet even here an “ecumenical jihad” is possible and called for, for the simple and strong
reason that Muslims and Christians preach and practice the same First Commandment: islam, total surrender, submission of the human will to the divine will.
We fight side by side not only because we face a common enemy but above
all because we serve and worship the same divine Commander. Many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, do not believe what the Church says about Islam (for example, in Vatican II and in the new Catechism): that Allah is not another God, that we worship the same God… (30)
Why is Islam expanding so spectacularly? Sociologists and physchologists and historians andeconomists and demographers and politicians are quick to explain this growth with “expert” worldly wisdom from each of their specialties; but to any Christian familiar with the Bible, the answer is obvious: because God keeps His promises and blesses those who obey His laws and fear Him… (38)
End quote.
It is expected that as an Anglican Packer doesn't know what biblical justification is or for that matter what the gospel is, because if he had, 1) he would have left the false Anglican "church" and 2) he would see how the RCC is an arch-enemy of Christ Jesus and His Gospel.
Packer is not an ignoramous. He knows what he is doing, to his condemnation. He is trying to bring the false and true together, against God's command. That is exactly the definition of a heretic.
34 comments:
Seminaries? More liken unto cemeteries, a place for the dead in Spirit ;-(
"Pure religion and undefiled before GOD The Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world." (James 1:27)
Simply, all other religion is impure and defiled!
Faith will not create a system of religion.......
Hope is there would be those who take heed unto The Call of The Only True GOD to "Come Out of her, MY people"!
For they will "Come Out" of this wicked world(babylon) and it's systems of religion, into "the glorious Liberty of The Children of The Only True GOD".
They will no longer be of those who are destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures)" and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Truth, Life, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Mercy, Grace, Miracles, etc.).
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(religion) that is of this world, for "the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one" (1John5:19) indeed and Truth.......
Truth is never ending.......
thedestructionoftheearth.wordpress.com
I haven't been keeping up with Packer, but it appears you are correct about his apostatizing if these are truly his views.
I am also amazed at how so many in the churches are enamored with Catholic mysticism and it's most famous proponents like Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, and Richard Foster, none of whom believe that Jesus Christ is the one and only way, to God.
Prodigal,
I know. And its through well-known speakers who embrace these false teachers that lead others into error.
Ravi Zacharias embraces Henri Nouwen now too, and you can be sure Ravi's fans will also:
http://apprising.org/2008/09/ravi-zacharias-on-can-a-person-live-a-sincere-christian-life-as-a-homosexual/
Just like Piper gave approving endorsement of Mark Driscoll and the ECM...
I chalk it up to people following a man rather than testing all things by Scripture. If a well-loved man says someone or some movement is good, they think that's enough. Lazy Christians!!
It's just amazing how many sincere sounding and authentic seeming teachers are going astray!
Denise, I am a graduate of a well known seminary and it might be helpful to be cautious about painting with a broad brush. Most seminaries have mutiple staff faculity with various views, some more than others. However, the school I attended was very strong in raising up expository preachers preaching against liberal tendencies of today.
Credenda,
But that's just the problem: various views on what? Isn't biblical truth clear in just about every area? Why are opposing views allowed? Moreover, why are the students given material to study that isn't biblically sound?
Seminaries are taking the local church's place in raising up leaders...and all seminaries end up liberal at some point as far as I can see.
Denise et. al.,
Two thoughts:
1. The only official institution sanctioned in Scripture is the local church, not seminaries and Bible Colleges. Why aren't we teaching the Bible deeply enough to produce preachers in our churches? The early Christians did.
2. The role of Bible colleges and seminaries has changed to being a filter. Before they would filter out the apostate and those who don't have the mental chops to teach. NOW they filter out those who love God and practice separation.
What I mean by that is that if you're not willing to be taught by, pray with, and treat as brothers false teachers, you won't make it through seminary. Even if a young man is orthodox in doctrine, he will end up not being orthodox in that he has to be willing to fellowship with false-teachers. So he has to sin for at least four years straight without repentance.
That guaranties that every man in the pulpit, orthodox in doctrine or not, will be a compromiser who doesn't practice holiness in his personal life.
Think THAT through,
Phil Perkins.
Credenda,
I, too, went to a seminary that at one point was good--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland. It has since gone down the tubes. How far I'm not sure, but it's not great.
You said, "Most seminaries have mutiple staff faculity with various views, some more than others."
That is exactly the problem. allowing heretics to teach and covering it over with platitudes like "academic freedom" is still compromise.
In fact, it's vile sin.
What did Jesus say about those who would cause others to stumble? Also, read Deut. 13. Even the one who encourages another to listen to a false teacher earned a stoning under the Old Covenant.
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
I couldn't agree with you more. Spurgeon also saw this too. I'll post it b/c its too long to do so here.
Seminaries, denominations, and churches in America are going liberal because America is going liberal. If a church goes liberal, new ones should be started to maintain a viable witness. The same goes for seminaries. Al Mohler just recently visited Yale and Harvard and was reminiscing why they and others like them drifted liberal so fast. But as much as Mohler sees the danger of this, at the same time he is president of Southern (SBC) seminary and you have to wonder why. The reason he does not resign is Southern is a solidly conservative school that has been training pastors to confront liberalism, preach expositionally, and is making a huge difference in the world today without a doubt. The same can be said about Southwestern (where I graduated). You cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. Para-church mission, academic, and ministry agencies exist to undergird and support the church, not replace it. They work in coordination with the church.
In the 90s the SBC went through a resurgence. They actually did it by recapturing the convention infrastructure and seminaries, replacing liberal teachers, with the result being conservative instructors trained pastors to go back to liberal/moderate churches and preach the word. The reason our churches are not ordaining homosexuals is because our convention is moving rightward while the rest of the country is moving left. We are now counterculture, not a reflection of our culture.
When I got a M.Div (in ‘99) at Southwestern in Texas, some instructors had moderate views. Now I am enrolled in the D.Min program working on my dissertation, and the school is staunchly conservative and very much a blessing. And the young people just starting have been mentored from conservative pastors in their local church. Its been an amazing transformation, but it goes hand in hand.
But Credenda, in Scripture missions and pastoral training were done within the church under the elders' leadship. This keeps the accountability high. Para-church organizations aren't biblical that I can see.
This is also seen by how churches today rarely ever hire a pastor that has not gone to seminary, so basically going to seminary is part of the qualification these days, contrary to Scripture.
Seminaries are therefore replacing the local church's funtion in instruction and training in the Truth. There's also the cost involved which also isn't biblical. And indeed to stay afloat financially, seminaries must aquire a larger student body, which means they will accept those who aren't as conservative as they should be... who would know or care? If these men aren't qualified to be elders, then they have no business trying to "become" one by paying tuition, reading both truth and error, and writing papers.
I also don't see the SBC as conservative...one pastor told me that he was disappointed that Mohler didn't take a hard stand against Rick Warren (SBC). I don't know if he has since then (this was a few years back). Do you know if he has?
Credenda,
You said, "Seminaries, denominations, and churches in America are going liberal because America is going liberal."
Here are two questions for you:
1. If sin external to the church corrupts the church, why were the early Christians able to maintain sanctification? They lived in a sewer of sex and violence at least as bad as today--probably worse.
2. If sin external to the church corrupts the church, ought we not separate rather than witness?
I'm certain you're right to a point, but the main threat seems to be unchecked sin IN the church. Thus Paul instructs exacting separation from sinning "saints", but denied that we separate in the same way from sinners who don't call themselves Christians. See I Cor. 5:9ff.
As to the SBC, many of the colleges still have liberal teachers. Where I taught a prof. openly taught against inerrancy and for female pastors. He wasn't even disciplined. I was fired for my stand against the Emergent. Pro-Emergent folks complained and that was it for me. I was shocked. Folks I trusted, who claimed to be orthodox, were liars. Today they use a pro-homo-marriage pastoral-ministries text book. And the New Orleans Seminary uses Richard
Foster. Oklahoma Baptist University is rotten to the core, too. Most of the state conventions are actively pushing Emergent and contemplative juck.
Look around you in the SBC. It's sick.
What Mohler, et. al. did in their purge is just what the Bible calls for. It works. It just seems it didn't go far enough. And Mohler seemed to hint that he's scared for his denomination again.
He seems like a generally good man. I pray for more like him.
God bless,
Phil Perkins.
Credenda,
Two more quick notes:
1. I'm not necessarily against churches coming together to provide proper training, but it must be for only a necessary reason. As Denise points out, the biblical pattern is local church training. So if you have such a rural situation that no one church can do it, perhaps there's good reason to make an exception. But even then if a language teacher reside at one church, why not simply transfer temporarily to that particular church?
You have to move to go to semitary. (Pun intended.)
2. If you're concerned about "throwing out the baby with the bath water", you'd better be doing biblical purging or you're doing just that! Paul said a little leaven leavens the entire lump. So throw that baby quick or all the babies die.
Eternally.
3. I lied--it's three. And here I'm actually going to pick on you.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"--is that found in the Bible?
The Scripture tells us to bring every thought under slavery to Christ. That means the old bromides have to go. Scripture memory. Reading. No longer Mom and Dad's and Uncle Fred's sayings are to fill our heads if we hope to live lifes pleasing to Christ.
As I read and write to many Christians I meet on the web or speak the churchy folks on the street, I find that they live their lives, quite often, by churchy or "wise" proverbs and bromides.
We have to fight that.
God bless you and yours,
Phil.
Denise,
You said, "There's also the cost involved which also isn't biblical."
O boy. That brings up an entire raft of problems. To say the very least, it's a really awful example of stewardship.
QUESTION: I've been working toward a home church. In Billings, MT there is no good church that I can find. So far, I've looked into the cell church movement. It's okay in that they actively seek to throw away church traditions. Unfortunately one of the traditions they wish to do away with is teaching. Not good.
Do you know where I might find ideas and resources? Mostly I want to find someone with experience in this.
Also, like you, I believe we ought to get back to a local-church-based training system for pastors. If you have any ideas, I'm all monitor.
Also, on Al Mohler, he seems to be fairly straight, but I listened to his broadcast this weekend and he interviewed a lady who was head of the "Women's Studies Department" at his school. That's not good. This is a result of not thinking biblically, and of seeking to imitate the world. He has laid the seed for supplanting his own institution and probably doesn't realize it.
Interestingly, the lady who heads his "Women's Studies Department" talked of being "missional", so you know where she's getting her ideas--it aint the Bible.
Phil Perkins.
The points you raise are valid and I agree whole-heartily. But your belief that seminaries are replacing the church, and are the problem, is unfounded. Your suspicions directed towards academic institutions should be re-directed to the church. Any church that calls joe-somebody from anytown USA based on a piece of paper is a ship-of-fools, woe to them. In reality, the process is way more complicated. A biblical church with wisdom looks for a candidate with a seminary degree ONLY for the purpose of determining if someone is serious about their calling. And even then it may be optional. Last time I checked, Paul didn’t have a seminary degree, and neither did Spurgeon.
If you are on a search committee, you look for a whole lot more. You look to see if there has been a strong link with a home church, mentorship with his pastor, prior ministerial experience and acceptance with the church and the community where he served. Does he love his wife? Does he show financial maturity… and on and on. It is the CHURCH that licenses and ordains, not the seminary. A person who shows gifts and desire should have a proven track record with his home church and they should validate him. He then is licensed, which says, “We believe this person has the calling and the gifts.” Then he should successfully serve several years at his local church hopefully confirming what the church and elders licensed. There is then a ordaining process, which usually takes place before someone goes off to seminary. Then, I believe, the seminary graduate should return to his home area, where he can often function best. The seminary just widens the scope, sometimes giving expertise in a certain aspect of ministry his home church could not. For example, if someone is called to be a missionary, they may give him language training, cultural, travel opportunities his small local church could not. The average church runs 50 in worship on Sunday, and the 65 year old pastor could no more parse a Greek participle then bench press 350lbs.
The SBC is a gigantic organization (a convention, not a denomination) enveloping several good and bad elements. Many people hear some bad things about it and condemn the whole thing. If someone cherry-picks the bad, you can make the SBC the devil. In reality, the SBC is comparable to a large ocean liner, the front end is much different from the rear and it takes course changes real slow. Warren’s (McGavran) seeker model is a relic of the 80s that lingered for 25 years in America (see history of church growth) and is fast on its way out. Mohler would be in complete disagreement with Warren on philosophy of ministry, worship, evangelism (Arminian vs. Reformed) and anything else. You only have to be 5 minutes in a “Together for the Gospel” conference to see the contrast.
Phil,
Well, I'm glad you stood up for Truth and against error. In this War On Truth, my husband and I have had our backs shot at by "fellow soldiers". Its disturbing, especially when we're talking about "mature" Christians in the churches or seminaries. They rather rally around their man than stand up for Christ.
Phil you might enjoy this sight by my friend: http://apprising.org/category/richard-foster/
To Denise,
Thanks for the info. I have Foster's disciplines book already.
You know, I don't even call myself and Evangelical anymore. That filth has nothing to do with God.
To Credenda,
I didn't say seminaries are replacing the church. The church isn't doing its job of training pastors. We're doing it in the wrong way. Either follow the Scripture or admit you don't wish to.
I know what the C stands for. It's a denomination, though, just like Chuck Smith's thing isn't a denomination.
Well....according to Chuck, it aint.
It's like when Modern Evangelicals say Christianity isn't a religion. Parlor tricks. The SBC acts like a denomination when they want to and exercises local autonomity when they want to. Like the "Don't judge" folks. What they mean is "Don't judge me, but I'll judge you for judging me, so-there-nanner-nanner-nanner."
On the SBC being a big organization--True, but if you wish to be straight with the Lord, you'd better be careful if you're going to be part of it. The Scripture warns severely of the sin of in any way encouraging or helping a false teacher. If you give to SBC organizations, you will almost certainly be doing so.
And that's a sin. So, beware.
Credenda, you said, "...the SBC is comparable to a large ocean liner, the front end is much different from the rear and it takes course changes real slow."
Which proves the SBC is in sin.
Have you not read, "I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."?
Which will you obey, Credenda? Your little bromide about the big ship or Scripture?
Pick one.
THAT is exactly what Jesus got on the Pharisees for--replacing slavery to the Scripture with slavery to a set of traditions.
You gotta serve somebody.--Bob Dylan. (And Romans 6.)
Who will it be?
AND this is exactly what folks like Denise and I are warning about. You're getting a doctorate at a seminary, yet you failed here today to think biblically about a major theme of Scripture--sanctification. How much time are you spending reading Scripture, compared to reading religious candy? Don't answer that. I already know because I was once like you.
According to Scripture you don't need the gobble-de-gook. You will spend much more time in that D.Min. program studying what all sorts of experts say about ministry than actually studying the Bible. Instead of the shepherds of Scripture, Moses, Paul, Tim, Peter, Joshua, etc., you will waste the time God gave you on this earth studying men who have their own ideas, as if God needs help or didn't write a complete Bible. And you have to to fit into the "church" because there is a man-made tradition that says you're more qualified if you have a piece of sheepskin, than if you were discipled by a shepherd as the Bible commands. Did you know that very act is sin? It is, because the Bible says it's sufficient. You can probably quote II Tim. 3:16-17. But, like most Evangelicals, you aren't doing it.
To him who knows to do good, but doeth it not, it is sin.
But if you do the right thing, you won't pass the filter. You'd be obedient to God and that won't do.
Think it through,
Phil Perkins.
Phil, you said exactly what a pastor friend of mine said this week too: these seminaries and colleges that claim Christ’s name are slobbering around trying so hard to be accepted by the world that they compromise the truth. Isn’t that what the ECM is all about—to be just like the world in order to “win” the world?
You are also correct on picking up on the ECM verbage and should be a red flag as well, to others. However, I’ve found that “solid” Christians have started to adopt Emergent phrases to their vocabulary. I tell ya, Christians are such sheep!
At SBTS:
PS 101 Introduction to Psychology is part of the General Education requirement.
The PhD in Leadership's description:" The Ph.D. in Leadership is built upon an analytical framework that
understands the organization to be dynamic and developmental in nature.
Its approach is multidisciplinary, synthesizing knowledge from the fields of theology, education, psychology, sociology and organizational theory, which are evaluated and integrated through the foundation of a biblical worldview…
http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/WomensPrograms.pdf : Women's Program offers:"Feminist Theology " along with others like "Biblical Womanhood, Leadership Skill Development for Women, Applied Ministry: Women, etc"
Don Whitney, dean of the School of Theology: problems with him: http://surphside.blogspot.com/2008/11/tim-challies-and-donald-whitney-accept.html which include his approval of Richard Foster in offering guidance on “spiritual disciplines” when Foster is a New Age mystic.
Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth. That would be the same Billy Graham who is inter-faith with the Roman Catholics http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/ANS_PopeGrahamCaviezel.aspx and offers his new converts at his crusades to go back to the Whore of Rome from whence they came http://www.challies.com/media/graham_crusade.gif . This also would be the Graham who isn’t sure he’ll “make it” to heaven and disagreed with the SBC in targeting Muslims and Jews with the Gospel: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/graham2.html . This is the Graham who said there are people who are saved and in Christ even though they never heard if His name nor do they realize they are saved. http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=4397 & the transcript: http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc00-105.htm
What's so conservative about SBTS? Seems its the typical seminary in large measure.
Credenda, my point of the seminary replacing the church is hardly unfounded. It comes from firsthand observation.
How many churches do you personally know of that have pastors without degrees? Its the exception, not the rule to have one. I have had numerous discussions with Christians, including pastors, seminarians, and lay Christians (for lack of a better word) & they are aghast when I dare say that a seminary degree not only is not biblical, its not necessary.
Credenda, you said “A biblical church with wisdom looks for a candidate with a seminary degree ONLY for the purpose of determining if someone is serious about their calling ” See you make my point Credenda. You determine “seriousness of the calling” by a degree, not by the Spirit’s work in his life.
The whole “search committee” thing is also very man-centered and not biblical. How in the world can a committee determine if there is “a strong link to a home church” (why does the man want to leave the church he’s been placed in?) or “if he loves his wife” or if he’s “ financially mature”? Because the candidate told them he is? There is no way to know what a man is truly like in all areas 3,000 miles away. Its unreasonable to think that a church should be able to vote on a total stranger.
You said, “The average church runs 50 in worship on Sunday, and the 65year old pastor could no more parse a Greek participle then bench press 350lbs.”
What’s wrong with that? Is it not God who equips us to do HIS work? Doesn’t the Spirit qualify men to be leaders? Parsing Greek participles have no bearing on being spiritually mature; its as important as bench pressing 350.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work .
The Holy Spirit through the Word at home & at church equips us, not institutions of higher learning.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit . For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Interesting comments Phil and Credenda!
I have a fried whose daughter goes to Western and she tells me she has to straighten her daughter out on a lot of things that make her think "What are they teaching?". She is very skeptical about Western's adherence to Biblical and conservative truths.
On the other hand, a minister I really admire and have a lot of confidence in is Jim Andrews of Lake Bible church in Lake Oswego, OR. He taught at Western Seminary up until about 1991 and he voices his disillusionment with seminary graduates as a rule. In fact he has said (and I am quoting from memory) only 2-3 out of every ten graduates have what it takes to really be a minister of the Gospel and of those, only one out of ten go on to make it their life's work.
Some notable, yet questionable, alumni are Dan Kimball and Mark Driscoll as well as the "Dispensational Dramatist" himself, Tim LaHaye.
Prodigal, yes that is my concern about all these people entering seminary. My contention is that if they are not already qualified by God to be elders, a seminary won’t do it, if you see what I mean (a question I wonder about is, why aren't they already elders at their church just prior to attending a seminary to "become" a pastor?).
As Scripture says, Jas 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
I’ve noticed a huge lack of passion from seminary students and graduates—they often see being a pastor as an option among many things—certainly not like Paul who burned with proclaiming the Gospel. For most, being a pastor isn’t a life work—it’s a career that lasts 30 years or so, then they retire from it. This is what I mean about how the pastorship is viewed as a job or a career in my earlier comment. The average length of a pastor to stay at a church is eight years. Unbelievable.
Prodigal,
Honestly, I can't speak really intelligently about Western because I've not kept in contact with them. But I said they're down the tubes, because of a couple of indications. For one I know they had an Emergent speak there once. I can't remember who. That's enough, right there to never go there is we are biblical. Unless there's a change of heart.
Perhaps it was Mark Driscoll. Sorry I can't remember.
But also, I got some advertizing for a conference there and it was heretical. Again I can't recall the details.
But yes, the concern is earned. I wouldn't send a dog there unless it had its shots.
Phil.
Denise,
Your point about the language isn't just nitpicking. Vocabulary is a potent weapon in the war for hearts and minds.
When "missional" replaces "evangelistic", a meal for the poor is as good as the gospel. Wnen "spiritual formation" replaces "sanctification", progress in holiness is no longer the definition of spiritual growth.
And when sounding cutting edge is more important that fidelity, these changes come.
And for a grad school to compete, you gotta be cutting edge, not faithful to the gospel once delivered to the saints.
Phil.
Prodigal,
I actually remember Andrews. He was the best prof there. Thought that then and still do. He was an intense fellow. Very intense. When there, I was not yet saved. He taught homolectics. That's preaching practice for those of you who only read your Bibles--poor souls.
My Greek teacher committed suicide in the middle of the term. And a prof named Hughes, gave the coolest sounding prayers in chapel (God had to get out his thesaurus, I'm sure.) Hughes was arrested for soliciting a teenage boy for sex in a park.
You made me remember all this now. Wow. That's nasty stuff.
Yeow. Maybe that's why I'm so messed up.
Okay folks--send YOUR kids to Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. They have a brand new suicide and general nastiness prevention hotline for students and faculty. 1-800-ARREST ME to stop your adult children from doing irreparable harm to themselves or others.
Then they can go and be somebody's pastor.
You know--like Jim Jones.
Phil.
I have an idea for a new TV horror series--Tales From the Seminary Side.
Phil, if you mean by “Maintain sanctification” you mean the early church did not battle heretics, immoralities, and false teachers INSIDE their four walls, I can do you one better. I bet the New Testament church couldn’t keep those messy heretics out completely. The problem with heretics is they are so good at covering their true colors. As you know the battle is everywhere and will always be an ongoing thing until Christ returns. It’s a continual process.
I appreciate your zeal for truth and purity in the church, and you might be surprised to find many in the SBC who share your sentiments. Don’t forget however the early church had its share of tares with the wheat. Notice how the word “among” keeps coming up. “From among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things..” (Acts 20.30), read 1 Cor. 11.17ff, factions among you? A lot of immoral stuff going on in the church at Corinth that had to be confronted and corrected. How about Galatia? They were doing more than just pondering Foster, they seriously were questioning salvation by grace alone. Also, read Jude 4’s use of the PAST tense. There might even be a Judas who slipped into your sterilized house church.
Sin, and false teaching, do creep into the church. But some people in the SBC recognize good things happening, lies being confronted, and battles being won, minds being changed. There are some people who want to go beyond a “us four and no more” house church. Its not sufficient for them to jump ship at the sight of a fight. They are fighting against satanic attacks, but they do it many different ways. I’m not a blind loyalist. There may be a day when we need to separate, but I for one do not believe that day has come, in all actuality, I am optimistic, I believe we are winning in buffeting the enemy’s attack and promoting the truth. We don’t win all the fights, we never will, but sin is not going “unchecked” in the wider scope of the war for truth. I think its possible to avoid a chicken-little Elijah complex if you look at the wider picture. My point is, you’re going to have to do better than pointing out a Foster book popping up somewhere before you pronounce an anathema over the whole thing.
And there are real differences between the SBC and a denomination. Its not just rhetoric, I assure you. The annual meeting basically makes no decisions about the local church. They approve budgets and pass resolutions (usually directed at the culture) that are non-binding. For a church to become SB you have to agree to the Baptist Faith and Message. The churches are autonomous and send messengers to elect officials who chair committees in association to further the Great Commission. If you want out all you have to do is stop sending them money. Churches support the Cooperative Program which underwrites seminary tuition, (along with missions such as church starts) so its very affordable.
Denise, Ph.d studies are advanced on many levels and integrate all ideas for discussion, that does not necessarily mean they are given merit. You’d have to sit in the seminar to find that out. I think I can safely say Donald Whitney does not advocate, or promote, new-age spirituality. You might want to be dig a little bit deeper and exercise some caution about this kind of disinformation. Moreover, when women’s curriculum at Southern lists feminists theology on its syllabus, it is teaching against it. Women are alerted about its teachings and its effects on the wider culture. Also, Graham’s school of missions and evangelism is mostly missions (NAMB, IMB) emphasis and I’m sure they would disagree with Graham’s recent comments. If you want, I can help you cherry pick better information, but then again read above. Also, these schools have released official positions on many of the dangers you both raise. You can call, (Excuse me, but could you help clarify Dr. Whitney’s position on….) or better yet, email him, or visit the campus and talk to the students. There are schools on the “slippery-slope” for sure, but Southern is not one of them.
Credenda, the problems in Corinth and Galatia were going on inside CHURCHES where the authority of the elders and pastors and accountability to the congregation took place (church discipline). This is the proper place to deal with such sin. A seminary isn’t a church and therefore has no authority or desire to deal with heretics because they are “open minded” to various views, nor are they accountable to the people.
This isn’t a “chicken little” complex Credenda. Have you forgotten the HIGH standard God has placed and that HE says to not mingle truth with error? Foster is a huge problem and you are actually making my point.
The fact that people are unwilling to see the problem with Foster shows they are lacking discernment and wisdom. What’s a little New Age mysticism? Its optional, right?
You said to “integrate all ideas for discussion, that does not necessarily mean they are given merit” – again you make my point. Integrate (to unite with something else, to blend into) ideas that are unbiblical with Truth IS giving them merit on some level, which opposes 2Co 10:5 We destroy [not integrate or consider the value of or pick parts of it] arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
Credenda, contrary to your claim, you really are blindly rallying around Don Whitney. Whitney thinks Foster, who is a New Age mystic, has some wisdom on spiritual disciplines. How in the world can he do that? Foster is a pagan. Where is Whitney’s discernment? See this is exactly what I’m getting at: New Age authors are ok to read and you will pick and choose what they say, taking what you like, ignoring the rest, and thinking it’s a good thing. God says it is not. Read 1Cor. 6:14-17 again. God demands purity in practice and doctrine. We aren’t even talking ignorance here.
Re: Graham: His comments are not recent. Graham has been a universalist and pro-RCC for decades Credenda, but it seems yet again, you haven’t bothered to find out. Rally around the man….
SBTS is definitely on the downgrade. Did you miss the “Feminist Theology” and psychology classes they teach?
Credenda, you give all kinds of excuses for the putrid garbage offered by those at that school. How do you suppose the other schools became liberal? They announced they were going that way? False teachers and unqualified men who give error alongside truth “to consider” are NOT faithfully teaching the Word “as taught”.
Credenda,
Stop right now.
Look back at your last comment. Find a Scripture citation. Or find even an allusion to a biblical principle.
Hard, isn't it?
Now go back and look for churchy or popular bromides and characteriziations. "Chicken little", etc.
Now do you see how unbiblical you think? You pull out all this pop-theology quite easily. As a man speaks so is he.
You still haven't dealt with passages like Deut 13, I Cor. 5, etc. You ignore the Scriptre. Instead, you SEEM to think that the secular proverbs and churchy bromides ought to be weighed against the plain teaching of Scripture.
That is the problem. It's sin.
You argue like the Pharisees. Only they did introduce some Scripture into the discussion. Denise and I bring Scripture and you bring your traditions.
Think that through for a few minutes. Even if we were wrong, what does that tell you about the state of you soul? See John 10.
Don't get mad, just stop and think it through. You have defended the bringing in of heresy, if I understand you correctly, on the basis that not all ideas are given the same weight.
Logically, that means they are given weight. That's sin. And you KNOW the Bible says so. See the letter to Pergamum.
Tell you what--exegete for us all what Deut. 13 says about stoning those who cause others to stumble into false teachings, and the last two verses of I Cor. 5.
If you can't do that and end up with results that are far different from the historical understanding of these passages, then you really ought to be quiet about your bromides and academic traditions. In other words, repent and begin to obey Scripture.
You attitude toward Scriptue, whatever you may say about your regard for Scripture, is heretical. The Scripture plays second filddle to academic tradition and derogatory characterizations like "Chicken Little". Yikes!
Sorry to be so straight forward, but I don't know what else to say to you. In your current state you will poison souls wherever you go if they follow you.
To DENISE and PRODIGAL--Think about what is going on here. No matter what Credenda's doctrinal statement may SAY about the sufficiency of Scripture, she's a prime example of not PRACTICING the sufficiency of Scripture.
We need to get back to that.
Desparately.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Denise, Integrate into the DISCUSSION means to understand it and dissect or seek to understand the “lofty idea”, for the purpose of dismantling it (raise it up against). Not integrate, or synthesize it (or blend it into biblical teaching). How do we “destroy” arguments without integrating these ideas (raising them up in the classroom, reading source material they have written, examining them and analyzing the content??) into class curriculum? You are misunderstanding the motives here of some teachers. While it may be true that a professor may give a favorable (merit) slant to error (that’s bad), some teachers (good ones) will identify the false teaching and analysis them and destroy them by carefully comparing them to biblical truth so when pastors encounter false arguments they will be, ignorant and unaware, but armed to handle. Seminary classes often raise ideas that are contrary to the scripture to combat them, not blend them in. So, a class in Feminist Theology, or Emergent ideas would not be for the purpose of giving them credence (or merit), but for the purpose of 2 Cor. 10.5.. in order TO DESTROY them by seeing what the Bible says about them, and pointing out the unbiblical nature of them. Paul does this all the time.
My point about error in the church is that error, or false ideas infiltrate into EVERYWHERE. So there are no safe-havens from false teachers, even in the classroom, early church and the NT church. Across the board, on each level. Yes, the church elders are there to combat them, and so are godly men in seminaries (we would hope). SBC seminaries have moved radically right in the past 20 years because of correction in doctrine because godly men have fought the fight. You want to discount all seminary education so you conveniently overlook the good and over emphasize the negative. You demonize good schools because of your prejudice against the whole system, and you misunderstand good men’s motives (Whitney is an obvious example).
Credenda,
Having an entire semester class on error is wrong. It gives a platform for error, demanding the students read it, then read Scripture (if it even comes to that!). I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.
Please show from Scripture, how we are to place ourselves in the seat of scoffers and meditate on their error and hatred of God, so we can know its wrong. I'll show you Scripture that says we're to not entertain it in our thoughts, not consider any of its merits, not spend hours analyzing it. See Ps. 1:1-3 for istance.
Paul did not sit and study and then teach error for hours and THEN show how its wrong. He proclaimed Christ and the Gospel to those already in error. He destroyed every opinion and idea raised up against Christ by proclaiming Christ and the Gospel. In other words, Paul corrected error with Truth; he didn't teach error to teach truth. You've got it all mixed up Credenda.
If we know Scripture and have the Spirit of Truth in us, we don't need to spend a whole semester on error to know its wrong. Again, you give academic excuses for wallowing in the pigstye.
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.
Eph 4:23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
You also might consider that when error is given to look over, examine, contemplate, etc., it not only is filling the mind with false teaching, many may indeed end up accepting the error. I've seen it done.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," 21 for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;
2 Tim. 2: 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
"... No matter what Credenda's doctrinal statement may SAY about the sufficiency of Scripture, she's a prime example of not PRACTICING the sufficiency of Scripture. - Phil
That is the issue. A low view of Scripture and a high view of man. That is why error isn't shunned but rather accepted if even in part; why such people look for "truth" in the error, but are so blind they don't realized they have swallowed the error themselves, and for what? And at what price?
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.
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.
"No lie is of the truth". Worthy of contemplating isn't it? People think they can find truth in error and error in truth.
We are sanctified IN Truth, not error. We don't become more godly by studying error. Academics has brought in such fleshly thinking, calling it "spiritual" its unreal.
I hope you and Credenda and Prodigal get the chance to read the Downgrade Contraversy quotes by Robert Shindler (Spurgeon's editor)that I posted the other day. He talks of these very things.
Denise,
Sorry about all the typos on the last comment. I must have been in a hurry.
YES--the authority of Scripture.
Also, notice another thing Credenda is doing. She refuses to deal with the reality--doing a bait an switch. I've been there, both as a student and as a teacher. Bringing in heresy and using it as an example is a read herring. (How do you like that pun?) This seldom happens, and when it really does happen, the prof is still requiring the students to buy books written by heretics, making them pay a liar for his/her work. That's in violation of all sorts of Scripture.
What often happens is that when lay folk find out or when someone in the local churches start to expose this, the academics often lie. They tell the same story Cred does. "We really aren't teaching that. We just make the kids read it, so they know better." It's a crock. In the case of Yellowstone Baptist College in Billings, MT, Foster and Clinebell were used and when I exposed this to my church, then Denise's excuse was given. The truth is that they are a small school and needed to be tied into Oklahoma Baptist University because YBC wasn't accredited and OBU is. OBU is a cess pool and they were requiring these texts. Clinebell actually approves of homosexual marriage.
And notice she won't touch any Scripture that deals directly with these issues.
She's smart. She knows that would be a losing strategy.
Phil.
Phil,
Thanks for the feedback on Jim Andrews. I listen to his "Final Word" show regularly. He doesn't mince any words about the fact that most in the ministry today are not called "because God pays for what He orders" regarding the ability to be effective in preaching the gospel.
He makes no apology for his stalwart stand for integrity and dedication to the Word in the ministry. I admire him a lot. And I'm becoming a fan of yours as well :)
Post a Comment