Saturday, June 26, 2010
[I make a few current examples of what Spurgeon referred to.]
In this age of progress, religious opinions move at railway speed. Within the last few weeks many have made an open advance of a very special kind; we say an open advance, for we suspect that secretly they had for a long time harbored the errors which now they have avowed. And what a revelation it is! Here, one sees a "Moderate" declaring his advance to "another gospel" in the boldest terms; and there, another, highly esteemed for his supposed love of the truth, stubbing it after the subtle manner of its most malicious foes. While some of the most perverted cunningly endeavor to appear orthodox, others of a braver nature come out in their true colors, and astonish us with the glaring hue of their heresy. That which makes manifest is light; and, however much we may deplore the unwelcome discoveries of the present controversy, we ought to be thankful that they are made, for it is better for us to know where we are, and with whom we are associating.
The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!
Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought." It is singular that, by the way of free-thought, men should be reaching the same end as others arrived at by the path of superstition. Salvation by works is one distinctive doctrine of the new gospel: in many forms this is avowed and gloried in—not, perhaps, in exact words, but in declarations quite unmistakable. The Galatian heresy is upon us with a vengeance: in the name of virtue and morality, justification by faith and salvation by free grace are bitterly assailed. Equally a child of darkness is this New Purgatory. It is taught that men can escape if they neglect the great salvation. No longer is the call, "Today, if ye will hear his voice"; for the tomorrow of the next state will answer quite as well. Of course, if men may be gradually upraised from sin and ruin in the world to come, common humanity would lead us to pray that the process may go on rapidly. We are hearing every now and again of "a night of prayers for the dead," among certain priests of the Establishment. Nor is it among Ritualists alone, or even mainly, for the other day, at a meeting for prayer, an eminent believer in this notion prayed heartily for the devil; and his prayer, upon the theory of the restitution of all the sinful, was most natural. Prayers for the dead and prayers for the devil! Shades of Knox and Latimer, where are ye? How easy will it be to go from prayers for the dead to payment to good men for special supplications on their behalf! Of course if a devout person will spend an hour in praying a deceased wife out of her miseries, a loving husband will not let him exercise his supplications for nothing. It would be very mean of him if he did. "Purgatory Pick-purse," as our Protestant forefathers called it, is upon us again, having entered by the back-door of infidel speculation instead of by the front entrance of pious opinion.
[Note: C.S.Lewis is among those who held to Purgatory and prayer for the dead. Luther held to baptismal regeneration. Today we have pietism.]
Nor is this all; for our "improvers" have pretty nearly obliterated the hope of such a heaven as we have all along expected. Of course, the reward of the righteous is to be of no longer continuance than the punishment of the wicked. Both are described as "everlasting" in the same verse, spoken by the same sacred lips; and as the "punishment" is made out to be only "age-lasting," so must the "life" be. Worse even than this, if worse can be, it is taught by some of these "improvers" that even the blessed of the Father are by no means blessed overmuch; for, according to the latest information, even they will have to undergo a sort of purgatorial purification in the world to come. There are degrees in the inventiveness of the nineteenth- century theologians; but, to our mind, it is the license given to this inventiveness, even when it is most moderate, which is the root of the whole mischief. What is to be taught next? And what next?
Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?
We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying. Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays. New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! Nor do the moderns shrink even from this. To many of our readers it may already be known that it is beginning to be taught that God himself is but the totality of manhood, and that our Lord Jesus only differed from us in being one of the first men to find out that he was God: he was but one item of that race, which, in its solidarity, is divine.
[Note: Examples: Evolutionists/Theistic Evolutionists who deny the Genesis Creation account as written; Richard Mouw who embraces Mormons; people who deny the Impeccability of Christ; the RCC who says God will make us little gods; WOFers who say the same.]
It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!
But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine? Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it. Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward. It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again. We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.
Not with this man, or that Council, or that Union, are the lovers of the old gospel at war at this present; but with the whole body of unbelief which is now attempting to borrow the Christian name, and effect a settlement within Christian territory. This spirit is in all the churches, more or less; indeed, it seems to be in the air. The prince of the power of the air is loosed in an extraordinary manner for a season, misleading even the godly, and triumphing greatly in those whose willing minds yield full assent to his deceitful teachings. On this account our fears are great for the Baptist churches, which have in former ages been the strongholds of the gospel of the grace of God. Those communities which avowedly confess the truth of God can deal with the spirit of unbelief, at least in a measure; but those bodies of men which hold no settled doctrines, and make no profession of believing anything definite, are like houses with open doors, inviting the unclean spirit to enter, and take up his abode. ....
Psa 26:4 I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.
Apprising Ministries and AOM have responded to the pathetic wagon-circling of Liberty University and the SBC Today concerning the conclusion of the investigation of Ergun Caner's lies about his background.
Liberty University and SBC Today have lower standards of honesty than the world. For example, if an applicant to a police department, they won't be hired. If a police officer is found to give "self-contradicting" "facts", they are fired. Lying is not tolerated in law enforcement, but apparently it is among those who claim to follow the God of Truth. When God-haters have more respect for the truth and distain for lies than "Christians" have, its a sick, wicked,and evil day. God's judgement will not be slow! HE will not allow HIS name to be plastered over falsehoods!
Besides that, even according to Liberty's own academic circles of higher learning, "self-contradicting" statements ARE lies, ARE falsehoods because they violate the Law of Contradiction (that academic elitists so love to hold everyone ELSE to) that A and not-A can't both be true. Hypocrisy is ok with them I guess...just don't YOU be found guilty of a logic fallacy or they'll rake you over the coals as they look down their snotty noses at you! They can do what they won't allow others to do. The very thing Jesus pointed at in the Pharisees is what these men are guilty of.
So, let's get this straight: students can be allowed to do the same thing Caner does without expullsion? They can lie on their papers, resumes, applications to the school or jobs? Seriously? No reprocussions? Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They can't have a LOWER standard for the faculty than they have for the students.
Or can they?
Having Liberty do the investigation is like having the Obama administration investigate Obama and his claims: the end was already predetermined, set by bias and fear of losing face, money, support, and pride. Did anyone seriously think that this investigation was going to be a REAL one? The fact that they admit to falsehoods on the part of Caner and they won't be open with the full findings and cite sources, demonstrates they themselves are satisifed with something less than the truth.
But God isn't.
Just ask Ananais and Sapphire if their "self-contractory" statements rightly earned the wrath of God and Peter, or Achan and his family who were burned to death for hiding the booty they were told not to take from the enemy.
Do these men of higher learning really think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of those who "love the truth" and love God and the Spirit of Truth abiding in them? They are triffling with the Living and Vengeful God, Who will not be mocked.
I'm tired of men in leadership hiding behind vague statements to hide the truth. Vagueness doesn't hold one accountable; rather it obfuscates the Truth and personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is, Liberty and SBC Today are saving their pride at the expense of Truth and loyalty to Christ and HIM alone. Integrity and trust are gone. They are inept and a disgrace. Sadly these people are being pumped into local churches as well as seminaries. Many hirelings they pump out are plagerizing their "sermons", so hey, why can't university deans or students lie too?
TRUE liberty in Christ isn't license to sin, as Romans 6 goes to GREAT lengths to show--rather its liberty to OBEY THE MASTER, KING, LORD and His commands. However, Liberty University thinks that they are exempt from being truthful. That's not liberty, its sin. I guess the learned men at Liberty (and SBC Today) need to learn what a lie is and what Truth is--something my kids knew when they were little. Apparently their intellect isn't all that smart....nor godly.
1John 2:21.. NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH.
John 17: 17 SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH; Your word is truth.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
Pro 13:5 The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace. 6 Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked.
Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: "Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!" 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Here we have Contemplative prayer redefined (slaps on "Christian" and "Puritan" and says its the same thing) by Piper just as he redefines hedonism by slapping on "Christian".
This is what I mean when I say many like Piper find "truth in everything", even if it is in Rome. Piper is charismatic which is another reason why he is attracted to the mysticism and is so man-centered. Touchy, feely, emotionally driven is not biblically based. And Rome has nothing right: their practices stem from their damnable doctrines of hell. But I guess that's merely "bad theology".
What does God say about mixing the old with the new?
Mar 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins--and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."
Unleaven bread for the Passover and the Lord's Table
Unmixed fabric for the priests (Ex. 28)
No inter-marrying with other nations (Deut. 7)
In all three:
No fellowship between Jesus and Baal; unbeliever and believer; light and darkness (2Cor. 6:14-18)
How did God instruct Israel to conduct their lives and worship toward God? Was God ok with mixing truth with error?
Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Deu 7:5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
So did they obey God?
Psa 106:34 They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded them,
Psa 106:35 But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
Psa 106:36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
Psa 106:37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood.
Psa 106:39 Thus they became unclean in their practices, And played the harlot in their deeds.
Psa 106:40 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.
Psa 106:41 Then He gave them into the hand of the nations, And those who hated them ruled over them.
Psa 106:42 Their enemies also oppressed them, And they were subdued under their power.
Psa 106:43 Many times He would deliver them; They, however, were rebellious in their counsel, And so sank down in their iniquity.
Roman Catholicism has many pagan practices because it is not of Christ. So why would Piper and Keller and Warren go to pagans and idolators to find spiritual truth?
Practice DOES matter. If its not ordained by God according to Scripture and rather comes from pagans, it stirs His anger, for He is a jealous and holy holy holy God. Only those in Christ have the Light of Truth in them for the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit abides in them. Lest you think "that was the OT times, its ok to find truth in error; we can borrow from unbelievers in our worship of God", you better reconsider:
2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Co 6:17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Co 6:18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.
God's standard hasn't change, because HE hasn't changed.
Mal 3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts. 6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.7 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
Remember Romans 12:1-2?
God is Holy and expects those who follow Him to grow in holiness by His Grace. Just as God struck down Achan and his family for stealing and then lying about it (Joshua 7:1-26), so God destroyed Ananias and Sapphira for the same thing (Acts 5:1-13).
To go to Rome or the New Age mystics in any form is to commit treason against the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
Isa 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Daniel's Place states in part:
When one reads through the transcript of Keller's talk, one gets a rather disoriented feeling. Been there, done that, and the worse for it. The whole talk reeks with the methodology of men and businesses, instead of the counsel of the Word of God; more like Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner than John Calvin.
Consider the entire talk. Where in the entire talk is mention even made of the Word of God? For a supposed conservative Presbyterian, not one verse of Scripture is even quoted in defense of the methodologies being brought to bear. Worse still, the concepts in it are not found in Scripture. Church is all about Word and Sacrament. Where in Scripture is the Church (as opposed to individual Christians) supposed to do "justice and mercy ministries"?
Assuming as one commenter states that the talk was about mechanics - being a "practical, technical" and "methodological" talk, this talk shows that Keller practically denies the sufficiency of Scripture for ALL of life and practice. Methodology is NOT neutral. Methodology has to be derived from Scripture especially since the topic is most certainly a biblical one (i.e. Gospel movements). When measures are proposed in which results are virtually guaranteed, one ends up more with business models that implicitly assume some form of Pelagianism as the error of Revivalism rears its ugly head. Where in Scripture are we told that if we just implement the right measures, more and more people will come to Christ and the Church will gain influence in society?
I talk about how Keller is the Reformed version of Warren here.
Saddly, the Reformed circles see truth in just about everything, which is why they are at peace with reading heretics' books and articles, or allowing them a platform to spew their heresies. As long as the mantra is "TULIP!" or "Five Solas!" then they are still accepted on some level. Just as they accept Rome on some level. If one finds validity in Rome, one will find validity elsewhere. But we are commanded to avoid all forms of evil, be separate from it, because God is the God of truth, not truth mixed with error. So, for Reformers there isn't such a thing as a heretic, just a brother who is wrong in some area.
Method DOES reveal doctrine. At the heart of Reformer Tim Keller or Rick Warren, they both start with the wrong view of God, Man, and the Gospel, therefore their foundation for "church" building and outreach is wrong in its doctrine as well as its practice. In other words, because they start with a low view of Scripture and of God, they elevate Man and put him in the center of everything instead of Christ and Him alone. The right view of Scripture would see man outside of Christ is a God-hater and is not to be in the called out assembly of believers, nor is he seeking God, but rather running from Him! This is Romans 101, folks. A right view of the Gospel would dictate the biblical practice of going OUT to proclaim the Gospel to the unsaved, without manipulation or catering to the God-hater's whims, knowing that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believer; first to the Jew and then to the Gentile".
Methodology reveals if a person truly and biblically believes in the power of the Gospel and God's way of reaching the unsaved through the preaching of the Gospel, its that simple.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Act 4:1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead....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.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, 4 that he was buried, that HE WAS RAISED on the THIRD DAY in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, [Caps for emphasis only]
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: 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."
MacArthur also says something similar: John MacArthur says in “Ashamed of the Gospel” about approaches or methods:
p. 81 "Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense."
p. 89 “ …any end-justifies-the-means philosophy of ministry inevitably will compromise doctrine, despite any proviso to the contrary. If we make effectiveness the gauge of right and wrong, how can that fail to color our doctrine? Ultimately the pragmatist’s notion of truth is shaped by what seems effective, not by the objective revelation of Scripture."
p. 92-93 on pragmatism:"Do you see how the new philosophy necessarily undermines sound doctrine? It discards Jesus' own methods---preaching and teaching--as the primary means of ministry. It replaces them with methodologies utterly devoid of substance....In fact it avoids dogma or strong convictions as divisive, unbecoming,or inappropriate. It dismisses doctrine as academic, abstract, sterile, threatening, or simply impractical. Rather than teaching error or denying truth, it does something far more subtle, but just as effective from the enemy’s point of view. It jettisons content altogether. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head-on, it gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it denigrates the things that are precious to Him. In that regard, pragmatism poses dangers more subtle than the liberalism that threatened the church in the first half of the century."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Apprising Ministries reports that yet another Reformer, Steve Camp, endorses Rick Warren as a Christian and a pastor:
“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.” (spelling original).
Camp himself at one time saw Rick Warren's false gospel. In 2008, Camp said about Warren (regarding Warren on Fox News Channel show):
What a difference a few years makes.
"One of his responses? "Try Jesus...?" As Colmes sarcastically quipped in response: "Like the book of the month club..."
Beloved, why can't evangelical leaders just speak the truth in love and give the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ without the sidebar fodder of feeling like they have to be funny; relate; be relevant; or make Jesus likable. Try Jesus? How disrespectful tothe Lord. Heaven's dread Sovereign doesn't ask to be tried out like a new kind of food or gadget; He doesn't ask to be sampled - He demands to be worshiped, followed, obeyed and submitted to as Lord!
Now some might wonder: "Campi, is this kind of stuff really important today with our economy failing, people really hurting and feeling the pinch, wars still occurring, etc.?" Yes it is - and here is why. The gospel IS the key issue above all others. Not to diminish those other things for they are real concerns, but the eternal state of another's soul is the preeminent weight of all. Even if all around fails and we face some very difficult and trying times financially in our nation, the one true hope of all can never be depreciated or bankrupted - the hope of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen? We are privileged, beloved, to go to a lost world with the hope of salvation and the forgiveness of sins in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And this is our hope as believers too. We need to encourage one another with this hope daily. We need to pray for each other like never before. We need to comfort one another with the words of Christ these days and to provoke one another with love and good works. So when a well-known pastor gets on a national news talk show and doesn't really present the true gospel when asked plainly - then it should matter.
Compare this to Camp's new view (since Piper said the same thing) about Warren:
“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”
Camp went on to say back in his 2008 article on Warren (Brain's quotes in italics--original):
SJ Camp said...
Brain @VOSIF (and please note I am prefacing my question with "if")
Rick Warren truly believes what the transcript records him saying on
Fox, should he be considered within the bounds of biblical, orthodox Christianity?
His views would not be within the bounds of biblical Christianity as defined by either our Lord in His earthly ministry or by the Apostles themselves. BUT, sadly, his views are acceptable today as being within the bounds of contemporary Christianity even within the SBC.
There is a word for this beast of beliefs: pragmatism.
but if he truly believes that you can "give Jesus a try or get your money back", and that salvation is based upon you choosing to "unwrap the gift" which results in your sins being forgiven...what are we to make of this from an eternal perspective?
This approach of "Try Jesus" and "You must Unwrap the Gift..." are unbiblical appeals that place salvation as simply a matter of man's own choosing and affinity to whatever part of Jesus they are willing to try.
IOW, this method of gospel preaching cannot save, it can only damn.
Even Allen Colmes saw the ridiculousness of this try Jesus and if you're not completely satisfied I will give you your money back - guaranteed" philosophy.
This is a long way from: "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me."
Can we really call him an evangelical leader?
Yes; because he represents what evangelicalism has devolved in becoming.
Is he a proclaimer of the real gospel?
His methodological approach in this discussion certainly would lead us to believe he is not. However, on occasion, I have heard him get thegospel right. In this regard we must be careful to draw absolute conclusions based upon the pragmatics of his approach. But certainly this approach cited here doesn't represent the biblical gospel at all -though he may believe the biblical gospel.
Is he not, in fact, leading people AWAY from Christ and not TO Christ?
In this approach, no question. He did nothing in his interaction with Allen Colmes, for example, to bring him to understanding of the biblical truth claims of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As if to foreshadow what is to come, Camp gives Warren some unwarranted leeway, those shadows of Warren possibly believing the Gospel and that this is merely a matter of method. Those shadows have turned into a triumphant declaration of Warren’s solid theology and pastoral qualifications.
On the other hand, John MacArthur says in “Ashamed of the Gospel” about approaches or methods:
p. 81 "Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense."
p. 89 “ …any end-justifies-the-means philosophy of ministry inevitably will compromise doctrine, despite any proviso to the contrary. If we make effectiveness the gauge of right and wrong, how can that fail to color our doctrine? Ultimately the pragmatist’s notion of truth is shaped by what seems effective, not by the objective revelation of Scripture."
p. 92-93 on pragmatism:
"Do you see how the new philosophy necessarily undermines sound doctrine? It discards Jesus' own methods---preaching and teaching--as the primary means of ministry. It replaces them with methodologies utterly devoid of substance....In fact it avoids dogma or strong convictions as divisive, unbecoming,, or inappropriate. It dismisses doctrine as academic, abstract, sterile, threatening, or simply impractical. Rather than teaching error or denying truth, it does something far more subtle, but just as effective from the enemy’s point of view. It jettisons content altogether. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head-on, it gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it denigrates the things that are precious to Him. In that regard, pragmatism poses dangers more subtle than the liberalism that threatened the church in the first half of the century."
(See Acts 2 as one example of Peter's approach to evangelism; 1Cor. 1-2 for Paul’s approach to evangelism).
So what has changed in the last two years? Has Warren changed his theology? Did he get saved?
Warren continues to become even more blatant in his inter-faith, socialistic, liberalism. A man posing as a Christian and a pastor can only continue the downgrade.
So that leaves one person who changed: Steve Camp.
Not only is Camp sounding more and more Emergent (“in community missional”; emergentspeak is getting old, not to mention it’s just bad grammar) but he’s not being truthful or accurate about Rick Warren. He’s certainly not holding to what he originally thought about Warren either (he also changed his mind about Driscoll, too).
Something must be in the water in the Reformed circles for mindless bandwagon cheerleading of a man who historically has been a false teacher. Perhaps Piper's rubber stamping Warren, like he did Driscoll, is what gives comfort to so many in that circle to likewise accept such a viper.
I have repeated myself over the years of all the reasons why Rick Warren is not only false teacher, but a false brother. Go here for the list of quotes and links.
Warren is the ultimate teacher of Arminian, man-centered, synergistic corrupt gospel that can’t save. How in the world can this man be monergistic? Because he claims he is? Really? And to whom does he claim this? Piper? Camp? Justin Taylor? The Muslims? The Catholics? The Jews? Tony Blair ?
Don’t people realize the man is a snake and will say, even by his own admission, whatever he needs to, to his particular audience (PDL p. 243, 256 for example)? He is the ultimate hypocrite—saying one thing to one group, while telling another something different—all to please his listeners. These well-educated, well-read people don’t realize this?
I guess not.
Because there’s no way a Reformed person could EVER be deceived. They don’t believe in false teachers secretly sneaking in among them. Nope. Impossible.
Robert Morey bears repeating here (he says something similar to MacArthur's statemenet on pragmatism quoted earlier):
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 insubstance 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.
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!
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!
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.
How else to people think heretics come in among them? By announcing themselves as such?
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
So is this true: “@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
Warren Is Synergistic, not Monergistic: he denies Justification by Faith ALONE:
Rick Warren said on Hannity’s show in 2008, on how to get to heaven: “Give as much of yourself as you understand to as much as you understand about me and then keep growing in it.” This denies the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace alone.(Why do you think he has his PEACE Plan and the PDL both of which he sells to believers and unbelievers alike?)
In an interview with inter-faith website "beliefnet" :
"But going back to this thing about heaven and getting into a perfect place. Let’s say we got a scale of 1 to 100. Let’s put Hitler at zero and Mother Teresa at 100 OK. And Steve you’re at 85 and Larry’s at 65 and I’m at 45. The truth is, some people are better than others, there’s no doubt about it. Some people are more moral than others, they’re nicer, they’re less selfish, less self-centered, things like that. But the truth is, nobody makes [it] to perfection… And so somebody’s got to make up that difference. And that’s the gift I believe Jesus came to – to make up the difference between my zero and my 100 or my 45 and 100 -- somebody’s got to make up that difference. "
This is monergistic? Not unless Camp and Piper redefine what monergism means. Go here for the difference (ironic considering Camp’s new claim that Warren is monergistic when he isn’t;by his own definition, Warren is synergistic).
Monergism necessitates the absolute sovereignty of God. So does Warren believe in such a God?
Same beliefnet interview:
"No body works correctly – we all have problems with our bodies. The weather doesn’t work correctly – tornados and hurricanes and stuff like that. It’s the result of living on a broken planet. That’s why we’re to pray “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven” ‘cause in heaven it’s done perfectly. God’s will is not done most of the time on earth. When people go, “oh, that hurricane must have been God’s will” – baloney! That wasn’t God’s will. God’s will is not done most of the time. If I go out and get drunk and run over a pregnant mother and kill her and her baby, that’s not God’s will, that’s my will."
This denies the control that the Sovereign Creator has over all His creation despite entire chapters that say differently (Ps 33; Job 38-42, Eph. 1, Is. 46:10), which outworking therefore also denies God’s sovereign control over the “new creation” or salvation of the elect. Warren historically and consistantly is a synergist, not monergist. He also clearly denies the doctrine of Justification.
Here’s Warren’s “in community missional with the gospel”:
About getting to heaven: “WARREN: I'm saying that this is the perfect time to open their life, to give it a chance. I'd say give him a 60-day trial.” (Remember Camp's response and concern of the absolute lack of declaring Christ in this interview, above.)
“I happen to know people who are followers of Christ in other religions.” —Rick Warren Aspen Ideas Festival, The Aspen Institute, July 6, 2005, “Discussion: Religion and Leadership,” with David Gergen and Rick Warren
“...You may be Catholic or Protestant or Buddhist or Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Jain, or you have no religion at all. I’m not interested in your religious background. Because God did not create the universe for us to have religion. He came for us to have a relationship with him.” —Rick Warren United Nations, Interfaith Prayer Breakfast, September 2005
Also, Rick signed the unity letter to the Muslims, declaring that Christians and Muslims worship the true God. We know that is not true because Islam denies Jesus Christ who is God and they deny the Trinity.
Warren prays in the name of Isa and asks for Allah’s forgiveness at Obama's swearing in as president.
A Little Leaven reports Warren’s inter-faith practice with the Jews to rid the world of poverty.
“Warren spoke at Sinai as part of the Synagogue 3000 program, which aims to revitalize Jewish worship. His teachings apply to 95 percent of all people, regardless of religious belief. As he put it to a group of rabbis at a conference last year -- using a metaphor that might be described as a Paulian slip: "Eat the fish and throw away the bones." “Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters.” -Jewish Journal
Bob DeWaay deals with Warren’s promotion of Eastern Mysticism and false gospel; more here.
So is Camp right when he tweeted:“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
So far has Rick Warren proven himself to be monergistic in his soteriology? Has he clearly and boldly declared the only Gospel and the only Savior that can save? Is he truly "missional" (assuming that word still means to be mission-minded--to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ)? Are these teachings of Warren's that of a faithful man of God, a man who stands as a shepherd behind the pulpit weekly as a mature believer?
This “faithful” “pastor”’ has a horrid view of the sheep who love God’s Truth:
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily comments on what Rick Warren says about disunity:
“While mega-pastor Rick Warren has joined a group of 100 church leaders calling for interfaith dialogue and the building of "common ground" with Muslims, he has a slightly different outlook toward Christians with whom he disagrees. In his latest missive to fellow pastors, he writes: "You've got to protect the unity of your church. If that means getting rid of troublemakers, do it." "As pastors, as shepherds of God's people, it's our job to protect our congregations from Satan's greatest weapon – disunity," he writes. "It's not always easy, but it's what we've been called to do."
Here's an excellent article from Crossroad on how Warren and the PDLers deal with dissenters.
What else does this "faithful pastor" proclaim?
"And I think that one day, everyone of us is gonna stand before God and he’s not gonna say, “What religion were you? Were you Jewish? Were you Christian? Were you Buddhist? Baptist?” I don’t think he’s gonna say, “What church did you go to?” I think he’s gonna say first thing, first, “What did you do with my son who I sent to earth? Did you ever really get to know him? Did you even check him out? Did you trial test faith in him?” You know, “What did you do?” It’s about a relationship not a religion." - Warren in his beliefnet interview
On page 34 of his PDL book, Warren says, “God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views. The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him?”
A faithful pastor according to Scripture:
Titus 2: 1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,
This "faithful pastor" goes on in his beliefnet interview:
"I do accept the Bible as a standard of authority and I judge my experience by it not vice versa."
“A” standard of authority, but not THE standard of authority. This is no faithful pastor! (see 1 & 2 Timothy). The very thing pastors are supposed to guard with their lives, this "faithful" pastor tosses aside as merely "an" authority. That's a very low view of the thing we're to uphold above all else!
This "faithful pastor's" view of inspiration isn't biblical, which is why his view of the Living and Active Word of God is so low:
"And we believe that when God speaks to us that’s called inspiration. When Satan speaks to us that’s called temptation. And when I’m talking to myself and I think it’s God, that’s delusion."
This “faithful pastor” has a wife that teaches men from the Bible. How is that faithful to the commands of Scripture in 1Tim.3 and Titus 1-2 as well as 1Cor. 14?
This "faithful pastor" celebrated the perversion of homosexuaility on Father's Day in 2008: “Gay dads celebrate Father's Day with Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life" - Source
So is this accurate: “@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
Not in the least.
John MacArthur in “The Jesus You Can’t Ignore” (p. 206-208):
1Th 5:21 “but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.”
John7:24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
We are also called to be soldiers for the cause of truth. The spiritual conflict between the forcesof darkness and the truth of God is, after all, WAR.
That means, among other things, we have some fighting to do. As we have seen throughout this book, the popular notion that conflicts is always to be
avoided is simply wrong. There are timeswhen we MUST be confrontiverather than collegial.
Titus 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain whatthey ought not to teach.
If you wince at that or think there’s no way such an aggressive attitude could possibly be a sanctified response to doctrinal error in a postmodern culture, you need to review and rethink what the entire NT says about false teachers and how Christians should respond to them—especially from Jesus’ point of view.
In His final recorded messages to the church, given to the apostle John in a vision of several decades after Christ’s ascension into heaven, we see that the silencing of false teachers was still one of our Lord’s primary concerns, even from His throne in heaven. He addressed seven churches….Only two of the churches, Smyrna and Philadelphia, were commended for their faithfulness without any qualification or hint of rebuke. Both of them had remained true to Christ despite the influence of “those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan”(Rev. 2:9). All five other churches received various measures of rebuke, based on how corrupt, unfaithful, or spiritually lethargic they were.
A prominent theme in practically all Jesus’ messages to those seven churches is the issue of how they responded to false teachers and rank heretics in their midst. It is clear from those letters to the churches in Revelation that battling heresy is a duty Christ expects every Christian to be devoted to. Whether we like it or not, our very existence in this world involves spiritual warfare—it is not a party or a picnic. If Christ Himself devoted so much of His time and energy during His earthly ministry to the task of confronting and refuting false teachers, surely that must be high on our agenda as well. His style of ministry ought to be the model for ours, and His zealagainst false religion ought to fill our hearts and minds as well.
End quote. (emphasis mine)
What a difference between what MacArthur says and what Piper, Camp, Taylor, etc. are doing: giving endorsements to a false teacher.
Joh 7:24" Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." Just because people claim the five Solas or claim to be Christians, or claim to believe in Jesus, doesn't make it so. If they declare another way, another gospel, another way of justification, another Jesus, they've denied what they said they believed. A false teacher claims many "right" things before he slips in his errors. We must dig and inspect the fruit all the way around. That's why Paul, John, & Jesus sternly warn:
Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7 Therefore do not become partners with them;8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true),10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
I'll end with Spurgeon's words from the Downgrade Contraversy which speaks to this very issue of counting an enemy of the cross as a friend instead of foe:
To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus.
He is our Master and Lord, and we will keep his words: to tamper with his doctrine would be to be traitors to himself. Yet, almost unconsciously, good men and true may drift into compromises which they would not at first propose, but which they seem forced to justify. Yielding to be the creatures of circumstances, they allow another to gird them, and lead them whither they would not; and when they wake up, and find themselves in an undesirable condition, they have not always the resolution to break away from it.
As a matter of fact, believers in Christ's atonement are now in declared religions union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death, and a future restitution for the lost. Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil.
But how are we to act towards those who deny his vicarious sacrifice, and ridicule the great truth of justification by his righteousness? These are not mistaken friends, but enemies of the cross of Christ. There is no use in employing circumlocutions and polite terms of expression:—where Christ is not received as to the cleansing power of his blood and the justifying merit of his righteousness, he is not received at all.
It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. Those who know and love the truth of God cannot have fellowship with that which is diametrically opposed thereto, and there can be no reason why they should pretend that they have such fellowship.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
To sum up:
He lied about starting a new church.
He lied when he agreed with his last church to not start a rival church.
His wife will co-pastor the church.
The "church" is to be filled with unregenerate people who identify themselves with sinful lifestyles, not being new creations in Christ.
He quit his counseling sessions he agreed to, before they were over.
He was working for a degree in counseling.
He begged for the public to support him and his family.
He went on the predictable talk shows.
And he announced that a documentary is being made about him.
As a friend of mine, who is a sergeant with a police department said in part, "When we fire cops they can't work elsewhere. Their credibility is destroyed. Mind boggling how the church has a lower standard."
He's absolutely right.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Sounds a lot like heretic Robert Schuller or maybe she's just read his "Self-Esteem: the New Reformation":
"What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. ... I can offer still another answer: `Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.'" (p. 14)
"The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person. Rather, we have started from the `unworthiness of the sinner...." (p. 162) ~ Source
Beth Moore just oozes man-centeredness. Its all about "me" and really, self-esteem. She's demanding something as a right ("its time we got our dignity back"). This is NOT what Proverbs 31 is about at all! Its about a believing woman trusting and walking in the Lord, bearing fruit of the Spirit, always to HIS glory, not her dignity! This is about serving the Lord by serving others.
Unable to rightly handle the Word of God, she places onto all people something that Prov. 31 is actually addressing to a BELIEVING woman.
Proverbs 31:25 "honor":
1) ornament, splendour, honour
1b) splendour, majesty
1c) honour, glory
Not "dignity". I don't see where she got that when I looked up the verse as well as another example she uses, Ps. 8:3-5. Same word, but neither use "dignity" in the definition from what I can see. It does, however, play well to the social justice crowd who vie for "human dignity" as we see with Schuller as well as the Emergent do-gooders.
Proverbs 31 is not about her self-worth, but about her being honorable. Is she worth more than rubies? Yes, but its the fact that such women as described in Proverbs 31 are rare and precious, to be treasured as such, not used as an appendage to dismiss or even divorce if the man's whims aren't met. As a matter of fact, we see this use of "dignity" as honorable in Titus 2:7:"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity..." "Dignity" here refers to reverence, respect, honour, purity in character.
John MacArthur says of Prov. 31:25:
""She is clothed," in verse 25, with spiritual character. She has spiritual strength and dignity. Now, what does that word "dignity" mean? It refers to the fact that she is elevated above common things. She is elevated above trivial things--her life is not all about what doesn't matter. She has true class, true virtue. She has godly character. She is spiritually strong and has elevated herself to the nobler issues. And she has the power of true character, and it is expressed in the fact that she smiles at the future. She has no fear. Why? Because she knows her life is right with God, and that secures His blessing in the future. "
"So, based on spiritual strength, and based on virtue, and having elevated her thoughts above common things, mundane things, trivial things, worldly things, verse 26, "She opens her mouth in wisdom," and she has credibility because of her life. "She opens her mouth in wisdom," (and I love this,) and literally, "the law of kindness is on her tongue." She opens her mouth--she speaks wisdom, but that wisdom comes with kindness."
We see, instead of demanding her right to high esteem, the Proverbs 31 woman is serving others in humility. Even John MacArthur says this:
"She exercises, according to verse 27, careful surveillance over everything. She manages the children; she manages the household; she is not lazy; she is not eating the product of laziness, but the bread of loving hard work. And then the real satisfaction comes for her; it comes from the people she loves the most. She has given everything to them and what does she get back? They rise up and bless her and they praise her. They reverence her, literally, they honor her, they hold her in high esteem, and even her husband, because she has set aside her own comfort for his--she receives from him the supreme blessing. After all the years of life, he loves her more than he has ever loved her, because he now understands her character better than he ever understood it. "
This is so far from divine human dignity its ridiculous. Its not speaking of innate worth, its talking about honorable living being honored later in life as the fruit of all those years. Careful observation of Prov. 31 will also show, beyond her submission to her husband, that the wife does not seek nor demand her dignity, honor, respect, accolades, rewards, "because I'm worth it". Rather its given freely out of hearts that have witnessed first hand her faithfulness to the Lord and to the family. Moore has women demanding it. Pitiful.
I don't see how Moore's doctrine here can be lived out, demanding the right to woman's dignity, when facing persecution. Praytell, what dignity to Jesus have as he hung striped, bleeding, spat upon, and pierced? Scripture says he, "dispised the shame". He wasn't demanding His share of "God-given dignity". Are we more deserving than the King of kings? What about the scorn of Paul, or Stephen or any of the believers in Hebrews 11 who were slaughted and tortured? Should they have demanded and take back their dignity too?
Titus 2 is actually the companion to Proverbs 31. Again, its not about demanding a right to some divine dignity.
Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
Tit 2:6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.
Tit 2:7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity,
Tit 2:8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.
Tit 2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
Tit 2:12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Now you can see what Proverbs 31 is saying, even to the women. Its not about worth, its about bearing fruit of the Spirit and keeping in step with Him as we grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Contrary to Moore's feminist/man-centered claim, its actually about HIM:
Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
According to a document filed with the business division of Colorado's secretary of state, Haggard's wife, Gayle, filed April 29 for a nonprofit corporation named “St. James Church” at the couple's address.
“A corporation does not a church make,” Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said this week. He said the incorporation will support the speaking and traveling he and his wife do across the country.
“There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of people that travel and incorporate in order to manage finances,” he said. “That's what I'm doing.”
Asked if he thought “St. James Church” might one day become a congregation, he said there is “no way to know the future.”
But today his big announcement was that he's starting a new "church" (goat-herd to be more accurate).
Homosexuals, liars, and frauds are not Christians. Nor are those who want the world's applause and to be in the spotlight (yup, another moive might be in the works about this goat-gathering).