Tuesday, October 15, 2013

"Secondary issues" Are Not Secondary

"Secondary issues" are not secondary. Biblical doctrines that "don't touch on salvation" aren't optional. Indeed, sometimes they are the very door through which heresy comes! In fact, error on "secondary issues" can reveal a foundational and/or grave doctrinal error.

Isn't it interesting that the WOF prophets used Grudem to defend themselves--the same man who Reformers use for the SAME REASON: justify unbiblical teaching and practices. 

But hey, Grudemn's  got a lot of good things to offer.


That's what Eve thought about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's exactly what Satan used to seduce her. Its not THAT bad. In fact, its GOOD. 

Is seducing  people into the pagan, worldly, feminist, occultic Charismatic movement good fruit? I believe that fruit is ROTTEN. It is to declare war on the Word by saying Scripture isn't sufficient; that God has a few P.S.'s to give--that there isn't enough clarity and power in the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to change, conform, and equip a life for Christ. It is to flat out reject God's repeated COMMAND to NOT add nor take away from HIS WORD. I have little respect for such men. 

As I said before Grudem is one of the major reasons why Reformers are now Charismatic. They went to the poisoned well and drank the water. By doing so they prove to reject Scripture Only, but rather embrace Scripture PLUS signs and wonders; Scripture PLUS miracles; Scripture PLUS visions and dreams. Its to LIE about holding to Scripture alone. Its also to be a hypocrite.

Is it any wonder why the fruit is poisoned too?

A little leaven leavens the entire loaf.

This is strange fire cloaked in optional views of "secondary" issues.

And this is one reason why strange fire has infested the Reformed movement: had the entire Charismatic movement  been rejected along with ALL of its proponents instead of just some ("the extreme"), the line would have been drawn clearly as God does in Scripture.

Pussy-footing around Warnock, Grudem, Piper, etc and playing favorites (they are not beyond asking for favors--which should have been a clue to  people  that its not of Christ--real Christian leaders are happy to be exposed to the Scriptures in full public view), has merely allowed such treachery to go unpunished. 

Show me where Jesus ever said "agree to disagree" especially when it comes to biblical doctrine and you might have an argument. However, throughout Scripture God tells us HIS ways are best and that His Word is the sole authority for ALL things pertaining to life and godliness.

Put away from you those men who have a low view of Scripture and have as a result of their "ministry" created chaos and confusion. If never a man every spoke rightly of Scripture and Christ again, we have one perfect source from which to quote for eternity:


If people cannot reject a teacher, a pastor, a commentary, a church, or a movement, when such has been shown to be in rebellion against the Lordship of the Lord and have thus declared war on the Word (denying the absolutely and solitary sufficiency of Scripture for all things pertaining to life and godliness), then they are guilty of spiritual idolatry and adultery.

"For the present it behoves believers to be cautious, lest they lend their
support and countenance to the betrayers of the Lord.

Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by a
clever man and a good-natured brother, who has so many fine points about
him. Let each believer judge for himself; but, for our part, we have put on a few
fresh bolts to our door, and we have given orders to keep the chain up; for,
under color of begging the friendship of the servant, there are those about who
aim at robbing THE MASTER."

As Robert Morey put it:

The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.

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

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 clich├ęs 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.

End quote.

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. Rom 16:18  For
such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk
and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

1Ti 6:3  If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4  he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,5  and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 

No comments: