Surph's Side

Driscoll, Chandler, Warren, and Acts 29

2012-02-13T12:29:00.000-08:00

Lovefest with the heretics continues :

Excerpts from Apprising Ministries' article:

Quote:

It would seem that ER2 co-host Mark Driscoll will be increasing his direct involvement with A29:

(Online source)

Now, it’s no secret I’ve been critical of A29, e.g. Mark Driscoll, Acts 29 Network, & The Emerging Church. That noted, I’ve also talked to dear Reformed brothers in A29 who’re not involved with its quasi-contemplative leanings, a growing charismania, and who aren’t pleased with Mark Driscoll’s drift.

However, just the same as I’ll have to do if the SBC doesn’t discipline protholics like Rick Warren and Beth Moore, these brothers are going to have to leave A29 if those problems aren’t cleaned up by it’s leadership. Speaking of leadership, the aforementioned Matt Chandler joins the A-29 board:

(Online source)

So, now we see that Matt Chandler is making a stronger connection with A29 and Mark Driscoll. The next item of interest in Driscoll’s letter actually dovetails into the final concern. Among the “list of items” he wants “focused on this year and would appreciate prayer for” is:

(Online source)

Gospel-centered theology sounds good; but we now have to ask, which Gospel? Here’s where we start to actually derail as Mark Driscoll goes on to tell us of upcoming events:

(Online source)

My point here is more to just make you aware of further cross pollinating going on within SD/A and YR&R. Like interlocking concentric circles, note the same names which keep showing up together since ER1, through COD, and then through ER2. Only it’s growing progressively worse now to include Rick Warren.

As I close this piece out, I’ll leave aside the obvious ecumenical drift of former Gospel Coalition member James MacDonald, who actually resigned from what Steve Camp calls the “Gospel Compromise” so he could invite T.D. Jakes to ER2, There’s More To The Resignation Of James MacDonald From Gospel Coalition.

End quote.

2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

2Jn 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.

General Revelation and Truth

2012-02-13T09:03:00.000-08:00

Doug bookman :

The issue, then, is not whether it is possible that truth might be discovered by human investigation of the natural and moral universe; rather, the issue is whether truth thus discovered can be assigned to the category of general revelation, and to prove that such material discovery can effect spiritual change.

My contention is that by reason of the proper definition of the theological category "general revelation" and by reason of the intrinsic and divine integrity and authority that must be granted to any truth-claim that is placed under that category, it is erroneous and misleading to assign to that category humanly deduced or discovered facts and theories. The issue is larger than appropriate taxonomy. In fact, to assign such humanly determined truths to the category of general revelation introduces a twofold fallacy into the argument when it is used as a rationale for the integrationist position.

First, there is the fallacy that might be termed falsely perceived validity. Revelation is from God; thus it is by definition true and authoritative. To assign human discoveries to the category of general revelation is to imbue them with an aura of validity and consequent authority that they do not, indeed, they cannot merit. Thus, to assign a concept to the category of general revelation when that concept is in fact a theory concocted by a person is, in effect, to lend God’s name to a person’s ideas. That is fallacious, no matter the intrinsic truth or falsehood of the theory under consideration.

The second fallacy might be called crippled accountability. That is, once it is acknowledged that these theories are revelatory in nature, the issue of challenging them becomes moot. Much may be said about testing the ideas thus derived before acknowledging them as part of that august body of truth that God has communicated in the natural order of things, or about honoring the distinction in intrinsic authority between general and special revelations, but to craft an argument for integration based upon the equal merits and authority of general revelation and special revelation is functionally to short-circuit such efforts and to deny such distinctions. Very simply, if it is revelation, then God said it; if God said it, then it is true; when God speaks truth, mankind’s responsibility is not to test that truth but to obey it. It is self-contradictory to insist that general revelation can include truths that must be "studied and examined for their trustworthiness."

In summary, then, the integrationist rationale that arises from the claim that perceived truths established by human research constitute a subset of the category general revelation, and thus possess the authority and dependability native to revelation, is flawed first of all in its misdefinition of the term revelation. Inherent to the biblical concept of revelation is the idea of nondiscoverability.

End quote.

Soft Words For Deceivers

2012-02-13T09:00:00.000-08:00

This is a rebuke of those who continue to call false teachers "brothers in the Lord":

"I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, "He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator." Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration. I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.
According to modern efficiency he ought to have said, "Let him be kindly spoken with in private, but pray make no stir. No doubt the thought was original, and we must not question his liberty. Doubtless, he believes the same as we do, only there is some little difference as to terms."

~ Spurgeon from "Under Constraint," Sunday morning 28 April 1878 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London

1Th 2:5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed--God is witness. 6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

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. 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.

2Jn 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.

Its That Time Of Year: Being Hit Up For Money For "Missions"

2012-02-13T08:42:00.000-08:00

If I want to go on vacation, should I ask for money from my church and people I hardly talk to for months or even years? Should I expect them to finance my trip? Do I think I'm entitled?

I don't think so.

It takes planning ahead, budgeting and saving money, in order to pay for a trip.

Same with a mission trip.

I mean, you planned, went to the meetings, talked with your missions committee, pastor, parents (in some cases as with young people), friends, and yet you didn't take the time to PLAN and SAVE for this trip, and NOW you expect everyone else to chip in? Is that right? Is that ethical? Is that selfish?

In rethinking how the American churches does things, this is certainly one we should reconsider.

First of all Paul did not want to be a burden on the local church, so he had a job as a tent maker.

1Th 2:9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.

Indeed he did get support from other churches at times. But let's remember, "need" was a real need back then. Today, how do we as Christians define a "need"? And Paul did real mission work.

Can we do better than the way we've been doing things in this modern age of "missions"? I think so.

Are you really called to the mission field?

One thing that might help is to see if you are really called to be on the mission field even for short-term, is that you should be evangelizing right here at home. Here in Southern California, there's never a shortage of local evangelism with a plethora of cultures. You don't have to spend thousands of dollars to share the Gospel of another culture.

Define what a mission is.

It should include evangelizing the lost with the Gospel. This is seen throughout Acts. Its not babysitting a "missionary" couple's kids so they can have a date night. Sorry, but that's not what missions is. And yes, I was at a church that actually did this. Talk about expensive babysitting!

Going on sight-seeing tours is not a missions trip; that's called a vacation. And I'm not going to pay for your vacation even though you slap "to the glory of God" on to it. If you are going on a REAL missions trip, if your passion is for the lost, then spend your time and the money given to you for that sole purpose. Time is of the essence especially if you are on a short-term trip. A conference is a conference for professing Christians (even pastors) and not a mission (otherwise think of the countless "missions" everyone goes on here in America annually). If a conference is canceled (which was the point in going to that country as a "mission"), then don't spend the money and go sight-seeing, instead go to the streets and preach the gospel! And yes, I know of few who have done this too when they went to Uganda.

Construction work is not necessarily a mission either. Be very careful about this. What is being built and why? Is this something that could employ the "native" people there? Wouldn't that actually be far less expensive and more helpful to those who need a job there? If construction is truly needed, when do you spend time evangelizing? A hammer in hand is not proclaiming the Gospel. When is the Person and work of Jesus Christ proclaimed by you if you go to help construct a building?

Plan Ahead.

If a person wants to go on a missions trip, plan ahead. For the young person, take a Summer job and save that for your trip the following year. Work during the year to save money. Ask your parents for help. For the adults, same thing. PLAN AHEAD so you won't be a burden to your church or friends. They should be giving to their local churches anyway. The church directory is not a list to hit up people for money, especially if you are putting kids through a private college and both mom and dad work. Contacting people you don't even talk to and haven't seen for years, just to finance your trip---I'll be honest, it smacks of using others. That's how I feel anyway. Literally. There's no investment in the relationship for years and years, then suddenly after a few FB exhanges, we're good to hit up for money when you make a good wage? Really? That's what I'm good for? Never mind ever talking about spiritual things, but boy I look like a possible money giver to you? Ouch.

Be Equipped: Do you know the Gospel?

What gospel will be preached, IF one is preached at all? Are those asking for money, equipped with the knowledge of the Gospel? I don't mean the "Jesus loves you and just ask Him into your heart" "gospel" which is NO gospel at all. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is offensive because it tells the sinner he IS a sinner, wicked before the holy God and must give an account. It declares the Lordship of the Lord, counting the cost, the wrath of God as well as the peace of God. God's love is not part of the Gospel proclamation, nor is one's will.

Last year we were happily surprised to find some friends of our's wrote us about their missions trip and they said they were not asking for any money, but rather for prayer. Wow! And that's how it should be. Perhaps that's the way to do it and if God leads some to give, they can give without being asked.

Have we as Christians fallen for the entitlement mentality? That we are entitled to having others pay our way to something we know we want to do months in advance? Why is it an automatic notion that the church will pay for your trip?

These are some things I think we need to consider, especially in this season of asking for summer missions money.

Beware of Balaam

2012-02-09T07:43:00.000-08:00

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Shittim unto Gilgal; that ye may know the righteousness of the LORD." (Micah 6:5)

Three New Testament writers have left us sober warnings concerning Balaam. Peter warned against "the way of Balaam"; Jude, against "the error of Balaam"; and John, against "the doctrine of Balaam" (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14). God evidently considers these warnings necessary and appropriate for Christians even today. Yet Balaam, in his day, was a genuine prophet (note 2 Peter 2:16), possessed great knowledge concerning God, and even received direct revelations from God. What, therefore, were his way, his error, and his doctrine?

"The way of Balaam" was a readiness to prostitute his high spiritual gifts and privileges for "the wages of unrighteousness" (v. 15); being willing to preach something contrary to God's word for personal gain.

"The error of Balaam" was evidently his willingness to compromise his own standards of morality and truth in order "greedily" to accommodate those of his pagan patrons (Jude 11). Finally, "the doctrine of Balaam," which even in John's day was already infiltrating the church, was to use his own teaching authority to persuade God's people that it was all right for them also to compromise their standards, even "to commit fornication" (Revelation 2:14) with their idolworshiping enemies.

The notoriously corrupt state of much that is counterfeiting true Christian ministry today is clear evidence that those warnings against "Balaam-ism" are still urgently needed. No wonder Micah (the faithful prophet) urged God's people to "remember" Balaam and his tragic end (Numbers 31:8). HMM

End quote.

This is true of many of today's famous "Christian" teachers/pastors/authors/speakers.

Act 20:29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Going Heretical Is Gradual

2012-02-08T21:52:00.000-08:00

People don’t often go heretical all at once. It is gradual. And they do
not do so intentionally most of the time. They slip into it through
shoddiness and laziness in handling the word of truth… All it takes to
start the road to heresy is a craving for something new and different,
a flashy new idea, along with a little laziness or carelessness or lack
of precision in handling the truth of God. All around us today are
startling reminders of doctrinal slippage and outright failure. In case
after case someone who should have known the truth of God better failed
in upholding that truth.

Robert Thomas
Precision as God’s Will for My Life, pamphlet, The Master’s Seminary,
1989.

Do not be afraid!

2012-02-08T21:45:00.001-08:00

"So do not be afraid--for I am with you;
do not be dismayed--for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with My righteous right hand!"
Isaiah 41:10

God has arranged all our concerns with consummate wisdom, in the very best possible manner.

He overrules all events by His omnipotent power.

He directs all things by His paternal love.

If infinite wisdom, omnipotent power, and paternal love, are engaged for our present and eternal welfare--then our fears must be groundless, and our anxiety folly. Our fears only . . .
dishonor God,
distress the mind,
please Satan,
and grieve the godly.

(James Smith, "The Believer's Companion in Seasons of Affliction and Trouble" 1842)

Piper Endorses Sex Book By Divorced Emergent Priest

2012-02-07T19:43:00.000-08:00

John Piper endorses a feminist Emergent who's got a book on sex (as if we need MORE).She is not only Emergent, she's a divorced woman (2009) and was ordained into the Episcopal church in 2011. Her name is Lauren Winner. Desiring "God" is giving this book away, he love it that much. Here is what's wrong with Winner, as if the above isn't enough.

So you can be divorced, convert from Orthodox Judaism to the false Episcopalian church (daughter of Rome), promote Contemplative Spirituality,and be a priest in a false church.

Piper continues to promote enemies of the cross, violating 2 John 9-11.

Emergents, The Elephant Room, The "Gospel" Coalition: consider the Jesus of Scripture That You Can't Ignore

2012-02-06T21:51:00.000-08:00

"The Jesus You Can't Ignore" by John MacArthur

Excerpts:

Men and women who lack a biblical worldview tend to think of religion as the noblest expression of the human character. Popular opinion in the world at large has generally regarded religion as something inherently admirable, honorable, and beneficial.

In reality, no other field of the humanities—philosophy, literature, the arts, or whatever—holds quite as much potential for mischief as religion. Nothing is more thoroughly evil than false religion, and the more false teachers try to cloak themselves in the robes of biblical truth, the more truly Satanic they are.

Nevertheless, benign ....looking, suavely ....religious emissaries of Satan are ordinary, not extraordinary. Redemptive history is full of them, and the Bible continually warns about such false teachers—savage wolves in sheep’s clothing, “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:13–15). Delivering his farewell speech at Ephesus, the apostle Paul told the elders of that young but already beleaguered church, “I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the f lock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29–30, emphasis added). He was warning them that false teachers would arise not only from within the church, but that they would creep unnoticed into the leadership of the church (cf. Jude 4). It undoubtedly happened in Ephesus, and it has happened again and again in every phase of church history. False teachers robe themselves in the garments of God. They want people to believe that they represent God, that they know God, that they have special insight into divine truth and wisdom, even though they are emissaries of hell itself. In 1 Timothy 4:1–3, Paul prophesied that the church of the last days would be assaulted by false teachers with a Pharisaical approach to asceticism, which they would use as a cloak for licentiousness: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

Notice how Scripture emphatically says false teachers who like to wear a cloak of self ....righteousness and hide under the pretense of orthodoxy are evil, envoys of the devil, teachers of demonic doctrines. Again, nothing is more thoroughly diabolical than false religion, and we are warned repeatedly and explicitly not to take false teaching lightly because of its close resemblance to the truth...

Any literal shepherd tasked with feeding and leading a flock of lambs would be thought deranged if he regarded wolves as potential pets to be domesticated and amalgamated into the fold. Suppose he actively sought and tried to befriend young wolves, presuming he could teach them to mingle with his sheep—insisting against all wise counsel that his experiment might succeed, and if it does, the wolves will acquire the sheep’s gentleness and the sheep will learn things from the wolves, too. Such a shepherd would be worse than useless; he himself would pose an extreme danger to the flock.

Nearly as bad would be a shepherd whose vision is myopic. He has never seen a wolf clearly with his own eyes. He therefore believes the threat of wolves is grossly exaggerated. Even though his sheep keep disappearing or getting torn to shreds by something, he refuses to believe it is wolves that are harming his flock. He declares that he is tired of hearing shrill wolf ....warnings from others. He begins telling the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf ” to everyone who will listen. Finally concluding that other people’s “negativity” toward wolves poses a greater danger to his flock than the wolves themselves, he takes out his reed and plays a gentle tune to lull the lambs to sleep. Then, of course, there is the “hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep.” He “sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and f lees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling f lees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep” (John 10:12–13).

Self seeking hirelings, myopic shepherds, and wannabe wolf tamers are all too prevalent in the church today. So are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Frankly, some of the postmodern lambswool costumes aren’t even the least bit convincing. But some pastors seem to have no hesitancy about unleashing these eager wolves among their flocks. Many are like the near ....sighted shepherd in my parable—convinced that warnings about the threat of wolves are potentially more dangerous than actual wolves.

Contemporary evangelicalism in general seems to have no taste whatsoever for any kind of doctrinal friction—much less open conflict with spiritual wolves. The Evangelical Manifesto I cited in the introduction to this book clearly reflects that point of view, expressing many more words of concern about evangelical public relations than it ever does for evangelical doctrinal soundness. The document confidently asserts that “the Evangelical message, ‘good news’ by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative.”14 That’s a considerable overstatement—especially given the fact that Paul’s systematic outline of the gospel in Romans begins with the words, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Romans 1:18) and then goes on for almost three full chapters expounding on the depth and universality of human “ungodliness and unrighteousness,” which is what unleashed God’s wrath in the first place. Only after he has made the bad news inescapable does Paul introduce the gospel’s good news. He follows the very same pattern in abbreviated form in Ephesians 2:1–10.

As we are going to see, Jesus Himself was not always positive before being negative. Some of His longest discourses, including all of Matthew 23, were entirely negative.

The recent Evangelical Manifesto gives a nod of commendation to “those in the past for their worthy desire to be true to the fundamentals of faith,” but then it seems to suggest that militancy in defense of the core truths of Christianity is always to be avoided. In fact, the main reason the manifesto gives for listing “conservative fundamentalism” as one of two opposite corruptions of the true Protestant spirit (the other being “liberal revisionism”) is that certain fundamentalists have resisted the liberalizing tendency with “styles of reaction that are personally and publicly militant to the point where they are sub ....Christian.”15.....

Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41–44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (Matthew 23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full compassion.

Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.

This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation they are.”

This approach would surely have earned Jesus an resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and postmodern evangelicals—the neo evangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus words about the Pharisees and His treatment of them are breathtakingly severe. Let’s turn back to the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry and observe how this hostility between Him and the Pharisees began and how it developed.

I think many readers will be surprised to discover that it was Jesus who fired the first shot. And it was a shockingly powerful broadside.

End quote.

Heaven Is For Real But the Book Isn't Biblical

2012-02-01T19:32:00.000-08:00

An excellent critique of Todd Burpo's book, "Heaven Is For Real".

Book Review: “Heaven is For Real” by Pastor Mike Wing of Grace Community Bible Church

True Peacemakers: Never Peace At Any Price And Often It Brings Strife First

2012-02-01T11:59:00.000-08:00

John MacArthur on Peace Makers:

And He knows that true peace can only come when truth reigns and it's more than a truce. It's a real peace. And so when somebody comes along and says well, you know, you have such a narrow view and you need to be more ecumenical. You need to sort of just set aside what you don't agree with and just find the point of agreement and dive in. We just all need to get together and discuss what we agree on. Well, let me tell you something, Christ never pronounced blessing on apostates. And if there was ever anybody that He met who had a point of error, invariably He nailed that point of error. Because the only real peace comes when we respond to the truth.

If I disagree with somebody about something in the word of God some great truth that's important in the word of God, I cannot evade it. I cannot avoid that and be called a peacemaker. For while I may call a truce, I haven't helped that individual to make peace with God and the end is going to be the same. So biblical peacemakers are not quiet, easygoing people who just want to make no waves and no issues who lack justice, who lack a sense of righteousness, who are compromisers, who are appeasers. No, people say oh he's such a peacemaker. And they mean by that he has no convictions. That isn't the issue.

A true biblical peacemaker will not let sleeping dogs lie. He will not save the status quo if truth must be brought to bear on the issue. He doesn't say well, you know, I know the person's doing wrong, but oh I just would rather have a peaceful situation. Don't want to say anything about what my son is doing or what my husband is doing or what our friends are doing. Just want to keep peace, that's a cop out. True peace only comes after the truth. So the meaning of peace it is real peace. It is not just peace at any price. It is not keeping the status quo. It is not calling a halt to the shooting while we reload. It is not simply a truce. It is not reducing it to a cold war. It is resolving it by the truth. Bringing to bear the righteousness of God.

End quote.

Excerpts from the MacArthur Commentary on Matt. 5:

The popular philosophy of the world, bolstered by the teaching of many psychologists and counselors, is to put self first. But when self is first, peace is last. Self precipitates strife, division, hatred, resentment, and war. It is the great ally of sin and the great enemy of righteousness and, consequently, of peace.

The writer of Hebrews links peace with purity when he instructs believers to "pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14). Peace cannot be divorced from holiness. "Righteousness and peace have kissed each other" is the beautiful expression of the psalmist (Ps. 85:10). Biblically speaking, then, where there is true peace there is righteousness, holiness, and purity. Trying to bring harmony by compromising righteousness forfeits both.

Jesus’ saying "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34) seems to be the antithesis of the seventh beatitude. His meaning, however, was that the peace He came to bring is not peace at any price. There will be opposition before there is harmony; there will be strife before there is peace. To be peacemakers on God’s terms requires being peacemakers on the terms of truth and righteousness-to which the world is in fierce opposition. When believers bring truth to bear on a world that loves falsehood, there will be strife. When believers set God’s standards of righteousness before a world that loves wickedness, there is an inevitable potential for conflict. Yet that is the only way.

Until unrighteousness is changed to righteousness there cannot be godly peace. And the process of resolution is difficult and costly. Truth will produce anger before it produces happiness; righteousness will produce antagonism before it produces harmony. The gospel brings bad feelings before it can bring good feelings. A person who does not first mourn over his own sin will never be satisfied with God’s righteousness.

To talk of peace without talking of repentance of sin is to talk foolishly and vainly. Peacemaking cannot come by circumventing sin, because sin is the source of every conflict.

The bad news of the gospel comes before the good news. Until a person confronts his sin, it makes no sense to offer him a Savior. Until a person faces his false notions, it makes no sense to offer him the truth. Until a person acknowledges his enmity with God, it makes no sense to offer him peace with God.

Believers cannot avoid facing truth, or avoid facing others with the truth, for the sake of harmony. If someone is in serious error about a part of God’s truth, he cannot have a right, peaceful relationship with others until the error is confronted and corrected. Jesus never evaded the issue of wrong doctrine or behavior. He treated the Samaritan woman from Sychar with great love and compassion, but He did not hesitate to confront her godless life. First He confronted her with her immoral living: "You have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband" (John 4:18). Then He corrected her false ideas about worship: "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:21–22).

The person who is not willing to disrupt and disturb in God’s name cannot be a peacemaker. To come to terms on anything less than God’s truth and righteousness is to settle for a truce-which confirms sinners in their sin and may leave them even further from the kingdom. Those who in the name of love or kindness or compassion try to witness by appeasement and compromise of God’s Word will find that their witness leads away from Him, not to Him. God’s peacemakers will not let a sleeping dog lie if it is opposed to God’s truth; they will not protect the status quo if it is ungodly and unrighteous. They are not willing to make peace at any price. God’s peace comes only in God’s way. Being a peacemaker is essentially the result of a holy life and the call to others to embrace the gospel of holiness.

End quote.

Come Down Hard On James MacDonald, but Hands Off John Piper for the Same Thing!

2012-01-31T14:12:00.000-08:00

Interesting how discernment bloggers have not been really noticed much since this Elephant Room/TD Jakes thing has happened. Yet those who mocked them are quite in demand for folks to hear what they have to say.

The problem is, while these vocal men beat their chests against MacDonald embracing TD Jakes as a Christian (with only a very light treatment of Mark Driscoll who is equally culpable) yet they won't beat their chest against Piper. Piper's been at this for far longer, as has Mark Driscoll.

Perhaps these fiery blogging wretched men types should just be patient and give MacDonald the respect he deserves, allowing for him to clarify himself, after all, the man's a pastor.

Right?

Oh, that was just for Piper. Over and over Piper (even as I type this) parades around his friend, heretic Doug Wilson (who denies Justification by Faith alone and denies the New Covenant is solely for believers by the blood of Christ), is speaking at the Desiring conference. Why, just a week or two ago, Piper tweeted how Allah and Adonai can be known and loved only through the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ! Allah--the modern equivalent of Baal in the O.T. days. Allah, who is not triune and has no Son (among other things) and is absolutely without question DEMONIC. Yeah, Piper, the seasoned Tweeter, pastor, author, and speaker said THAT blasphemous statement. And what did the fire blogger say? He told folks to give him some grace (after all, 140 characters is hardly enough room to "exeget" Scripture! Piper wouldn't contradict all his orthodox preaching by merely one tweet!). Where's the same call for grace for MacDonald? There's no difference here: the modalist god and Allah t are both false gods with false gospels, neither can save and both are demons and spout doctrines of demons.

Let's not forget, either, that Piper has also paraded around and defended with stubborn defiance, Rick Warren, another infamous heretic.

So why come down so hard on MacDonald when they give a pass and a myriad of excuses to Piper?

And what about Mark the dirty, x-rated "pastor" Dricsoll?

Well, never mind. Its not like some of us have warned folks about Piper, Driscoll, and Jakes for years or anything. Its not like we didn't sound the warning bell of the Elephant Stampeded or the "Religious" Coalition. Its not like anyone has a REAL problem with Tim Keller who's on that board along with Piper and Driscoll--a man who along with Piper, denies the Genesis Creation account, who denies Justification by faith (yup Federal visionist too), who promotes New Agers.

Nope. It seems these big boy self-proclaimed discerners of the discerners have no discernment nor passion for the truth when it comes to some men rather than everyone who fails the test of Scripture as faithful teachers and Christians.

Welcome to the Post-Modern, man-centered, hypocritical, Christian Hedonistic Jungle. The elephants are only one problem!

Piper's Desiring Conference Includes A Heretic, a Heretic Defender, and an Emergent

2012-01-30T19:52:00.000-08:00

Desiring (I don't know what kind of )God conference is going on this week. It will be the platform to fit Piper's latest book "Bloodlines". More propaganda. More book selling. More back-slapping. More good-ole-boy-club.

"Joining Piper at this year's conference, titled, "God, Manhood & Ministry – Building Men for the Body of Christ," will be Doug Wilson, Crawford Loritts, Darren Patrick, and Ramez Atallah." ~ Source

Doug Wilson is a heretic who teaches Federal Visionism.

Darren Patrick is an Emergent. He was also a panelist at Lausanne Congress in March 2010.

Ramez Atallah is connected to Piper's and Warren's beloved ecumenical Lausanne Congress. Go here for his connection and story of how he got involved in the LC.

Crawford Loritts

Loritts of anti-anti-TD Jakes fame will be speaking at the Desiring Conference. A racist leaning guy ( "middle aged white Reformed guys" ) and heretic defender, its fitting that he joins the Desiring conference because 1) Piper fellowships with heretics, outright rebelling against the command of 2 John 9-11 and Romans 16:17-18, and Gal. 1:8-9), and 2) fits his social justice book "Bloodlines".

Lorrits who came against Reformers (he says he's a reformer not Reformer, whatever that means), of which Piper and Driscoll claim to be, slaming Reformers for declaring Jakes to be a heretic. Lorrits, revealing his ignorance, doesn't realize Jakes never did repent of his muktiple heresies including his false gospel and defender of homosexual theology apparently. Using 1Cor. 13 to rally Christians around the wolf Jakes out of "love", what he fails to recognize is that 1Cor. 13:6 states that agape love rejoices in the TRUTH and hates wickedness. Agape love would be to hate the heresies Jakes teaches, to reject the man as a Christian, to share the gospel with him, and then to call him to repentance.

Slamming the critics of MacDonald and Jakes for "not coming to the event or considering giving Bishop a fair hearing", he didn't give a fair hearing to the critics either, it seems. Had he done so, and had he truly believed Gal. 1:8-9 and 2John 9-11, he would have supported the critics of Jakes and his cheerleaders, not judge them unrighteously. And by the way, we don't need to sit in elephant dung to know where Jakes is on the doctrine of God and the Gospel; we know by his own words and by knowing biblical truth and therefore HOW to discern error. Besides it was aired later. Had Jakes changed his views, he would have repented boldly, publicly, and repeated on all the media outlets he uses, admitting to finally be saved and rejecting all his heresies. That did NOT happen prior to the meeting. Besides, had he changed his views, what would be the point of being on the show?

That's right. Lorrits is judging others for judging Jakes. His warnings are empty because he himself doesn't have enough discernment to know that Jakes has not repented of his damnable doctrine nor therefore, gotten saved.

Loving the world is conspiracy against the Lord. True love will tell a heretic the TRUTH and not coddle him in his damnable error as he skips his way to Hell.

James White dealt with his accusations here since apparently he was thrown into the generalization of "middle aged white Reformed guys").

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you do not associate with anyone who bears the name of

brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or

swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

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.

Why I Am Disappointed With Voddie Baucham

2012-01-30T10:06:00.000-08:00

Voddie Bauchm wrote about his recent activities regarding The Elephant Room 2 and James MacDonald's Men's Conference speaking engagement. While I am glad he did not participate in either, and rightly publicly rejects TD Jakes as a Christian, I do have some concerns.

Sadly, Baucham showed a few errors in his explanation of why he didn't go to The Elephant Room 2 and MacDonald's Men's Conference following the Elephant Room debacle. I do appreciate his willingness to admit it was an unwise decision to go to the Harvest conference, and I appreciate that he was public to some extent. However here are my concerns....

1) He wrong assumed that two Emergents, namely the dirty X-rated Mark Driscoll, would have ANY spiritual wisdom or discernment regarding Jakes and his modalism."There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time." Prior to the ER show, would've been the right time to reveal this---moreover Jakes himself would have proclaimed this IF he had repented and gotten saved.

2) He calls the dogmatic defender of Jakes, James MacDonald "a brother in the Lord" with whom he merely disagrees."I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. "

It appears that perhaps Baucham was still willing to speak at MacDonald's church because he sees MacDonald as a "brother in the Lord", and frankly he shouldn't. It seems it was MacDonald who had the bigger problem which was Baucham which was publicly judging Jakes (as he should), but Baucham didn't have a problem with the embracing of a heretic by MacDonald.

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.

Joh 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

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

2Co 6:14 Do not be 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.

3) He was deliberately silent over the ER 2, which IS the problem with public pastors/teachers, especially when they are connected to the ER's "Gospel Coalition". Silence is NOT an option, I don't care who 'else' has spoken out. Being a contributor of The "Gospel" Coalition, he had a responsibility to speak out on the ER issue. As a member of that religious coalition he had a duty to publicly rebuke the organization he is part of. Moreover, will he continue in that unholy alliance?

"First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2. I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further. There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light). I do not regret this decision. "

But when he did go public: "This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport."

So again, I'm left disappointed, but not surprised.

Why men have to make that tiresome qualification of calling someone in damnable error (by promoting a known false teacher) a "brother in the Lord" and thus make it an issue of "agree to disagree" is beyond me. James MacDonald has proven himself over the last few months at least, to be an enemy of the Lord and HIS people (note, not only has he raked his critics over the coals, he jettisoned two of them, from attending the ER, and had already made plans for Baucham to be replaced by another man for the Men's conference, because Baucham was public with the issue).

In The Downgrade Contraversy, written primarily by Spurgeon :

We are grateful to the editor of Word and Work for speaking out so plainly. He says:—
"In The Sword and the Trowel for the present month Mr. Spurgeon gives no uncertain sound concerning departures from the faith. His exposure of the dishonesty which, under the cover of orthodoxy, assails the very foundations of faith is opportune in the interests of truth. No doubt, like a faithful prophet in like evil times, he will be called a 'troubler of Israel,' and already we have noticed he has been spoken of as a pessimist; but any such attempts to lessen the weight of his testimony are only certain to make it more effective. When a strong sense of duty prompts public speech it will be no easy task to silence it.
"The preachers of false doctrine dislike nothing more than the premature detection of their doings. Only give them time enough to prepare men's minds for the reception of their 'new views,' and they are confident of success. They have had too much time already, and any who refuse to speak out now must be held to be 'partakers of their evil deeds.' As Mr. Spurgeon says, 'A little plain-speaking would do a world of good just now. These gentlemen desire to be let alone. They want no noise raised. Of course thieves hate watch-dogs, and love darkness. It is time that somebody should spring his rattle, and call attention to the way in which God is being robbed of his glory and man of his hope.'

End quote.

God will not be mocked. He will indeed bring out what was done in secret by men who call themselves Christian teachers yet wed themselves to wolves. Secondary separation becomes, indeed, primary separation because such men who fellowship ("greet" ---"rejoice" as it says in 2John 11) show that they are wicked men without love for the Truth, God, and the souls of others. For a simliar view go to Daniel's Place.

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.
1Jn 2:15 "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. " Wolves like Piper, Driscoll, and MacDonald love the world; they have NO love for the things of God, that which is pure, but rather they love that which is impure, unholy, and approve of those who also do likewise (namely each other).

Sissified Jesus vs the HOLY HOLY HOLY Jesus of Scripture

2012-01-28T20:45:00.000-08:00

2012-01-28T09:34:00.001-08:00

Be what you profess!
You profess to be a Christian: be a Christian.

You say that you are a follower of Christ: follow him, then.

You know it is right to be a man of integrity and uprightness:
be so.

Count all things but dross that you may be a true man,
a godly man, a holy man, a Christly man.
-Spurgeon, "The Sons of God"

2012-01-28T09:33:00.001-08:00

AGAINST THE FLOW!

-Spurgeon, "The Beloved Pastor's Plea for Unity"

You see that the men of this world are coming this way in a
great crowd, all in a hurry, rushing after their gods.

And we believers, what are we doing?

Threading our way, as best we can, pushing our way 'against'
the stream, going in an exactly opposite direction to the rest
of mankind.

Some of you cannot do this- you keep getting carried off
your legs, and you are swept along by the torrent.

But the man of God must go against the current.
He is not to be swept back- but he is always pressing
forward, ever seeking to make an advance, contending for
every inch, and making up his mind that, come what may, he
cannot go back.
That is not his way- he must go forward,
ever pressing on toward the city that has foundations.

Christians are like a live fish that goes up the stream,
always 'up' the stream.

If the fish comes 'down' the stream,
and you see it floating with its white belly on
the top of the water, you know that it is dead.

But the live Christian is going straight up the stream-
straight up, up, up.

Whichever way the tide may be running,
whether it is at the ebb or at the flood,
he is going straight up the stream, against the flow.

And, God helping him, he will proceed
in that way right to the end.

2012-01-28T09:31:00.001-08:00

Philippians 3:7

(Philpot, "The Loss of All Things for Christ's Sake")

"But whatever was to my profit I now consider
loss for the sake of Christ." Philippians 3:7

This includes the loss . . .
of all your fancied holiness,
of all your vaunted strength,
of all your natural or acquired wisdom,
of all your boasted knowledge;
in a word, of everything in creature religion of which
the heart is proud, and in which it takes delight.

All, all must be counted loss for Christ's sake—all,
all must be sacrificed to His bleeding, dying love.

Our dearest joys,
our fondest hopes,
our most cherished idols,
must all sink and give way to the grace,
blood, and love of an incarnate God.

2012-01-28T09:30:00.001-08:00

THE POWER OF CHARACTER
-Spurgeon, "Words to Rest On"
Men will put great trust in the words of one whose life
agrees with his teaching. If they can detect something
inconsistent in his character, the man's power is ended.

But if a man is evidently carried away with the one idea of
being and doing good, and consumed with the purpose of
glorifying God, then his utterances have power.

It is not what he says, but the man who says it,
that makes the impression.

It is the life behind the words, the holy confidence in God
every day exhibited, the calm restful walk with God which
everybody can see in his very face, which, to a thoughtful
man, makes his feeblest accent more powerful than the
most furious declamation of a mere rhetorician.

The "Gospel" Coalition's Silence On Embracing Modalism Is Deafening

2012-01-28T09:09:00.000-08:00

I find the silence from the rest of the big boys of The Religious Coalition to be deafening and quite frankly, sickening. It seems many of these men are cowards. I applaud Baucham for standing up for the Truth and dividing away from the heretics.

James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll should be rebuked publicly and frankly quite harshly since these men fancy themselves to be mature Christians via their position as pastors. Tim Keller is another false teacher there, so this isn't limited to just the kindred spirits with heretic TD Jakes.

This is an example of why these coalitions are just silly. They answer to no one and they embrace everyone except those who rebuke them.

Btw, the Religious Coalition threatened arresting a few folks if they did not leave even though they had paid for their registration. One GC employee threatened another person to be silent.

God won't be silent. He will not allow HIS name to be maligned. What was done in secret will be brought to the light BY HIM. Those who are loyal to Christ, those who have the love of the Truth, will NOT find any common ground with such enemies of the Cross, but rather expose the deeds of darkness, hating even the garments worn by such treasonous men.

Voddie Baucham Drops Out As Speaker At the Harvest Men's Conference

2012-01-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

"Voddie Baucham Ministries

Urgent Update: In light of our differences regarding ER2, James McDonald and I have agreed that it is best for me not to participate in the event this weekend. My apologies to those of you who made the trip expecting that I would be there."

Well done! Be loyal to Christ alone and be a good example to others by dropping out b/c MacDonald is a heretic as much as TD Jakes whom he has warmly accepted as a Christian when he is not. MacDonald has violated 2John 9-11:

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

2012-01-27T17:16:00.000-08:00

Side by Side comparison....MacDonald and Driscoll then....MacDonald and Driscoll now.

How To Deal With False Teachers: utterly reject them, not give them a platform

2012-01-27T10:09:00.000-08:00

2Jn 1:8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Notes on this passage:

8 do not lose those things we worked for. Although a reward is generally promised Christians for hospitality (e.g., Matt. 10:41; 25:40; Mark 9:41), the idea here is of the fullness of a believer’s reward for all the good he has done (see 1 Cor. 3:10–17; 2 Cor. 5:9,10). A loss of that reward may occur to any believer who does not discriminate fellowship on the basis of adherence to the truth (Col. 2:18,19; 3:24,25). This is a potent warning. All the eternal (re)ward one earns by seeing Christ purely, eagerly, and effectively in the Spirit can be diminished by any aiding or abetting of false teaching.

9 does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. A failure to be faithful to the fundamental, sound doctrines of the faith (a proper view of the person and work of Christ, love, obedience) marks a person as having never been born again (1 John 2:23; 3:6–10; 4:20,21; 5:1–3). The word "abide" has the idea of constant adherence and warns that these fundamentals are not open to change or subject to the latest trends or philosophical fads.

10 do not receive him into your house nor greet him. John’s prohibition is not a case of entertaining people who disagree on minor matters. These false teachers were carrying on a regular campaign to destroy the basic, fundamental truths of Christianity. Complete disassociation from such heretics is the only appropriate course of action for genuine believers. No benefit or aid of any type (not even a greeting) is permissible. Believers should aid only those who proclaim the truth (vv. 5–8).

11 shares in his evil deeds. Hospitality to such leaders aids the spread of their heresy and inevitably leaves the impression of sanctioning the teachings of these antichrists (cf. 1 John 2:22). Supreme loyalty to God and His Word alone must characterize the actions of every true believer.

~MacArthur's study bible

Truth: The Test of Christian Hospitality by John MacArthur

Excerpts: [emphasis, mine]

This is written to a lady and her children about how to live in the truth and love in the truth and be loyal to the truth. And what really prompted this letter was the issue of Christian hospitality. As I've been telling you in those times there were preachers who traveled around to the churches to preach the gospel and to bring the truth of God to the people of God. And the only way they could do that would be to be received into the homes. Inns were unacceptable, dangerous places, immoral places. And so people opened their homes. In fact, the Bible lays down hospitality as a very important part of Christian life.

One of the dangers, of course, was that false teachers knew about this. And they wanted to get in too, just like they want to get into Christian radio, Christian television, Christian publications, etc. I asked one of the great publishers in America why he published a heretical book and he looked at me like, "What do you mean? We publish everything." Didn't even understand the question. These people want to get in everywhere. They don't want to operate outside the Kingdom, they want to operate as much inside as they can. So they push their Trojan Horse through the city gates and then let loose the damaging army of error. And what happened was, in the early church, false teachers pretending to represent Christ would travel around, it was a great gig to make a living, you went in, you stayed with somebody, ate their food, they took an offering for you, and you went to the next place, and you just kept getting more money and more money as you went along. And at the time, of course, you were representing Satan and undermining the truth and damaging the lives of people.

Apparently this lady wanting to be hospitable had done this. She had allowed herself to be put in a very compromising situation, a very dangerous situation for both her and the church, to give a place where the false teacher could be embedded in the very fellowship of saints. And so John writes this letter to warn her and her children and everybody else and maybe he had heard about this from her sister who is mentioned in verse 13, because as he was writing, most likely, from Ephesus, he says to her, "The children of your chosen sister greet you," so she had a sister and maybe it was the sister that had told him about this problem. Here was probably a compassionate, tender-hearted, gracious lady and her children that wanted to allow these people who said they were Christ's into the home. And so the letter is written as a warning. The church was loving, the church was hospitable. The church was gracious. And so they were vulnerable.

So John writes to establish the limits of our loving. We live in the truth. We love within the confines of the truth. And we are loyal to the truth. Now we come to verse 9, and let me add another little "L" in our list, living in the truth, loving in the truth, being loyal to the truth, we have to be looking for the truth...we have to be looking for the truth. The perspective here in verse 9 through 11 is a perspective of protection...protection. John laid out the reality of the truth of redemption back in 1 John when repeatedly in 1 John he talks about one of the marks of a true believer being an understanding of the Son of God and the Father. First John 2:22, "Who is a liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ, this is the antichrist. Whoever denies the Son doesn't have the Father, the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

And so, verse 9 says, "Anyone who goes beyond what is written and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God." Now the teaching of Christ...immediately you're asking yourself...what does that mean? Is that a subjective genitive or an objective genitive? That is, is Christ the subject or the object? Is it His teaching or is it teaching about Him?

Answer: yes...yes. It is the teaching about Him which, of course, is consistent with His teaching. You could never separate the two, could you? And that's why you don't need to argue over whether the Greek subjective or objective genitive is in view here, there's nothing to choose between. Both are the same. The truth about Christ is taught by Christ. The point is, the biblical revelation about Jesus Christ...if someone goes beyond that or does not remain true to that, they do not have God. Listen, you can't be saved without the gospel. You can't even be saved with a warped gospel. You can't be saved without believing in Jesus Christ. You can't even be saved without believing in the one true Christ.

You know, you really have to look for this today. I mean, you have to have your theological magnifying glass with the little nuances people want to use to somehow escape a real assessment. The one who is faithful to a biblical Christology, the one who menoremains in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. You don't get the Father without the Son. You don't get the Son disconnected from the Father. There's no possibility of knowing God apart from knowing Christ. This is the strongest statement on gospel exclusivity anywhere. It's a packaged deal. Yo don't know the Father except by the Son. "No man comes unto the Father but by Me."

So that is the principle of looking for the truth. And when you meet someone who has perverted it, deviated from it, added to it, gone beyond it, act wisely...act wisely. And how would you act wisely? Verse 10, "Ifanyonecomes to you," and they did, this is A with the indicative, a likely condition. It probably happened to this lady, as I've said, as to many through the centuries and many even today, and even us as they've kind of come into our house through the television and radio and whatever, and sometimes even knocking on the door. "If anyone comes to you and does not bear this teaching....what teaching?...the teaching of Christ, that is about Him by Him, do not receive him into your house." This is not someone coming to learn from you or you'd never be able to witness to an unbeliever. This is someone coming to teach you lies. Understand the difference? We answer the questions of the ignorant. We answer the questions of those who want to know. We don't affirm or give a platform to the deceivers. The fastest way to put them out of business is to make sure that you never receive them. If anyone comes to you, I'm not talking about someone ignorant who wants to understand the truth. We're talking about an apostate lying deceiver looking for a foothold embedded in the fellowship of believers to make money off the unsuspecting while he plies his evil lies. Don't receive him into your house.

He could have said, "Don't receive him in your church." That's true, but then churches were not the first place they would go. Why? Because churches were protected by what group of men? Elders. And what...what was necessary to be an elder? First Timothy 3, they had to be...end of verse 2...didaktikos, skilled teachers. So you wouldn't expect a false teacher just to invade a church. He's not going to get in here. We have elders who are skilled teachers. Titus 1:9, "Elders are able to hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the doctrine and are able both to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict." And they can handle the rebellious men, the empty talkers, and deceivers. That's what elders and pastors do. So they don't come to the church. That's where they ultimately end up, that's where they'd like to end up. They don't come there first, they go to the home. They want to get you on your front porch. They want to get you through the television or the radio. They want to find their way to those who are vulnerable. In 2 Timothy 3 and verse 5 it says, "These false teachers have a form of godliness without power." And verse 6 says, "They enter into households and they captivate weak women." Hmmm, that's what they do. They look for the weak and the sympathetic and tender hearted and compassionate and embed themselves there and start their divesting of those people's resources and the confusion of their minds. Don't let them in your house. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly." And this doesn't apply to new Christians, or those who seek a full knowledge of Christ. These people are not learners, they are...what?...teachers, the emissaries of deception.

But that's not all it says. They are so dangerous, not only do you not let them in, look at the end of verse 10, "Do not give him a greeting...do not give him a greeting." Saintly Polycarp met a heretic and greeted him with this, "I recognize Satan's firstborn." Greeting...greeting is chairo, it means to give a greeting, literally means to rejoice. That was the Christian greeting, standard Christian greeting to rejoice. That is to say to someone, "Rejoice." In other words, this is a happy occasion to see you, it produces joy. Your presence is a source of joy. Welcome to the fellowship...is an affirmation of solidarity. You don't ever want to say that to a false teacher and a deceiver and a liar and an emissary of Satan, somebody who has gone beyond what the Bible teaches about Christ. Don't ever say that to a false teacher.

You say, "Well, that's narrow." You bet. You say, "That's harsh." You've got it right. You say, "That's unloving." Absolutely. But nothing is as dangerous as deception because nothing is as precious as truth, right? He's speaking of dangerous wolves, Acts 20. He's speaking of thieves in the language of Jesus in John 10 who come to kill and destroy the flock. Any hospitality, any commendation, any acceptance of them would be dangerous exposure to antichrist influences. You can't overstate this. It would be impossible to overstate this. If you ever put yourself in a position in which you give yourself over to lying teachers, you're in defiance of this text. You may think they're academic and you may think they're something very elite about being a part of some academic environment, the appropriate thing would be to borrow from Polycarp and tell your Christ-denying religious professor, "I recognize Satan's firstborn when I see him. Shut the door in their face, John says. John was a real shepherd. He was protecting his flock. The quickest way to contribute to their failure is to shut the door and give them no affirming greeting at all. Their mouths, Titus 1 says, must be stopped. And the church today is not willing to do this...not willing to do this.

How serious is this? You say, "Well, I should do it for the love of the truth." Right. "I should do it for the honor of God." Right. But John goes beyond that, look at verse 11. "For the one...not the one who lets him in the house...the one who gives him a...what?...a greeting participates in his evil deeds." Wow, koionos with him, fellowships, shares, partakes literally in the evil works of him. That's amazing. If you even show hospitality, beyond that, if you even give him an affirming greeting, that's a tight narrow responsibility. Don't do anything to acknowledge them as Christians.

End quote.

Refute and Silence Heretics, Don't Approve And Parade Them Around Like Brothers In Christ

2012-01-27T09:45:00.000-08:00

There is nothing unclear about Scripture's command to refute and silence heretics. Why are the Elephants stampeding on this command as well, and in direct rebellion against Scripture, they give approval and platform to a heretic like TD Jakes.

Tit 1:9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. 10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Truth Is Knowable, Ignorance Is Not A Virtue

2012-01-27T09:40:00.000-08:00

Truth is not only knowable, its essential, for without it, one is lost forever, yet held accountable before God. What mercy that the God of Truth revealed Himself and Truth to us through Scripture and the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

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

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

1Jo2:21 I write to you, not because you do not knowthe truth, but BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT, and because no lie is of the truth.

2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness forthose who perish, because they did notreceive the love of the truth so asto be saved.

Elephants In The Room: Stomping on the Essential Truth of the Nature of God

2012-01-27T08:43:00.000-08:00

What's going on with the Elephants at The "Gospel" Coalition's Elephant Room with Driscoll and MacDonald so easily convinced by known Modalist and WOF heretic T.D. Jakes, is the SAME THING that happened with Piper and Warren. Piper was also easily swayed by heretic Warren on what he "believes" even though there is a multitude of evidence that Warren is a heretic.

It matters what question you ask to get to the TRUTH of what they really believe.

There are no more core issues. There are ony optional views. Truth in everything. POMO. Truth isn't knowable. Scholars are not dogmatic on Truth, rather they accept the above statements.

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 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.

~ Robert Morey

End quote.

Mark DeMoss Defends Mormonism And Rebukes Christians

2012-01-26T07:50:00.000-08:00

Report:

Mark DeMoss has a message for his fellow evangelicals: You can’t attack and demean Mormons or President Barack Obama and still consider yourself a follower of Jesus Christ.

It is impossible to abide by Paul’s admonition to regard others as more important than yourself, DeMoss said Tuesday during a Brigham Young University devotional, "and also stand outside [LDS] General Conference hurling insults as [Mormons] walk by to worship with [their] fellow Latter-day Saints."

He urged LDS students gathered in the Marriott Center to think deeply about their goals and motives, making sure their words and deeds reflect their dependence on God and Jesus Christ.

DeMoss, who runs a faith-based public-relations firm in Atlanta, has been an unpaid adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign for the past five years. He has grown to admire the candidate and his family, and, he said in a phone interview, believes that any question about whether Mormons are Christians is "irrelevant to me in the context of choosing a president."

"If you set theology aside," DeMoss said in the interview, "there is no question that Mitt Romney’s values mirror the values of most evangelicals."

End quote.

First of all its no insult to tell Mormons they are earning their way to Hell and are on the Broad road to destruction, as Jesus Christ said.

Secondly, the Jesus of LDS is a different Jesus. They reject the Triune God of Scripture and have a "gospel" of works, believing that Mormon men can attain to godhood and their wives will be eternally pregnant to populate their own planet. "As God once was, we are. As God is, we will be" is the motto of the LDS theology.

DeMoss was encouraging these kids to follow after their demonic god. He didn't call them to repent of their sin and idolatry and turn to the Triune God of Scripture.

DeMoss is compromising the Truth (IF he even had it) for the sake of a financial and powerful relationship.

Mormonism and Islam ARE doctrines of demons.

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

2Cor. 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?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.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.18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

DeMoss is just one of a growing number of "Evangelical Christians" who are including the cult of Mormonism as "Christian" and tells the REAL Christians to back off. HE is an enemy of Christ Jesus. He is no Christian or Evangelical.

2012-01-24T13:23:00.000-08:00

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” ~ Obama on the 39th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

What about this baby's rights, freedoms, opportunities and dreams?

Young Liberals

2012-01-21T08:10:00.000-08:00

If you aren't willing to learn wisdom from your parents and other older people and show them respect, why should anyone listen to an 18 year old disrespectful ignorant person?

Pro 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:
Pro 1:2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight,
Pro 1:3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity;
Pro 1:4 to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth--
Pro 1:5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,
Pro 1:6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles.
Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Pro 1:8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching,
Pro 1:9 for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck.

T.D. Jakes Speaking At Code Orange Where Matt Chandler Just Spoke

2012-01-20T14:18:00.000-08:00

With the help of Steve Furtick and James MacDonald, Modalist (that is, anti-trinitarian) T.D. Jakes is being paraded around at both the Elephant Room (connected to Acts 29) and at Code Orange--the same place where sex-obssessed Ed Young Jr. and Matt Chandler taught a few days ago.

Among the speakers:

Steve Furtick, James MacDonald, TD Jakes, Perry Noble, Matt Chandler, at Code Orange.

Steve Furtick, James MacDonald, TD Jakes, Mark Driscoll at Elephant Room

Are you seeing a pattern here?

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting;11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Dissecting Piper's Allah and Adonai Tweet

2012-01-20T13:42:00.000-08:00

Well, it seems that fiery blogger is defending Piper yet again, calling people to go easy on Piper. What he doesn't get is that Piper IS tweeting what IS consistent with his ecumenical, inter-faith, Post-Modern hedonism. I'm astounded at the willing blindness of some who claim to be seminary graduates and pastors yet can't see Piper as the false teach that he is.

Romans 5 has NOTHING to do with Piper's view. NOTHING. Let's look at Piper, the seasoned pastor, teacher, and Tweeter:

"Muslims, Jews, Christians! Allah and Adonai are only known and loved through the crucified and risen Christ. John 8:19; 5:42-43"

Muslims

Jews

Christians

Allah AND Adonai

can ONLY

be KNOWN

and LOVED

THROUGH

the crucified and risen CHRIST.

Now, looking at it word for word you can see enormous doctrinal error.

Muslims worship Allah, a demon moon god, and think some "good" (5 pillars of Islam, jihad, honor killings) works will get them to "Paradise". They worship (for all intents and purposes) Muhammad. The quran, a demonic book, is nothing but lies.

Jews rely on bloodline and tradition, and rely on other works in addition to these, to save them.

Christians--now BIBLICAL Christians rely solely on the finished work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is God, Creator, Second person in the Trinity, sole Messiah and Master and Owner: THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life.

I'll state here, knowing Piper's penchant for Roman Catholic authors and practices like Lectio Divina, that Roman Catholics aren't Christians. They too, rely on works and tradition and have a false God altogether.

Jews, Muslims, and Catholics are all equally lost because all three reject the God of Scripture and the sole way of eternal life and forgiveness of sin, which is Jesus Christ and His FINISHED work at the Cross.

By typing "Allah and Adonai", Piper puts Allah, the demon of Islam, on par with Adonai, that is, the HOLY HOLY HOLY One of Israel. Allah is a creation, Jehovah is eternal.

"can only" = no other way

"be known" = to be no stranger to, to be familiar with

"loved" = embraced, have affection for, to be pleased with, have high regard for

"through" = the means of, transmission

"the crucified and risen Christ" = the Jesus of Scripture is the crucified and risen Lord.

So BOTH Allah and Adonai/Jehovah can ONLY be known and loved through Jesus Christ? This statement is blatantly false for two reasons:

We are to love God alone (see Ex. 20).

Allah is a demon who is NOT trinitarian but Adonai is; he is "the greatest of deceivers" according to the quran; the Triune God of Scripture cannot lie, but rather is the God of Truth; he is not holy but Adonai is; he is not immutable, but Adonai is; he has no son, but Adonai does--Jesus Christ (the Trinity cannot be chopped up: One God, three distinct persons in the Godhead, each co-equally God with all the attributes, and all three make the ONE GOD); Allah is not Creator, but Adonai is; Allah commanded Satan to worship Adam but Adonai prohibits all worship of anyone other than HIMSELF.

Allah therefore cannot only NOT be known nor love through Christ, it is Christ Jesus who created Allah (the demon) and it is Christ Jesus who will throw Allah into Lake of Fire to burn for eternity. Allah is not to be "known" but rejected; he is not to be loved (how utterly UNHOLY the "love" Piper portrays, is!) but hated.

Ironically, instead of knowing the demon of Allah and loving him through Christ:

Col 2:15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
Rom 16:18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
Rom 16:19 For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Know and love this unholy demonic being called Allah? Far from it! He will soon be crushed by Jesus Christ who already made a spectacle of him by His death and resurrection!

Piper is not a novice in theology, religion, or Tweeting. He was deliberate and again, defiant, unapologetic and sees himself having to answer to no one who asked perfectly biblical questions for his atrocious claims.

For more info on the name of Allah and how it is NOT the name of the triune God of Scripture go to Let Us Reason.

Piper: Allah and Adonia Can Be Known And Loved Through Christ

2012-01-19T12:08:00.000-08:00

Allah is not triune, does not have a Son, is mutable, had to add mercy and light to himself, is unholy, promotes sexual immorality in "Paradise" as well as on earth, promotes violence including murder, and utterly rejects the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified and rose again from the dead. Allah is not on par with Adonai of Scripture, NOR is Allah loved and known through Christ! Allah is a demon! This just burns me up!!! As MacArthur stated clearly, Allah is another name for Satan. We need to reject Piper totally.

Matt Chandler Is No Outsider To Emergents

2012-01-18T15:47:00.000-08:00

Matt Chandler is lined up to speak at Perry Noble's pastor conference on September 6,2012 This would include sharing the pulpit yet AGAIN with the cast of usual suspects:

Quote:

In one day, learn from seven pastors who love Jesus, love the Church, and lead in the Church, preaching from experience and conviction.

Join James MacDonald along with Matt Chandler, Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, Judah Smith, Andy Stanley and Jud Wilhite at NewSpring Church on Thursday, September 6, 2012 for the NewSpring Leadership Conference.

End quote.

Again, proving the point that Chandler is no outsider to this group, and hasn't been. He's PART OF IT.

Your Trial Is Nothing Compared To the Fire of Hell You Deserve--Thank God For His Mercy

2012-01-17T07:23:00.000-08:00

(James Smith, "The Believer's Companion in Seasons of Affliction and Trouble" 1842)

"Because of the Lord's mercies, we are not consumed--for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness!" Lamentations 3:22-23

You are sometimes tempted to think that your lot is hard, and that your trials are greater than others--but do not think thus. Rather think, "But for the mercy of God--I would have been in Hell this moment, lifting up my eyes in torments; and in the agony of despair, cursing my God and King! It is all of mercy, that I am not now in the flames of Hell, surrounded by infuriated devils, and assailed on every hand by the groans of the damned, and the dreadful cursings of the lost!"

HELL! Who shall attempt to describe what is wrapped up in that fearful word? Yet all that it contains was your righteous desert; and but for sovereign mercy--must have been your eternal portion!

What a mercy--to be out of Hell! Yes, even though you are now in the sorest trials, in the greatest pains!

2012-01-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from John MacArthur:

Pragmatism is the notion that meaning or worth is determined by practical consequences. It is closely akin toutilitarianism, the belief that usefulness is the standard of what is good. To a pragmatist/utilitarian, if a technique or course of action has the desired effect, it is good. If it doesn't seem to work, it must be wrong.

Pragmatism as a philosophy was developed and popularized at the end of the last century by philosopher William James, along with such other noted intellectuals as John Dewey and George Santayana. It was James who gave the new philosophy its name and shape. In 1907, he published a collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, and thus defined a whole new approach to truth and life.

Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don't seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.

After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn't it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there's a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.

But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what "works" and what doesn't. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.

Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more "effective"—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.

Perhaps the most visible signs of pragmatism are seen in the convulsive changes that have revolutionized the church worship service in the past two decades. Some of evangelicalism's largest and most influential churches now boast Sunday services that are designed purposely to be more rollicking than reverent.

Even worse, theology now takes a back seat to methodology. One author has written, "Formerly, a doctrinal statement represented the reason for a denomination's existence. Today, methodology is the glue that holds churches together. A statement of ministry defines them and their denominational existence."² Incredibly, many believe this is a positive trend, a major advance for the contemporary church.

Matt Chandler Is No Different Than John Piper: both compromise and endorse grave error

2012-01-16T09:48:00.000-08:00

Given Chandler's pulpit sharing with Emergents at Steve Furtick's "Code Orange" conference the other night and given how many folks are promoting Chandler's gospel preaching that night and thus giving him somewhat of a free pass, here's a little clarity and the context of Matt Chandler. Remember folks, he is an example of how false teachers secretly sneak in among you. A false teacher will say some right things. But as is the case with John Piper, Matt Chandler endorses serious error and heretics, along with sharing the pulpit with them.

Chander is a Reformergent Charismatic, he endorses Emergent New Ager, Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola's book "The Jesus Manifesto", he consistantly has shared the platform of the false teachers within the Emergent Church Movement , Saddleback "Conversations", Acts 29 where he is a Board member (the denomination (yes it is) that has promoted planting a church in a gay bar), the inter-faith Elephant Room.

More: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2010/06/great-confluence.html The previous Herescope post looked at the big picture of how the Emerging Church movement is connecting with the New Apostolic Reformation, as exemplified by the release of the new book Jesus Manifesto co-authored by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola. There are even more troubling connections, and these lead straight into the New Age movement.

These things show he is NOT reformed, and violates 2John 9-10.

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."

As I quoted in my piece where John MacArthur exhorts Christians to stop giving a free pass to these compromising "Reformers":

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.

~Robert Morey

2012-01-16T08:19:00.000-08:00

If we are hid in Christ then our salvation cannot be touched by us or anyone else. It is IN Him and BY Him and FOR Him.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.

1Pet 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Mat 6:20 "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

John MacArthur Believes In Only ONE Salvation for Both Jew and Gentile Even During the Tribulation

2012-01-12T15:39:00.000-08:00

Contrary to what some salty Reformer accuses MacArthur of teaching, that is, two ways of salvation, let's be clear about a few things.

MacArthur has systematically, historically, consistently, and biblically, ever taught One Gospel for all people for all time, that is, faith in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Period. There's a little book he wrote some years ago that may sound familiar, "The Gospel According to Jesus", to be followed up by "The Gospel According to the Apostles". Besides this little detail, there are hundreds of times where MacArthur proclaims that same Gospel. One was at the Truth Matters Conference I attended in September 2011 where he talked greatly about the Gospel. Here he talks about the Gospel which is the same for both Jew and Gentile: trusting in the Person and finished work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Let's also be clear about something else. When Romans 11 says all of Israel will be saved, this is true. After the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, it will be Israel's turn. All the elect of Israel will be saved. All believing Israel will be saved. How? By faith in the Person and work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ. This is what MacArthur clearly states even in the quotes salty thinks he's using against MacArthur. I have posted lengthy quotes from MacArthur on this very issue below.

Scripture often talks about salvation for people in the future, simply because there are events that haven't happened just yet, and also because they haven't been born yet. So salvation yes, is for today for those who are alive, but God's plan for Israel at large as a nation, has yet to come to pass--its a PROPHECY.

Salty Reformer says this:

"Since before the canon of Scripture was closed, it has been a clear message from God, to man, that today, the present moment, is the day of salvation, and there is no later time promised. You may die tonight. If that’s the case, it’s too late for repentance. Scripture is clear." He goes on and suggests MacArthur says otherwise. Let's take a look at what MacArthur has historically taught:

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/2252/Which-Way-to-Heaven-1-of-2 :

"I believe there is a second thing you can't do with the Sermon on the Mount and that is to push it into some prophetic tomorrow. I don't think Jesus is suggesting that this is for some far future era. I think He is demanding a decision now, in this time. I believe there are many people who admire the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, that's not what Jesus wanted. And I believe there are many people who take the characteristics of the Sermon on the Mount and its demands and push them off to the future kingdom, I don't think that's what Jesus wanted either. What Jesus demanded was a choice, an act, an ultimate decision to be made at that time and at that moment on the basis of what He had just said. A deliberate choice has to be made. Christ came to bring a kingdom, He was a King, He was THE King, He was THE King of Kings. And He came with a kingdom that was unique and special and separate and different from all the kingdoms of the world. And men would not understand His kingdom unless He articulated its principles and so in this masterful sermon He has articulated the principles of living in His kingdom."

Yet there is also a future for the salvation of the Jews in great numbers as Romans 11 clearly states, which is AFTER the fullness of the Gentile number. God's covenant will be fulfilled.

And to be clear, MacArthur affirms that salvation of souls during the Tribulation will happen because of the Holy Spirit's work, just as now. He affirms there is no salvation without the person and work of the Holy Spirit:

Quote:

Please notice in verse 7, the one who restrains is taken out of the way...just a footnote, that does not mean He is removed from the world. It doesn't mean that. That doesn't mean that He's taken into heaven. Listen, in the first place, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, right? So He has to be everywhere. In the second place, people are going to be saved during this time and nobody is saved who isn't begotten again by the Spirit. So the idea that the Holy Spirit leaves is not true. What happens is the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way in terms of blocking Satan, in terms of His restraining ministry. So the Holy Spirit is simply taken out of the way as a restrainer, removed as a roadblock, not removed from the world or no one could be saved and God wouldn't be effecting His purposes and His plans. So we don't want to make too much out of that. It is the Holy Spirit, He is not removed from the world, or there could be no evangelization by the 144 thousand, there could be no comprehension of the gospel because the Spirit has to quicken the mind, there could be no conversion because He alone is the one who gives eternal life, so He has to be here doing His work, He just stops the restraining part of it.

End quote. [Emphasis, mine]

~John MacArthur on 2Thes. 2:7

Excerpts from "Israel In the Tribulation" where John MacArthur states:

Quote:

Do you want to know the real regathering the prophets spoke about? That's it. It's the regathering for the kingdom. What we're seeing today is only the preliminary. But when Christ returns and sends His angels, He gathers Israel and brings them in and then they enter into the kingdom. Now, I do believe that many Jews will be saved during the tribulation, but I also believe there's going to be a great sweeping conversion at this time, because it says they in Zechariah, "shall look on him," what, "whom they have pierced."

And I believe there will be Jews being saved during the tribulation. Of course, where else would you get the 144,000 evangelists, 12,000 from every tribe? But I think God's going to do some regathering right at the moment of the kingdom. There are many passages that would lend themselves to support that particular view and let me suggest a couple of them....

Revelation 12, they're persecuted. Revelation 13, they're persecuted. There's coming chastisement on the whole nation of Israel. God's bringing them back. You see friends, sin has to be dealt with prior to salvation. And the chastisement of the Lord is going to be instrumental in the salvation of Israel. And so the time of the tribulation will be a time of purging. But you know something, even when all of Israel is saved, according to Romans 11, "so all of Israel shall be saved," even among that all there are going to be some rebels that aren't going to be saved.

The all means the nation in general. There'll be a few exceptions. And God is going to judge the severely according to Ezekiel Chapter 20. God's judgment is severe against the rebels. These are fearful words. Listen to them. "As I live saith the Lord," verse 33 of Ezekiel 20, "surely with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with fury poured out will I rule over you. And I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries in which you are scattered with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with fury poured out. I'll bring you into the wilderness of the peoples and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face." Verse 37, "I'll cause you to pass unto the rod and I'll bring into the bond of the covenant. And I will purge out from among you the rebels and them that transgress against me." Pretty clear statement.

God says in the regathering of Israel, there's going to be some purging too. And so there's a sense of double chastisement on Israel. There is the chastisement of the whole nation as they suffer during the tribulation for the centuries of rejection of their Messiah. And then there is the specific and eternal judgment against the rebels that takes place.

Romans 11, verses 23-29 describes the salvation of Israel. And so I believe that during the tribulation Jews will be saved, but then at the end when Christ comes the whole nation apart from the rebels is going to turn to Him who is their Messiah.

Lastly, and I close with this, the commission of Israel. You say, well, you know, John the Jews that are going to get saved during that tribulation what are they going to be doing? Well, they're going to have a lot to do, believe me. Let me show you the commission of Israel in the tribulation. Revelation 7:3, here's the 144,000. Now what are they going to do? Well, verse 3, "Hurt not the earth, neither the see, nor the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads."

You say what are they going to do John? They're going to serve the Lord. They're going to serve Him during the tribulation. In what way? I believe in evangelism. I believe they're going to be commissioned to reach the world with the gospel of the kingdom. You say why? Well, just after he lists all of them in verse 8, look at the results in verse 9. "After this I beheld and lo a great multitude which no man could number of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues stood before the throne and before the lamb clothed with white robes and palms in their hands and cried to the loud voice saying salvation to our God sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb."

You say who is that group? That's all of the Gentiles that came to Christ in response to the ministry of those Jews. I believe God's going to set loose 144,000 evangelists. I dare say beloved if we had 144,000 spirit filled evangelists in our world today, we'd turn the place inside out easily in three and a half years.

God's going to mark them out, seal them, protection. That means protection. So they can't be harmed by the system. So they can't be killed. The cream of the crop. I know that the Seventh Day Adventists say the 144,000 pertains to their fellowship and I know that the Jehovah Witnesses say the same thing and I know the strange esoteric cult called the Flying Roll, whatever that is, says it's them, it's 144,000 rolls, flying rolls. Some people say it's the church. It can't be church, we're already in heaven. It's the Jews.

Beloved all this and a lot to say that the tribulation is the time for Israel. The tribulation spotlights Israel, covenants they're collecting, their chastisement, their comfort, those other features that we mentioned. And you know something, you say well, John, what we're seeing today then isn't the final regathering. No, but I'll say something, beloved, it sure is the preliminary to the final.

End quote.

I would suggest Salty Reformer do more homework instead of making slanderous and hateful remarks that are nothing but Straw Man arguments. Why not give MacArthur the same tolerance he gives Piper who clearly promotes a false gospel via Federal Vision's Doug Wilson and Rick Warren the Pelagian. Moreover, for Salty to be consistent, he should reject Martin Luther who himself said in his Larger Catechism:

Lrg. Cat.24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work,profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely,TO SAVE. For no one isbaptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, thathe be SAVED. Luther’s LC 25] But to be saved, we know, is nothing elsethan to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into thekingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.

LLC 27] But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; LLC #27 for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.

Luther LC 79] Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a returnand approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, butabandoned.

Luther’s Lrg. Cat. 83] Thusit appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from thejaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, andthen daily strengthens the new man; and is and remains ever efficacious untilwe pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.

Luther’s Sacrament of the Alter #23 Forby Baptism we are first born anew;

RCC #1213 Through Baptism we are freed fromsin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporatedinto the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacramentof regeneration through water in the word."

Moreover, "The Luthern Witness", which is the official periodical of the LCMS states:

"Lutherans believe that death to sinand birth to life take place in Baptism. We believe that whatBaptism symbolizes actually happens. We are in theminority of Christendom that believes in infant faith, so infant Baptismis our ideal." –p. 8 The Luthern Witness, Jan. 2006

"We arebaptized only once, but every day by faith we reliveour Baptism by dying to sin and being reborn as God’schildren. Baptism sets the boundaries in which our faithlives."-- THELUTHERAN WITNESS 2006

Contrary to Scripture which states that baptism (the very term means "immersion"--sprinkling is NOT biblical) is for Believers:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke tothem, saying, "All authority has been given to Mein heaven and on earth.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Act 2:41 So THOSE WHO RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized, and there were added that day about threethousand souls.

Act 8:12 But when THEY BELIEVED Philip as he preached good newsabout the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Act10:47 "Can anyone withhold waterfor baptizing these people WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT just as we have?" 48 And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptizedin the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

So, let's see Salty Reformer reject Luther who clearly taught baptismal regeneration (he had a Bible he studied, so he was no novice), and Piper (a pastor of 30 years) who continually promotes anti-Justification by Faith Alone teachers.

How to Confront the Culture

2012-01-12T11:44:00.000-08:00

Did Paul try to find a common bridge with the religious people on Mars Hill? Hardly! He was offended and outraged by their complete idolatry.What he declared to them was in fact an insult--that the most learned of the society was utterly ignorant and without knoweldge of the True God.....

Here are some excerpts from John MacArthur's mess on confronting the culture.

Quote:

When we take the gospel to our city, it's amazing to watch God's Word transcend the culture--and every false religion--to change lives. The message of salvation in Christ truly knows no hindrance.

The ecumenical, syncretistic spirit of the age recoils in horror at the exclusive claims of Christ. And popular, evangelical seeker-sensitive churches only make the task more difficult by refusing to confront sin in an effort to make the "unchurched" sinner comfortable.....

The Method (Acts 17:22-34): Paul spoke his message to an indifferent and arrogant audience, like many to whom you and I speak today. As we look at how Paul preached to the philosophers, you'll see three essential elements of an effective message to confront our post-Christian culture with the truth.

First, tell them that God is (vv. 22-23). Here's Paul's first point: "You are ignorant and I'm going to give you the truth." Try recommending that opening line at an evangelism conference. Some people think Paul commended their religiosity when he mentioned their many objects of worship. He wasn't commending them at all--their idols infuriated him (v. 16). Rather, he started with a given: all men are innately religious. All men are created to be worshipers--they either worship God or something else, but everyone worships something. The Athenians were no different.....

Second, tell them who God is (vv. 24-29).This is Paul's lesson to the ignorant about the unknown God. This is Theology 101. It's ironic that Paul was teaching the ABCs of theology to those who were known worldwide as supreme intellectuals. It proves the truth of 1 Corinthians 1:25: "The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Here are five things ignorant, rebellious men need to know about the "Unknown God."

God is the Creator. Verse 24a: He "made the world and all things in it." In Paul's day and ours, the truth makes no room for men's opinions regarding origins.

God is the Ruler. Verse 24b: "He is Lord of heaven and earth [and] does not dwell in temples made with hands." It logically follows that if God is the Creator, He is also the rightful Ruler of what He created. And if He is Creator and Ruler, He doesn't live in what His creatures have made.

God is the Giver. Verse 25: "He [is not] served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things." Far from needing anything from men, the Creator "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45).

God is the Controller. Verse 26: "He made from one man every nation of mankind ... having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation." That statement was a blow to the national pride of the Greeks, who scornfully referred to non-Greeks as "barbarians." Nonetheless, God controls the affairs and destinies of men and nations.

God is the Revealer. Verses 27-29: Men should "seek God...He is not far from each one of us...Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like [anything] formed by the art and thought of man." God, by creating, ruling, giving, and controlling all things, has clearly revealed Himself in what He has made--men are truly without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

Third, tell them what God says (vv. 30-31). Paul's evangelism method ends with a simple, powerful point: tell them to repent or be judged. In the past, God was patient. But a day is coming when He will judge the world through Jesus Christ. ...

Paul was faithful to proclaim the truth. He left the results to God.

End quote.

For the full text go here.

How often do you hear people proclaim God as Creator? Yet this is usually the first or foremost or primary declaration proclaimed in Scripture--this is the true God and because He is Creator, He has sole authority over everything including the eternal destiny of everyone.

Within the first six books of Scripture, God is proclaimed as Creator ("created") eleven times.

"Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first and foremost apologetic. If a person stumbles on this one profound truth, a lifetime of doubt and confusion lies ahead for him, full of uncertainty about the ultimate purpose for being alive. But when a Christian attempts to alter this ultimate statement of reality to fit the compromising philosophies of men--even scientifically-trained professionals--then woe to him for his unbelief and, even graver still, for teaching others that unbelief." ~ Lawrence Ford, Executive Director of ICR

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was

made….14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as

of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and

invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were

created through Him and for Him.17 He is before all things, and in Him all things

hold together.

Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in

many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir

of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His

glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word

of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the

Majesty on high,

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created.

Isa 42:5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it,

Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Rev 4:11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

Christianity IS A Religion--The Only True Religion

2012-01-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

I'm so glad Voddie Bachuam said this, because I'm tired of the mantra myself. It seems people think "religion" is a dirty word. It's not.

Is Christianity A Religion?

by Voddie Baucham

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2008

Thereis a common mantra that has been around for a while, but which seems to bepicking up steam. It goes like this: “Christianity is not areligion; it’s a relationship.” We’ve all heard it before. However,how many of us have bothered to evaluate this ubiquitous saying? I believe wemust do just that. We must evaluate this mantra, and the syllogism bywhich it is frequently accompanied:

Religion is man’s attempt to reach God

Christianity is God’s attempt to reachman

Therefore, Christianity is not areligion.

Ibelieve this syllogism is not only invalid, but patently false. If for noother reason, this syllogism must be rejected on the grounds that it containsat least one false premise. Religion is much more than man’s attempt toreach God. And Christianity is indeed a religion. Moreover, I believe itis dangerous –even foolish— to argue otherwise. The argument thatChristianity is not a religion has many inherent problems. Mostimportantly, this line of reasoning is at odds with the English language, thehistory of the church, and good old common sense.

At Odds With theEnglish Language

The first problem with the argumentthat Christianity is not a religion is the fact that it is alinguistic/grammatical fallacy. This in turn exposes an unavoidablelogical fallacy in what is ultimately a question-begging argument. Inorder for the statement –Christianity is not a religion— to be true, one has toassume a certain definition of the word religion that does not exist (i.e., “religionis man’s attempt to reach God”). The Encarta World English Dictionarydefines religion as:

1.People’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship ofa deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2.A particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practicesrelating to the divine

3.A set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4.An object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted toor obsessed by

How do we get from here to “Man’sattempt to reach God” as a definition of religion? EvenEncarta knows better. In fact, the distance between the true definitionand this contemporary mantra is even more evident when one examines earliersources. For instance, the definition of religion in Webster’s 1828Dictionary of the English Language is far more disparate with the contemporaryassertion. Webster offers a definition we would be hard-pressed toimprove upon.

1.Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being andperfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligationto obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man'saccountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with thepractice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system ofdoctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moralduties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his willor commands, is not religion.

2.Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice,consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, inobedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

3.Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance ofthe duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will.Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of onesystem, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Note that Webster’s second definitionhas a reference attached. That reference (James chapter 1) says as muchabout the nature of early America as it does about early AmericanEnglish. Far from being presented as something at odds with biblicalChristianity, the James 1 reference alludes to the fact that religion is themeans by which true followers of Christ accomplish things like bridling thetongue, ministering to orphans, and escaping defilement by the world. James writes:

“Ifanyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives hisheart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiledbefore God, and the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in theiraffliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:26-27 ESV)

In case you were wondering whether ornot the word ‘religion’ is an appropriate rendering of the Greek text, the ESVis not alone in translating qrhskei√a as ‘religion’ inJames 1 (see also Acts 26:5; Col 2:18).NASB, KJV, HCSV, NJB, ASV, NLT, NET, NIV, Darby, Young, the Geneva Bible, etc.,all translate the word the same. Thus, while the Bible does make adistinction between true and false religion, it does not teach that religion issomething antithetical to biblical Christianity. Nor does the word mean,‘Man’s attempt to reach God.’

At Odds With theHistory of the Church

Not only is the contemporary attitudetoward religion at odds with the English language, it also stands at odds withthe history of Christianity. Throughout the history of the church,Christianity has not only been viewed as a religion; it has been consideredthe only true religion. One cannotread Christian literature from any period prior to our own without encounteringthe routine use of the word religion in reference to the Christian faith. Whether it is Jonathan Edward’s Religious Affections, or Calvin’s Institutesof the Christian Religion, or Whitefield’s sermon, TheGreat Duty of Family Religion, the consensus in historic Christianliterature is evident.

The Augsburg Confession (1530) lists asone of its main purposes, “that… one pure andtruereligion may be embraced and maintained by us.”Article 30 of the Belgic Confession (1561) stresses the importance of deaconsand elders in order “that by these means truereligion maybe preserved.” The Westminster Confession (1646) in its statement on the NewTestament states that, “in all controversies of religion, the Church isfinally to appeal unto [the Scriptures].” The framers of the LondonBaptist Confession (1689) echoed this sentiment when they identified one oftheir goals in writing their confession of faith as, “to manifest our consent…in all the fundamental articles of the ChristianReligion.” Surely those who argue that Christianity is not a religion are not willing tofollow their line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion and condemnthe aforementioned brothers.

Not only has the church alwaysunderstood Christianity to be a religion, the culture at large hasagreed. Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame; religionwithout science is blind.” The First Amendment of the United StatesConstitution assures us the freedom of religion. Article XXXVIII of theConstitution of South Carolina (1778) boldly and clearly stated, “The ChristianProtestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared tobe, the established religion of this State.” History is definitely not onthe side of those wishing to shed ‘religion’ in favor of relationship.

At Odds With CommonSense

In addition to being at odds with theEnglish language, and the history of the Church, those who argue againstreferring to Christianity as a religion are at odds with common sense. For instance, what would these Christians say if modern academia took theirmantra to heart and removed Christianity from World Religion texts? Whatif departments of religion around the country suddenly got rid of all theirChristian professors in an acknowledgement of the fact that Christianity was nolonger a religion? What if the United States Armed Forces removed allChristian chaplains, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitutionwas no longer applied to Christianity? Would those who refer toChristianity as a relationship and not a religion be pleased with any or all ofthese developments? I should think not.

Christianity is definitely areligion. Furthermore, it is the one truereligion. It is the religion of religions. I have absolutely no apprehension aboutthe term. I do however, have tremendous apprehension about the tendencyto adopt unbiblical language in an effort to ‘relate’ to the culture. Ichallenge anyone to find the idea of a “personal relationship with Christ” inthe New Testament. Certainly we are related to Christ by way of our newbirth and adoption (Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5). However, thisis a far cry from the often egocentric, narcissistic use of the phrase,‘personal relationship’ with Christ.

Of course, there is also the danger ofbecoming irreligious. I have always found it ironic that people recoilfrom the idea of religion, but continue to tell new believers to be baptized,go to church, take the Lord’s Supper, read their Bibles regularly, witness, anddo a whole host of other “religious” activities. However, lately therehas been a movement away from such religious activities. If Christianityis all about my ‘personal relationship’ with Jesus, then why do I need to go tochurch? Why do I need to read my Bible? I can just wait ‘till mybuddy, Jesus “tells me” what to do next. Who needs all that ‘religious’stuff?

I understand what people are trying tosay when they eschew the term religion. The goal is to assure skepticsthat we are not offering dead ritual and empty tradition. The goal is topaint a picture of a vibrant life with our Lord, Jesus Christ. I getthat. However, I do not believe that it is wise, or necessary to commitlogical fallacies, and make trite, nonsensical arguments in order to doso. Arguing that Christianity is not a religion is like arguing thatAmerica is not a country. I believe honest, thinking people laugh whenthey hear some Christian trying to be hip and relevant by saying something asasinine and illogical as, “I’m not talking about religion... I’m talking abouta relationship.” Enough already with the play on words. It’s not our jobto make Christianity cool. We just need to make it clear. Unfortunately, since this “Christianity is not a religion” business is out ofstep with the English language, the history of the Church, and common sense, itcompromises the clarity and the integrity of our message. I praiseGod for the fact that we have a religion and a relationship.

End quote. [Emphasis,mine]

It seems most who reject "religion" and prefer "relationship" is because it doesn't require anything on the part of the unbeliever (the mantra itself IS man-made, ironically). So it actually stems from an anti-Lordship view--Christ as Savior not as Lord (Master, Owner, Sovereign Who must be obeyed). They try to soften the blow of the Gospel that smashes Self and its pride. It also removes accountability to the Master Who bought the new believer. No, Christianity IS a religion, its the True religion, and I'm glad Baucham said so!

Here are the two-types of religion:

Col 2:23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Jas 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Beth Moore Complains About Public Accountability For Public Statements

2012-01-11T18:14:00.000-08:00

Beth Moore @BethMooreLPM

...I had no idea that if you felt God had spoken something specific to you, you'd be labeled a mystic. I'm more afraid to tell things now.

John Piper To Feature Heretic Doug Wilson At The Desiring God 2012 Conference For Pastors

2012-01-11T15:48:00.000-08:00

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among thepeople, just as there will be false teachers
among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, evendenying the Master who
bought them, bringing upon themselves swiftdestruction.

2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches anotherJesus whom we have not preached, or you

receive a different spirit which youhave not received, or a different gospel which you have

not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Desiring God 2012 Conference for Pastors will include heretic Doug Wilson (Federal Visionism). He'll be speaking four times.

(Also note Emergent Darrin Patrick will also be speaking. DG continues to promote him.).

Info on Doug Wilson's Federal Vision heresy:

A critique of the book "Federal Vision" edited by Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner, Reviewed by David Englesma:

"Written by several of the leading proponents of the heresy now solidly entrenched in most of the reputedly conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and spreading, The Federal Vision brazenly defends justification by works; universal covenant grace to every child of believing parents, if not to every person sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God; an election unto grace that fails to save; baptismal regeneration; and the falling away of many who were once united to Christ. Among the authors are Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Peter J. Leithart, Steve Schlissel, James Jordan, and Douglas Wilson."

Justification by faith alone? No.

More on Federal Visionism at Flock Alert.

As Flock Alert reported, here is the declaration that was " Adopted unanimously by Covenant Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States, June 22, 2002" (The Presbytery is the governing body of the Presbyterian churches--so their own leadership are pronouncing them as heretics too), which states in part:

“Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS declares that the teaching presented in the 2002 Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Pastors Conference involves afundamental denial of the essence of the Christian Gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone....

“That the teaching of the various speakers: Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, and J. Steven Wilkins, has the effect of destroying the Reformed Faith through the introduction of false hermeneutic principles; the infusion ofsacerdotalism; and the redefinition of the doctrines of: the church, the sacraments, election, effectual calling, perseverance, regeneration,justification, union with Christ, and the nature and instrumentality of faith....

“That baptismal regeneration constructed upon the principle of linking the sign and the reality in effect differs little from Roman Catholicism.

“That the doctrine that maintains union with Christ is an external position and place in the church confounds regeneration, union with Christ, and the outward ordinances....

That the maintenance of the language of Calvinism in these speakers is superficial and misleading: theirdoctrine of perseverance is made to deny effectual calling; their doctrine of corporate election is made to deny particular redemption; and the native depravity of man is made to be removed in the outward administration of water baptism which thereby sufficiently qualifies the recipient for the Lord’s Supper.

“We therefore resolve that these teachings are heretical. We call these men to repentance.

Whole article here.

Granted, I'm no scholar and I'm no expert on this heresy, however here's what I've seen...

Wilson seems to think that the New Covenant = Church. Its not. The New Covenant is to be in CHRIST JESUS. ONLY believers are in HIM and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13-14).

This is clear when he says:

"The new covenant is not like the covenant that was made with our fathers at Mount Sinai. As a covenant, it still has blessings and curses, but as a new covenant, the blessings are high blessings, and the curses are high curses." ~ "The Objectivity of the Covenant"

[Bold, red,my emphasis.]

There is a lot of error Wilson has in the article where the above quote is taken, and frankly it would take too much time to go through. Besides, others have done a far better job, so my goal isn't to go through the whole thing. I would recommend some of the articles I've linked to for a fuller treatment. Daniel Chew is quite correct, when he shows how Wilson plays with words, I really see that myself ("elect" isn't really elect or believers according to Wilson for example) .

In contrast Scripture states:

Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"-- 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Abraham was in the Covenant not based on his works, but based on God's promise. It was a unilateral promise. And we see that despite Abraham's sin, he was saved as we see in Genesis and also in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and Hebrews 11.

Also:

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the

forgiveness of sin.

Act 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has

made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own

blood.

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without

the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Heb 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, 17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,

21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

1Cor. 1:⁸HE WILL KEEP YOU STRONGTO THE END, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord JesusChrist. ⁹God, who has called you into fellowship with his SonJesus Christ OUR LORD, IS FAITHFUL. [caps mine]

1Th 5:23 Now may the GOD OFPEACE HIMSELF SANCTIFY you COMPLETELY,and may your

whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming ofour Lord Jesus Christ. 24 HE who calls

you is faithful; HE WILLSURELY DO IT. [caps mine]

Doug Wilson thus denies Eternal Security, or the "P" (Perseverence) in TULIP as well as knowing if one is saved or not:

"And yet many contemporary Calvinists persist in saying that while apostasy was a possibility in the old covenant, it has now been rendered impossible in the new. They create a distinction between the covenants at just the point where the New Testament writers explicitly draw parallels. Many Jews fell in the wilderness, and Christians need to take heed lest they fall in exactly the same way."

His use of "Christians" is misapplied and shows the error of his thinking. He should say "professing Christians" because those who walk away from the faith were never Christians. Those in the Old Covenant were justified and saved the same way we are: by faith in Christ alone. Those who died in the wilderness were not true Jews, they did not have faith. Hebrews is all about the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant. Wilson has blurred the lines and made parallels where there are actually contrasts.

Heb 7:22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Wilson fails to understand Hebrews, it seems. Those who fall away were never of the faith (1John 2:19). Furthermore, in the passage so many love to use about Christians falling away from the faith, it states in its conclusion:

Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

Clearly Heb. 6:1-8 are things that do not accompany salvation---mere profession that ends up proving they were not in the faith at all. Those for whom Christ died come to salvation and are secured for eternity by the Spirit for the glory of God (see Eph. 1). We are then, eternal displays of HIS power and HIS glory.

Rom 8:30 And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called he also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified

His view of the New Covenant is NOT in line with the book of Hebrews which states its by the blood of Christ, not an infant sprinkling rite nor being born of a Christian parent. He clearly plays with words; where you have "grace" extended to the believers in Scripture, Wilson makes up another kind of grace, "persevering grace". Is that any different than what the synergists do when it comes to "prevenient grace"? So really,now we have three types of grace? No, when "grace" is used in Scripture, its in regard to the Christian, not everyone, not the world, not the wicked. Just the Christian.

More in-depth analysis of the FV by Daniel Chew regarding Justification by Faith Alone.

It should be stated that one doesn't have to be a Reformer to begin to see the problems of Federal Visionism (and New Perspective On Paul)...it has to do primarily with biblical doctrines such as Justification by Faith alone, but also eternal security and the New Covenant. The problem with Covenant Theology and thus Infant sprinkling is what, I believe, a factor that lead this heresy. Granted some Baptists have now climbed on board but they are not the majority nor to my knowledge the early teachers of this (Historic Baptists for example, have held to the church (assembly of called out believers) being visible and being made up of believers (thus baptizing only believers), but the Body of Christ is invisible). Nowhere in all of Scripture does it state that children are placed into the New Covenant by birth OR by water sprinkling. Only believers in Jesus Christ are to be baptized, which is to day, immersed in water, in the name of the Triune Godhead (Matt. 28:19).

2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together withunbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or whatfellowship has light with darkness?15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, orwhat has a believer in common with an unbeliever?16 Or what agreement has the temple of God withidols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILLDWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BEMY PEOPLE.17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDSTAND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;And I will welcome you.18 "And I will be a father to you, And youshall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keepyour eye on those who cause dissensions
and hindrances contrary to the teachingwhich you learned, and turn away from
them.

Here is a good article on the doctrine of separation and unity--also here and here. Both of these are specific to separating from teachers like Piper who endorse heretics like Rick Warren and Doug Wilson. I highly suggest reading these two. The only disagreement I have is that I believe all of Piper is to be rejected because his ecumenical and mystical views started early on and therefore a tree that continues to bear bad fruit proves the tree itself is bad. There are plenty of other authors one can read in good conscience.

Chuck Smith Sr. Says Good Mormons and Catholics Go To Heaven

2012-01-10T13:07:00.000-08:00

I first saw this info here as well as at another website. I verified this through listening iTunes (search "Pastors Perspective" podcasts) since the quality at K-Wave's website was so bad.

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel Says “There Are a Lot of Good Mormons Who Do Believe in Jesus and I Believe They'll Be In Heaven”

Nov. 9, 2011

Time mark 36:07

Don Stewart: Hi you’re on the air go ahead sweetie.

Alexa: My aunt Valerie doesn’t really know the book of Mormon, so will she still go to hell?

Don Stewart: Ok good question. Ok, Alexa’s got an aunt, Chuck, whose, is a Mormon and wants to know if uh the Mormon will go to heaven.

Chuck Smith: It all depends on their relationship with Jesus Christ, and there are a lot of good Mormons who do believe in Jesus and I believe they’ll be in heaven, uh but uh you know we can’t do it on own righteousness or own works, we have to depend on Jesus for our entrance into heaven.

End quote.

Smith's view of Mormonism is also the same as with Romanism (and I believe his view of Romanism lead to his thinking of Mormonism). First of all, all Mormons are lost because they believe in the basic tennants of Mormonism. This is basic knowledge. Mormonism's most basic foundation is that Jesus is NOT eternally God the Son, but rather, a creation and the spirit brother of Lucifer; who's mother Mary, had sex with God the father (who was once a man as we are) and thus Jesus was born. Mormon's motto is: "As we are, God was. As God is, we will be." They believe that men can work themselves up to be a god of their own planet with their wives being eternally pregnant to populate the planet. They deny the Atonement of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, justification and salvation by grace alone, and they are a cult in both sociological and theological catagories. For more on the basics of Mormonism, go here.

So, for Smith to say good Mormons will go to Heaven is a catastrophic, damnable error. "Good" compared to what? Who? How does he define "good"? No one is good enough to go to Heaven, which is why we need to be justified by the thrice Holy God. Mormons (and all unsaved people) by definition are not good. They are corrupt, wicked, hostile enemies of Christ Jesus.

Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Rom 3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

If this woman believes what the LDS is telling her about Jesus, Salvation, the Gospel, etc, then it doesn't matter if she's read the Book of Mormon at all. If she doesn't believe the basic dogma of the LDS, then she's not Mormon and she must exit immediately.

*********************

Chuck Smith Says He Has "The Same Lord and the Same Faith” as His Cousin, Who is a Mother Superior (Nun) in the Roman Catholic Church

Nov 10,2011

Time mark 48:10:

Ben: I uh, I am a loyal listener, I um love going to uh your men’s conferences [Don Stewart: “Good!”] and I fellowship with a bunch of people at Calvary Chapel’s, um I visit Greg Laurie’s Harvest, and I have a question because I sometimes I have a hard time understanding um how I um, communicate with people um of the Protestant faith because I am Catholic, and sometimes we um have communication issues and, they want to get into apologetics and um, you know I love the worship and the fellowship with those - with the different people but um I’m going to hang onto my faith as well, and I am just curios what you think about it.

Don Stewart: OK, good question there Ben in fact were glad your going to these events we’re glad you listen to this program. OK Chuck what about that?

Chuck Smith: Ben I have a cousin who was a Mother Superior in the Catholic Church, and uh, she was just a wonderful Christian, loved her and we had great conversations together, and I didn’t try to convert her from Catholicism nor did she try to convert me uh into becoming a Catholic, its just we both recognize that uh you know we have, we had the same Lord, and the same uh faith ya know and so uh we just uh you know on those things we agreed upon we just agreed upon and we didn’t really bring up the things where there were disagreements.

End. quote.

This shows that he either is clueless about Roman Catholicism (RC) or clueless about the Gospel. One cannot hold to the dogmas of Rome and be a Christian! A "Mother Superior" is a leader in the church, not a mere ignorant occassional visitor. The RCC adds Mary to Christ, works to grace, purgatory to the Cross, the pope to Scripture. It refuses to give SOLE adoration, worship, prayer, trust and credit for salvation to Christ alone. Instead they give it to their Mary, whom they deify (see RCC catechism #487, 971,2146, 2162 for examples). They deny justification by faith alone by adding works(infant sprinkling, eucharist (blasphemy), pennance, indulgences, Hail Mary's, and purgatory). And by the way, according to the prologue of the Catechism, they still uphold the Council of Trent which declares anyone who denies the teachings of Rome, to be anathema. To declare such a false church and its false gospel as "Christian" it horrifying.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Smith is trying to please his cousin by finding "common ground" (there is none). He won't preach the gospel to her. He'd rather compromise the Truth as well as the soul of another just for the sake of a relationship. That is hatred of the Truth, the Gospel, Christ Jesus, and the soul of one on her way to Hell.

*******

"Catholics are basically Christian too":

Nov. 23,2011

Time mark 28:24

Beverly (caller): Yes I have a question, is it right for a Catholic woman to marry a Christian man even though she’s pregnant with his child?

Host: Alright pastor Chuck.

Chuck Smith: Well I don’t uh see that uh, a th, th, well there’s gonna be difficulty, uh ya know it’s it you know ah but if you can resolve the differences, I don’t think that they’rethat great and I think that you’ve probably uh if you’re pregnant with his child you should marry him, and uh, and of course I think that uh, you know its um, ah hh its alright, it can uh, uh you can resolve the differences I and I think that uh it’s it’s uh hehe I know I know of many of of that ya know that, you know you know Catholics are basically Christians too, and uh, so uh, I think that uh ya know what the differences are are much less than uh what a lot of people face and are overcoming in their marriages.

Chuck Smith Jr.: I think the more important questions are, is he a good man and do they love each other?

End quote.

There is so much wrong with this "counsel" its absolutely pathetic.

The fact that Beverly is asking the question tells me she's got some doubt that this is right--which is good. But as with Smith's "counsel" for a woman considering abortion, instead of helping her, he gives her reason to disobey the King's commands.

Notice what wasn't said: nothing about dealing with the sin of adultery and sexual immorality, nothing about being unequally yoked in a relationship with a Catholic, nothing about repenting of their sin, nothing about having the man go to his pastor to confess their sin, repent, and be accountable.

Marrying an unbeliever won't make a bad, sinful situation better, rather it will make it worse and compound sin upon sin. Again, unequally yoke is NOT the solution to the immorality issue; rather its FURTHER rebellion against God.

There is no common ground between Romanists and true Christians. Smith makes it sound like its just minor issues that can be dealt with. This would be true if the professing Christian man is really not a Christian at all--he'd be as lost as his Catholic adulteress. However if he's truly saved, then there's no way to overcome the chasm between the two. Ever. That would be a spiritually adulterous relationship.

Moreover, Smith Jr. (himself also a mess: he denies a literal Hell--which is to call Jesus Christ a liar since HE proclaimed in fact there is a literal Hell and eternal punishment; he's divorce, and he also had severe "depression" and was suicidal at one point, and is Emergent--these are disqualifications for being an elder/pastor according to Titus 1, 1Tim. 3), chimes in that the "more important" question is if the man is a good man and do they love each other."

There's that word again, "good". Define "good". "Good" compared to who? According to what, exactly? No man is good, according to Rom. 3:10-18. Would a "good" man commit sexual immorality with a woman? Would a "good" man even date a Catholic? Would a "good' man get his adulteress pregnant? Would a "good" man commit spiritual adultery? Good? Hardly.

And the all-important issue for the Smith men: "love". Its all about "love"--whether its a cousin who is enslaved to Roman Catholicism or a an illicit, immoral relationship. Let's ask the same thing:

Is it love to defraud a woman of her purity?

Is it love to sin against one's own body in sexual immorality?

Is it love to connect with a woman who is lost?

Is it loving Jesus Christ by being unequally yoked when He said to NOT do so?

Is it loving the soul of another to do such selfish acts like sex outside of marriage?

The answer to the above questions is: NO.

1Co 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

1Co 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

Notice v. 6--love dos not rejoice in unrighteousness. Sexual immorality IS unrighteousness. True love, agape love, rejoices with the Truth--that is, truth defined by Scripture.

True love, in v. 5 is not selfish. Having sex outside of marriage is as selfish as you can get. And getting a woman pregnant has now compounded that selfishness--you've just added another person who is going to suffer from your own selfish behavior. Love??? Hardly!

All of this is just more evidence how earthly and unbiblical Chuck Smith Sr.'s counsel is. He did this same thing when he told "Nikki" to go ahead and have an abortion since the doctors told her they may not survive. It was utterly stunning to hear Smith counsel her with wickedness. This again, wasn't love of a hurting soul, but rather hate of her and the baby. Moreover, it wasn't love of God and His Word either.

Jas 3:13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.

Jas 3:14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.

Jas 3:15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.

Jas 3:16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.

Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

Encouraging people to sin against God is a heinous crime indeed and one God will deal with justly. He will NOT let HIS name be maligned by someone like Smith who is committing mutiny. This unqualified man is so puddle deep that he can't even offer sound, wise, biblical counsel to those who are lost and/or hurting. His answers are useless, or worse, rebellious and hostile against God's clear Word. This is a man who claims to be a mature pastor--folks we aren't talking about a novice here.

Its time to reject Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa and Chuck Smith Sr. (and Jr.). They are empty talkers, devoid of truth and the power of God.

2012-01-06T09:04:00.000-08:00

How much more authoritative can a woman be when she stands in the pulpit with the Bible open and preaches?

John Piper: Lacking Propriety and Defending Women Teachers While Hailing Warren's Agreement

2012-01-06T08:53:00.000-08:00

Demonstrating "Bad company corrupts good character":

Piper's mind goes directly to sex when the interview begins his question. Piper lacks wisdom and propriety now, something a mature believer, especially a seasoned pastor, should have. The downgrade of Piper continues.

1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." 34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

Moreover, note Piper's feminism and uses Rick Warren as one who actually understands the proper role of women. Rick Warren is a lost soul who not only has no understanding of proper roles, but has no understanding of the Gospel.

Then we get to Piper defending women teachers. Like other Reformers, he thinks ok for women to teach men, as long as its not in the "office" of elder. That's not what Scripture states. Women aren't to teach men spiritual things. That is to say, women are not to be teachers. Discussions are one thing when done under the immediate authority of say, the Sunday School teacher right there, for example. However that is NOT what Beth Moore has done in all the years she's taught. She has taught men at her church AS A TEACHER for years now. Teaching on a platform IS teaching "with authority" and because Eve was deceived, God prohibits women from doing this. Can women share their wisdom? Yes. But again, not as a teacher and not with authority---"title" or not. Women are sneaky. They can be authoritative or dominate even without the title. THIS is what we must be careful with.

It Was Time For A Change Anyway

2012-01-02T16:51:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the new design of Surph's Side. What can I say? Blogger forced me to update it while I tried to add a new link to my Links page. So now I have a new look and no Links page. I did manage to put some up but they now appear as just posts for January. I'll see if I can find something that works better because even for myself, its easier to have some key posts linked right on the homepage for quick reference.

May the Lord be glorified as you search out the Scriptures, test everything, and strive to be loyal to Him alone.

Thanks for coming by!

God's Love Isn't Part Of the Gospel

2012-01-02T15:40:00.000-08:00

"And, beloved, that's at the heart of it. May I say something to you that maybe you never thought of? There is no occasion in all the New Testament where Jesus ever preached a sermon on the love of God, none. He never did that, it's not recorded. He preached on sin. He preached on repentance. He didn't preach the love of God when He preached to the unbelieving. He had to expose their sin before the loving grace of God meant anything. And so the preacher's negative ministry is to reprove, that is to give reason for them to understand that something is wrong and then to rebuke, that is to be convicted that they have done that thing. "~John MacArthur

This is true, if you go through Acts for example, not one presentation of the Gospel mentions the love of God.

A.W. Pink also noted this very idea when dealing with the Sovereignty of God:

Quote:

It has been customary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin. But that is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin? Is it not true that his "whole head is sick", and his "whole heart faint", and that "from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness" in him? (Isa. 1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is despising and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as Love, and therefore His love must be a holy love. To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience, as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, that the love of God, is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. With the exception of John 3:16, not once in the four Gospels do we read of the Lord Jesus—the perfect Teacher— telling sinners that God loved them! In the book of Acts, which records the evangelistic labors and messages of the apostles, God’s love is never referred to at all! But, when we come to the Epistles, which are addressed to the saints, we have a full presentation of this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us seek to rightly divide the Word of God and then we shall not be found taking truths which are addressed to believers and misapplying them to unbelievers.That which sinners need to have brought before them is, the ineffable holiness, the exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible wrath of God. Risking the danger of being mis-understood, let us say—and we wish we could say it to every evangelist and preacher in the country—there is far too much presenting of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), and far too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i.e., their absolutely ruined and lost condition, their imminent and awful danger of suffering the wrath to come, the fearful guilt resting upon them in the sight of God—to present Christ to those who have never been shown their need of Him, seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine.

If it be true that God loves every member of the human family then why did our Lord tell His disciples, "He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father. . . . . If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him" (John 14:21,23)? Why say "he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father" if the Father loves everybody? The same limitation is found in Proverbs 8:17: "I love them that love Me." Again; we read, "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity"—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity" (Ps. 5:5)! "God is angry with the wicked every day." "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath ofGod"—not "shall abide," but even now—"abideth on him" (Ps. 5:5; 7:11 John 3:36). Can God "love" the one on whom His "wrath" abides? Again; is it not evident that the words "The love of God which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth" (Heb. 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without exception, then the distinction and limitation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is "without variableness or shadow of turning"!

End quote.

Pink continues to discuss John 3:16 and various other passages as well, but this was the portion I wanted to get to.