Saw this on a couple of websites and wanted to post it here. I've been saying this for a while now (here's a recent example , here, and here), but perhaps if John MacArthur says it, some will listen:
"When a speaker deliberately arouses lusts that cannot possibly be righteously fulfilled in unmarried college students, or when his personal illustrations fail to guard the privacy and honor of his own wife, that is far worse than merely inappropriate. When done repeatedly and with the demeanor of an immature bad-boy, such a practice reflects a major character defect that is spiritually disqualifying. Any man who makes such things the main trademark of his style is quite simply not above reproach. As recently as a decade ago, that point of view would not have raised a peep of controversy."
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
Not only has Driscoll been disqualifed, but what does it say about a "mature pastor" who's been "in the ministry" for thirty years, who defends Driscoll as a pastor, friend, and Christian? I'm talking about John Piper? Does the rebuke of Driscoll by MacArthur also not extend to Piper as well? After all, he justifies Driscoll's behavior and then unashamedly, even defiantly offers Potty Mouth Pastor to his Desiring God fans.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
The Defense of the Indefensibe Continues
“They were not ashamed, and they did not know how to blush” [Jeremiah 6:15, 8:12].
Steve Camp continues to defend the indefensible, pleading "no one is perfect" in defending Carrie Prejean. This is absolutely unacceptable.
"I humbly come to the Christian media and as a brother in need of grace everyday would kindly ask you to cease the public outcry against this gal. By her own confession of Jesus Christ being her Lord and Savior, she is our sister in the Lord - let's all treat her as such." ~Steve Camp
1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
Which Jesus has she confessed? What Gospel has she proclaimed? She hasn't!
Do we accept anyone because they mouth "Lord, lord" even when they do not do the things Jesus commands?
What's sad is that he's using AW Pink about "not speaking evil against a brother" , yet it was Pink who said:
"Is it possible to be too critical of Christians (?) nowadays?" Why the qualifying "nowadays"? Has God lowered His standard—to meet these evil times? Is it permissible or expedient for me to compromise because the present generation is so lax and carnal? Do not the days in which our lot is cast, call for a clearer drawing of the line between the Church and the world? If so, should not this help to determine my conduct toward the individual?
We are mindful that large numbers hold the view that God requires less from people in degenerate times—but we know of nothing in His Word which supports them. Rather are such days the very time when the Christian most needs to show his colors, when shallowness and hollowness marks the religious profession all around, there is greater urgency for us to make manifest the reality that we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this scene. The Scriptures are just as much the Rule—and the sole rule for us to walk by—as they were for our more godly forebears. In the Day to come, we shall be judged by them as truly as they will be. It is never right to do wrong—nor to condone wrong.
If pride and haughtiness are to be reprehended; then mock humility or even an undue occupation with our own frailty and faultiness, is not to be commended. If we must wait until we are blameless, then there are many precepts of Scripture we cannot act upon. If we must tarry until our own character and conduct be faultless, then we are disqualified from rebuking anybody. We greatly fear that many have created their own difficulty or deterrent through a wrongful appropriation of those words "he who is without sin—let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7). How often have we heard professing Christians say, when it had become their manifest duty to admonish another, "Who am I—to cast stones at others?" It should be remembered, that John 8:7 was not spoken to conscientious saints, jealous of the honor of the Lord, anxious to promote the good of others—but to hypocritical pharisees, who were deliberately seeking to ensnare Christ.
Hence the force of "bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2); yet that must not be twisted into "winking at one another's faults" or condoning sin—under the pretense of love.
No, we cannot "always tell" whether a professing Christian is a regenerate or unregenerate person, and therefore it behooves us to be cautious and conservative, lest we be guilty of giving that which is holy—unto dogs (Matt 7:6). It is a very serious and solemn matter to encourage a deluded soul in his deception, as we do when we lead him to believe that we regard him as a Christian. But how is this to be avoided? By a withholding the tokens of fellowship; for example, refusing to address as "Brother" or "Sister" —from all whom we stand in doubt of, especially from those whose walk is manifestly worldly and contrary to the precepts of Scripture. While we cannot read the hearts of those we mix with—we can test their outward life by the Word, and if its general tenor is opposed to the requirements of holiness, and is contrary to the example of Christ—we certainly are not warranted in regarding them as children of God.
End quote.
I suggest Camp read this sermon, because it speaks directly to this whoe issue, which he continues to defend to the shame of the Master and His name.
Would Steve allow his daughter to get breast implants, put on a skimpy swimsuit with her cleavage hanging out, put on high heels, and gyrated her hips in a sexual fashion in front of millions of people? How about his pastor's wife doing that?
Would he? Or are the rules different for different people?
Is the COMMAND for modesty (and don't get smart with us: we aren't talking about hair styles or make-up here--but again, are we bringing attention to ourselves? See 1Tim.2), an option? If it is, then so is the command for elders to be male. Its that clear and that much of a command. Then again, so is the command for mothers to stay home to raise their own children.
We are NOT to tolerate promiscuous behavior as "Christ-honoring" because its not.
We are not to wink at sin and say we're loving the person: because we aren't.
There was not one wit of difference between Prejean and the other women on that stage. They all were gyrating their hips and shaking their chests at the men in the audience on tv. Wow, now THAT'S for the glory of God! Right? Folks, figure this out: she was not in that body competition for the glory of the Master. She never claimed such a thing. She can't. The world's view of beauty, which she fell for, is NOT God's view of beauty. This is basic Christianity 101.
But when you befriend a foul-mouthed, gutter speaking "pastor" and soften your mere "disagreement" with him, of course you'll also defend a naked body.
Why doesn't Camp tell Prejean to cease from dressing like a sexually promiscuous woman? We aren't the wrong ones here. At least Paul Proctor finally saw that. Too bad Steve's got his head in the sand. I find it interesting this defense of Miss California comes off the heels of his backing down on cussing garbage mouth Driscoll though.
Sissyfication continues to grow in "solid Christian" circles. Rare is the man that has a backbone on truth and biblical PRACTICE. Everything's optional now: from the Genesis account, to divorce, to remarriage, to impurity, to the sole authority of Scripture, to absolute Truth, to women being in leadership and men actually qualifying for leadership, to wives working outside the home while they have children to raise, to the doctrine of God and salvation. Its all up for grabs.
And why does Camp defend the woman who has been caught lying on her application on the MORALITY CLAUSE no less...not to mention getting naked and semi-naked in front of the camera? Because lying is justified.
And I'll ASK AGAIN UNTIL SOMEONE ANSWERS ME: What gospel has Prejean proclaimed? She did not proclaim Christ on that stage. She did not proclaim Christ in her interviews. She proclaimed herself as a martyr for "free speech". She has yet, to my knowledge, and I've been following this story for days now, proclaim the GOSPEL. And her "stand" on stage was not bold ("my OPINION" isn't Truth--opinions you can take or leave but TRUTH is never optional) and did not reveal faith in Christ Jesus. What she said was what a Mormon would've said. She did NOT bring Christ nor Scripture into her answer. She continues to call it "my opinion".
So as Pink rightly points out, because so does Scripture,: why are people so quick to accept a person as a Christian? Because they say they are? Mormons say they are. Catholics say they are. Many Universalists say they are. JW's say they are. We are to TEST all things. Prejean has not given any evidence that she is saved. Rather she's done just the opposite: she has slapped HIS precious name onto sensual impurity.
Where's the anger over that?
I guess if you can slap the name of Jesus Christ onto cussing and sexual talk and x-rated websites, and pride and arrogance and gutter talk, then you can pretty much slap HIS name onto anything. Even strip teasing and homosexuality.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
I would call on Steve Camp to stop justifying sensuality in the name of Christ and quit trying to lower the bar of godly living.
Steve Camp continues to defend the indefensible, pleading "no one is perfect" in defending Carrie Prejean. This is absolutely unacceptable.
"I humbly come to the Christian media and as a brother in need of grace everyday would kindly ask you to cease the public outcry against this gal. By her own confession of Jesus Christ being her Lord and Savior, she is our sister in the Lord - let's all treat her as such." ~Steve Camp
1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
Which Jesus has she confessed? What Gospel has she proclaimed? She hasn't!
Do we accept anyone because they mouth "Lord, lord" even when they do not do the things Jesus commands?
What's sad is that he's using AW Pink about "not speaking evil against a brother" , yet it was Pink who said:
"Is it possible to be too critical of Christians (?) nowadays?" Why the qualifying "nowadays"? Has God lowered His standard—to meet these evil times? Is it permissible or expedient for me to compromise because the present generation is so lax and carnal? Do not the days in which our lot is cast, call for a clearer drawing of the line between the Church and the world? If so, should not this help to determine my conduct toward the individual?
We are mindful that large numbers hold the view that God requires less from people in degenerate times—but we know of nothing in His Word which supports them. Rather are such days the very time when the Christian most needs to show his colors, when shallowness and hollowness marks the religious profession all around, there is greater urgency for us to make manifest the reality that we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this scene. The Scriptures are just as much the Rule—and the sole rule for us to walk by—as they were for our more godly forebears. In the Day to come, we shall be judged by them as truly as they will be. It is never right to do wrong—nor to condone wrong.
If pride and haughtiness are to be reprehended; then mock humility or even an undue occupation with our own frailty and faultiness, is not to be commended. If we must wait until we are blameless, then there are many precepts of Scripture we cannot act upon. If we must tarry until our own character and conduct be faultless, then we are disqualified from rebuking anybody. We greatly fear that many have created their own difficulty or deterrent through a wrongful appropriation of those words "he who is without sin—let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7). How often have we heard professing Christians say, when it had become their manifest duty to admonish another, "Who am I—to cast stones at others?" It should be remembered, that John 8:7 was not spoken to conscientious saints, jealous of the honor of the Lord, anxious to promote the good of others—but to hypocritical pharisees, who were deliberately seeking to ensnare Christ.
Hence the force of "bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2); yet that must not be twisted into "winking at one another's faults" or condoning sin—under the pretense of love.
No, we cannot "always tell" whether a professing Christian is a regenerate or unregenerate person, and therefore it behooves us to be cautious and conservative, lest we be guilty of giving that which is holy—unto dogs (Matt 7:6). It is a very serious and solemn matter to encourage a deluded soul in his deception, as we do when we lead him to believe that we regard him as a Christian. But how is this to be avoided? By a withholding the tokens of fellowship; for example, refusing to address as "Brother" or "Sister" —from all whom we stand in doubt of, especially from those whose walk is manifestly worldly and contrary to the precepts of Scripture. While we cannot read the hearts of those we mix with—we can test their outward life by the Word, and if its general tenor is opposed to the requirements of holiness, and is contrary to the example of Christ—we certainly are not warranted in regarding them as children of God.
End quote.
I suggest Camp read this sermon, because it speaks directly to this whoe issue, which he continues to defend to the shame of the Master and His name.
Would Steve allow his daughter to get breast implants, put on a skimpy swimsuit with her cleavage hanging out, put on high heels, and gyrated her hips in a sexual fashion in front of millions of people? How about his pastor's wife doing that?
Would he? Or are the rules different for different people?
Is the COMMAND for modesty (and don't get smart with us: we aren't talking about hair styles or make-up here--but again, are we bringing attention to ourselves? See 1Tim.2), an option? If it is, then so is the command for elders to be male. Its that clear and that much of a command. Then again, so is the command for mothers to stay home to raise their own children.
We are NOT to tolerate promiscuous behavior as "Christ-honoring" because its not.
We are not to wink at sin and say we're loving the person: because we aren't.
There was not one wit of difference between Prejean and the other women on that stage. They all were gyrating their hips and shaking their chests at the men in the audience on tv. Wow, now THAT'S for the glory of God! Right? Folks, figure this out: she was not in that body competition for the glory of the Master. She never claimed such a thing. She can't. The world's view of beauty, which she fell for, is NOT God's view of beauty. This is basic Christianity 101.
But when you befriend a foul-mouthed, gutter speaking "pastor" and soften your mere "disagreement" with him, of course you'll also defend a naked body.
Why doesn't Camp tell Prejean to cease from dressing like a sexually promiscuous woman? We aren't the wrong ones here. At least Paul Proctor finally saw that. Too bad Steve's got his head in the sand. I find it interesting this defense of Miss California comes off the heels of his backing down on cussing garbage mouth Driscoll though.
Sissyfication continues to grow in "solid Christian" circles. Rare is the man that has a backbone on truth and biblical PRACTICE. Everything's optional now: from the Genesis account, to divorce, to remarriage, to impurity, to the sole authority of Scripture, to absolute Truth, to women being in leadership and men actually qualifying for leadership, to wives working outside the home while they have children to raise, to the doctrine of God and salvation. Its all up for grabs.
And why does Camp defend the woman who has been caught lying on her application on the MORALITY CLAUSE no less...not to mention getting naked and semi-naked in front of the camera? Because lying is justified.
And I'll ASK AGAIN UNTIL SOMEONE ANSWERS ME: What gospel has Prejean proclaimed? She did not proclaim Christ on that stage. She did not proclaim Christ in her interviews. She proclaimed herself as a martyr for "free speech". She has yet, to my knowledge, and I've been following this story for days now, proclaim the GOSPEL. And her "stand" on stage was not bold ("my OPINION" isn't Truth--opinions you can take or leave but TRUTH is never optional) and did not reveal faith in Christ Jesus. What she said was what a Mormon would've said. She did NOT bring Christ nor Scripture into her answer. She continues to call it "my opinion".
So as Pink rightly points out, because so does Scripture,: why are people so quick to accept a person as a Christian? Because they say they are? Mormons say they are. Catholics say they are. Many Universalists say they are. JW's say they are. We are to TEST all things. Prejean has not given any evidence that she is saved. Rather she's done just the opposite: she has slapped HIS precious name onto sensual impurity.
Where's the anger over that?
I guess if you can slap the name of Jesus Christ onto cussing and sexual talk and x-rated websites, and pride and arrogance and gutter talk, then you can pretty much slap HIS name onto anything. Even strip teasing and homosexuality.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
I would call on Steve Camp to stop justifying sensuality in the name of Christ and quit trying to lower the bar of godly living.
How Much Nudity Is OK Before You Say "Enough!"?
The Christian Research Network is reporting that the Miss USA pagent officials are "stunned" to learn that Carrie Prejean was possibly still not truthful (on top of her false testimony of not having taken any inappropriate pictures when she signed her contract) when she claimed only one nude photo existed. Of course, the other photos that she defends are her with barely a thread covering private parts...which is the topic I want to address today.
My friend and I were discussing the whole modesty issue yesterday and she made a good point. While a columnist apologized for his slamming of Christian women holding to biblical modesty and yet defended Prejean, it seems that his view changed based on the amount of material covering or not covering her private parts.
It was only when the top came OFF that made some reconsider their fanaticism with Prejean, the posterchild of traditional marriage (would that also include traditional divorce I wonder?).
In other words, the semi-nude and nude phots were not tolerated, but the bikini in heels, silicon-cleavage busting tops, bare back, bare stomach, and gyrating hips was.
(This demonstrates another point: people don't get into "big sins" without first committing "smaller" ones. The compromise happens over time, in steps.)
Scripture assumes clothing on the body and then MODEST clothing at that. Not something revealing, something that could cause men to stumble. This isn't a legalistic issue, but a biblical one. Its Christ-centered and others-centered.
Her actions were so loud, it made her words empty. Claiming traditional marriage (not biblical marriage, mind you) while dressed in a way that can destroy marriage is the height of hypocrisy.
My friend and I were discussing the whole modesty issue yesterday and she made a good point. While a columnist apologized for his slamming of Christian women holding to biblical modesty and yet defended Prejean, it seems that his view changed based on the amount of material covering or not covering her private parts.
It was only when the top came OFF that made some reconsider their fanaticism with Prejean, the posterchild of traditional marriage (would that also include traditional divorce I wonder?).
In other words, the semi-nude and nude phots were not tolerated, but the bikini in heels, silicon-cleavage busting tops, bare back, bare stomach, and gyrating hips was.
(This demonstrates another point: people don't get into "big sins" without first committing "smaller" ones. The compromise happens over time, in steps.)
Scripture assumes clothing on the body and then MODEST clothing at that. Not something revealing, something that could cause men to stumble. This isn't a legalistic issue, but a biblical one. Its Christ-centered and others-centered.
Her actions were so loud, it made her words empty. Claiming traditional marriage (not biblical marriage, mind you) while dressed in a way that can destroy marriage is the height of hypocrisy.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Hypocrisy Again: Sexually Immoral Bristol Palin Poster Child for Abstinence
Which one do YOU believe?
“Get beyond the ideal of abstinence,” the 44 year old, new grandmother said. “Hey, life happens.” –Governor Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, 2-16-09 in reference to her teen daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. Bristol told Fox that she has “no immediate plans to marry.” More on this issue at Slice of Laodicea.
Or:
Earlier this year, Palin had stirred a media storm over her comments to Fox News that abstinence "is not realistic at all."
Or:
Bristol Palin, 19, is back in the media spotlight as she helps promote the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy on Wednesday....In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," Palin, who was appointed teen ambassador by Candie's Foundation for the awareness day, said she wants to send out the message that abstinence is the best and only way to prevent pregnancy.
Source here.
So Bristol had sexual intercourse outside of marriage and then got pregnant, and now is the spokesperson for an abstinence awareness? Can anyone say "Carrie Prejean"?? Hello????
What is wrong with these people who are used as poster children for moral causes yet they themselves are immoral and impure?
“Get beyond the ideal of abstinence,” the 44 year old, new grandmother said. “Hey, life happens.” –Governor Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, 2-16-09 in reference to her teen daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. Bristol told Fox that she has “no immediate plans to marry.” More on this issue at Slice of Laodicea.
Or:
Earlier this year, Palin had stirred a media storm over her comments to Fox News that abstinence "is not realistic at all."
Or:
Bristol Palin, 19, is back in the media spotlight as she helps promote the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy on Wednesday....In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," Palin, who was appointed teen ambassador by Candie's Foundation for the awareness day, said she wants to send out the message that abstinence is the best and only way to prevent pregnancy.
Source here.
So Bristol had sexual intercourse outside of marriage and then got pregnant, and now is the spokesperson for an abstinence awareness? Can anyone say "Carrie Prejean"?? Hello????
What is wrong with these people who are used as poster children for moral causes yet they themselves are immoral and impure?
Miss California: A Lesson In Discernment
Paul Proctor's humble admission of not seeing the problems with Miss California and thus his error in originally supporting her and condemning Christians who refused to jump on her bandwagon, brings another noted issue that has come up in recent days: discernment.
Had Christians listened to those with wisdom and discernment, embarrassment could've been avoided, and much more important, the name of Christ would not have been dragged through the mud as it was.
I think Proctor woke up, but will Challies? Camp? Focus on the Family? Liberty University? Will they prove themselves to be teachable and humble to the Truth?
Discernment IS needed; that is why God gave some that gift. Instead of shoving it aside, maybe you need to start listening---for HIS sake and glory.
Had Christians listened to those with wisdom and discernment, embarrassment could've been avoided, and much more important, the name of Christ would not have been dragged through the mud as it was.
I think Proctor woke up, but will Challies? Camp? Focus on the Family? Liberty University? Will they prove themselves to be teachable and humble to the Truth?
Discernment IS needed; that is why God gave some that gift. Instead of shoving it aside, maybe you need to start listening---for HIS sake and glory.
Paul Proctor Apologizes
Paul Proctor apologizes about his defense of Carrie Prejean. I'm glad he has publically admitted for not only being wrong in his defense of Prejean, but also coming down hard on those who wouldn't get on the Prejean bandwagon because we saw the biblical issues clearly and early on. I appreciate his humbleness.
There are a few outstanding concerns I still have, however, and its that Proctor still thinks (and he definitely is not alone in this) that Prejean took a strong stand for traditional marriage. I still hold that what she did was not strong. She said it was "great that in American people can choose either types of "marriage" and that her view of marriage is her "opinion" based on "how I was raised". She never mentioned Christ Jesus nor Scripture. What she said would've been said by a JW or Mormon or Roman Catholic.
The other issue is that her strutting around the stage almost totally naked with her cleavage falling out, seems to still be either ignored or a non-issue. This pagent was not a place for a Christian woman to be to begin with, and that I think is being ignored.
I accept Proctor's apology, but I pray he sees that modesty in dress is a biblical command for a Christian and is not optional, and that he might encourage Christian women to strive for biblical purity in all things...and men too for that matter.
There are a few outstanding concerns I still have, however, and its that Proctor still thinks (and he definitely is not alone in this) that Prejean took a strong stand for traditional marriage. I still hold that what she did was not strong. She said it was "great that in American people can choose either types of "marriage" and that her view of marriage is her "opinion" based on "how I was raised". She never mentioned Christ Jesus nor Scripture. What she said would've been said by a JW or Mormon or Roman Catholic.
The other issue is that her strutting around the stage almost totally naked with her cleavage falling out, seems to still be either ignored or a non-issue. This pagent was not a place for a Christian woman to be to begin with, and that I think is being ignored.
I accept Proctor's apology, but I pray he sees that modesty in dress is a biblical command for a Christian and is not optional, and that he might encourage Christian women to strive for biblical purity in all things...and men too for that matter.
Conservatives' Man Schwarzenegger Considers Legalizing Marijuana To Get More Taxes
Gov. Schwarzenegger is considering making marijuana legal so he can tax it. This is insane, but typical liberal garbage.
"Conservatives", how's Schwarzenegger working out for you? Is this the kind of thing you agree with? Increase taxes and legalize marijuana to get more taxes?
Thanks for this "gift". Its really messed up California. We're in worse shape with Arnold than we were with Gray-lights out-Davis!
"Conservatives", how's Schwarzenegger working out for you? Is this the kind of thing you agree with? Increase taxes and legalize marijuana to get more taxes?
Thanks for this "gift". Its really messed up California. We're in worse shape with Arnold than we were with Gray-lights out-Davis!
Are YOU Gripped By Horror At the Sin In Christianity? Or Do You Ignore It?
In light of the recent "Christian" defense of foul-mouthed goat herders and silicon-enhanced -cleavage spilling-nude photo taking"Christian":
Holy shuddering!(Charles Spurgeon)
"Horror grips me because of the wicked, who have forsaken Your law!" Psalm 119:53
My soul, do you feel this holy shuddering at the sins of others? If not, you lack inward holiness. David's cheeks were wet with rivers of waters, because of prevailing unholiness. Jeremiah desired eyes like fountains, that he might lament the iniquities of Israel. Lot, a righteous man, was distressed all the immorality and wickedness around him. Those upon whom the mark was set in Ezekiel's vision, were those who sighed and cried because of the abominations of Jerusalem.
It cannot but grieve gracious souls--to see what pains men take to go to Hell. They know the evil of sin experimentally, and they are alarmed to see others flying like moths into its blaze!
Sin makes the righteous shudder, because it violates God's holy law, which is to every man's highest interest to keep. Sin pulls down the pillars of the society! Sin in others horrifies a believer, because it puts him in mind of the vileness of his own heart. When he sees a heinous sinner, he cries, "He fell today--and, but for God's grace--I may fall tomorrow!"
Sin is horrible to a believer, because it crucified his Savior! He sees in every iniquity--the nails and the spear! How can a saved soul behold that cursed kill-Christ sin--without abhorrence?
Say, my heart--do you sensibly join in all this? It is an awful thing to insult God to His face. The good God deserves better treatment; the great God claims it; the just God will have it--or repay His adversary to his face!
An awakened heart trembles at the audacity of sin--and stands alarmed at the contemplation of its punishment. How monstrous a thing is sin! How direful a doom is prepared for the ungodly! My soul, never laugh at sin's fooleries--lest you come to smile at sin itself!
Sin is your Lord's enemy, and your enemy--view it with detestation, for only so, can you evidence the possession of holiness, without which no man can see the Lord.
End quote.
Too bad "Christians" don't have this view. Instead, those trying desperately to strive to godly living are ridiculed and boxed in the ears by them.
A.W. Pink's words continue to rebuke "professing Christians" right now:
First, let us turn the light of Holy Writ upon this matter, "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly—so you will not share in his guilt" (Lev 19:17). There are three things which call for our prayerful response.
First, this is a plain precept bidding us to rebuke an erring brother—it is not optional but obligatory; this duty must not be omitted under any pretense. God requires His people to uphold the demands of righteousness. He will not wink at sin—nor must they.
Second, God would also correct our innate self-centeredness. We are so occupied with our own well-being as to be in danger of neglecting the good of our neighbor. This verse plainly denotes it is a lack of love for others—if we see them commit sin with indifference, and make no effort to bring them to repentance and forsake their evil course. A mild, plain, and seasonable reproof is the best way of expressing our solicitude for an erring brother, though it is distasteful to us and unwelcome to him.
Third,"So you will not share in his guilt" means that you become not an accessory of the act. Silence gives consent—if I don't rebuke him—I condone evil and share the guilt.
Has God lowered His standard—to meet these evil times? Is it permissible or expedient for me to compromise because the present generation is so lax and carnal? Do not the days in which our lot is cast, call for a clearer drawing of the line between the Church and the world? If so, should not this help to determine my conduct toward the individual?
We are mindful that large numbers hold the view that God requires less from people in degenerate times—but we know of nothing in His Word which supports them. Rather are such days the very time when the Christian most needs to show his colors, when shallowness and hollowness marks the religious profession all around, there is greater urgency for us to make manifest the reality that we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this scene. The Scriptures are just as much the Rule—and the sole rule for us to walk by—as they were for our more godly forebears. In the Day to come, we shall be judged by them as truly as they will be. It is never right to do wrong—nor to condone wrong.
Do you condone wrong by overlooking the nakedness of Carrie Prejean or Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp's foul and course language?
Do you give lip service to their "sin" yet continue to defend them as "Christians", citing "immaturity"?
Do you not love them OR those whom YOU will cause to stumble by embracing them?
And do YOU chastise Christians striving to live according to Scripture while trying to soften the aggregious error of "brothers"?
Are YOU more lenient toward those in impurity who slap on Christ's name to their filth, than you are of Christians with discernment and a grieved heart over the pervasive sin as Spurgeon just described above?
If the sin in the world is grievous, how much MORE the continual and deliberate sin of professing Christians while slandering and silencing those who point out the error and hypocrisy with heavy hearts?
Holy shuddering!(Charles Spurgeon)
"Horror grips me because of the wicked, who have forsaken Your law!" Psalm 119:53
My soul, do you feel this holy shuddering at the sins of others? If not, you lack inward holiness. David's cheeks were wet with rivers of waters, because of prevailing unholiness. Jeremiah desired eyes like fountains, that he might lament the iniquities of Israel. Lot, a righteous man, was distressed all the immorality and wickedness around him. Those upon whom the mark was set in Ezekiel's vision, were those who sighed and cried because of the abominations of Jerusalem.
It cannot but grieve gracious souls--to see what pains men take to go to Hell. They know the evil of sin experimentally, and they are alarmed to see others flying like moths into its blaze!
Sin makes the righteous shudder, because it violates God's holy law, which is to every man's highest interest to keep. Sin pulls down the pillars of the society! Sin in others horrifies a believer, because it puts him in mind of the vileness of his own heart. When he sees a heinous sinner, he cries, "He fell today--and, but for God's grace--I may fall tomorrow!"
Sin is horrible to a believer, because it crucified his Savior! He sees in every iniquity--the nails and the spear! How can a saved soul behold that cursed kill-Christ sin--without abhorrence?
Say, my heart--do you sensibly join in all this? It is an awful thing to insult God to His face. The good God deserves better treatment; the great God claims it; the just God will have it--or repay His adversary to his face!
An awakened heart trembles at the audacity of sin--and stands alarmed at the contemplation of its punishment. How monstrous a thing is sin! How direful a doom is prepared for the ungodly! My soul, never laugh at sin's fooleries--lest you come to smile at sin itself!
Sin is your Lord's enemy, and your enemy--view it with detestation, for only so, can you evidence the possession of holiness, without which no man can see the Lord.
End quote.
Too bad "Christians" don't have this view. Instead, those trying desperately to strive to godly living are ridiculed and boxed in the ears by them.
A.W. Pink's words continue to rebuke "professing Christians" right now:
First, let us turn the light of Holy Writ upon this matter, "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly—so you will not share in his guilt" (Lev 19:17). There are three things which call for our prayerful response.
First, this is a plain precept bidding us to rebuke an erring brother—it is not optional but obligatory; this duty must not be omitted under any pretense. God requires His people to uphold the demands of righteousness. He will not wink at sin—nor must they.
Second, God would also correct our innate self-centeredness. We are so occupied with our own well-being as to be in danger of neglecting the good of our neighbor. This verse plainly denotes it is a lack of love for others—if we see them commit sin with indifference, and make no effort to bring them to repentance and forsake their evil course. A mild, plain, and seasonable reproof is the best way of expressing our solicitude for an erring brother, though it is distasteful to us and unwelcome to him.
Third,"So you will not share in his guilt" means that you become not an accessory of the act. Silence gives consent—if I don't rebuke him—I condone evil and share the guilt.
Has God lowered His standard—to meet these evil times? Is it permissible or expedient for me to compromise because the present generation is so lax and carnal? Do not the days in which our lot is cast, call for a clearer drawing of the line between the Church and the world? If so, should not this help to determine my conduct toward the individual?
We are mindful that large numbers hold the view that God requires less from people in degenerate times—but we know of nothing in His Word which supports them. Rather are such days the very time when the Christian most needs to show his colors, when shallowness and hollowness marks the religious profession all around, there is greater urgency for us to make manifest the reality that we are "strangers and pilgrims" in this scene. The Scriptures are just as much the Rule—and the sole rule for us to walk by—as they were for our more godly forebears. In the Day to come, we shall be judged by them as truly as they will be. It is never right to do wrong—nor to condone wrong.
Do you condone wrong by overlooking the nakedness of Carrie Prejean or Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp's foul and course language?
Do you give lip service to their "sin" yet continue to defend them as "Christians", citing "immaturity"?
Do you not love them OR those whom YOU will cause to stumble by embracing them?
And do YOU chastise Christians striving to live according to Scripture while trying to soften the aggregious error of "brothers"?
Are YOU more lenient toward those in impurity who slap on Christ's name to their filth, than you are of Christians with discernment and a grieved heart over the pervasive sin as Spurgeon just described above?
If the sin in the world is grievous, how much MORE the continual and deliberate sin of professing Christians while slandering and silencing those who point out the error and hypocrisy with heavy hearts?
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Prejean Lied About Her Nude and Semi-Nude Photos
It ain't over yet.
It appears that Carrie Prejean lied (see statement below) when she signed her contract with Miss USA/Miss California pagent, which has a morality clause that prohibits the very behavior of nude and semi-nude pictures Prejean has admitted to taking:
"Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday that it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.
The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials. In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.
The contact also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
The California pageant contract gives pageant officials almost unlimited control over the title holder's activities, including the right to terminate her reign for breaching its provisions."
To sum up:
Prejean, the heroine of Traditional Values has taken nude and semi-nude photographs in the last 4 years.
Prejean lied about posing for the pictures when she signed her name to the contract of the pagent, stating she's never taken such photos.
Prejean is unapologetic about it and stands by her actions, justifying it as "being a model".
Prejean strutted around the stage with her cleavage hanging out and her hips gyrating to music and then posed for American men to drool over.
Prejean is for traditional marriage, but dresses in a way that would destroy it.
Prejean, has yet to give the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor give Him the spotlight at all.
Prejean thinks its great that Americans can choose homosexual "marriage".
Prejean is seen at a party with a transexual.
So where's the Christianity part again?
It appears that Carrie Prejean lied (see statement below) when she signed her contract with Miss USA/Miss California pagent, which has a morality clause that prohibits the very behavior of nude and semi-nude pictures Prejean has admitted to taking:
"Pageant spokesman Roger Neal said Tuesday that it appears Prejean has run afoul of several sections of the 12-page contract that all prospective contestants were required to sign before competing in the November state contest.
The detailed document prohibits the titular Miss California from making personal appearances, giving interviews or making commercials without permission from pageant officials. In the last 10 days, Prejean has made televised appearances at her San Diego church and on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage.
The contact also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards." As an example, it asks if they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.
The California pageant contract gives pageant officials almost unlimited control over the title holder's activities, including the right to terminate her reign for breaching its provisions."
To sum up:
Prejean, the heroine of Traditional Values has taken nude and semi-nude photographs in the last 4 years.
Prejean lied about posing for the pictures when she signed her name to the contract of the pagent, stating she's never taken such photos.
Prejean is unapologetic about it and stands by her actions, justifying it as "being a model".
Prejean strutted around the stage with her cleavage hanging out and her hips gyrating to music and then posed for American men to drool over.
Prejean is for traditional marriage, but dresses in a way that would destroy it.
Prejean, has yet to give the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor give Him the spotlight at all.
Prejean thinks its great that Americans can choose homosexual "marriage".
Prejean is seen at a party with a transexual.
So where's the Christianity part again?
Family Values:Unapologetic As Model For Swimwear and Lingerie
Excerpts from MSNBC:
"With partially nude photos of her popping up on Web sites questioning her Christian credentials, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has fired back, claiming the racy pictures are just modeling shots and vowing to continue her battle against same-sex marriage.
“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
Actually its Prejean that unapologetically is mocking Christ Jesus and HIS Word.
She cannot justify her job by mouthing "I'm not perfect" because no one is. However, God demands purity in HIS people and in HIS church. If we were to wait until we were perfect, no one would obey the Master.
She is no spokesperson for Christ nor HIS people, much less Christian women. So far, its been all about her and her rights.
She's not married, but is now a "protector of traditional marriage".
She's not chaste, but revels in her revealing swimsuits and lingere.
She's a feminist, but cries "martyr".
She's a "Christian", but hasn't proclaimed the clear Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So how is she bold?
I'll say it again: she has an opinion on marriage, but she dresses in a way that would destroy it. Where's the family values here?
********
Ingrid Schlueter makes some good points:
Regarding Prejean's nude and lingerie photos:
Pro-family groups are now on the horns of a dilemma. How do you backpeddle on this when you have Prejean’s face on your Values Voter event as a speaker? It is certainly awkward. Miss Prejean defends it because she is a model. Yes, but a model for our daughters to follow? Us Magazine additionally is featuring a photograph of Carrie at a New York nightclub, partying with a transsexual.
Embedded here [video] is the response of thousands of Liberty University chapel students to her triumphal appearance there last week. Note the wolf whistles and cheers when she references her swimsuit competition. This, at the place where the “Moral Majority” was founded by Dr. Jerry Falwell. Even the faculty member on stage references the fact that mostly males in the audience watched the live Miss USA feed. What an unspeakable shame this is on the name of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. Lust is now considered funny and cute by conservative Christians. Are you getting a picture of how bad things are in the evangelical church? The hidden lust and sin are now shamelessly, unblushingly open, and God sees it.
"With partially nude photos of her popping up on Web sites questioning her Christian credentials, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has fired back, claiming the racy pictures are just modeling shots and vowing to continue her battle against same-sex marriage.
“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”
Actually its Prejean that unapologetically is mocking Christ Jesus and HIS Word.
She cannot justify her job by mouthing "I'm not perfect" because no one is. However, God demands purity in HIS people and in HIS church. If we were to wait until we were perfect, no one would obey the Master.
She is no spokesperson for Christ nor HIS people, much less Christian women. So far, its been all about her and her rights.
She's not married, but is now a "protector of traditional marriage".
She's not chaste, but revels in her revealing swimsuits and lingere.
She's a feminist, but cries "martyr".
She's a "Christian", but hasn't proclaimed the clear Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So how is she bold?
I'll say it again: she has an opinion on marriage, but she dresses in a way that would destroy it. Where's the family values here?
********
Ingrid Schlueter makes some good points:
Regarding Prejean's nude and lingerie photos:
Pro-family groups are now on the horns of a dilemma. How do you backpeddle on this when you have Prejean’s face on your Values Voter event as a speaker? It is certainly awkward. Miss Prejean defends it because she is a model. Yes, but a model for our daughters to follow? Us Magazine additionally is featuring a photograph of Carrie at a New York nightclub, partying with a transsexual.
Embedded here [video] is the response of thousands of Liberty University chapel students to her triumphal appearance there last week. Note the wolf whistles and cheers when she references her swimsuit competition. This, at the place where the “Moral Majority” was founded by Dr. Jerry Falwell. Even the faculty member on stage references the fact that mostly males in the audience watched the live Miss USA feed. What an unspeakable shame this is on the name of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. Lust is now considered funny and cute by conservative Christians. Are you getting a picture of how bad things are in the evangelical church? The hidden lust and sin are now shamelessly, unblushingly open, and God sees it.
A SURE Hope That Doesn't Change
Forget the world's "hope and change"! Here's the REAL DEAL:
Amidst all the changes of this troublous life(Charles Spurgeon)
"I am the Lord--and I do not change!" Malachi 3:6
It is well for us that, amidst all the alterations and vicissitudes of life, that there is . . .
One whom change cannot affect,
One whose heart can never alter,
One on whose brow mutability can make no furrows.
All other things have changed--all other things are changing. The sun itself grows dim with age. The world is waxing old--the heavens and earth must soon pass away and perish! There is One alone, who has immortality--of whose years there is no end, and in whose person there is no change.
The delight which the mariner feels, when, after having been tossed about for many a day, he steps again upon the solid shore--is the satisfaction of a Christian when, amidst all the changes of this troublous life, he rests the foot of his faith upon this truth, "I am the Lord--and I do not change!" The stability which the anchor gives the ship when it has at last obtained a hold-fast, is like that which the Christian's hope affords him when it fixes itself upon this glorious truth.
"With Him there is no variation!" Whatever His attributes were of old--they are now! His power, His wisdom, His justice, His truth, are alike unchanged.
He has ever been the refuge of His people, their stronghold in the day of trouble--and He is their sure Helper still.
He is unchanged in His love. He has loved His people with "an everlasting love!" He loves them now, as much as ever He did! And when all earthly things shall have melted in the last conflagration, His love will still wear the dew of its youth.
Precious is the assurance that our God never changes! The wheel of providence revolves--but its axle is eternal love!
Amidst all the changes of this troublous life(Charles Spurgeon)
"I am the Lord--and I do not change!" Malachi 3:6
It is well for us that, amidst all the alterations and vicissitudes of life, that there is . . .
One whom change cannot affect,
One whose heart can never alter,
One on whose brow mutability can make no furrows.
All other things have changed--all other things are changing. The sun itself grows dim with age. The world is waxing old--the heavens and earth must soon pass away and perish! There is One alone, who has immortality--of whose years there is no end, and in whose person there is no change.
The delight which the mariner feels, when, after having been tossed about for many a day, he steps again upon the solid shore--is the satisfaction of a Christian when, amidst all the changes of this troublous life, he rests the foot of his faith upon this truth, "I am the Lord--and I do not change!" The stability which the anchor gives the ship when it has at last obtained a hold-fast, is like that which the Christian's hope affords him when it fixes itself upon this glorious truth.
"With Him there is no variation!" Whatever His attributes were of old--they are now! His power, His wisdom, His justice, His truth, are alike unchanged.
He has ever been the refuge of His people, their stronghold in the day of trouble--and He is their sure Helper still.
He is unchanged in His love. He has loved His people with "an everlasting love!" He loves them now, as much as ever He did! And when all earthly things shall have melted in the last conflagration, His love will still wear the dew of its youth.
Precious is the assurance that our God never changes! The wheel of providence revolves--but its axle is eternal love!
Help A "Church" And Get Rich! Common "Christianity" Today
1Ti 6:6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment,
1Ti 6:7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world.
1Ti 6:8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
1Ti 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Ad at the "Christian" Post:
"Each year, we assist thousands of Church members with the financing their church needs in order to expand, grow, build and rejuvenate their facilities. We are one of the largest and most well-respected church financing companies in the United States. As a member of our team, we will provide you with all of the training and support necessary to help your local churches continue their mission. No previous financial background is necessary. All you need is a willingness to reach out to the Christian community and the desire to make money. You’ll enjoy the freedom to build your business in a way that fits your life and your schedule. Contact us today for details."
""You can expect to earn well over $10,000 a month once you are up and running in the program which generally takes 5 months. We have church loan officers that are making $30,000 a month on average. This is not one or two months but the average. The money is great and you are helping people!""
There's nothing like making money off the backs of "Christians". This isn't a ministry, its a business and its wrong and this is a major problem with American "Christianity". "Needs" aren't real needs, they are wants. And its funny how fulfilling the "needs" makes others a lot of money. What happen to TRUE service, self-sacrificing service without any expectation of payback? I wonder if they even have a requirement for the job that you have to be a Christian? And I wonder how they define "Christian"?
All the while "Christians" reject biblical doctrine or see it as optional, and are no different than the world (Carrie Prejean). In fact in many cases the world looks better than some of these "churches"(Emercent types offering sex sermons , cussing "pastors"(Driscoll and Tripp), and humanistic types like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen).
I think they deserve each other.
1Ti 6:7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world.
1Ti 6:8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
1Ti 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Ad at the "Christian" Post:
"Each year, we assist thousands of Church members with the financing their church needs in order to expand, grow, build and rejuvenate their facilities. We are one of the largest and most well-respected church financing companies in the United States. As a member of our team, we will provide you with all of the training and support necessary to help your local churches continue their mission. No previous financial background is necessary. All you need is a willingness to reach out to the Christian community and the desire to make money. You’ll enjoy the freedom to build your business in a way that fits your life and your schedule. Contact us today for details."
""You can expect to earn well over $10,000 a month once you are up and running in the program which generally takes 5 months. We have church loan officers that are making $30,000 a month on average. This is not one or two months but the average. The money is great and you are helping people!""
There's nothing like making money off the backs of "Christians". This isn't a ministry, its a business and its wrong and this is a major problem with American "Christianity". "Needs" aren't real needs, they are wants. And its funny how fulfilling the "needs" makes others a lot of money. What happen to TRUE service, self-sacrificing service without any expectation of payback? I wonder if they even have a requirement for the job that you have to be a Christian? And I wonder how they define "Christian"?
All the while "Christians" reject biblical doctrine or see it as optional, and are no different than the world (Carrie Prejean). In fact in many cases the world looks better than some of these "churches"(Emercent types offering sex sermons , cussing "pastors"(Driscoll and Tripp), and humanistic types like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen).
I think they deserve each other.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The Shattering of Fine China: Beating Down Biblical Women And Slobbering Over Fake Breasts--Now THAT'S Biblical Manhood!
Paul Proctor has some stinging words for women like us who are holding firm to God's standards:
"And now, joining the chorus of critics are some rather angry Christian feminists – and I don’t mean liberals in the church either...I realize that the term “Christian feminist” is considered an oxymoron in most conservative circles, and that feminists within the church are usually thought of as liberal; but I believe they also exist among conservatives and bible believers as well."
"They are the militant busybodies, backbiters, gossipers and control freaks among us that may not be as skilled at dressing up as some ladies around the church house, but they are very skilled at dressing down those who are, especially when their self-esteem needs a little boost – all with a feigned purity and “Christian zeal” that serves to cover whatever deep-seated envy, jealousy and resentment they may have toward others, that, for whatever reason, get more attention, recognition and praise than they do – especially from masculine men."
What's wrong with that is that Proctor is himself, endorsing feminism, by proclaming the likes of the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned, woman as a "Christian" for "traditional values". What could be more feministic than to "flaunt if it you've got it" attitude? After all its her "right". Contrast that with biblical feminism in Proverbs 31 or 1Tim. 2. And what exactly is "masculine" about men who drool over cleavage-busting women and yet condemn Proverbs 31 women? How is that godly nor masculine??
In his screetching against biblical doctrine and practice, Proctor throws dirt on Proverbs 31 and Titus 2 as well as:
1Ti 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works.
and then proceeds to call those of us striving to obey and encourage other women to obey (including our young daughters) as feminists is immature and ridiculous. God doesn't call us that.
Clearly without ANY Scriptural support, he not only defends the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned woman, but then he slams Christian women for holding high God's standard (apparently this is now the "pride of life" when again, he can't support this at all). Those women who are on God's side, are vilified by men in particular. This is calling good evil and evil good. Our frustration is multi-faceted: biblical women are fighting against the flesh, the world, and now "Conservative Christian men". How warped is that?
Apparently Proctor thinks show off one's cleavage, hips, thighs, bare back, and bare stomach all in high heels is something that the typical Christian woman wears.
Hello?
Is he serious? Prejean does what everyone does? Seriously? That's such an adolescent argument. Beyond that, Proctor then says he can't judge someone who wears a swimsuit because he does too. Does he wear a g-string or speedo? Come on. Biblical Christians don't go out, pump up their breasts, get fake tans, put on barely-there string bikinis, topped off with high heels. Justify other's sin by false humility is still justifying sin.
I'm teaching my three daughters in word and practice, to dress modestly. I even have to guard them with the t.v. b/c of the inappropriateness. That's not to mention all the magazines that flaunt the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned women (paper women) And I'm, along with other vocal women are the ones who are prideful here?
Pro 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.
Boy, the more the Light of Truth shines on you cowardly men, the more vile you become.
I'd like to quote Phil Johnson when he mentioned porography's "paper women" in an article about paper pastors:
"Of course, this is why so many women resent actresses and models. It isn't catty pettiness or smallness. It is that they know how visually-tempted men can be, and they know that they can't compete with a fantasy — if their man is fool enough to chase one. And they're right, in a way. They can't compete with these women. Because these women don't exist in the real world! They may not even look like their pictures! Thanks to computer wizardry, the pictures we see may actually bear only the slightest resemblance to the actual women. Nobody can compete with a fantasy."
While this is slightly different than the main issue, it IS an issue. So you "Conservative Christian Men" hold up a Paper Woman as a bold witness for Jesus and tell us we're gossipy, nagging, churchladies? And just what gospel does she hold to?
Clearly you wouldn't know a GEM if you saw it. Nor would you see a truly godly woman. I wonder how men would feel if we did the same with them? But a woman striving to be godly wouldn't dare tread on such ground. We are striving to be content where God has us, but not complacent. Even where we are walking in a manner worthy of the calling, we are still to "excell still all the more." Proctor, Camp, Driscoll, Piper, Trip and their defenders aren't calling us to EXCELL at anything except to excell at COMPROMISE.
Where are the REAL men who find beauty in the inner woman; in the one who submits to the Master and to her husband? The one who fights the flesh, the world, and satan through God's grace? Where are the REAL men who should protect them? We seem to not be considered valuable like fine china, as Scripture commands (1Peter 3:7), but thrown around and boxed in the ears for pleading for protection and SPINES for God's Truth and God's people by the "Conservative Christian men".
Pro 31:30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
I guess shattering fine china against the floor while valuing a piece of broken pottery painted to cover up its cracks as if it were the real deal, is real masculinity.
"And now, joining the chorus of critics are some rather angry Christian feminists – and I don’t mean liberals in the church either...I realize that the term “Christian feminist” is considered an oxymoron in most conservative circles, and that feminists within the church are usually thought of as liberal; but I believe they also exist among conservatives and bible believers as well."
"They are the militant busybodies, backbiters, gossipers and control freaks among us that may not be as skilled at dressing up as some ladies around the church house, but they are very skilled at dressing down those who are, especially when their self-esteem needs a little boost – all with a feigned purity and “Christian zeal” that serves to cover whatever deep-seated envy, jealousy and resentment they may have toward others, that, for whatever reason, get more attention, recognition and praise than they do – especially from masculine men."
What's wrong with that is that Proctor is himself, endorsing feminism, by proclaming the likes of the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned, woman as a "Christian" for "traditional values". What could be more feministic than to "flaunt if it you've got it" attitude? After all its her "right". Contrast that with biblical feminism in Proverbs 31 or 1Tim. 2. And what exactly is "masculine" about men who drool over cleavage-busting women and yet condemn Proverbs 31 women? How is that godly nor masculine??
In his screetching against biblical doctrine and practice, Proctor throws dirt on Proverbs 31 and Titus 2 as well as:
1Ti 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works.
and then proceeds to call those of us striving to obey and encourage other women to obey (including our young daughters) as feminists is immature and ridiculous. God doesn't call us that.
Clearly without ANY Scriptural support, he not only defends the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned woman, but then he slams Christian women for holding high God's standard (apparently this is now the "pride of life" when again, he can't support this at all). Those women who are on God's side, are vilified by men in particular. This is calling good evil and evil good. Our frustration is multi-faceted: biblical women are fighting against the flesh, the world, and now "Conservative Christian men". How warped is that?
Apparently Proctor thinks show off one's cleavage, hips, thighs, bare back, and bare stomach all in high heels is something that the typical Christian woman wears.
Hello?
Is he serious? Prejean does what everyone does? Seriously? That's such an adolescent argument. Beyond that, Proctor then says he can't judge someone who wears a swimsuit because he does too. Does he wear a g-string or speedo? Come on. Biblical Christians don't go out, pump up their breasts, get fake tans, put on barely-there string bikinis, topped off with high heels. Justify other's sin by false humility is still justifying sin.
I'm teaching my three daughters in word and practice, to dress modestly. I even have to guard them with the t.v. b/c of the inappropriateness. That's not to mention all the magazines that flaunt the breast-augmented, high-heeled, cleavage-busting, hip swinging, fake tanned women (paper women) And I'm, along with other vocal women are the ones who are prideful here?
Pro 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.
Boy, the more the Light of Truth shines on you cowardly men, the more vile you become.
I'd like to quote Phil Johnson when he mentioned porography's "paper women" in an article about paper pastors:
"Of course, this is why so many women resent actresses and models. It isn't catty pettiness or smallness. It is that they know how visually-tempted men can be, and they know that they can't compete with a fantasy — if their man is fool enough to chase one. And they're right, in a way. They can't compete with these women. Because these women don't exist in the real world! They may not even look like their pictures! Thanks to computer wizardry, the pictures we see may actually bear only the slightest resemblance to the actual women. Nobody can compete with a fantasy."
While this is slightly different than the main issue, it IS an issue. So you "Conservative Christian Men" hold up a Paper Woman as a bold witness for Jesus and tell us we're gossipy, nagging, churchladies? And just what gospel does she hold to?
Clearly you wouldn't know a GEM if you saw it. Nor would you see a truly godly woman. I wonder how men would feel if we did the same with them? But a woman striving to be godly wouldn't dare tread on such ground. We are striving to be content where God has us, but not complacent. Even where we are walking in a manner worthy of the calling, we are still to "excell still all the more." Proctor, Camp, Driscoll, Piper, Trip and their defenders aren't calling us to EXCELL at anything except to excell at COMPROMISE.
Where are the REAL men who find beauty in the inner woman; in the one who submits to the Master and to her husband? The one who fights the flesh, the world, and satan through God's grace? Where are the REAL men who should protect them? We seem to not be considered valuable like fine china, as Scripture commands (1Peter 3:7), but thrown around and boxed in the ears for pleading for protection and SPINES for God's Truth and God's people by the "Conservative Christian men".
Pro 31:30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
I guess shattering fine china against the floor while valuing a piece of broken pottery painted to cover up its cracks as if it were the real deal, is real masculinity.
Traditional Marriage Yet Causing Men to Lust: this can't be Family Values
I was thinking last night.....
How can a woman "stand" for "traditional marriage" while dressed in a way that can cause it to be destroyed?
Would it not be perhaps more correct to say one stands for the "right" to "traditional marriage AND divorce"? Men lusting after 50 sleek, swinging female bodies couldn't possibly lead to the SANCTIFICATION OF THE MARRIAGE BED, now could it?
Heb 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Jesus defines lust as adultery:
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
And where did the exhortation for women to follow in the footsteps of Titus 2 and Proverbs 31? Or is that optional?
Seems you Prejean defenders throw out one "moral" truth for another. You have entered the Morality Ethics Life Boat: throw one moral off the boat to "save" another. What you are blind to is that God says it ALL matters. Your compartmentalizing is HYPOCRISY.
How can a woman "stand" for "traditional marriage" while dressed in a way that can cause it to be destroyed?
Would it not be perhaps more correct to say one stands for the "right" to "traditional marriage AND divorce"? Men lusting after 50 sleek, swinging female bodies couldn't possibly lead to the SANCTIFICATION OF THE MARRIAGE BED, now could it?
Heb 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Jesus defines lust as adultery:
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
And where did the exhortation for women to follow in the footsteps of Titus 2 and Proverbs 31? Or is that optional?
Seems you Prejean defenders throw out one "moral" truth for another. You have entered the Morality Ethics Life Boat: throw one moral off the boat to "save" another. What you are blind to is that God says it ALL matters. Your compartmentalizing is HYPOCRISY.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Breast Augmentation, High Heels, Bearly-there Bikinis Are Not The Means Of Evangelism: they aren't Holy, Pure, Righteous, Christlike
I fully support Ingrid over at Slice of Laodicea's article on the Carrie Prejean issue:
"For those who defend Steve and the growing number of other Christians like Mat Staver, Judge Roy Moore and the pro-family activists who are holding this woman up as a follower of Jesus Christ, this video is just for you. It was filmed the night that Carrie became the darling of the family values crowd. Something does not compute.
To everyone else, leave the link alone. I refuse to answer emails from those complaining that this material isn’t suitable for Christians. Of course it isn’t, but you won’t be told that by Steve Camp and the rest of the Prejean followers. They are raising her up as an example. Twelve seconds of the video should refute that notion completely. It was reported to the world this week that Carrie Prejean’s breast augmentation surgery six weeks prior to the pageant was, in fact, paid for by the pageant. If this is an example of Christian womanhood, who needs it?"
To me, the weak, lilly-livered views of men who continue to deliberately ignore the modesty issue are what Phil Johnson talked about in his article on the Sissification of the Church. Men are no longer standing for Truth, fighting for Truth, nor do I see protecting women. They have fallen into man-centered, pragmatic, unholy "evangelism" which ISN'T evangelism:
Eph 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.
Eph 4:20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!--
Eph 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus,
Eph 4:22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,
Eph 4:23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Eph 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Breast augmentation, breasts falling out of tiny bikinis and throwing her hips around while in high heels, is NOT in the likness of God, NOT true righteousness, NOT holiness, NOT pure. Rather it IS impurity, sensuality, of the flesh, causes men to SIN. Makes women feel they can't compete. It goes against CLEAR Scripture about causing a weaker brother to stumble.Why can't you men GET THAT?
Do you think its ok that men LUST AFTER PREJEAN'S and the other contestants' bodies? How is THAT proclaming Christ and the Gospel?
And just WHAT GOSPEL has Prejean proclaimed?
What power does her Jesus have if she can strutt around her hips and chest in high heels and bearly a top to cover her enlarged chest? How is she different than the world? Because she says she believes in Jesus? Which Jesus? Is she a Christian example only when she has clothes on? That's hypocritical if you think so. There's no compartmentalizing. She was stripped down to less than underwear for millions to see, to win a little fake crown and some money. How is that being godly and doing all things to HIS glory, when HE said to be MODEST and chaste?
How is that Proverbs 31?
This is the Christianity Mark Driscoll loves. Fleshly, worldly, revealing, sensual, free, pretty, rebellious, no discretion. No wonder others who like him also like Prejean.
"For those who defend Steve and the growing number of other Christians like Mat Staver, Judge Roy Moore and the pro-family activists who are holding this woman up as a follower of Jesus Christ, this video is just for you. It was filmed the night that Carrie became the darling of the family values crowd. Something does not compute.
To everyone else, leave the link alone. I refuse to answer emails from those complaining that this material isn’t suitable for Christians. Of course it isn’t, but you won’t be told that by Steve Camp and the rest of the Prejean followers. They are raising her up as an example. Twelve seconds of the video should refute that notion completely. It was reported to the world this week that Carrie Prejean’s breast augmentation surgery six weeks prior to the pageant was, in fact, paid for by the pageant. If this is an example of Christian womanhood, who needs it?"
To me, the weak, lilly-livered views of men who continue to deliberately ignore the modesty issue are what Phil Johnson talked about in his article on the Sissification of the Church. Men are no longer standing for Truth, fighting for Truth, nor do I see protecting women. They have fallen into man-centered, pragmatic, unholy "evangelism" which ISN'T evangelism:
Eph 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.
Eph 4:20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!--
Eph 4:21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus,
Eph 4:22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,
Eph 4:23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
Eph 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Breast augmentation, breasts falling out of tiny bikinis and throwing her hips around while in high heels, is NOT in the likness of God, NOT true righteousness, NOT holiness, NOT pure. Rather it IS impurity, sensuality, of the flesh, causes men to SIN. Makes women feel they can't compete. It goes against CLEAR Scripture about causing a weaker brother to stumble.Why can't you men GET THAT?
Do you think its ok that men LUST AFTER PREJEAN'S and the other contestants' bodies? How is THAT proclaming Christ and the Gospel?
And just WHAT GOSPEL has Prejean proclaimed?
What power does her Jesus have if she can strutt around her hips and chest in high heels and bearly a top to cover her enlarged chest? How is she different than the world? Because she says she believes in Jesus? Which Jesus? Is she a Christian example only when she has clothes on? That's hypocritical if you think so. There's no compartmentalizing. She was stripped down to less than underwear for millions to see, to win a little fake crown and some money. How is that being godly and doing all things to HIS glory, when HE said to be MODEST and chaste?
How is that Proverbs 31?
This is the Christianity Mark Driscoll loves. Fleshly, worldly, revealing, sensual, free, pretty, rebellious, no discretion. No wonder others who like him also like Prejean.
Friday, May 01, 2009
L.A. May Day: The Founding Fathers Would Roll Over In Their Graves
Today, being May 1, is May Day and with it, here in Southern California, brings protests, sometimes riots, for those who want massive illegal immigration.
I'd like to focus on what our Founding Fathers thought of such notions. And I'd like to remind people that coming over the border illegally is well, ILLEGAL. Against the Law. Law Breaking. Starting life in (that is to say, choking the life out of) American AS a law-breaker, not a Law ABIDING person, is no way to start out. What it is, is merely bringing bad character, bad morals, corruption, and lack of fear of authority to OUR Country. Yet they demand respect? They sure don't respect me and the millions of hard-working, tax-paying CITIZENS.
So here it is:
According to their writings, America's founding fathers were skeptical of massive immigration. Thomas Jefferson was concerned that, "they will bring with them the principles of government they leave." Alexander Hamilton speculated that, "The safety of the Republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment:...The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to...corrupt the national spirit....." Those of us concerned about America's slide toward socialism and "big brother" government can identify with Thomas Jefferson's prophetic quote.
A quote from the Washington Post is particularly reflective of today's immigration concerns,
"In earlier years of the Republic immigration was not at a rate that negated absorption, and most of those who entered did so with the intent and purpose to make themselves Americans...[But for] decades now immigrants...have obviously been bent on seizing the opportunities offered by America but without disposition to adapt themselves to ...American ideals and concepts of government and citizenship in return. The record is crowded with instances in which groups of immigrants have stoutly resisted Americanism, have resented the suggestion that they learn the language of the land, and have maintained their foreignisms...at the present time, in certain areas, immigrants constitute a substantial percentage of the population, and drifting together and holding aloof from Americanization, hold themselves as foreigners in America." The most profound thing about this quote is that it is from a 1924 Washington Post edition.
End quote.
And one thing more: Back when foreigners came to America, they went through Ellis Island. If they were not healthy, they were quarentined until they WERE. Additionally if they had no proof of a job, they had to have a American citizen sponsor them. This was wise, but by jettising these rules, we've got higher crime, over crowded schools, closed down ER rooms, more taxes, etc. We should learn from history. But only the wise will.
I'd like to focus on what our Founding Fathers thought of such notions. And I'd like to remind people that coming over the border illegally is well, ILLEGAL. Against the Law. Law Breaking. Starting life in (that is to say, choking the life out of) American AS a law-breaker, not a Law ABIDING person, is no way to start out. What it is, is merely bringing bad character, bad morals, corruption, and lack of fear of authority to OUR Country. Yet they demand respect? They sure don't respect me and the millions of hard-working, tax-paying CITIZENS.
So here it is:
According to their writings, America's founding fathers were skeptical of massive immigration. Thomas Jefferson was concerned that, "they will bring with them the principles of government they leave." Alexander Hamilton speculated that, "The safety of the Republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment:...The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to...corrupt the national spirit....." Those of us concerned about America's slide toward socialism and "big brother" government can identify with Thomas Jefferson's prophetic quote.
A quote from the Washington Post is particularly reflective of today's immigration concerns,
"In earlier years of the Republic immigration was not at a rate that negated absorption, and most of those who entered did so with the intent and purpose to make themselves Americans...[But for] decades now immigrants...have obviously been bent on seizing the opportunities offered by America but without disposition to adapt themselves to ...American ideals and concepts of government and citizenship in return. The record is crowded with instances in which groups of immigrants have stoutly resisted Americanism, have resented the suggestion that they learn the language of the land, and have maintained their foreignisms...at the present time, in certain areas, immigrants constitute a substantial percentage of the population, and drifting together and holding aloof from Americanization, hold themselves as foreigners in America." The most profound thing about this quote is that it is from a 1924 Washington Post edition.
End quote.
And one thing more: Back when foreigners came to America, they went through Ellis Island. If they were not healthy, they were quarentined until they WERE. Additionally if they had no proof of a job, they had to have a American citizen sponsor them. This was wise, but by jettising these rules, we've got higher crime, over crowded schools, closed down ER rooms, more taxes, etc. We should learn from history. But only the wise will.
John MacArthur: Charles Spurgeon and Worldly Preaching
John MacArthur on Charles Spurgeon and Worldly preaching (thanks to the heads-up from Slice of Laodicea):
You want to know what Spurgeon was up against in his day? Go read The Downgrade Contraversy. And yes, he took his battle public, because God's truth and souls were at stake. We need men like him today. Where are they?
You want to know what Spurgeon was up against in his day? Go read The Downgrade Contraversy. And yes, he took his battle public, because God's truth and souls were at stake. We need men like him today. Where are they?
Calling Homosexuality Wrong Will Be Prosecuted as Hate Speech: the legistlation of hate against God, Scripture, and real Christians
You need to write to your representatives and president to tell them how wrong they are to support the latest hate speech bills (see: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96730 ) one of which was passed by the House yesterday, HR 1913: the vote was 249-175.
That means 249 of YOUR representatives want to shut down Biblical teaching and FREE SPEECH folks. Where's the tolerance of the Left? Its not there and YOU won't see it if you disagree with them! You'll also need a good lawyer.
This is absolutely unacceptable and WILL shut down all who oppose homosexuality. I never thought I'd see the day when MY country would shut down Free Speech. My family did not die so that our right to FREE SPEECH would be taken away.
When this, combined with "Christians" who are embracing liberalism and fighting against biblical Christianity within "evangelicalism", the days are rapidly growing darker.
PRAY! And WRITE to all your representatives. This is our opportunity to stand for righteousness before we might be taken to court by the likes of Perez Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, or Jimmy Carter because we tell them they are wrong.
Here's the easy way to send emails to your reps: http://capwiz.com/hslda/home/
That means 249 of YOUR representatives want to shut down Biblical teaching and FREE SPEECH folks. Where's the tolerance of the Left? Its not there and YOU won't see it if you disagree with them! You'll also need a good lawyer.
This is absolutely unacceptable and WILL shut down all who oppose homosexuality. I never thought I'd see the day when MY country would shut down Free Speech. My family did not die so that our right to FREE SPEECH would be taken away.
When this, combined with "Christians" who are embracing liberalism and fighting against biblical Christianity within "evangelicalism", the days are rapidly growing darker.
PRAY! And WRITE to all your representatives. This is our opportunity to stand for righteousness before we might be taken to court by the likes of Perez Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, or Jimmy Carter because we tell them they are wrong.
Here's the easy way to send emails to your reps: http://capwiz.com/hslda/home/
Thursday, April 30, 2009
John Piper Continues To Show His Liberalism By Promoting Another Emergent Calvinist
Ken Silva has a new article on the issue of John Piper offering another Calvinist who finds use in pagan mysticism. Here are some excerpts:
Apprising Ministries has been researching the rejection of Sola Scriptura, in favor of highly subjective and existential Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism, within the visible church for several years now. Developing as it has been into a veritable cult of contemplative spirituality it would certainly appear that the influence of Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster continues spreading within mainstream evangelicalism, and even within Calvinist circles.
For example in an April 17, 2009 entry at the Desiring God blog of the well-respected Calvinist pastor John Piper we read:
After our pastors conference in February, John Piper sat down with Matt Chandler for a conversation that is now available in 4 parts. (Online source)
We’re also told that in Part Three of this interview we get “Chandler’s thoughts on being a pastor, a Calvinist, and a Complementarian.” For those who don’t know Matt Chandler is lead pastor of The Village Church (TVC). That’s why as I followed up a tip from a reader I found it odd that in a search for Richard Foster in the Recommended Books of The Village Church, “that have challenged and helped us as a staff in our faith and in our ministry work”, we find his books Celebration of Discipline, Streams of Living Water, and The Challenge of the Disciplined Life.
End quote.
Silva goes on to explain and discuss the problems with Richard Foster and his book along with Quakerism.
This should not be surprising because Piper has been promoting the ECM for years now via Mark Driscoll the Goat Herder.
I've been saying for years now, much to the Calvinists' dismay, that John Piper IS liberal and IS a cancer within "Christianity".
John Piper continues to offer to his followers Emergent, Mystical, New Age, Foul-Mouthed men unapologetically. But because he and these men he promotes use the Secret Code, "TULIP", they all get a free pass while Charismatic mystics like Benny Hinn don't (however, there is a marriage between Charismaticism/Pentecostalism/ThirdWave and Calvinism via the Sovereign Grace Ministries of CJ Mahaney (throw in CARM's Matt Slick too since he claims two of the three Persons in the Trinity literally came to his conversion but he had no clue Jesus was resurrected for two years AFTER his conversion) so it just depends if you whisper the Code word or not in order to get a free pass.
All manner of excuses are given for what Piper has been boldly doing. Same with Driscoll.
Folks, WAKE UP. Anyone who rejects discernment and wisdom, and rather promotes false teachers and error, is not of HIM. Don't do what Piper does and pretend you can befriend and listen to such people without it staining you.
1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." Piper is deceived, and so are his followers. If you read Piper or listen to him or his conferences, and think that his liberalism isn't affecting you, I'll ask you this: do you link to Acts 29 or Reformission? Do you find "good" in filthy talk or pagan Eastern Mysticism? Do you reject the weaker brother's conscience and flaunt your "freedom"? Do you defend Driscoll or Paul Tripp for being eternally "immature"? Do you see pure speech as optional? Do you think its IMPOSSIBLE that Piper could be deceived? Are you offended at what I just said?
Back in March I said the following, and Piper's recent endorsement of another Emergent Calvinist proves my point:
Is it any wonder that the God-hating Time Magazine applauds Driscoll and Piper and their Calvinism? Scripture says men hate His truth, they will not agree with it nor do they find it good. Rather they find all things of God as foolishness (1Cor. 2:14). So when the world pats a person on the back, that should be a red flag. It means they find you unoffensive, which means you aren't standing for Truth as Jesus did.
How did God deal with the shepherds of Israel? Did He wink at their sin and excused it as being merely "immature"? Or did He condemn them and pronounce judgment upon them? See Jer. 6:13-15; 7:4-24).
Consider this too:The continuing list of what a Reformer can hold to as optional yet find "unity" by "holding to" the TULIP and Creed and Confessions:
Feminism: women can be pastors and leaders over men in church (see the RTS Orlando pushing Synergy feminist conference). Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and evangelical feminism…
Emergent Church Movement junk
Jesus' physical return
Our physical resurrection
Satan as our current enemy
Justification by faith alone
Adam is literal
Fruit of the Spirit
Creation in literal 6 days
Impeccability of Christ
Lordship of Christ
Not using freedoms in Christ to cover evil; causing a brother to stumble
Not Getting Drunk
Repentance
Gospel includes the resurrection of JesusLiteral hell/ hold to Annihilationism
The Narrow Road excludes many people (the Broad Road) (aka no Universalism)
The TrinitySufficiency of Scripture
Philosophy - hold to it
Truth in error
Faith Alone
Christ Alone
Inspiration of Scripture
Total DepravityPerseverance / Preservation of the Saints by God alone
Rejection of heretics
Rejection of Roman Catholicism
Edifying speech
Perpescuity of Scripture and its doctrines
Completion of God's revelation
This leads me to ask, what makes anyone a Christian? Because they SAY they are?This POMO age has created "Christians" that not only do not know biblical doctrine, they don't live by it nor do they think its clear. Instead it has trained "Christians" to think ignorance as a virtue rather than a vice. Truth IS knowable. Jesus said it is. Do you really believe HIM?
This is why Calvinism, which is really very man-centered, will fall for Emergent Eastern Mysticism, Foul Language, and treating the things in Scripture, even Scripture itself, not as holy, but as entertaining or trivial matters. They find Scripture interesting but as milk, and the theologians as meat. This ought not to be.
As a side note, if you want to know what a ministry really believes, skip to the "Resources" page. What they offer their readers or members (if its a church) is far more telling than the standardized Statement of Faith. Its the practicle outcome of what they really think is beneficial and good for their sheeple.
Apprising Ministries has been researching the rejection of Sola Scriptura, in favor of highly subjective and existential Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism, within the visible church for several years now. Developing as it has been into a veritable cult of contemplative spirituality it would certainly appear that the influence of Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster continues spreading within mainstream evangelicalism, and even within Calvinist circles.
For example in an April 17, 2009 entry at the Desiring God blog of the well-respected Calvinist pastor John Piper we read:
After our pastors conference in February, John Piper sat down with Matt Chandler for a conversation that is now available in 4 parts. (Online source)
We’re also told that in Part Three of this interview we get “Chandler’s thoughts on being a pastor, a Calvinist, and a Complementarian.” For those who don’t know Matt Chandler is lead pastor of The Village Church (TVC). That’s why as I followed up a tip from a reader I found it odd that in a search for Richard Foster in the Recommended Books of The Village Church, “that have challenged and helped us as a staff in our faith and in our ministry work”, we find his books Celebration of Discipline, Streams of Living Water, and The Challenge of the Disciplined Life.
End quote.
Silva goes on to explain and discuss the problems with Richard Foster and his book along with Quakerism.
This should not be surprising because Piper has been promoting the ECM for years now via Mark Driscoll the Goat Herder.
I've been saying for years now, much to the Calvinists' dismay, that John Piper IS liberal and IS a cancer within "Christianity".
John Piper continues to offer to his followers Emergent, Mystical, New Age, Foul-Mouthed men unapologetically. But because he and these men he promotes use the Secret Code, "TULIP", they all get a free pass while Charismatic mystics like Benny Hinn don't (however, there is a marriage between Charismaticism/Pentecostalism/ThirdWave and Calvinism via the Sovereign Grace Ministries of CJ Mahaney (throw in CARM's Matt Slick too since he claims two of the three Persons in the Trinity literally came to his conversion but he had no clue Jesus was resurrected for two years AFTER his conversion) so it just depends if you whisper the Code word or not in order to get a free pass.
All manner of excuses are given for what Piper has been boldly doing. Same with Driscoll.
Folks, WAKE UP. Anyone who rejects discernment and wisdom, and rather promotes false teachers and error, is not of HIM. Don't do what Piper does and pretend you can befriend and listen to such people without it staining you.
1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." Piper is deceived, and so are his followers. If you read Piper or listen to him or his conferences, and think that his liberalism isn't affecting you, I'll ask you this: do you link to Acts 29 or Reformission? Do you find "good" in filthy talk or pagan Eastern Mysticism? Do you reject the weaker brother's conscience and flaunt your "freedom"? Do you defend Driscoll or Paul Tripp for being eternally "immature"? Do you see pure speech as optional? Do you think its IMPOSSIBLE that Piper could be deceived? Are you offended at what I just said?
Back in March I said the following, and Piper's recent endorsement of another Emergent Calvinist proves my point:
Is it any wonder that the God-hating Time Magazine applauds Driscoll and Piper and their Calvinism? Scripture says men hate His truth, they will not agree with it nor do they find it good. Rather they find all things of God as foolishness (1Cor. 2:14). So when the world pats a person on the back, that should be a red flag. It means they find you unoffensive, which means you aren't standing for Truth as Jesus did.
How did God deal with the shepherds of Israel? Did He wink at their sin and excused it as being merely "immature"? Or did He condemn them and pronounce judgment upon them? See Jer. 6:13-15; 7:4-24).
Consider this too:The continuing list of what a Reformer can hold to as optional yet find "unity" by "holding to" the TULIP and Creed and Confessions:
Feminism: women can be pastors and leaders over men in church (see the RTS Orlando pushing Synergy feminist conference). Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and evangelical feminism…
Emergent Church Movement junk
Jesus' physical return
Our physical resurrection
Satan as our current enemy
Justification by faith alone
Adam is literal
Fruit of the Spirit
Creation in literal 6 days
Impeccability of Christ
Lordship of Christ
Not using freedoms in Christ to cover evil; causing a brother to stumble
Not Getting Drunk
Repentance
Gospel includes the resurrection of JesusLiteral hell/ hold to Annihilationism
The Narrow Road excludes many people (the Broad Road) (aka no Universalism)
The TrinitySufficiency of Scripture
Philosophy - hold to it
Truth in error
Faith Alone
Christ Alone
Inspiration of Scripture
Total DepravityPerseverance / Preservation of the Saints by God alone
Rejection of heretics
Rejection of Roman Catholicism
Edifying speech
Perpescuity of Scripture and its doctrines
Completion of God's revelation
This leads me to ask, what makes anyone a Christian? Because they SAY they are?This POMO age has created "Christians" that not only do not know biblical doctrine, they don't live by it nor do they think its clear. Instead it has trained "Christians" to think ignorance as a virtue rather than a vice. Truth IS knowable. Jesus said it is. Do you really believe HIM?
This is why Calvinism, which is really very man-centered, will fall for Emergent Eastern Mysticism, Foul Language, and treating the things in Scripture, even Scripture itself, not as holy, but as entertaining or trivial matters. They find Scripture interesting but as milk, and the theologians as meat. This ought not to be.
As a side note, if you want to know what a ministry really believes, skip to the "Resources" page. What they offer their readers or members (if its a church) is far more telling than the standardized Statement of Faith. Its the practicle outcome of what they really think is beneficial and good for their sheeple.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Infamous Former Peanut Farmer and President Wants Christians To Compromise: Well I Won't!
Is. 8 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
The infamous former peanut farmer and president, Jimmy Carter speaketh (article here).
"During his address Saturday at the Southeast regional gathering of the New Baptist Covenant, Carter said the shared faith in Jesus Christ should be enough reason for Christians to unite and that other divisive issues need to be put aside if they stand in the way of unity.Disharmony among Christians, he said, “is like a cancer metastasizing in the body of Christ.”'
If those who claim Christ would stop dividing FROM Truth, there wouldn't BE division. Its not those who actually believe and strive to live according to Scripture (which is knowable and clear). Its you libs that want to deny the Lordship of the Lord and then crawl all over our cases for not joining in your rebellion. You're acting like adolscents who don't want a boss over you....but you sure will tell US what to do and what to believe and what NOT to believe.
“We're saved by the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ. That's a fundamental in which I believe. And I think for Christians that's basically adequate,” the former president said to the more than 800 attendants gathered at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. "If you believe in that, no matter how you feel about homosexuality or the death penalty or church and state being separated ... we should put those things aside."
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.
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.
Put aside Biblical truth for UNITY? Unity on what? Uniting? Which God? Which Jesus? What gospel is Carter referring to? The one that doesn't give a rip about homosexuality?? Carter wants us to ignore Scripture, be cowards like him, and make friends with the enemy of the Cross,holding up a white flag and offering tea and cookies to them, while slandering biblical Christians. He's good at tolerating Haters of Christ, but INtolerant of Lovers of Christ. No thanks Carter. You go on with your bad self. I won't be disloyal to Christ Jesus and Scripture.
“They (Baptists overseas) see us (U.S. Baptists) at each other's throats, as argumentative, as struggling for authority and power,” Carter said Saturday, according to The Charlotte Observer.
Says you. In your warped liberal mindset YOU think its a power struggle thing. But YOU were the one to whine and complain, and then walk away with your toys because YOU refused to submit to Scripture and BE A MAN in leading your wife and child (not to mention country). You are shameful in trying to slam Baptists and act so holy. Ignorant of Baptist history, you really thing Baptists are supposed to be all in lockstep together like a bunch of Presbyeterians. Baptists, by distinctive and doctrine, are all independant churches. HELLO???
"Hoping to overcome any racial, theological, philosophical, geographical or political division, over 30 organizations representing 20 million Baptists (black, white, conservative, moderate, Republican and Democrat) lent their support to the start of the New Baptist Covenant last January."
Where's the common ground here? The label "Baptist"? That doesn't mean they ARE Baptist OR Christian. By removing Biblical Truth, Carter has reject TRUE Unity and made himself the determiner of what SHOULD be held to. How pathetic.
In typical liberal style, Carter wants to hush those who will fight such nonse. Remember Rick Warren's similar declaration back in 2007? He said:
"As pastors, as shepherds of God's people, it's our job to protect our congregations from Satan's greatest weapon – disunity," he writes. "It's not always easy, but it's what we've been called to do."
Those in error, as we have seen lately even with the infamous Reformed blogger, don't want the Light of Truth to shine on them, so they dismiss and reject all thinking, discerning Christians as mean-spirited, judgmental, and gnit-picking. But God sees it differently (Matt. 7, Gal. 3, 1John 4:1-2; 1Cor. 5; Acts 17:11, 2John 10; Rom. 16:17-19 for instance).
Carter left the SBC years ago because he rebelled against the biblically upheld view of women submitting to their husbands. That's enough to show he is not anywhere close to Scripture in his thinking. But those who thought we were just too mean and needed to give him room, now he's being even more bold.
Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." (1Co 15:33)
The infamous former peanut farmer and president, Jimmy Carter speaketh (article here).
"During his address Saturday at the Southeast regional gathering of the New Baptist Covenant, Carter said the shared faith in Jesus Christ should be enough reason for Christians to unite and that other divisive issues need to be put aside if they stand in the way of unity.Disharmony among Christians, he said, “is like a cancer metastasizing in the body of Christ.”'
If those who claim Christ would stop dividing FROM Truth, there wouldn't BE division. Its not those who actually believe and strive to live according to Scripture (which is knowable and clear). Its you libs that want to deny the Lordship of the Lord and then crawl all over our cases for not joining in your rebellion. You're acting like adolscents who don't want a boss over you....but you sure will tell US what to do and what to believe and what NOT to believe.
“We're saved by the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ. That's a fundamental in which I believe. And I think for Christians that's basically adequate,” the former president said to the more than 800 attendants gathered at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. "If you believe in that, no matter how you feel about homosexuality or the death penalty or church and state being separated ... we should put those things aside."
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.
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.
Put aside Biblical truth for UNITY? Unity on what? Uniting? Which God? Which Jesus? What gospel is Carter referring to? The one that doesn't give a rip about homosexuality?? Carter wants us to ignore Scripture, be cowards like him, and make friends with the enemy of the Cross,holding up a white flag and offering tea and cookies to them, while slandering biblical Christians. He's good at tolerating Haters of Christ, but INtolerant of Lovers of Christ. No thanks Carter. You go on with your bad self. I won't be disloyal to Christ Jesus and Scripture.
“They (Baptists overseas) see us (U.S. Baptists) at each other's throats, as argumentative, as struggling for authority and power,” Carter said Saturday, according to The Charlotte Observer.
Says you. In your warped liberal mindset YOU think its a power struggle thing. But YOU were the one to whine and complain, and then walk away with your toys because YOU refused to submit to Scripture and BE A MAN in leading your wife and child (not to mention country). You are shameful in trying to slam Baptists and act so holy. Ignorant of Baptist history, you really thing Baptists are supposed to be all in lockstep together like a bunch of Presbyeterians. Baptists, by distinctive and doctrine, are all independant churches. HELLO???
"Hoping to overcome any racial, theological, philosophical, geographical or political division, over 30 organizations representing 20 million Baptists (black, white, conservative, moderate, Republican and Democrat) lent their support to the start of the New Baptist Covenant last January."
Where's the common ground here? The label "Baptist"? That doesn't mean they ARE Baptist OR Christian. By removing Biblical Truth, Carter has reject TRUE Unity and made himself the determiner of what SHOULD be held to. How pathetic.
In typical liberal style, Carter wants to hush those who will fight such nonse. Remember Rick Warren's similar declaration back in 2007? He said:
"As pastors, as shepherds of God's people, it's our job to protect our congregations from Satan's greatest weapon – disunity," he writes. "It's not always easy, but it's what we've been called to do."
Those in error, as we have seen lately even with the infamous Reformed blogger, don't want the Light of Truth to shine on them, so they dismiss and reject all thinking, discerning Christians as mean-spirited, judgmental, and gnit-picking. But God sees it differently (Matt. 7, Gal. 3, 1John 4:1-2; 1Cor. 5; Acts 17:11, 2John 10; Rom. 16:17-19 for instance).
Carter left the SBC years ago because he rebelled against the biblically upheld view of women submitting to their husbands. That's enough to show he is not anywhere close to Scripture in his thinking. But those who thought we were just too mean and needed to give him room, now he's being even more bold.
Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." (1Co 15:33)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)