Thanks to Apprising Ministries for John MacArthur's excerpt from Jude. Its been a while since I heard this and thought it was even more appropriate now than ever before. Here's a portion:
"Now Jude t hen writes this epistle to serve as a warning and to give for us a portrait of these apostate terrorists. These are people who have been exposed to the faith, exposed to the truth, who have defected from the truth, who have denied the truth, who have rejected the truth. But who have kept the name Christian, kept some identification with the person of Jesus and with God and therefore remaining within the framework of Christendom have become subtle, hidden deceivers. And unless the church has acute powers of discernment, unless the church is willing to pay the price of exposure, unless the church can get over its sappy sentimentalism about not wanting to say anything that offends anybody, it’s going to allow itself to be devastated by these imbedded satanic Al Qaeda." ~MacArthur
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Do YOU Pass The Test of Faith In Genesis 1 As Written?
Apprising Ministries shares an article by John MacArthur, which I in turn would like to post here. Its a much-needed article on the Genesis account of Creation. So many "evangelical Christians" deny the necessity of holding to Scripture as taught, and instead leave room for doctrines of demons like evolution. Don't be fooled, any form of evolution's theory is demonic, and the enemy will sneak it in by any means necessary, including:
renaming evolution, Theistic evolution
taking God out and calling Creation by "Intellegent Designer"
by removing part of evolution (that of man) and only holding to earth's evolution, calling it the "gap theory"
All of these are still from satan, they are still anti-biblical, and they are still of unbelief in the True, faithful, and living Word of God.
Here's a portion of what MacArthur says:
Now, because the Bible is so clear about this in Genesis 1, and then giving us an even further and more detailed look at this creation, rehearsing its elements in a broader way in chapter 2, you face a test at the very outset of the Bible. You’re not going to get past the first verses of the Bible, you’re not going to get past the first verse in the Bible, the first chapter in the Bible, the first two chapters in the Bible without facing a test. And the test is this, do you believe the Scripture? Do you believe the Scripture? That is the test. No one gets past the opening verses of the Bible without having to face the test of whether or not that person believes the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God. Do you submit to Scripture? Genesis 1 is your first test.
Now I’m going to give you three words to think about tonight and we’re going to kind of unpack these words and they’ll be sort of little categories that we can put our thoughts in so we can understand them a little more clearly. The first word is fidelity…fidelity…fidelity, faithfulness. Either you believe what the Bible says or you don’t. That’s the test. You can accept what Genesis says, or you can reject it. You can’t change it, you don’t have that privilege. In fact, were you to add to Scripture or take anything from it would be added to you the plagues that are written in it. There’s no need for you to edit God. There is nothing lacking anywhere in Scripture and that’s true of Genesis 1 and 2 which somehow needs you to embellish it. You either accept it or you reject it, you have those two options.
End quote.
So, where is your fidelity? To pagan, demonic evolution myth, or God's faithful, living Word? No man can serve to masters, folks.
1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.
renaming evolution, Theistic evolution
taking God out and calling Creation by "Intellegent Designer"
by removing part of evolution (that of man) and only holding to earth's evolution, calling it the "gap theory"
All of these are still from satan, they are still anti-biblical, and they are still of unbelief in the True, faithful, and living Word of God.
Here's a portion of what MacArthur says:
Now, because the Bible is so clear about this in Genesis 1, and then giving us an even further and more detailed look at this creation, rehearsing its elements in a broader way in chapter 2, you face a test at the very outset of the Bible. You’re not going to get past the first verses of the Bible, you’re not going to get past the first verse in the Bible, the first chapter in the Bible, the first two chapters in the Bible without facing a test. And the test is this, do you believe the Scripture? Do you believe the Scripture? That is the test. No one gets past the opening verses of the Bible without having to face the test of whether or not that person believes the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God. Do you submit to Scripture? Genesis 1 is your first test.
Now I’m going to give you three words to think about tonight and we’re going to kind of unpack these words and they’ll be sort of little categories that we can put our thoughts in so we can understand them a little more clearly. The first word is fidelity…fidelity…fidelity, faithfulness. Either you believe what the Bible says or you don’t. That’s the test. You can accept what Genesis says, or you can reject it. You can’t change it, you don’t have that privilege. In fact, were you to add to Scripture or take anything from it would be added to you the plagues that are written in it. There’s no need for you to edit God. There is nothing lacking anywhere in Scripture and that’s true of Genesis 1 and 2 which somehow needs you to embellish it. You either accept it or you reject it, you have those two options.
End quote.
So, where is your fidelity? To pagan, demonic evolution myth, or God's faithful, living Word? No man can serve to masters, folks.
1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Hear and Heed the Word: don't be quick to speak or get angry against it
I started looking at James 1:19 again this morning. It has come to my mind recently for various reasons. Here's what I've observed:
Jas 1:19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
quick:
1) quick, fleet, speedy
hear:
2) to hear
2b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
2c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
slow:
1) slow
2) metaphorically dull, inactive, in mind
2a) stupid, slow to apprehend or believe
As in: Luk 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
anger:
1) anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
2) movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but especially anger
The context is: persevering under trials and dealing with temptation and sin. In a word: sanctification after one is regenerated by the Word of Truth.
Jas 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
Jas 1:3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
Jas 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Jas 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Jas 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
Jas 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
Jas 1:19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
Jas 1:20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
Jas 1:21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
Jas 1:23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
Jas 1:24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
It seems like it could be understood this way:
Everyone should be swift to attend to and accept the preaching and wisdom of the Word of Truth, be inactive in speaking and inactive in anger to what is being said.
If you seek God for wisdom during a trial, then be silent and listen---HEED---the wisdom from God through the Word of Truth. Otherwise you are a double-minded man, tossed about by the wind and should not expect anything from the Lord.
Gil Rugh, pastor of Indian Hills Community Church in NE, points out:
my beloved brethren (cf. v.16) James is going to have some harsh things to say to them and he wants them to know that he addresses them out of love.
But indicates that their knowledge regarding salvation was not enough. They must allow the Word to continue to work in their lives to produce the growth that God intends for His children.
God never intends for us as His children to stop with knowledge, but rather we are to allow His truth to be a dynamic force for change in our lives (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1).
be quick to hear -- The context seems to indicate that the primary reference is to hearing the Word of God. This was the subject of verse 18 and will be the subject of verse 21.
Humility is the opposite of the quality demonstrated by a person who, in anger, is aggressively asserting himself. It is represented by the meek and gentle person who is teachable. "Prautes describes the perfect conquest and control of everything in a man's nature which would be a hindrance to his seeing, hearing and obeying the truth" (Barclay).
receive (aorist imperative) -- This is the basic command in the verse around which everything else revolves. The word means "to welcome or receive into one's home." It also means "to take in hand" or "to grasp."
This word is used of the response of the Bereans to the Word as preached by Paul and Silas in Acts 17:11. James wanted these believers to act upon the Word they had received. Like many believers today, they were remaining passive regarding the great truth they had.
the word implanted -- This is the Word as it has been implanted in the heart. The Word was implanted in their hearts at the time of the new birth (v. 18). But that was the beginning of a process, not the end.
End quote.
I highly suggest reading the whole article for the more thorough treatment of this passage and the context.
Jas 1:19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
quick:
1) quick, fleet, speedy
hear:
2) to hear
2b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
2c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
slow:
1) slow
2) metaphorically dull, inactive, in mind
2a) stupid, slow to apprehend or believe
As in: Luk 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
anger:
1) anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
2) movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but especially anger
The context is: persevering under trials and dealing with temptation and sin. In a word: sanctification after one is regenerated by the Word of Truth.
Jas 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials,
Jas 1:3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
Jas 1:4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Jas 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Jas 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
Jas 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
Jas 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
Jas 1:19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
Jas 1:20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
Jas 1:21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
Jas 1:23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
Jas 1:24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
It seems like it could be understood this way:
Everyone should be swift to attend to and accept the preaching and wisdom of the Word of Truth, be inactive in speaking and inactive in anger to what is being said.
If you seek God for wisdom during a trial, then be silent and listen---HEED---the wisdom from God through the Word of Truth. Otherwise you are a double-minded man, tossed about by the wind and should not expect anything from the Lord.
Gil Rugh, pastor of Indian Hills Community Church in NE, points out:
my beloved brethren (cf. v.16) James is going to have some harsh things to say to them and he wants them to know that he addresses them out of love.
But indicates that their knowledge regarding salvation was not enough. They must allow the Word to continue to work in their lives to produce the growth that God intends for His children.
God never intends for us as His children to stop with knowledge, but rather we are to allow His truth to be a dynamic force for change in our lives (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1).
be quick to hear -- The context seems to indicate that the primary reference is to hearing the Word of God. This was the subject of verse 18 and will be the subject of verse 21.
They are to be eager and attentive to the Word as it is presented to them. This is a picture of a people who want more of God's Word and are ready to listen.
slow to speak -- This pictures a person who gives careful consideration before he speaks. Most of us are all too ready to give our opinions on a subject, whether we know much about it or not. Here we are admonished to allow ample time for thought before we speak.
slow to anger -- There are two words in Greek for anger. One, thumos, denotes the more violent, passionate outbursts of anger. The word used here, orge, is the more settled and persistent kind of hostility.
A person should not allow himself to be provoked too quickly by what he hears. We see this with unbelievers who are easily antagonized and angered by the Word of God. However, sometimes we as believers are guilty of the same kind of attitude. With improper attitudes taking hold in us, we find ourselves easily antagonized by the Word......Humility is the opposite of the quality demonstrated by a person who, in anger, is aggressively asserting himself. It is represented by the meek and gentle person who is teachable. "Prautes describes the perfect conquest and control of everything in a man's nature which would be a hindrance to his seeing, hearing and obeying the truth" (Barclay).
receive (aorist imperative) -- This is the basic command in the verse around which everything else revolves. The word means "to welcome or receive into one's home." It also means "to take in hand" or "to grasp."
This word is used of the response of the Bereans to the Word as preached by Paul and Silas in Acts 17:11. James wanted these believers to act upon the Word they had received. Like many believers today, they were remaining passive regarding the great truth they had.
the word implanted -- This is the Word as it has been implanted in the heart. The Word was implanted in their hearts at the time of the new birth (v. 18). But that was the beginning of a process, not the end.
End quote.
I highly suggest reading the whole article for the more thorough treatment of this passage and the context.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Josh McDowell Vs. Nabeel Qureshi: persecution brings exposure to the Truth; compromise feeds the flesh
Php 1:12 Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, 13 so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, 14 and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear.
Below are excerpts from James White's analysis of Josh McDowell's video of his appearance at an Arab Festival. You might recall the recent arrest of four Christians in Dearborn, Michigan, for sharing the Gospel with Muslims there. At that link, you can see the video, which was finally released by the Dearborn PD.
Excerpts from Sharia Love? What is that? By James White
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the inappropriateness of the background music. The accusation that has been repeated for the past number of weeks is simple. How can folks like Josh McDowell get along just fine at the Arabic Festival but Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood can't? I mean, they are all Christians, and clearly, since we have video and audio, even Josh McDowell had cameras and recording equipment, just like David and Nabeel. So how come David, Nabeel, Paul, and Nageen ended up in the slammer, and nobody else did? They must have done something wrong!
Let me be clear here: Nabeel Qureshi handled that situation perfectly. I can only hope that in some small way I helped to prepare him to do that. Nabeel, well done brother.
This leads me to the odd statement made by Josh McDowell in the video posted above: "In two and a half days...not one argument, not one person has raised their voice, not one conflict. Yet every person walking out of here knowing that I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I'd like them to know Him too. That's what makes it all worthwhile." Was Nabeel having an argument? If you call answering those questions an argument, then it must follow that McDowell never explained to anyone what it means for him to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" in a way that they can understand how that differs from their own profession of belief in Isa. The fact of the matter is, there is a conflict between Christianity and Islam. All you have to do is read the Qur'an and you will know this. Those young teenagers standing around Nabeel knew it. Their questions reflect it. If you are not talking about the things that separate us, just what are you talking about? In other words, loving, truthful speech to Muslims will be speech that involves conflict. That conflict can be handled with grace, like Nabeel did it, and like I try to to do it as well, but when you avoid the conflict, you are no longer speaking in Christian love.
But here is my real concern.Two times now Josh McDowell has posted a video with the phrase "Sharia love" in it. There is no such thing as sharia love. Ask the persecuted believers languishing in Islamic prisons around the world. Ask those who live in fear of death every day in lands where sharia is practiced. Ask those are beaten for proclaiming the gospel in Muslim lands. Sharia and love do not go together. Sharia is law, sharia is obedience, sharia knows no grace. It is an insult to the persecuted church to pass out fictional literature at an Arabic festival in the United States of America and call it "sharia love." True love, God's love, speaks the truth with clarity. Nabeel Qureshi was showing love to those young Muslim teenagers. May I boldly suggest that to be "nice" to those young men, while allowing them to continue in their soul-destroying deception, is anything but loving? You may well say, "Oh, but we hope to get a chance to talk to them later, in a better context." Who are you to boast about tomorrow? And what is more, please, pray tell, give me some biblical precedent for this. Where did the Apostles engage in the proclamation of the gospel in such a fashion? It seems to me that many of those criticizing Nabeel and David would have criticized Paul for going to Mars Hill, or right into the synagogues (which got Paul arrested, and even beaten, in the most civilized culture of the day, I might add).
Muslims need to hear a clear, clarion, bold, and authoritative proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They need to hear about a Jesus who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, their Creator, about Whom they cannot be ambivalent. They do not need a Jesus, or a Christianity, that is soft and warm and gooey and unchallenging to the Islamic denial of its very heart and soul. There is everything good about pursuing relationships with Muslims. But do not confuse that process with evangelism and proclamation. It is the gospel that saves, a gospel that has been clearly proclaimed in language the target audience can understand. And that is what Nabeel Qureshi was doing when the Dearborn PD decided to arrest him for so doing. And after all the proper lawsuits have taken place, and justice (please Lord!) prevails, there is one sobering thought to keep in mind: woe be to any man, any woman, who stands in the way of the heralds of the King. A day of judgment is coming when that King will sit enthroned. Justice will, indeed, be done, if not in this life, surely in eternity itself.
End quote. For the full article and video from McDowell's ministry, go here.
Seems to me it was just an opportunity for Josh McDowell to sign autographs. I agree with what James White. There is huge conflict between Islam and Christianity. In fact, Islam has literally declared war on Christians, as well as Jews, according to the quran itself, not to mention the haddiths.
I have dealt with many Westernized Muslims online and I can tell you they claim to have a Jesus they call Isa, but that man was a Muslim prophet, not the Lord Jesus Christ who is God the Son, the Second Person in the Trinity, who died on the cross for sinners and rose from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. You tell them that, you tell them who the real Jesus Christ is, and all bets are off. You tell them the truth about Islam and its false god and works religion, and they get angry. They hate the Bible and they hate God.
McDowell seems to infer that any conflict with Muslims previous to him was because they did something wrong and that he did it "right". I sense him gloating with an attitude of, "See, WE did it right! They love us! We had no problems! Aren't we great!" all the while merely signing books. Seriously, it reeks of PRIDE and false love.
Also, it appears that McDowell thinks that conflict is BAD. That's pretty typical of the American "Christian". However, that was not typical of Christ Jesus nor His disciples and the apostles. In fact, Jesus promised conflict. Really, He promised far worse than that. If conflict is bad, pray tell, what does he think about persecution? Where does that come in to play? Is that then, the fault of the evangelist? Listen to the words of Jesus and compare them to McDowell's gloating of "not one voice was raised, not one conflict":
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
Mat 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
Mat 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Mat 5:15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
Mat 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
Jas 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
Apparently then, according to Scripture, conflict for the sake of Christ is not bad; its expected and it is good. Its good because it means that we are proclaiming the Gospel clearly and boldly. Its also good because it means we are representing Christ Jesus well enough so that they identify us with HIM. Its good because it causes us to look to the sufficiency of Christ and God's grace, which will mature us in Him.
Conflict---persecution allows the Gospel to go forth out to the world.
Think about this: with the persecution of Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, and the few others with him, came great exposure of the Truth!
With the compromise and silence by Josh McDowell, there was nothing. No one has heard a peep. It didn't make national nor international news headlines. It didn't catch the interest of senators or others in leadership.
Like Paul's unfair arrests, Nabeel and his group's arrest was actually for the furthering of the Gospel, starting with: the police who had to review the tapes, moving on to the news organizations, law-makers, bloggers, etc.
What a contrast!
I also note that the worldly, fleshly, inappropriate music for McDowell's video is another indicator of where they were at. It wasn't Christ honoring. It was an attempt afterwards to try to show the "unprofessionals" how its done. He was blowing his horn, patting himself on the back...thank GOODNESS he's not like Nabeel or David! Whew! It was truly a Rick Warren moment.
But what they did, as indicated on their video, wasn't just a pride issue, it using a song about worldly love and having the time of their life in that erros, and applying it to what they did at that festival. That, folks, isn't of God at all. No wonder the Muslims weren't offended by their "Christianity". Erros is the love the Muslims seek (they are motivated by sex with 72 virgins in paradise; they are allowed to have up to four wives, not to mention the absolute demonic perversion of Muhammad). Dumb Westerners are easily swayed by anything except the truth--and the Muslims---count on this---know it. This IS how they infiltrate the West. Arrogant, ignorant, silly "Christians" declaring fleshly love to a group of God-haters caught up in a demonic religion that has NO PROBLEM slicing thei throats....you couldn't get more absurd if you tried.
Below are excerpts from James White's analysis of Josh McDowell's video of his appearance at an Arab Festival. You might recall the recent arrest of four Christians in Dearborn, Michigan, for sharing the Gospel with Muslims there. At that link, you can see the video, which was finally released by the Dearborn PD.
Excerpts from Sharia Love? What is that? By James White
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the inappropriateness of the background music. The accusation that has been repeated for the past number of weeks is simple. How can folks like Josh McDowell get along just fine at the Arabic Festival but Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood can't? I mean, they are all Christians, and clearly, since we have video and audio, even Josh McDowell had cameras and recording equipment, just like David and Nabeel. So how come David, Nabeel, Paul, and Nageen ended up in the slammer, and nobody else did? They must have done something wrong!
Let me be clear here: Nabeel Qureshi handled that situation perfectly. I can only hope that in some small way I helped to prepare him to do that. Nabeel, well done brother.
This leads me to the odd statement made by Josh McDowell in the video posted above: "In two and a half days...not one argument, not one person has raised their voice, not one conflict. Yet every person walking out of here knowing that I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and I'd like them to know Him too. That's what makes it all worthwhile." Was Nabeel having an argument? If you call answering those questions an argument, then it must follow that McDowell never explained to anyone what it means for him to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" in a way that they can understand how that differs from their own profession of belief in Isa. The fact of the matter is, there is a conflict between Christianity and Islam. All you have to do is read the Qur'an and you will know this. Those young teenagers standing around Nabeel knew it. Their questions reflect it. If you are not talking about the things that separate us, just what are you talking about? In other words, loving, truthful speech to Muslims will be speech that involves conflict. That conflict can be handled with grace, like Nabeel did it, and like I try to to do it as well, but when you avoid the conflict, you are no longer speaking in Christian love.
But here is my real concern.Two times now Josh McDowell has posted a video with the phrase "Sharia love" in it. There is no such thing as sharia love. Ask the persecuted believers languishing in Islamic prisons around the world. Ask those who live in fear of death every day in lands where sharia is practiced. Ask those are beaten for proclaiming the gospel in Muslim lands. Sharia and love do not go together. Sharia is law, sharia is obedience, sharia knows no grace. It is an insult to the persecuted church to pass out fictional literature at an Arabic festival in the United States of America and call it "sharia love." True love, God's love, speaks the truth with clarity. Nabeel Qureshi was showing love to those young Muslim teenagers. May I boldly suggest that to be "nice" to those young men, while allowing them to continue in their soul-destroying deception, is anything but loving? You may well say, "Oh, but we hope to get a chance to talk to them later, in a better context." Who are you to boast about tomorrow? And what is more, please, pray tell, give me some biblical precedent for this. Where did the Apostles engage in the proclamation of the gospel in such a fashion? It seems to me that many of those criticizing Nabeel and David would have criticized Paul for going to Mars Hill, or right into the synagogues (which got Paul arrested, and even beaten, in the most civilized culture of the day, I might add).
Muslims need to hear a clear, clarion, bold, and authoritative proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They need to hear about a Jesus who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, their Creator, about Whom they cannot be ambivalent. They do not need a Jesus, or a Christianity, that is soft and warm and gooey and unchallenging to the Islamic denial of its very heart and soul. There is everything good about pursuing relationships with Muslims. But do not confuse that process with evangelism and proclamation. It is the gospel that saves, a gospel that has been clearly proclaimed in language the target audience can understand. And that is what Nabeel Qureshi was doing when the Dearborn PD decided to arrest him for so doing. And after all the proper lawsuits have taken place, and justice (please Lord!) prevails, there is one sobering thought to keep in mind: woe be to any man, any woman, who stands in the way of the heralds of the King. A day of judgment is coming when that King will sit enthroned. Justice will, indeed, be done, if not in this life, surely in eternity itself.
End quote. For the full article and video from McDowell's ministry, go here.
Seems to me it was just an opportunity for Josh McDowell to sign autographs. I agree with what James White. There is huge conflict between Islam and Christianity. In fact, Islam has literally declared war on Christians, as well as Jews, according to the quran itself, not to mention the haddiths.
I have dealt with many Westernized Muslims online and I can tell you they claim to have a Jesus they call Isa, but that man was a Muslim prophet, not the Lord Jesus Christ who is God the Son, the Second Person in the Trinity, who died on the cross for sinners and rose from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. You tell them that, you tell them who the real Jesus Christ is, and all bets are off. You tell them the truth about Islam and its false god and works religion, and they get angry. They hate the Bible and they hate God.
McDowell seems to infer that any conflict with Muslims previous to him was because they did something wrong and that he did it "right". I sense him gloating with an attitude of, "See, WE did it right! They love us! We had no problems! Aren't we great!" all the while merely signing books. Seriously, it reeks of PRIDE and false love.
Also, it appears that McDowell thinks that conflict is BAD. That's pretty typical of the American "Christian". However, that was not typical of Christ Jesus nor His disciples and the apostles. In fact, Jesus promised conflict. Really, He promised far worse than that. If conflict is bad, pray tell, what does he think about persecution? Where does that come in to play? Is that then, the fault of the evangelist? Listen to the words of Jesus and compare them to McDowell's gloating of "not one voice was raised, not one conflict":
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
Mat 24:9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
Mat 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Mat 5:15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
Mat 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Joh 15:21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
Jas 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Joh 16:33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
Apparently then, according to Scripture, conflict for the sake of Christ is not bad; its expected and it is good. Its good because it means that we are proclaiming the Gospel clearly and boldly. Its also good because it means we are representing Christ Jesus well enough so that they identify us with HIM. Its good because it causes us to look to the sufficiency of Christ and God's grace, which will mature us in Him.
Conflict---persecution allows the Gospel to go forth out to the world.
Think about this: with the persecution of Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, and the few others with him, came great exposure of the Truth!
With the compromise and silence by Josh McDowell, there was nothing. No one has heard a peep. It didn't make national nor international news headlines. It didn't catch the interest of senators or others in leadership.
Like Paul's unfair arrests, Nabeel and his group's arrest was actually for the furthering of the Gospel, starting with: the police who had to review the tapes, moving on to the news organizations, law-makers, bloggers, etc.
What a contrast!
I also note that the worldly, fleshly, inappropriate music for McDowell's video is another indicator of where they were at. It wasn't Christ honoring. It was an attempt afterwards to try to show the "unprofessionals" how its done. He was blowing his horn, patting himself on the back...thank GOODNESS he's not like Nabeel or David! Whew! It was truly a Rick Warren moment.
But what they did, as indicated on their video, wasn't just a pride issue, it using a song about worldly love and having the time of their life in that erros, and applying it to what they did at that festival. That, folks, isn't of God at all. No wonder the Muslims weren't offended by their "Christianity". Erros is the love the Muslims seek (they are motivated by sex with 72 virgins in paradise; they are allowed to have up to four wives, not to mention the absolute demonic perversion of Muhammad). Dumb Westerners are easily swayed by anything except the truth--and the Muslims---count on this---know it. This IS how they infiltrate the West. Arrogant, ignorant, silly "Christians" declaring fleshly love to a group of God-haters caught up in a demonic religion that has NO PROBLEM slicing thei throats....you couldn't get more absurd if you tried.
More on Literal Six Day (24 hour) Creation
These excerpts are from Answers In Genesis :"Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?" by Ken Ham, on Genesis 1 and the literal day Creation doctrine Scripture proclaims:
Romans 3:4 declares: “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
In every instance where someone has not accepted the “days” of creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture. Thus, they have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will lead to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context could mean different things to different people....
Rather, we should consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned “prince of preachers,” in 1877:
We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles....
The “Days” of Genesis 1
What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1? A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the English word “day” can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example, consider the following sentence: “Back in my grandfather’s day, it took 12 days to drive across the country during the day.”
Here the first occurrence of “day” means “time” in a general sense. The second “day,” where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period. The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
*A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
*Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
*Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
*In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
*The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
*There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
End quote.
Romans 3:4 declares: “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
In every instance where someone has not accepted the “days” of creation to be ordinary days, they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture. Thus, they have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will lead to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context could mean different things to different people....
Rather, we should consider the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the renowned “prince of preachers,” in 1877:
We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles....
The “Days” of Genesis 1
What does the Bible tell us about the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1? A word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context. For instance, the English word “day” can have perhaps 14 different meanings. For example, consider the following sentence: “Back in my grandfather’s day, it took 12 days to drive across the country during the day.”
Here the first occurrence of “day” means “time” in a general sense. The second “day,” where a number is used, refers to an ordinary day, and the third refers to the daylight portion of the 24-hour period. The point is that words can have more than one meaning, depending on the context.
To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:
A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.
A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”
*A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
*Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
*Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12
*In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13
*The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.
*There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.
End quote.
Friday, July 16, 2010
A Day Is 24 Hours According to Scripture, Not An Age
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Clearly a "day" is a 24 hour period, or put even more clearly: "evening to morning" = day. Its not rocket science, folks. Its not even science. Its the Creator clearly and repeatedly stating what a day is, what HE did in a day, and what MAN is to do on a day. The same hermenutic from Gen. 1-2 is carried on into Ex. 20...even between verses 9-11. A "day" is a day, not an age. Context and consistant hermenutics is what makes it clear (if the definition "evening and morning" wasn't enough).
I found this today and thought it is helpful: ICR's Defender Bible notes on Ex. 20:11:
"20:11 in six days. This verse, written on stone by God’s own hand (Exodus 31:18) settles once and for all the question of the meaning of “day” in the creation chapter (Genesis 1). Man was to work six days and rest one day because God did; in fact, God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). God’s week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man’s regular week. The Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), furthermore, is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and cannot be shown ever to require any meaning except that of literal days, certainly never to anything comparable to geological ages. Still further, “all that in them is” was made in the six days; nothing had been made previously, as the gap theory of Genesis would require. There seems to be no legitimate exegesis of Genesis that can ever allow for the theoretical ages of evolutionary geology. Further, no such gap is necessary; all the data of rocks and fossils are much better explained in terms of the great Flood. It is also significant that other human measurements of time (day, month, year) are keyed to astronomical processes. The universal week, however, has no astronomical base whatever. We keep time in weeks simply because God does!"
*Update*
I also came across more info:
http://www.icr.org/creation-recent/
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle."
He goes on to say that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, thus "the most emphatis action every taken by God on behalf of his revealed Word", designating, again, that "day" is a literal day, 24 hour period, per the command of six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, for on the seventh day God rested from Creation.
ICR's article "The Meaning of 'Day' In Genesis" by James Stambaugh is here. This article goes into much more detail grammatically and shows, as if the biblical Christian needs to, that "day" means a normal, 24 hour period of time.
Another good yet short article explaining the same thing is here, and showing how ICR refuses to compromise God's clear truth on this issue.
The issue of the Creation in six literal days is one that shows just what Jesus Christ meant when He said we must come to HIM in childlike faith. This is why childlike faith is so important...this is exactly what Jesus meant to come to Him with such faith. We grow up in HIM, but our faith is simple and trusts completely what His Word has so clearly stated. Our faith and what its placed in doesn't change---it only grows deeper in Him.
Those who lose the simplicity of faith in Christ, fall into the unbiblical trap of man's desperate attempt to dismiss the clear teaching of Genesis 1-2 and its implication of the Sovereign God creating in merely six days. It demotes God, our accountability to Him, and starts the stab at His Word: Did God really say? Did God REALLY mean....? Start that thinking with "day" (and this WASN'T an issue prior to Darwin's day), then the next attack will be on the Fall, on Adam and Eve, and on Jesus Christ Himself. If Scripture is really that complicated, then no child can really believe it, scientists must be our theologians, science must be our new hermenutic, and the rest of the historocity and clarity of Scripture is doubted.
It really is that simple.
2Co 10:17 But HE WHO BOASTS IS TO BOAST IN THE LORD. 18 For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends.
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
***UPDATE***
Here's what John MacArthur says about "day" in Genesis:
In verse eight, “And the evening and the morning were the second day.” In verse thirteen, “And the evening and the morning were the third day.” And verse nineteen, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” Verse twenty-three, “And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” God is talking here about evening and morning, and evening and morning makes twenty-four hour day.
There is no reason to feel that we have to try to harmonize this evolutionary monstrosity with the Scripture. The Bible claims the earth was created in six days, the seventh day God rested. Now that’s all we really need to know. But I would just draw your attention to Exodus 20:11, which is God’s own commentary on the creation, and this is what He says. Verse nine - “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.” Does that mean six literal days or does that mean six years, or six decades, or six million, billion, trillion, geological ages? Oh, no. It means six days. You work for six days, you get a day off. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God,” don’t do any work, nor your son or your daughter, your manservant or your maidservant, your cattle your stranger and so forth. Why? “For in six days the Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day…” You see the parallel there demands a six day creation to equate it with a six day working and one day off Sabbath. It’s clear.
The Hebrew word yowm for days, always in the plural form means a literal day. Never an indefinite period. Always a literal day. But the reason that evolutionists need twenty billion years is that they can’t figure out how come things got the way they are. Because they don’t want to believe in God. And they can’t say God created man, they don’t want to give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve and that takes a long time. Incidentally, the ordinals, the ordinals you know are first, second third, the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least fourteen hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal the meaning is a twenty-four hour day. Never anything else.
End qote.
More from Dr. John MacArthur:
Now as we have already learned in our study of origins in the study of the first Chapter of Genesis, it is sheer foolishness scientifically and it is utter unbelief Biblically to impose on creation any kind of evolution. Evolution is not a reasonable explanation for the universe or life on earth in any sense whatsoever. It is scientifically impossible, and it is Biblically rejected. If we look closely at the issue of Genesis 1 and creation, we find no evidence of evolution whatsoever in the text of scripture; nor is there any indication by any kind of reasonable science that any form of evolution from species to species could at all take place. And I've suggested to you a number of times, and I do it again, that as you look more closely at the issue of unbelief and denial of the clearly revealed account of creation in the book of Genesis, it is fair to say that anyone who rejects the Genesis creation account, anyone who rejects that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days, makes an assault on scripture; makes an assault on the historicity of scripture, the accuracy of scripture, the inspiration of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture and the authenticity of scripture.
It is no small thing to deny the straightforward creation account of Genesis Chapter 1. And we could go so far as to say that in actuality, the Bible itself stands or falls with the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If we cannot trust the creation account, then why should we trust anything else on the pages of scripture? It is sad to say that even the secular world has through the years better understood this than many Christians.
End quote.
Clearly a "day" is a 24 hour period, or put even more clearly: "evening to morning" = day. Its not rocket science, folks. Its not even science. Its the Creator clearly and repeatedly stating what a day is, what HE did in a day, and what MAN is to do on a day. The same hermenutic from Gen. 1-2 is carried on into Ex. 20...even between verses 9-11. A "day" is a day, not an age. Context and consistant hermenutics is what makes it clear (if the definition "evening and morning" wasn't enough).
I found this today and thought it is helpful: ICR's Defender Bible notes on Ex. 20:11:
"20:11 in six days. This verse, written on stone by God’s own hand (Exodus 31:18) settles once and for all the question of the meaning of “day” in the creation chapter (Genesis 1). Man was to work six days and rest one day because God did; in fact, God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things to be a model for humanity (Genesis 2:1-3). God’s week was of precisely the same duration and pattern as man’s regular week. The Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), furthermore, is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament, and cannot be shown ever to require any meaning except that of literal days, certainly never to anything comparable to geological ages. Still further, “all that in them is” was made in the six days; nothing had been made previously, as the gap theory of Genesis would require. There seems to be no legitimate exegesis of Genesis that can ever allow for the theoretical ages of evolutionary geology. Further, no such gap is necessary; all the data of rocks and fossils are much better explained in terms of the great Flood. It is also significant that other human measurements of time (day, month, year) are keyed to astronomical processes. The universal week, however, has no astronomical base whatever. We keep time in weeks simply because God does!"
*Update*
I also came across more info:
http://www.icr.org/creation-recent/
"The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary 24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2, 1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day. The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.” Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other than a day-night cycle."
He goes on to say that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, thus "the most emphatis action every taken by God on behalf of his revealed Word", designating, again, that "day" is a literal day, 24 hour period, per the command of six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, for on the seventh day God rested from Creation.
ICR's article "The Meaning of 'Day' In Genesis" by James Stambaugh is here. This article goes into much more detail grammatically and shows, as if the biblical Christian needs to, that "day" means a normal, 24 hour period of time.
Another good yet short article explaining the same thing is here, and showing how ICR refuses to compromise God's clear truth on this issue.
The issue of the Creation in six literal days is one that shows just what Jesus Christ meant when He said we must come to HIM in childlike faith. This is why childlike faith is so important...this is exactly what Jesus meant to come to Him with such faith. We grow up in HIM, but our faith is simple and trusts completely what His Word has so clearly stated. Our faith and what its placed in doesn't change---it only grows deeper in Him.
Those who lose the simplicity of faith in Christ, fall into the unbiblical trap of man's desperate attempt to dismiss the clear teaching of Genesis 1-2 and its implication of the Sovereign God creating in merely six days. It demotes God, our accountability to Him, and starts the stab at His Word: Did God really say? Did God REALLY mean....? Start that thinking with "day" (and this WASN'T an issue prior to Darwin's day), then the next attack will be on the Fall, on Adam and Eve, and on Jesus Christ Himself. If Scripture is really that complicated, then no child can really believe it, scientists must be our theologians, science must be our new hermenutic, and the rest of the historocity and clarity of Scripture is doubted.
It really is that simple.
2Co 10:17 But HE WHO BOASTS IS TO BOAST IN THE LORD. 18 For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends.
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
***UPDATE***
Here's what John MacArthur says about "day" in Genesis:
In verse eight, “And the evening and the morning were the second day.” In verse thirteen, “And the evening and the morning were the third day.” And verse nineteen, “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” Verse twenty-three, “And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” God is talking here about evening and morning, and evening and morning makes twenty-four hour day.
There is no reason to feel that we have to try to harmonize this evolutionary monstrosity with the Scripture. The Bible claims the earth was created in six days, the seventh day God rested. Now that’s all we really need to know. But I would just draw your attention to Exodus 20:11, which is God’s own commentary on the creation, and this is what He says. Verse nine - “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.” Does that mean six literal days or does that mean six years, or six decades, or six million, billion, trillion, geological ages? Oh, no. It means six days. You work for six days, you get a day off. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God,” don’t do any work, nor your son or your daughter, your manservant or your maidservant, your cattle your stranger and so forth. Why? “For in six days the Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day…” You see the parallel there demands a six day creation to equate it with a six day working and one day off Sabbath. It’s clear.
The Hebrew word yowm for days, always in the plural form means a literal day. Never an indefinite period. Always a literal day. But the reason that evolutionists need twenty billion years is that they can’t figure out how come things got the way they are. Because they don’t want to believe in God. And they can’t say God created man, they don’t want to give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve and that takes a long time. Incidentally, the ordinals, the ordinals you know are first, second third, the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least fourteen hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal the meaning is a twenty-four hour day. Never anything else.
End qote.
More from Dr. John MacArthur:
Now as we have already learned in our study of origins in the study of the first Chapter of Genesis, it is sheer foolishness scientifically and it is utter unbelief Biblically to impose on creation any kind of evolution. Evolution is not a reasonable explanation for the universe or life on earth in any sense whatsoever. It is scientifically impossible, and it is Biblically rejected. If we look closely at the issue of Genesis 1 and creation, we find no evidence of evolution whatsoever in the text of scripture; nor is there any indication by any kind of reasonable science that any form of evolution from species to species could at all take place. And I've suggested to you a number of times, and I do it again, that as you look more closely at the issue of unbelief and denial of the clearly revealed account of creation in the book of Genesis, it is fair to say that anyone who rejects the Genesis creation account, anyone who rejects that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days, makes an assault on scripture; makes an assault on the historicity of scripture, the accuracy of scripture, the inspiration of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture and the authenticity of scripture.
It is no small thing to deny the straightforward creation account of Genesis Chapter 1. And we could go so far as to say that in actuality, the Bible itself stands or falls with the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If we cannot trust the creation account, then why should we trust anything else on the pages of scripture? It is sad to say that even the secular world has through the years better understood this than many Christians.
End quote.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Piper's Gap Theory: more fruit of his "Christian" hedonism
Ps. 138:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Apprising Ministries reports on how Piper continues his unbiblical views; here is an excerpt from the transcript of the video:
Or he might take another view that these days are ages.
Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.
In verse 1, "In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth," he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.
So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.
That's where I am, and I think every pastor should go ahead and say what he believes. But how do you define who gets on your eldership, for example? Who gets a teaching office in your church? I'm inclined to not draw that too narrowly.
But I could be wrong about that, you know. I'm 63 years old, and I've never preached through Genesis yet. And I'd like to! I'm going to finish John, and then maybe the next thing I'll turn to, if the elders let me stay around that long, would be Genesis.
We need to give our people help in this.
End quote.
As More Books And Things reports, Sailhamer’s book, which Piper refers to, is about selling an old idea as “new” and “provocative”, when its neither new nor provocative. Its damnable doctrine, sitting in the seat of scoffers and especially that of the Serpent, proclaiming, “Hath God Said?” According to Answers in Genesis, this Hebrew "scholar" “has ‘unbound’ are the rules of grammar, the semantic fields of words and the laws of logic.” ~Source
Scripture, however warns: Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
Nevermind being biblical...Piper's view is anti-Biblical, but is this even Reformed? Is this view one of the Puritans? Afterall, Piper is hailed as the Reformer everyone loves. But is he really Reformed? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Clearly, Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) and Faith Alone (Sola Fide) don't apply in his thinking on the very FIRST and foremost important doctrine of all. So why is he hailed as a Reformer, I wonder?
Recently our family was listening to a series on Creation by John MacArthur, where he speaks very authoritatively on Genesis. What a total contrast to Piper’s pathetic view of the Beginning….apparently its yet another biblical truth that is of mere opinion. (The "I feel at home" comment regarding the Gap Theory is emotionalism. How one feels about anything regarding Creation is irrelevent. Feelings aren't facts. Feelings don't give truth. Emotionalism is definitely part of his Charismaticism, though.)
Anyway, the time period was given in Genesis: 6 -24 hour days. This isn't a matter of opinion, or a feeling. This is FOUNDATIONAL. Either God was truthful and clear when He spoke the very first issues in all of Scripture or not. And we know He did.
Genesis 1-3 sets God as Supreme Ruler, Sovereign King, Creator, Owner of all the universe HE made. It demonstrates His awesome power and control. It shows who and what is far inferior to HIM. That is to say, all creation is inferior to its Creator. Furthermore, we see throughout Scripture that He also sustains His creation by that same word, and at His will and in His time, He will destroy it because of Man’s sin. To be honest and consistant, to deny the Beginning as recorded, is really to deny the End too. Switching hermenutics is also wrong, not to mention self-serving and deceptive.
Here are some excerpts from John MacArthur's excellent series on Creation:
Quote:
The debate gets to questions about man's dignity, about man's nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God. It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control. It asks, "Is there a universal judge? Is there a universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are to people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?"
Now, folks, let me tell you something. Which of those views you take is not a secondary issue, it is a primary issue not only for science but for theology. How in the world can Christianity view those as secondary issues? This is the foundation of all truth....
Francis Schaeffer the apologist said, "If he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn't know the Lord, he would spend the first 55 minutes talking about man being created in the image of God. And the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image."
Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth for purpose and destiny which He Himself had determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.
Now, let's just get the record straight here. This is all about getting rid of God...the God of the Bible, the authority of Scripture with its moral implications. And even Christian people who want to go to Genesis I don't believe have the liberty to tell us that Genesis 1 doesn't mean what it says. Why would we want to join forces with those whose effort is directly against the authority of the God of Scripture? Just...I just need to put that in perspective.... In the end the evolutionist, the naturalistic evolutionist says, and even the theistic evolutionist says that things happen by chance...chance. We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we've got chance. Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about. I have read this word "chance" over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people and the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance...chance. Chance is the cause. In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning. They don't want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.
If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungoded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.
End quote. ~Source
You can clearly see how Freewillism and Evolution fit together...its all about chance and their god is sitting by powerlessly, waiting to see what happens.
Here's the thing: either God is clear or He isn't. Either Biblical doctrine is true or its not. There's no mixing truth with error and ending up with truth. Old Earth denies Creation in six literal days, which is nothing less than unbelief and echoing the voice of the Serpent: hath God said?
Begin to doubt literal six day creation by God's speaking forth creation, then there's no reason to really believe a historical Adam and Eve, a Fall, the devil, the Second Adam who is Redeemer, a need for the Redeemer, Heaven, Helletc. It ALL starts with the Beginning. And NO CHRISTIAN DENIES the Genesis account AS WRITTEN. This is vital.
In the same Creation Series, in another sermon, MacArthur says in part [excerpts]:
Quote:
Science is not a hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis...or for that matter for interpreting any other portion of Scripture. Science is not a hermeneutic. It is not a principle of interpretation. The Bible does not bow to science. The accuracy of the Genesis text is no different than the accuracy of any other portion of Scripture. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. All Scripture is God-breathed. All Scripture comes not by any private interpretation but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus summed it up when He said, "Thy Word is truth." The Bible is true whether you're talking about revelation and eschatological prophecy or whether you're talking about Genesis and historic origins. The Bible is true whether you're talking about the history of Israel or the history of the Canaanites. The Bible is true whether you're talking about salvation or sanctification, whether you're talking about the life of Jesus or the theology of Jesus. Whatever the Bible says is absolutely true. And the Bible is as true in Genesis as it is anywhere else, and everywhere else.
Now in spite of that very clear-cut approach to the Word of God, many people, including Christians, have turned to science, turned to scientists who speak authoritatively on Genesis. In fact, there are theologians, many of them, Bible commentators, pastors, well-known popular pastors and preachers, some of whom you would even know who deny the Genesis account. They flatly deny the Genesis account because they accept evolutionary science to one degree or another. I've said this to you all the way along and I'll repeat it again without going in to all the verification...science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record is what answers the mysteries of science. But sadly Christians and Christian theologians, Bible commentators, Christian college professors as well as pastors and teachers have denied the Genesis account, being intimidated by science.
…And an unwavering faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible is at the heart of all sound theology. And it starts with believing the Genesis account.
Excerpts from Day Six in MacArthur's series :
The bottom line, the Bible ends with a warning that you better not tamper with Scripture. And anyone who tampers with Scripture, to add to it or take away from it, brings himself under divine judgment.
So we could readily conclude that altering the Scripture, tampering the Scripture or just flatly not believing the Scripture is unthinkable for a faithful, wise believer. It's unthinkable. It is only reasonable that an ungodly and foolish unbeliever would attack the testimony of Scripture, and they do that all the time. That's just a way of life with them. For a believer to assault the veracity of Scripture is an unimaginable thing. And yet there are many so-called Christians who do that. They wouldn't deny the morality of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, they wouldn't deny the...they wouldn't deny the prophetic testimony of the coming suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53. They wouldn't deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. They wouldn't deny the gospel of grace and the need for the new birth. They wouldn't deny other things in Scripture, but they do deny the clear teaching of Genesis chapter 1.
End quote.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Sadly, I must say, many “Christians” who deny the Literal 6 Day Creation have come to deny many other biblical truths. But out-right deny them? In the beginning anyway? No. The enemy is subtle. They "secretly creep in among you". Piper wouldn’t proclaim an unbelief in say, the Ten Commandments. Yet. But he does teach “Christian” hedonism and we see the fallout of that with his involvment in the ecumenical Lausanne Congress. Its also seen in his defiant defense of X-rated Goat Herder Mark Drisoll, or Cussing Paul Tripp, or Wolf Rick Warren. Piper offered Doug Wilson, who denies Justification by Faith alone—that is a denial of the ONLY Gospel that can save.
A Christian believes the Words of Scripture. When God said He created all things in six literal days, defining it by “there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, then we KNOW it’s a 24 hour period. This also supported by the rest of Scripture, especially about the seventh day becoming the Sabbath Day of rest for Jews. This wasn’t a Sabbath rest period of millions of years. Jesus did not stay in the ground for eons. He rose again on the third DAY (the Lord’s Day), according to Scripture.
To deny or even doubt the Six Literal Day of creation view, is then to deny or doubt: historical Adam and Eve, actual Fall, the Serpent who is the Devil, the Second Adam (Jesus Christ), the need for Redemption, instantaneous rebirth/new Creation in Christ (spiritual), literal Heaven and Hell, eternal torment.
To wrongly misinterpret Genesis 1-2 means one will also be wrong on many other important doctrines proclaimed throughout Scripture, not to mention the application of such doctrine.
Cause doubt on the opening three chapters of Genesis, and you’ve just destroyed faith in the rest of Scripture, which IS the sole authority for the biblical Christian. As Spurgeon said: "The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith."
I believe that this attack on the Word is an attack on God Himself, and its being done by pastors and echoed by their flocks who call Jesus Christ their Lord!
Dr. Henry Morris of The Institute for Creation Research says in an excellent article, "Dangerous Turn Ahead: Traveling Down the road to compromise":
“Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first and foremost apologetic. If a person stumbles on this one profound truth, a lifetime of doubt and confusion lies ahead for him, full of uncertainty about the ultimate purpose for being alive. But when a Christian attempts to alter this ultimate statement of reality to fit the compromising philosophies of men--even scientifically-trained professionals--then woe to him for his unbelief and, even graver still, for teaching others that unbelief.”
Rather than evolution of any variation (and "Theistic Evolution" is merely religiously veiled evolution), Scripture states:
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
Psa 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.
Heb 1: he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Isa 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens and I commanded all their host.
We see this repeated in the miracles of Jesus as well. When Jesus healed and thus creating, as it were, a new limb, new eyesight, or raising someone from the dead, He did it instantaneously and completely.
“A chasm is opening between the men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognize the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the "larger hope." One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.Neither when we have chosen our way can we keep company with those who go the other way. There must come with decision for truth a corresponding protest against error. Let those who will keep the narrow way keep it, and suffer for their choice; but to hope to follow the broad road at the same time is an absurdity. What communion hath Christ with Belial?”- Spurgeon
I wrote about this very issue and quote from ICR’s excellent articles on the matter. Bottom line is this: Did God speak or did He not? This is not a matter of opinion, but of Truth. Science NEVER determines doctrinal truth. Science is always in subjection to the Creator and HIS Word.
So, is it any wonder that Piper is ecumenical, denies the literal Six Day Creation, unapologetically and pridefully defends and offers wolves to his followers like Driscoll, Warren, Tripp, and Doug Wilson? No. Piper continues on his pathetic Hedonistic Broad Road under the guise of being “Christian”. This is not only spiritual harlotry, its TREASON against the King-Creator Who has already spoken clearly. And as I have stated before, more will be revealed. The fruit of this spiritual adultery is being revealed. God will NOT be mocked by those who claim to speak on His behalf, to teach His sheep. No man can serve two masters. Truth is knowable and we must, as Christians, be dogmatic on this issue. There is no room for wavering, doubt, reconsideration. God spoke everything into existance in six actual days. Period. Lightly veiled Post-modern "I'm not sure...its just my opinion" cowardice has no place in the mind and heart of a shepherd much less a sheep...if he belongs to Christ.
Do not listen to John Piper, folks. He doesn't offer the pure milk of the Word, but rather, like many hierlings and wolves today, he gives rotten food, poisoned water. Be brave enough...LOYAL enough to Christ, to throw away totally that which is not from Him.
Consider these excerpts of AW Pink:
Quote:
If the God of creation has given us natural palates for the purpose of distinguishing between wholesome and unwholesome food, the God of grace has furnished His people with a capacity, a spiritual sense, to distinguish between nutritious and unwholesome soul food.
"Just as the mouth tastes food—the ear tests the words it hears" (Job 34:3). Does yours, my reader? Are you as careful about what you take into your mind—as what you take into your stomach? You certainly ought to be, for the former is even more important than the latter.
How many of God's dear children listen to the automaton "letter" preachers of today, and yet find nothing suited to the needs of their poor souls!
"Take heed what you hear" and read! More than forty years ago the saintly Adolph Saphir wrote, "I think the fewer books we read—the better. It is like times of cholera, when we should only drink filtered water." What would he say if he were on earth today and glanced over the deadly poison sent forth by the heterodox, and the lifeless rubbish put out by the orthodox? Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless, no matter what prominent or popular name be attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which does not profit. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed!
To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the "great" and "popular" men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is "narrow" and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! "Take heed what you hear" and read!
End quote.
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ergun Caner and Rick Warren: both are frauds
I find this response from Phil Johnson on the Ergun Caner fraud (he is correct on this) interesting.
Johnson said,"Of course, by this approach Caner, Liberty, and the little cadre of Arminian bloggers who are determined no-matter-what to defend Caner have already lost all credibility with those who love truth."
This statement could also be said of John Piper and his defiant defense of Rick Warren (who, by the way, yet AGAIN promotes women pastors, thus proving as I have shown previously that he LIED to Piper) and their defenders. Perhaps Piper is the one with "pious gullibility". But there's nothing pious about it--rather its willing ignorance and defiance) :
Of course, by this approach Piper, Warren, and the little cadre of Calvinist bloggers who are determined no-matter-what to defend Piper have already lost all credibility with those who love truth.
This is a true statement. Its true for both cases of Piper and Caner.
Is doctrinal fraud is easier to ignore in one's own camp than a biographical one in someone else's? Is that how God sees it?
It seems to me that God is concerned a whole lot about a fraudulent gospel and teachers. This is something Jesus Himself repeatedly taught and warned about both before and after the Cross (see Matt. 7 and Revelation 1-3; also 1John 1-2; 2John; Jude; 2Peter 2).
Clearly Piper has lost all credibility with those who love Truth because of his continued defiant defense of Warren (and Mark Driscoll) as well as his ecumenical involvment with Lausanne Congress. Therefore losing respect for Geisler as well as Piper is biblically and practically consistant.
Johnson said,"Of course, by this approach Caner, Liberty, and the little cadre of Arminian bloggers who are determined no-matter-what to defend Caner have already lost all credibility with those who love truth."
This statement could also be said of John Piper and his defiant defense of Rick Warren (who, by the way, yet AGAIN promotes women pastors, thus proving as I have shown previously that he LIED to Piper) and their defenders. Perhaps Piper is the one with "pious gullibility". But there's nothing pious about it--rather its willing ignorance and defiance) :
Of course, by this approach Piper, Warren, and the little cadre of Calvinist bloggers who are determined no-matter-what to defend Piper have already lost all credibility with those who love truth.
This is a true statement. Its true for both cases of Piper and Caner.
Is doctrinal fraud is easier to ignore in one's own camp than a biographical one in someone else's? Is that how God sees it?
It seems to me that God is concerned a whole lot about a fraudulent gospel and teachers. This is something Jesus Himself repeatedly taught and warned about both before and after the Cross (see Matt. 7 and Revelation 1-3; also 1John 1-2; 2John; Jude; 2Peter 2).
Clearly Piper has lost all credibility with those who love Truth because of his continued defiant defense of Warren (and Mark Driscoll) as well as his ecumenical involvment with Lausanne Congress. Therefore losing respect for Geisler as well as Piper is biblically and practically consistant.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
"Anythingarianism": Charity in All Things But the Truth
Excerpts fromProgressive Theology by Charles Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, April 1888
[I make a few current examples of what Spurgeon referred to.]
In this age of progress, religious opinions move at railway speed. Within the last few weeks many have made an open advance of a very special kind; we say an open advance, for we suspect that secretly they had for a long time harbored the errors which now they have avowed. And what a revelation it is! Here, one sees a "Moderate" declaring his advance to "another gospel" in the boldest terms; and there, another, highly esteemed for his supposed love of the truth, stubbing it after the subtle manner of its most malicious foes. While some of the most perverted cunningly endeavor to appear orthodox, others of a braver nature come out in their true colors, and astonish us with the glaring hue of their heresy. That which makes manifest is light; and, however much we may deplore the unwelcome discoveries of the present controversy, we ought to be thankful that they are made, for it is better for us to know where we are, and with whom we are associating.
The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!
Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought." It is singular that, by the way of free-thought, men should be reaching the same end as others arrived at by the path of superstition. Salvation by works is one distinctive doctrine of the new gospel: in many forms this is avowed and gloried in—not, perhaps, in exact words, but in declarations quite unmistakable. The Galatian heresy is upon us with a vengeance: in the name of virtue and morality, justification by faith and salvation by free grace are bitterly assailed. Equally a child of darkness is this New Purgatory. It is taught that men can escape if they neglect the great salvation. No longer is the call, "Today, if ye will hear his voice"; for the tomorrow of the next state will answer quite as well. Of course, if men may be gradually upraised from sin and ruin in the world to come, common humanity would lead us to pray that the process may go on rapidly. We are hearing every now and again of "a night of prayers for the dead," among certain priests of the Establishment. Nor is it among Ritualists alone, or even mainly, for the other day, at a meeting for prayer, an eminent believer in this notion prayed heartily for the devil; and his prayer, upon the theory of the restitution of all the sinful, was most natural. Prayers for the dead and prayers for the devil! Shades of Knox and Latimer, where are ye? How easy will it be to go from prayers for the dead to payment to good men for special supplications on their behalf! Of course if a devout person will spend an hour in praying a deceased wife out of her miseries, a loving husband will not let him exercise his supplications for nothing. It would be very mean of him if he did. "Purgatory Pick-purse," as our Protestant forefathers called it, is upon us again, having entered by the back-door of infidel speculation instead of by the front entrance of pious opinion.
[Note: C.S.Lewis is among those who held to Purgatory and prayer for the dead. Luther held to baptismal regeneration. Today we have pietism.]
Nor is this all; for our "improvers" have pretty nearly obliterated the hope of such a heaven as we have all along expected. Of course, the reward of the righteous is to be of no longer continuance than the punishment of the wicked. Both are described as "everlasting" in the same verse, spoken by the same sacred lips; and as the "punishment" is made out to be only "age-lasting," so must the "life" be. Worse even than this, if worse can be, it is taught by some of these "improvers" that even the blessed of the Father are by no means blessed overmuch; for, according to the latest information, even they will have to undergo a sort of purgatorial purification in the world to come. There are degrees in the inventiveness of the nineteenth- century theologians; but, to our mind, it is the license given to this inventiveness, even when it is most moderate, which is the root of the whole mischief. What is to be taught next? And what next?
Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?
We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying. Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays. New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! Nor do the moderns shrink even from this. To many of our readers it may already be known that it is beginning to be taught that God himself is but the totality of manhood, and that our Lord Jesus only differed from us in being one of the first men to find out that he was God: he was but one item of that race, which, in its solidarity, is divine.
[Note: Examples: Evolutionists/Theistic Evolutionists who deny the Genesis Creation account as written; Richard Mouw who embraces Mormons; people who deny the Impeccability of Christ; the RCC who says God will make us little gods; WOFers who say the same.]
It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!
But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine? Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it. Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward. It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again. We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.
Not with this man, or that Council, or that Union, are the lovers of the old gospel at war at this present; but with the whole body of unbelief which is now attempting to borrow the Christian name, and effect a settlement within Christian territory. This spirit is in all the churches, more or less; indeed, it seems to be in the air. The prince of the power of the air is loosed in an extraordinary manner for a season, misleading even the godly, and triumphing greatly in those whose willing minds yield full assent to his deceitful teachings. On this account our fears are great for the Baptist churches, which have in former ages been the strongholds of the gospel of the grace of God. Those communities which avowedly confess the truth of God can deal with the spirit of unbelief, at least in a measure; but those bodies of men which hold no settled doctrines, and make no profession of believing anything definite, are like houses with open doors, inviting the unclean spirit to enter, and take up his abode. ....
[I make a few current examples of what Spurgeon referred to.]
In this age of progress, religious opinions move at railway speed. Within the last few weeks many have made an open advance of a very special kind; we say an open advance, for we suspect that secretly they had for a long time harbored the errors which now they have avowed. And what a revelation it is! Here, one sees a "Moderate" declaring his advance to "another gospel" in the boldest terms; and there, another, highly esteemed for his supposed love of the truth, stubbing it after the subtle manner of its most malicious foes. While some of the most perverted cunningly endeavor to appear orthodox, others of a braver nature come out in their true colors, and astonish us with the glaring hue of their heresy. That which makes manifest is light; and, however much we may deplore the unwelcome discoveries of the present controversy, we ought to be thankful that they are made, for it is better for us to know where we are, and with whom we are associating.
The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!
Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought." It is singular that, by the way of free-thought, men should be reaching the same end as others arrived at by the path of superstition. Salvation by works is one distinctive doctrine of the new gospel: in many forms this is avowed and gloried in—not, perhaps, in exact words, but in declarations quite unmistakable. The Galatian heresy is upon us with a vengeance: in the name of virtue and morality, justification by faith and salvation by free grace are bitterly assailed. Equally a child of darkness is this New Purgatory. It is taught that men can escape if they neglect the great salvation. No longer is the call, "Today, if ye will hear his voice"; for the tomorrow of the next state will answer quite as well. Of course, if men may be gradually upraised from sin and ruin in the world to come, common humanity would lead us to pray that the process may go on rapidly. We are hearing every now and again of "a night of prayers for the dead," among certain priests of the Establishment. Nor is it among Ritualists alone, or even mainly, for the other day, at a meeting for prayer, an eminent believer in this notion prayed heartily for the devil; and his prayer, upon the theory of the restitution of all the sinful, was most natural. Prayers for the dead and prayers for the devil! Shades of Knox and Latimer, where are ye? How easy will it be to go from prayers for the dead to payment to good men for special supplications on their behalf! Of course if a devout person will spend an hour in praying a deceased wife out of her miseries, a loving husband will not let him exercise his supplications for nothing. It would be very mean of him if he did. "Purgatory Pick-purse," as our Protestant forefathers called it, is upon us again, having entered by the back-door of infidel speculation instead of by the front entrance of pious opinion.
[Note: C.S.Lewis is among those who held to Purgatory and prayer for the dead. Luther held to baptismal regeneration. Today we have pietism.]
Nor is this all; for our "improvers" have pretty nearly obliterated the hope of such a heaven as we have all along expected. Of course, the reward of the righteous is to be of no longer continuance than the punishment of the wicked. Both are described as "everlasting" in the same verse, spoken by the same sacred lips; and as the "punishment" is made out to be only "age-lasting," so must the "life" be. Worse even than this, if worse can be, it is taught by some of these "improvers" that even the blessed of the Father are by no means blessed overmuch; for, according to the latest information, even they will have to undergo a sort of purgatorial purification in the world to come. There are degrees in the inventiveness of the nineteenth- century theologians; but, to our mind, it is the license given to this inventiveness, even when it is most moderate, which is the root of the whole mischief. What is to be taught next? And what next?
Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?
We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying. Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays. New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! Nor do the moderns shrink even from this. To many of our readers it may already be known that it is beginning to be taught that God himself is but the totality of manhood, and that our Lord Jesus only differed from us in being one of the first men to find out that he was God: he was but one item of that race, which, in its solidarity, is divine.
[Note: Examples: Evolutionists/Theistic Evolutionists who deny the Genesis Creation account as written; Richard Mouw who embraces Mormons; people who deny the Impeccability of Christ; the RCC who says God will make us little gods; WOFers who say the same.]
It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!
But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine? Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it. Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward. It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again. We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.
Not with this man, or that Council, or that Union, are the lovers of the old gospel at war at this present; but with the whole body of unbelief which is now attempting to borrow the Christian name, and effect a settlement within Christian territory. This spirit is in all the churches, more or less; indeed, it seems to be in the air. The prince of the power of the air is loosed in an extraordinary manner for a season, misleading even the godly, and triumphing greatly in those whose willing minds yield full assent to his deceitful teachings. On this account our fears are great for the Baptist churches, which have in former ages been the strongholds of the gospel of the grace of God. Those communities which avowedly confess the truth of God can deal with the spirit of unbelief, at least in a measure; but those bodies of men which hold no settled doctrines, and make no profession of believing anything definite, are like houses with open doors, inviting the unclean spirit to enter, and take up his abode. ....
Liberty-To-Lie University Conclude Ergun Caner's "Self-Contradictory" Statements Are A-OK
2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
Psa 26:4 I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.
Apprising Ministries and AOM have responded to the pathetic wagon-circling of Liberty University and the SBC Today concerning the conclusion of the investigation of Ergun Caner's lies about his background.
Liberty University and SBC Today have lower standards of honesty than the world. For example, if an applicant to a police department, they won't be hired. If a police officer is found to give "self-contradicting" "facts", they are fired. Lying is not tolerated in law enforcement, but apparently it is among those who claim to follow the God of Truth. When God-haters have more respect for the truth and distain for lies than "Christians" have, its a sick, wicked,and evil day. God's judgement will not be slow! HE will not allow HIS name to be plastered over falsehoods!
Besides that, even according to Liberty's own academic circles of higher learning, "self-contradicting" statements ARE lies, ARE falsehoods because they violate the Law of Contradiction (that academic elitists so love to hold everyone ELSE to) that A and not-A can't both be true. Hypocrisy is ok with them I guess...just don't YOU be found guilty of a logic fallacy or they'll rake you over the coals as they look down their snotty noses at you! They can do what they won't allow others to do. The very thing Jesus pointed at in the Pharisees is what these men are guilty of.
So, let's get this straight: students can be allowed to do the same thing Caner does without expullsion? They can lie on their papers, resumes, applications to the school or jobs? Seriously? No reprocussions? Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They can't have a LOWER standard for the faculty than they have for the students.
Or can they?
Having Liberty do the investigation is like having the Obama administration investigate Obama and his claims: the end was already predetermined, set by bias and fear of losing face, money, support, and pride. Did anyone seriously think that this investigation was going to be a REAL one? The fact that they admit to falsehoods on the part of Caner and they won't be open with the full findings and cite sources, demonstrates they themselves are satisifed with something less than the truth.
But God isn't.
Just ask Ananais and Sapphire if their "self-contractory" statements rightly earned the wrath of God and Peter, or Achan and his family who were burned to death for hiding the booty they were told not to take from the enemy.
Do these men of higher learning really think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of those who "love the truth" and love God and the Spirit of Truth abiding in them? They are triffling with the Living and Vengeful God, Who will not be mocked.
I'm tired of men in leadership hiding behind vague statements to hide the truth. Vagueness doesn't hold one accountable; rather it obfuscates the Truth and personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is, Liberty and SBC Today are saving their pride at the expense of Truth and loyalty to Christ and HIM alone. Integrity and trust are gone. They are inept and a disgrace. Sadly these people are being pumped into local churches as well as seminaries. Many hirelings they pump out are plagerizing their "sermons", so hey, why can't university deans or students lie too?
TRUE liberty in Christ isn't license to sin, as Romans 6 goes to GREAT lengths to show--rather its liberty to OBEY THE MASTER, KING, LORD and His commands. However, Liberty University thinks that they are exempt from being truthful. That's not liberty, its sin. I guess the learned men at Liberty (and SBC Today) need to learn what a lie is and what Truth is--something my kids knew when they were little. Apparently their intellect isn't all that smart....nor godly.
1John 2:21.. NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH.
John 17: 17 SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH; Your word is truth.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
Pro 13:5 The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace. 6 Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked.
Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: "Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!" 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
Psa 26:4 I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.
Apprising Ministries and AOM have responded to the pathetic wagon-circling of Liberty University and the SBC Today concerning the conclusion of the investigation of Ergun Caner's lies about his background.
Liberty University and SBC Today have lower standards of honesty than the world. For example, if an applicant to a police department, they won't be hired. If a police officer is found to give "self-contradicting" "facts", they are fired. Lying is not tolerated in law enforcement, but apparently it is among those who claim to follow the God of Truth. When God-haters have more respect for the truth and distain for lies than "Christians" have, its a sick, wicked,and evil day. God's judgement will not be slow! HE will not allow HIS name to be plastered over falsehoods!
Besides that, even according to Liberty's own academic circles of higher learning, "self-contradicting" statements ARE lies, ARE falsehoods because they violate the Law of Contradiction (that academic elitists so love to hold everyone ELSE to) that A and not-A can't both be true. Hypocrisy is ok with them I guess...just don't YOU be found guilty of a logic fallacy or they'll rake you over the coals as they look down their snotty noses at you! They can do what they won't allow others to do. The very thing Jesus pointed at in the Pharisees is what these men are guilty of.
So, let's get this straight: students can be allowed to do the same thing Caner does without expullsion? They can lie on their papers, resumes, applications to the school or jobs? Seriously? No reprocussions? Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They can't have a LOWER standard for the faculty than they have for the students.
Or can they?
Having Liberty do the investigation is like having the Obama administration investigate Obama and his claims: the end was already predetermined, set by bias and fear of losing face, money, support, and pride. Did anyone seriously think that this investigation was going to be a REAL one? The fact that they admit to falsehoods on the part of Caner and they won't be open with the full findings and cite sources, demonstrates they themselves are satisifed with something less than the truth.
But God isn't.
Just ask Ananais and Sapphire if their "self-contractory" statements rightly earned the wrath of God and Peter, or Achan and his family who were burned to death for hiding the booty they were told not to take from the enemy.
Do these men of higher learning really think they are pulling the wool over the eyes of those who "love the truth" and love God and the Spirit of Truth abiding in them? They are triffling with the Living and Vengeful God, Who will not be mocked.
I'm tired of men in leadership hiding behind vague statements to hide the truth. Vagueness doesn't hold one accountable; rather it obfuscates the Truth and personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is, Liberty and SBC Today are saving their pride at the expense of Truth and loyalty to Christ and HIM alone. Integrity and trust are gone. They are inept and a disgrace. Sadly these people are being pumped into local churches as well as seminaries. Many hirelings they pump out are plagerizing their "sermons", so hey, why can't university deans or students lie too?
TRUE liberty in Christ isn't license to sin, as Romans 6 goes to GREAT lengths to show--rather its liberty to OBEY THE MASTER, KING, LORD and His commands. However, Liberty University thinks that they are exempt from being truthful. That's not liberty, its sin. I guess the learned men at Liberty (and SBC Today) need to learn what a lie is and what Truth is--something my kids knew when they were little. Apparently their intellect isn't all that smart....nor godly.
1John 2:21.. NO LIE IS OF THE TRUTH.
John 17: 17 SANCTIFY THEM IN THE TRUTH; Your word is truth.
Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
Pro 13:5 The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace. 6 Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked.
Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: "Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!" 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Piper and Contemplative Prayer: Rome Had It Right
Piper embraces Contemplative praying even from Romanists (despite his excepting of its mere "bad theology") as reported by Apprising Ministries.
Here we have Contemplative prayer redefined (slaps on "Christian" and "Puritan" and says its the same thing) by Piper just as he redefines hedonism by slapping on "Christian".
This is what I mean when I say many like Piper find "truth in everything", even if it is in Rome. Piper is charismatic which is another reason why he is attracted to the mysticism and is so man-centered. Touchy, feely, emotionally driven is not biblically based. And Rome has nothing right: their practices stem from their damnable doctrines of hell. But I guess that's merely "bad theology".
What does God say about mixing the old with the new?
In salvation:
Mar 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins--and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."
In worship:
Unleaven bread for the Passover and the Lord's Table
Unmixed fabric for the priests (Ex. 28)
In relationships:
No inter-marrying with other nations (Deut. 7)
In all three:
No fellowship between Jesus and Baal; unbeliever and believer; light and darkness (2Cor. 6:14-18)
How did God instruct Israel to conduct their lives and worship toward God? Was God ok with mixing truth with error?
Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Deu 7:5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
So did they obey God?
Psa 106:34 They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded them,
Psa 106:35 But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
Psa 106:36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
Psa 106:37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood.
Psa 106:39 Thus they became unclean in their practices, And played the harlot in their deeds.
Psa 106:40 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.
Psa 106:41 Then He gave them into the hand of the nations, And those who hated them ruled over them.
Psa 106:42 Their enemies also oppressed them, And they were subdued under their power.
Psa 106:43 Many times He would deliver them; They, however, were rebellious in their counsel, And so sank down in their iniquity.
Roman Catholicism has many pagan practices because it is not of Christ. So why would Piper and Keller and Warren go to pagans and idolators to find spiritual truth?
Practice DOES matter. If its not ordained by God according to Scripture and rather comes from pagans, it stirs His anger, for He is a jealous and holy holy holy God. Only those in Christ have the Light of Truth in them for the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit abides in them. Lest you think "that was the OT times, its ok to find truth in error; we can borrow from unbelievers in our worship of God", you better reconsider:
2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Co 6:17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Co 6:18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.
God's standard hasn't change, because HE hasn't changed.
Mal 3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts. 6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.7 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
Remember Romans 12:1-2?
God is Holy and expects those who follow Him to grow in holiness by His Grace. Just as God struck down Achan and his family for stealing and then lying about it (Joshua 7:1-26), so God destroyed Ananias and Sapphira for the same thing (Acts 5:1-13).
To go to Rome or the New Age mystics in any form is to commit treason against the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
Isa 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Here we have Contemplative prayer redefined (slaps on "Christian" and "Puritan" and says its the same thing) by Piper just as he redefines hedonism by slapping on "Christian".
This is what I mean when I say many like Piper find "truth in everything", even if it is in Rome. Piper is charismatic which is another reason why he is attracted to the mysticism and is so man-centered. Touchy, feely, emotionally driven is not biblically based. And Rome has nothing right: their practices stem from their damnable doctrines of hell. But I guess that's merely "bad theology".
What does God say about mixing the old with the new?
In salvation:
Mar 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins--and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."
In worship:
Unleaven bread for the Passover and the Lord's Table
Unmixed fabric for the priests (Ex. 28)
In relationships:
No inter-marrying with other nations (Deut. 7)
In all three:
No fellowship between Jesus and Baal; unbeliever and believer; light and darkness (2Cor. 6:14-18)
How did God instruct Israel to conduct their lives and worship toward God? Was God ok with mixing truth with error?
Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Deu 7:5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
So did they obey God?
Psa 106:34 They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded them,
Psa 106:35 But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
Psa 106:36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
Psa 106:37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood.
Psa 106:39 Thus they became unclean in their practices, And played the harlot in their deeds.
Psa 106:40 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.
Psa 106:41 Then He gave them into the hand of the nations, And those who hated them ruled over them.
Psa 106:42 Their enemies also oppressed them, And they were subdued under their power.
Psa 106:43 Many times He would deliver them; They, however, were rebellious in their counsel, And so sank down in their iniquity.
Roman Catholicism has many pagan practices because it is not of Christ. So why would Piper and Keller and Warren go to pagans and idolators to find spiritual truth?
Practice DOES matter. If its not ordained by God according to Scripture and rather comes from pagans, it stirs His anger, for He is a jealous and holy holy holy God. Only those in Christ have the Light of Truth in them for the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit abides in them. Lest you think "that was the OT times, its ok to find truth in error; we can borrow from unbelievers in our worship of God", you better reconsider:
2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Co 6:17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Co 6:18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.
God's standard hasn't change, because HE hasn't changed.
Mal 3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts. 6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.7 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
Remember Romans 12:1-2?
God is Holy and expects those who follow Him to grow in holiness by His Grace. Just as God struck down Achan and his family for stealing and then lying about it (Joshua 7:1-26), so God destroyed Ananias and Sapphira for the same thing (Acts 5:1-13).
To go to Rome or the New Age mystics in any form is to commit treason against the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
Isa 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Tim Keller: Pragmatic Presbyterian Reformer
Apprising Ministries and Daniel's Place have both reported on Tim Keller's man-centered nonsense.
Daniel's Place states in part:
When one reads through the transcript of Keller's talk, one gets a rather disoriented feeling. Been there, done that, and the worse for it. The whole talk reeks with the methodology of men and businesses, instead of the counsel of the Word of God; more like Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner than John Calvin.
Consider the entire talk. Where in the entire talk is mention even made of the Word of God? For a supposed conservative Presbyterian, not one verse of Scripture is even quoted in defense of the methodologies being brought to bear. Worse still, the concepts in it are not found in Scripture. Church is all about Word and Sacrament. Where in Scripture is the Church (as opposed to individual Christians) supposed to do "justice and mercy ministries"?
Assuming as one commenter states that the talk was about mechanics - being a "practical, technical" and "methodological" talk, this talk shows that Keller practically denies the sufficiency of Scripture for ALL of life and practice. Methodology is NOT neutral. Methodology has to be derived from Scripture especially since the topic is most certainly a biblical one (i.e. Gospel movements). When measures are proposed in which results are virtually guaranteed, one ends up more with business models that implicitly assume some form of Pelagianism as the error of Revivalism rears its ugly head. Where in Scripture are we told that if we just implement the right measures, more and more people will come to Christ and the Church will gain influence in society?
End quote.
I talk about how Keller is the Reformed version of Warren here.
Saddly, the Reformed circles see truth in just about everything, which is why they are at peace with reading heretics' books and articles, or allowing them a platform to spew their heresies. As long as the mantra is "TULIP!" or "Five Solas!" then they are still accepted on some level. Just as they accept Rome on some level. If one finds validity in Rome, one will find validity elsewhere. But we are commanded to avoid all forms of evil, be separate from it, because God is the God of truth, not truth mixed with error. So, for Reformers there isn't such a thing as a heretic, just a brother who is wrong in some area.
Method DOES reveal doctrine. At the heart of Reformer Tim Keller or Rick Warren, they both start with the wrong view of God, Man, and the Gospel, therefore their foundation for "church" building and outreach is wrong in its doctrine as well as its practice. In other words, because they start with a low view of Scripture and of God, they elevate Man and put him in the center of everything instead of Christ and Him alone. The right view of Scripture would see man outside of Christ is a God-hater and is not to be in the called out assembly of believers, nor is he seeking God, but rather running from Him! This is Romans 101, folks. A right view of the Gospel would dictate the biblical practice of going OUT to proclaim the Gospel to the unsaved, without manipulation or catering to the God-hater's whims, knowing that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believer; first to the Jew and then to the Gentile".
Methodology reveals if a person truly and biblically believes in the power of the Gospel and God's way of reaching the unsaved through the preaching of the Gospel, its that simple.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Act 4:1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead....33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, 4 that he was buried, that HE WAS RAISED on the THIRD DAY in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, [Caps for emphasis only]
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
MacArthur also says something similar: John MacArthur says in “Ashamed of the Gospel” about approaches or methods:
p. 81 "Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense."
p. 89 “ …any end-justifies-the-means philosophy of ministry inevitably will compromise doctrine, despite any proviso to the contrary. If we make effectiveness the gauge of right and wrong, how can that fail to color our doctrine? Ultimately the pragmatist’s notion of truth is shaped by what seems effective, not by the objective revelation of Scripture."
p. 92-93 on pragmatism:"Do you see how the new philosophy necessarily undermines sound doctrine? It discards Jesus' own methods---preaching and teaching--as the primary means of ministry. It replaces them with methodologies utterly devoid of substance....In fact it avoids dogma or strong convictions as divisive, unbecoming,or inappropriate. It dismisses doctrine as academic, abstract, sterile, threatening, or simply impractical. Rather than teaching error or denying truth, it does something far more subtle, but just as effective from the enemy’s point of view. It jettisons content altogether. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head-on, it gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it denigrates the things that are precious to Him. In that regard, pragmatism poses dangers more subtle than the liberalism that threatened the church in the first half of the century."
Daniel's Place states in part:
When one reads through the transcript of Keller's talk, one gets a rather disoriented feeling. Been there, done that, and the worse for it. The whole talk reeks with the methodology of men and businesses, instead of the counsel of the Word of God; more like Rick Warren and C. Peter Wagner than John Calvin.
Consider the entire talk. Where in the entire talk is mention even made of the Word of God? For a supposed conservative Presbyterian, not one verse of Scripture is even quoted in defense of the methodologies being brought to bear. Worse still, the concepts in it are not found in Scripture. Church is all about Word and Sacrament. Where in Scripture is the Church (as opposed to individual Christians) supposed to do "justice and mercy ministries"?
Assuming as one commenter states that the talk was about mechanics - being a "practical, technical" and "methodological" talk, this talk shows that Keller practically denies the sufficiency of Scripture for ALL of life and practice. Methodology is NOT neutral. Methodology has to be derived from Scripture especially since the topic is most certainly a biblical one (i.e. Gospel movements). When measures are proposed in which results are virtually guaranteed, one ends up more with business models that implicitly assume some form of Pelagianism as the error of Revivalism rears its ugly head. Where in Scripture are we told that if we just implement the right measures, more and more people will come to Christ and the Church will gain influence in society?
End quote.
I talk about how Keller is the Reformed version of Warren here.
Saddly, the Reformed circles see truth in just about everything, which is why they are at peace with reading heretics' books and articles, or allowing them a platform to spew their heresies. As long as the mantra is "TULIP!" or "Five Solas!" then they are still accepted on some level. Just as they accept Rome on some level. If one finds validity in Rome, one will find validity elsewhere. But we are commanded to avoid all forms of evil, be separate from it, because God is the God of truth, not truth mixed with error. So, for Reformers there isn't such a thing as a heretic, just a brother who is wrong in some area.
Method DOES reveal doctrine. At the heart of Reformer Tim Keller or Rick Warren, they both start with the wrong view of God, Man, and the Gospel, therefore their foundation for "church" building and outreach is wrong in its doctrine as well as its practice. In other words, because they start with a low view of Scripture and of God, they elevate Man and put him in the center of everything instead of Christ and Him alone. The right view of Scripture would see man outside of Christ is a God-hater and is not to be in the called out assembly of believers, nor is he seeking God, but rather running from Him! This is Romans 101, folks. A right view of the Gospel would dictate the biblical practice of going OUT to proclaim the Gospel to the unsaved, without manipulation or catering to the God-hater's whims, knowing that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believer; first to the Jew and then to the Gentile".
Methodology reveals if a person truly and biblically believes in the power of the Gospel and God's way of reaching the unsaved through the preaching of the Gospel, its that simple.
Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Act 4:1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead....33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, 4 that he was buried, that HE WAS RAISED on the THIRD DAY in ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURE, [Caps for emphasis only]
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
MacArthur also says something similar: John MacArthur says in “Ashamed of the Gospel” about approaches or methods:
p. 81 "Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense."
p. 89 “ …any end-justifies-the-means philosophy of ministry inevitably will compromise doctrine, despite any proviso to the contrary. If we make effectiveness the gauge of right and wrong, how can that fail to color our doctrine? Ultimately the pragmatist’s notion of truth is shaped by what seems effective, not by the objective revelation of Scripture."
p. 92-93 on pragmatism:"Do you see how the new philosophy necessarily undermines sound doctrine? It discards Jesus' own methods---preaching and teaching--as the primary means of ministry. It replaces them with methodologies utterly devoid of substance....In fact it avoids dogma or strong convictions as divisive, unbecoming,or inappropriate. It dismisses doctrine as academic, abstract, sterile, threatening, or simply impractical. Rather than teaching error or denying truth, it does something far more subtle, but just as effective from the enemy’s point of view. It jettisons content altogether. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head-on, it gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it denigrates the things that are precious to Him. In that regard, pragmatism poses dangers more subtle than the liberalism that threatened the church in the first half of the century."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)