I'm so glad A.W. Pink sees things the way I see them! =)
This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love"
(Arthur Pink, "Love Reproving" 1943)
Few words have been used more inaccurately and loosely in recent years, than has "love." With a great many people--it is but a synonym for moral laxity, weakness of character, a taking the line of least resistance, a quiet tolerating of what is felt to be wrong.
Multitudes of parents have supposed they were treating their children "lovingly" when they overlooked their folly, made excuses for their wildness, and refused to discipline them for disobedience. They have prided themselves on being "kinder" toward their children than the "stern measures" which were meted out to themselves in their own youth. But it is laxity--and not love--which allows a child to have its own way. "He who spares his rod--hates his son; but he who loves him--chastens him early" (Proverbs 13:14). Let those of our readers who have young children ponder Proverbs 19:18; 22:15; 23:13, 14; 29:15, 17, and remember, that those are the words of Him who is Love!
This same evil has held sway in the churches. Leniency and weakness have overridden righteousness and faithfulness. Instead of maintaining and enforcing the discipline which God's Word enjoins--the great majority of the churches have winked at even glaring sins, refusing to deal with those who walk disorderly. This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love". A mushy sentimentality which shrank from "hurting the feelings" of others--has ousted all concern for the glory of Christ and the honor of His house.
This is one of the inevitable effects of the lopsided preaching of the pulpit, where the 'love' and 'grace' of God were constantly proclaimed--while His 'justice' and 'wrath' were studiously ignored. God is 'light' (1 John 1:5) as well as 'love' (1 John 4:8); 'holy' as well as 'merciful'; 'severe' as well as 'good' (Romans 11:22). Unless the balance is preserved between those two sides of the Divine character, not only will He be grievously misrepresented--but the most serious results will follow!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
You Might Die In The Next Sixty Seconds: Are You Ready?
Psa 103:14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. 15 As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; 16 for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
It was reported today that Natasha Richardson (45 years old), an actress (The Parent Trap and wife of Liam Neeson, mother of their two boys), hit her head in a fall while learning to ski on a bunny hill. An hour later, after getting up and laughing about her fall, she complained of a headache. She was later pronounced brain dead at the hospital. They expect the family will turn off life support machines sometime today.
While I'm not a big fan of the actress, and normally don't report on celebrities, it brought to mind today about how short life is. Moreover, that we can die in the most mundane ways. Man does not know his hour of death, so the question is, where will you be in eternity? Will you go to heaven or Hell, and how do you know? How about your family members? Friends? If you are saved, have you proclaimed the Gospel to them? Or are you silently loving them to Hell?
We do not know God's timing for our lives, but HE is sovereign and is in control of it. He has numbered our days and we will not die one second before hand.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
So what are you doing with your life? What does eternity hold for you? For your family members and friends? After death, its too late. Salvation is available while we are among the living. Repent of your sin and unbelief and turn to Christ Jesus alone for forgiveness and salvation.
Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
Psa 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. 11 Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you 12 So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
It was reported today that Natasha Richardson (45 years old), an actress (The Parent Trap and wife of Liam Neeson, mother of their two boys), hit her head in a fall while learning to ski on a bunny hill. An hour later, after getting up and laughing about her fall, she complained of a headache. She was later pronounced brain dead at the hospital. They expect the family will turn off life support machines sometime today.
While I'm not a big fan of the actress, and normally don't report on celebrities, it brought to mind today about how short life is. Moreover, that we can die in the most mundane ways. Man does not know his hour of death, so the question is, where will you be in eternity? Will you go to heaven or Hell, and how do you know? How about your family members? Friends? If you are saved, have you proclaimed the Gospel to them? Or are you silently loving them to Hell?
We do not know God's timing for our lives, but HE is sovereign and is in control of it. He has numbered our days and we will not die one second before hand.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
So what are you doing with your life? What does eternity hold for you? For your family members and friends? After death, its too late. Salvation is available while we are among the living. Repent of your sin and unbelief and turn to Christ Jesus alone for forgiveness and salvation.
Heb 3:12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. 15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."
Psa 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. 11 Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you 12 So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
St. Patrick A Baptist!
by Dr. L. K. Landis
For centuries Roman Catholicism has laid claim to the supposition that Patrick of Ireland was a Roman priest. However, over 100 hundred years ago W. A. Jarrel, much respected author and church historian, put into print what had been known by Baptists since the very beginning, that Patrick was not a Catholic priest, but rather a Baptist missionary. It is because of this much neglected fact that we put into print this material so that this present generation may know the truth and great heritage of this early Baptist missionary to Ireland. So zealous were these historians of the 1800's and so spirited was their conviction to this that one wrote, "Rome's most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she 'annexed' the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints" (A Short History of the Baptists [1907], Henry C. Vedder, pg. 71-72).
Most church historians agree that Patrick, originally named Succat (or Succathus) Patricus, was born sometime between the years 360 AD and 387 AD, probably near what is now Dumbarton, Scotland. It is also generally accepted by those knowledgable of the subject that he lived to a well advanced age, some placing him at over 100 years old at the time of his death.
Cathcart, the dean among Baptist apologists, suggests that Patrick is not his name, but rather a title of honor meaning noble and illustrous and was bestowed upon him by his grateful admirers (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, pg. 886). His writings reveal that his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon in a Baptist church (we know that there were Baptist churches on the British Isle as far back as A.D. 63, History of the Welch Baptists [1770], by J. Davis, Page 14), having apparently been converted to Christ while on a business trip to Rome as he also served as a Roman civil officer. In spite of being reared in a godly home and taught the ways of the Scriptures, Cathcart also states that the young Patrick was "...wild and wicked until his sixteenth year..." when, while working on his father's farm, he and several others were seized and carried away captive by a band of pirates to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery to a petty Irish clan chieftan. For over five years he suffered the atrocities of slavery. Later, however, he would recount that it was during this most dark period of his life that he, himself, was converted to Christ remembering the Christian training he had received from his godly father while but a child.
Regarding this, W. A. Jarrel wrote over one hundred years ago, "...the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of...his father" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History [1894], W. A Jarrel, pg. 472).
Historians also record that "...upon his twenty-first year, he escaped the chains of servitude..." and returned to his father's home in Scotland, only to find that he had died and his land acquired by others. It was during this time that Patrick, "being a stronger Christian, the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary for that blinded country" (Ibid.). Jarrel further suggests that the more one studies the life, ministry and writings of this Irish "apostle", "...the more he stands out as a Baptist." He, Jarrel, is perhaps among the greatest authorities on the subject of Saint Patrick, as one full chapter of his makes several suggestions as to why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic priest:
1. "At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo".
2. "In St. Patrick's time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized."
3. "There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celistine." Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.
Neander, the church historian, wrote, "If Patrick came to Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages.
This goes to prove that the origin of the church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain... Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confesssion; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself" (Neander's History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, page 123).
Another Irish scholar says, "...Leo II, was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there."
Professor George T. Stokes, still yet another prominent scholar, declares that prior to the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish church was independent, autonomous, and "...dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all."
Considering these indisputable and undeniable facts, it is impossible for Patrick to have been the patron Roman Catholic saint of Ireland. The material is just not there to substantiate any such claim. Baptist pastor, author and historian Gillham says that in the middle of the nineteenth century, Baptists universally accepted the fact that Patrick of Ireland was of apostolic tradition and therefore a Baptist. It was also commonly accepted that the baptism of the heirs to his ministry were also investigated and found to be New Testament in origin. It was only during these last 150 years that Baptists have been willing to relinquish Patrick to the hands of the papacy.
However, the insurmountable evidence of his position among the Baptists of antiquity comes from the writings of this great man himself. While several letters written by Patrick and sent to Christians converted to Christ under his ministry still exist, most of what we know of his beliefs are taken from two documents that he wrote: St. Patrick's Confession, or Epistle to the Irish; and an "Epistle to Coroticus." In these two writings that still survive, it becomes very apparent that this great preacher was not of Roman Catholic persuasion. He was a Baptist through and through, holding recognized Baptist positions on all the cardinal doctrines. Consider these eight (8) conclusive reasons why Saint Patrick was a Baptist!
Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers
Contrary to Catholic dogma, which teaches that infants are to be "baptized", in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant, much less someone who had not professed Christ as their Saviour. Patrick records the baptism of one convert named Enda the night after his infant son, Cormac, was born. What an ideal opportunity to record the baptism of an infant, and yet Patrick makes no mention of it at all.
Only Enda, a professed believer; not his infant son who could make no claim of Christ. In all of his writings, the great Irish preacher never mentions or even alludes to pedobaptism (the baptism of infants). In fact, each time he refers to baptism at all he calls those ready for the ordinance of baptism "baptized captives", "baptized handmaidens of Christ", "baptized women distributed as rewards", "baptized believers", "men" and "women." In one place, Patrick wrote, "Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men, I might have expected half a screpall [a coin worth six cents] from some of them..." Notice that he refers to having baptized "...so many thousand men..", no infants, but men; adult, professing, believing, responsible men. Another place he writes, "So that even after my death I may leave as legacies to my brethren...whom I have baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men." Again he acknowledges the fact that he has baptized thousands of men, but not one infant.
Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only
This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today. Again, in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion. Cathcart (along with Nennius, Todd, O'Farrell and other church historians) records one such instance, "When the saint entered Tirawly, the seven sons of Amalgaidh assembled with their followers. Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire" (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, page 887). Dr. Cathcart further states, "There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards."
In 1631 the English Baptists discovered, and subsequently corresponded with, small communities of Baptists in Ireland and found them to be sound. These churches, located in Dublin, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Galloway, Wexford, Carrick Fergus and Kerry are listed in Joseph Ivimey's comprehensive History of the English Baptists [1811], Volume 1, Pages 240-241. It is believed that some of these churches had histories dating to the time of Patrick. Many of them can substantiate and confirm their claims of such for nearly 1100 years, which places them within two hundred years of Patrick.
Number Three: In Church Government,
St. Patrick Was A Baptist During his ministry, Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and ordained 3,000 presbyters (Ancient British and Irish Churches, William Cathcart, page 282). Anglican Bishop Stillingfleet refers to an account of a great council of Brevy, Wales at which there were 118 Irish bishops. Noting that if these were Catholic bishops this little island was in danger of "...going to seed --- in bishops." Other historians concede that "...Saint Patrick placed a bishop in every church which he founded; and several presbyters after the example of the New Testament churches." One such scholar, a Dr. Carew of Maynooth, admits that a bishop "...was simply the pastor of one congregation." The Catholic and protestant idea of a bishop being the head over several churches in different cities was totally unknown among those early churches on the British Isles. This can be confirmed from writings of Irish clergymen dated from A.D. 1112 and reconfirmed from the same in A.D. 1057.
Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc.
Patrick never attended one council and recognized no authority over him, save that of the Lord Jesus Himself. There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he. He recognized no Pope. He recognized no Cardinal. In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system. Of all the great Christians that Patrick refers to in his letters, he never pays homage to any Pope, nor mentions any man as being superior in church clergy. Instead, the great Irish missionary speaks of his love, regards, and terms of affection for those men whom had been ordained as pastors of the churches he founded. Upon the authority of the little Baptist church in Scotland where he was saved and from which he received his commission much as did Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:22).
Number Five: In Doctrine
Patrick Was A Baptist In all of his writings, all of the doctrine that Patrick espouses adherence to is consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. The venerable preacher wrote, "It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ." In this one statement, Patrick alludes to six (6) major Baptist doctrines:
a. Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communion, confession or christening. He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood. William Cathcart wrote, "There is no ground for doubting but that he preached the gospel of repentance and faith in Ireland, and that his ministrations were attended by overwhelming success" (The Baptist Encyclopedia, page 887).
b. He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).
c. He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).
d. He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).
e. Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.
f. And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Patrick's doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, "religion does not exist in bodily efforts..." Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he "...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness" No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.
Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist
From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance. Also from his writings, we know that Patrick believed that the believer himself should partake of both elements of communion, the bread and the cup, and not just the administrator exclusively. In writing of the conversion of the two daughters of Irish King Loeghaire under his ministry, Patrick tells them to put away their idols and trust Christ alone. His instructions to them regarding the Lord's Supper is that they receive both elements representative of His body and blood.
Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation
Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood. Dr. Jarrell wrote, "In all the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is...", or literally becomes the flesh of Christ and His blood. The elements are merely symbols of such.
Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities
St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches. He knew nothing of priestly confession and priestly forgiveness. He was not acquainted with extreme unction. He strictly forbade the worship of images. Never once did he instruct his converts that they were to pay homage to Mary or worship her. He never mentions the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint. In all of his writings there is no mention at all of purgatory, of indulgences, of keeping holy days, of praying to anyone but God Himself, of the persecution of opposers of the church, of distinguishing clerical garments, of the rosary, of last rites, of mass, of allegiance to the Pope. None of these crucial Catholic doctrines and dogmas were practiced by or even mentioned by the great missionary to Ireland.
It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced. In conclusion, it seems that the words of W.A. Jarrell on this subject are most fitting, "Were Patrick not turned to dust, and were the body able to hear and turn, he would turn over in his coffin at the disgrace on his memory from the Romish church claiming him as a Roman Catholic" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History, page 479).
For centuries Roman Catholicism has laid claim to the supposition that Patrick of Ireland was a Roman priest. However, over 100 hundred years ago W. A. Jarrel, much respected author and church historian, put into print what had been known by Baptists since the very beginning, that Patrick was not a Catholic priest, but rather a Baptist missionary. It is because of this much neglected fact that we put into print this material so that this present generation may know the truth and great heritage of this early Baptist missionary to Ireland. So zealous were these historians of the 1800's and so spirited was their conviction to this that one wrote, "Rome's most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she 'annexed' the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints" (A Short History of the Baptists [1907], Henry C. Vedder, pg. 71-72).
Most church historians agree that Patrick, originally named Succat (or Succathus) Patricus, was born sometime between the years 360 AD and 387 AD, probably near what is now Dumbarton, Scotland. It is also generally accepted by those knowledgable of the subject that he lived to a well advanced age, some placing him at over 100 years old at the time of his death.
Cathcart, the dean among Baptist apologists, suggests that Patrick is not his name, but rather a title of honor meaning noble and illustrous and was bestowed upon him by his grateful admirers (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, pg. 886). His writings reveal that his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon in a Baptist church (we know that there were Baptist churches on the British Isle as far back as A.D. 63, History of the Welch Baptists [1770], by J. Davis, Page 14), having apparently been converted to Christ while on a business trip to Rome as he also served as a Roman civil officer. In spite of being reared in a godly home and taught the ways of the Scriptures, Cathcart also states that the young Patrick was "...wild and wicked until his sixteenth year..." when, while working on his father's farm, he and several others were seized and carried away captive by a band of pirates to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery to a petty Irish clan chieftan. For over five years he suffered the atrocities of slavery. Later, however, he would recount that it was during this most dark period of his life that he, himself, was converted to Christ remembering the Christian training he had received from his godly father while but a child.
Regarding this, W. A. Jarrel wrote over one hundred years ago, "...the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of...his father" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History [1894], W. A Jarrel, pg. 472).
Historians also record that "...upon his twenty-first year, he escaped the chains of servitude..." and returned to his father's home in Scotland, only to find that he had died and his land acquired by others. It was during this time that Patrick, "being a stronger Christian, the Lord soon called him back to Ireland as the missionary for that blinded country" (Ibid.). Jarrel further suggests that the more one studies the life, ministry and writings of this Irish "apostle", "...the more he stands out as a Baptist." He, Jarrel, is perhaps among the greatest authorities on the subject of Saint Patrick, as one full chapter of his makes several suggestions as to why Patrick could not have been a Roman Catholic priest:
1. "At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo".
2. "In St. Patrick's time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized."
3. "There is no history to sustain the Romish claim that Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celistine." Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.
Neander, the church historian, wrote, "If Patrick came to Ireland as a deputy from Rome, it might naturally be expected that in the Irish church a certain sense of dependence would always have been preserved towards the mother church. But we find, on the contrary, in the Irish church a spirit of church freedom, similar to that in Britain, which struggled against the yoke of Roman ordinances. We find subsequently among the Irish a much greater agreement with the ancient British than with Roman ecclesiastical usages.
This goes to prove that the origin of the church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain... Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confesssion; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself" (Neander's History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, page 123).
Another Irish scholar says, "...Leo II, was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there."
Professor George T. Stokes, still yet another prominent scholar, declares that prior to the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish church was independent, autonomous, and "...dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all."
Considering these indisputable and undeniable facts, it is impossible for Patrick to have been the patron Roman Catholic saint of Ireland. The material is just not there to substantiate any such claim. Baptist pastor, author and historian Gillham says that in the middle of the nineteenth century, Baptists universally accepted the fact that Patrick of Ireland was of apostolic tradition and therefore a Baptist. It was also commonly accepted that the baptism of the heirs to his ministry were also investigated and found to be New Testament in origin. It was only during these last 150 years that Baptists have been willing to relinquish Patrick to the hands of the papacy.
However, the insurmountable evidence of his position among the Baptists of antiquity comes from the writings of this great man himself. While several letters written by Patrick and sent to Christians converted to Christ under his ministry still exist, most of what we know of his beliefs are taken from two documents that he wrote: St. Patrick's Confession, or Epistle to the Irish; and an "Epistle to Coroticus." In these two writings that still survive, it becomes very apparent that this great preacher was not of Roman Catholic persuasion. He was a Baptist through and through, holding recognized Baptist positions on all the cardinal doctrines. Consider these eight (8) conclusive reasons why Saint Patrick was a Baptist!
Number One: St. Patrick Baptized Only Professed Believers
Contrary to Catholic dogma, which teaches that infants are to be "baptized", in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant, much less someone who had not professed Christ as their Saviour. Patrick records the baptism of one convert named Enda the night after his infant son, Cormac, was born. What an ideal opportunity to record the baptism of an infant, and yet Patrick makes no mention of it at all.
Only Enda, a professed believer; not his infant son who could make no claim of Christ. In all of his writings, the great Irish preacher never mentions or even alludes to pedobaptism (the baptism of infants). In fact, each time he refers to baptism at all he calls those ready for the ordinance of baptism "baptized captives", "baptized handmaidens of Christ", "baptized women distributed as rewards", "baptized believers", "men" and "women." In one place, Patrick wrote, "Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men, I might have expected half a screpall [a coin worth six cents] from some of them..." Notice that he refers to having baptized "...so many thousand men..", no infants, but men; adult, professing, believing, responsible men. Another place he writes, "So that even after my death I may leave as legacies to my brethren...whom I have baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men." Again he acknowledges the fact that he has baptized thousands of men, but not one infant.
Number Two: St. Patrick Baptized By Immersion Only
This has been a leading principle among the Baptists since the days of the Apostles and still is today. Again, in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion. Cathcart (along with Nennius, Todd, O'Farrell and other church historians) records one such instance, "When the saint entered Tirawly, the seven sons of Amalgaidh assembled with their followers. Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire" (The Baptist Encyclopedia [1881], by William Cathcart, page 887). Dr. Cathcart further states, "There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards."
In 1631 the English Baptists discovered, and subsequently corresponded with, small communities of Baptists in Ireland and found them to be sound. These churches, located in Dublin, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Cork, Limerick, Galloway, Wexford, Carrick Fergus and Kerry are listed in Joseph Ivimey's comprehensive History of the English Baptists [1811], Volume 1, Pages 240-241. It is believed that some of these churches had histories dating to the time of Patrick. Many of them can substantiate and confirm their claims of such for nearly 1100 years, which places them within two hundred years of Patrick.
Number Three: In Church Government,
St. Patrick Was A Baptist During his ministry, Patrick is recorded to have "founded 365 churches and consecrated the same number of bishops, and ordained 3,000 presbyters (Ancient British and Irish Churches, William Cathcart, page 282). Anglican Bishop Stillingfleet refers to an account of a great council of Brevy, Wales at which there were 118 Irish bishops. Noting that if these were Catholic bishops this little island was in danger of "...going to seed --- in bishops." Other historians concede that "...Saint Patrick placed a bishop in every church which he founded; and several presbyters after the example of the New Testament churches." One such scholar, a Dr. Carew of Maynooth, admits that a bishop "...was simply the pastor of one congregation." The Catholic and protestant idea of a bishop being the head over several churches in different cities was totally unknown among those early churches on the British Isles. This can be confirmed from writings of Irish clergymen dated from A.D. 1112 and reconfirmed from the same in A.D. 1057.
Number Four: Patrick Was A Baptist In Independence From Creeds, Councils, Popes, etc.
Patrick never attended one council and recognized no authority over him, save that of the Lord Jesus Himself. There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he. He recognized no Pope. He recognized no Cardinal. In all of his writings it cannot be found where one time he subscribes to even the most insignificant and remote catechism, creed, or dogma of the Roman Catholic system. Of all the great Christians that Patrick refers to in his letters, he never pays homage to any Pope, nor mentions any man as being superior in church clergy. Instead, the great Irish missionary speaks of his love, regards, and terms of affection for those men whom had been ordained as pastors of the churches he founded. Upon the authority of the little Baptist church in Scotland where he was saved and from which he received his commission much as did Paul and Barnabus (Acts 15:22).
Number Five: In Doctrine
Patrick Was A Baptist In all of his writings, all of the doctrine that Patrick espouses adherence to is consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. The venerable preacher wrote, "It is Christ who gave His life for thee (and) is He who speaks to thee. He has poured out upon us abundantly the Holy Spirit, the gift and assurance of immortality, who causes men to believe and become obedient that they might be the sons of God and joint heirs with Christ." In this one statement, Patrick alludes to six (6) major Baptist doctrines:
a. Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communion, confession or christening. He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood. William Cathcart wrote, "There is no ground for doubting but that he preached the gospel of repentance and faith in Ireland, and that his ministrations were attended by overwhelming success" (The Baptist Encyclopedia, page 887).
b. He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).
c. He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).
d. He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).
e. Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.
f. And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Patrick's doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, "religion does not exist in bodily efforts..." Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he "...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness" No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.
Number Six: In Terms Of The Lord's Supper, Patrick Was A Baptist
From his writings we know that he rejected the Roman Catholic view of salvation in the ordinance. Also from his writings, we know that Patrick believed that the believer himself should partake of both elements of communion, the bread and the cup, and not just the administrator exclusively. In writing of the conversion of the two daughters of Irish King Loeghaire under his ministry, Patrick tells them to put away their idols and trust Christ alone. His instructions to them regarding the Lord's Supper is that they receive both elements representative of His body and blood.
Number Seven: Patrick Rejects The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Transubstantiation
Patrick believed that the elements were only pictures of Christ's body and Christ's blood. Dr. Jarrell wrote, "In all the descriptions of the Eucharist quoted there is no evidence that it is...", or literally becomes the flesh of Christ and His blood. The elements are merely symbols of such.
Number Eight: Patrick Never Affirmed His Belief In, Or Adherence To, Many Crucial Catholic Pecularities
St. Patrick was a Baptist and the first Irish churches were Baptist churches. He knew nothing of priestly confession and priestly forgiveness. He was not acquainted with extreme unction. He strictly forbade the worship of images. Never once did he instruct his converts that they were to pay homage to Mary or worship her. He never mentions the intercession of Mary or of any departed saint. In all of his writings there is no mention at all of purgatory, of indulgences, of keeping holy days, of praying to anyone but God Himself, of the persecution of opposers of the church, of distinguishing clerical garments, of the rosary, of last rites, of mass, of allegiance to the Pope. None of these crucial Catholic doctrines and dogmas were practiced by or even mentioned by the great missionary to Ireland.
It is my firm conviction that it has sufficiently been shown that Saint Patrick was not a Roman Catholic in doctrine or practice, but rather an early Baptist preacher following in the footsteps of the Apostles themselves, believing what they believed, practicing what they practiced. In conclusion, it seems that the words of W.A. Jarrell on this subject are most fitting, "Were Patrick not turned to dust, and were the body able to hear and turn, he would turn over in his coffin at the disgrace on his memory from the Romish church claiming him as a Roman Catholic" (Baptist Church Perpetuity or History, page 479).
Monday, March 16, 2009
Liberalism In Politics Reflect Liberalism in Parenting
Liberals are immature. Yup, knew that. But here's someone else saying it.
By Reb Bradley
Liberals are merely inadequately trained children who grew up and now lead using principles they gleaned from their upbringing," he says.
All people are born liberal, Bradley writes, meaning they are ruled first by their emotions and passions.
"We come into the world determined to survive, and we vehemently express ourselves to get what we need: 'Waaa!' and Momma feeds us," he writes. "'Waaa!' and our diaper is changed' 'Waaa!' and we are put down for a nap. As infants, our strong will can keep us comfortable and alive – the more outspoken we are, the more our needs are met. However, as we start to grow, we no longer cry for our necessities – we crave pleasure, too."
These ideas are not really new, explains Bradley. They are just in need of rediscovery. He points out that in 1926, Minnesota Gov. Theodore Christianson established a state crime commission. At the end of its research, the commission concluded that criminal tendencies were not the result of poverty, education or environment. Instead, it made the following observation: "Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered, he wants what he wants when he wants it: his bottle, his mother's attention, his playmate's toys, his uncle's watch, or whatever. Deny him these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness which would be murderous were he not so helpless. He's dirty, he has no morals, no knowledge, no developed skills. This means that all children, not just certain children but all children, are born delinquent. If permitted to continue in their self-centered world of infancy, given free rein to their impulsive actions to satisfy each want, every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist."
[Sounds like Romans 1-3 to me!]
Bottom line?
"Liberals are like teenagers whose will-to-be-gratified was never subdued, and now cannot grasp the simple logic of what is being said to them," Bradley writes. "They are so emotionally obsessed with getting what their hearts want that they are unwilling to listen to reason. That is why liberals resort to personal attacks, name-calling, accusing, yelling, discrediting, or changing the subject. And that is why they use inflammatory and emotionally charged words like 'intolerant,' 'hateful' and 'racist.' Desperation ensues when passion rules. When passion rules, blindness sets in."
As a result, Bradley says "America is being governed by adults still in their terrible twos."
"Barack Obama is our King Saul," Bradley continues. "Like Saul, he has fooled people on a base, emotional level. And when people can't see beyond their emotions, they are immature and incapable of the kind of self-government that has been the bedrock of America's freedom for the last two centuries."
By Reb Bradley
Liberals are merely inadequately trained children who grew up and now lead using principles they gleaned from their upbringing," he says.
All people are born liberal, Bradley writes, meaning they are ruled first by their emotions and passions.
"We come into the world determined to survive, and we vehemently express ourselves to get what we need: 'Waaa!' and Momma feeds us," he writes. "'Waaa!' and our diaper is changed' 'Waaa!' and we are put down for a nap. As infants, our strong will can keep us comfortable and alive – the more outspoken we are, the more our needs are met. However, as we start to grow, we no longer cry for our necessities – we crave pleasure, too."
These ideas are not really new, explains Bradley. They are just in need of rediscovery. He points out that in 1926, Minnesota Gov. Theodore Christianson established a state crime commission. At the end of its research, the commission concluded that criminal tendencies were not the result of poverty, education or environment. Instead, it made the following observation: "Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered, he wants what he wants when he wants it: his bottle, his mother's attention, his playmate's toys, his uncle's watch, or whatever. Deny him these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness which would be murderous were he not so helpless. He's dirty, he has no morals, no knowledge, no developed skills. This means that all children, not just certain children but all children, are born delinquent. If permitted to continue in their self-centered world of infancy, given free rein to their impulsive actions to satisfy each want, every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist."
[Sounds like Romans 1-3 to me!]
Bottom line?
"Liberals are like teenagers whose will-to-be-gratified was never subdued, and now cannot grasp the simple logic of what is being said to them," Bradley writes. "They are so emotionally obsessed with getting what their hearts want that they are unwilling to listen to reason. That is why liberals resort to personal attacks, name-calling, accusing, yelling, discrediting, or changing the subject. And that is why they use inflammatory and emotionally charged words like 'intolerant,' 'hateful' and 'racist.' Desperation ensues when passion rules. When passion rules, blindness sets in."
As a result, Bradley says "America is being governed by adults still in their terrible twos."
"Barack Obama is our King Saul," Bradley continues. "Like Saul, he has fooled people on a base, emotional level. And when people can't see beyond their emotions, they are immature and incapable of the kind of self-government that has been the bedrock of America's freedom for the last two centuries."
Definition of Insane
Why is the US government giving companies who proved they couldn't wisely deal with money, MORE MONEY, and then get upset that [shock!] the CEO's aren't spending it wisely? This is the way many Americans parent too, by the way. Forget saying no, forget consequences for bad behavior, indulge the irresponsible, hoping it will make everyone happy. It in fact, makes everyone miserable.
Old-Earth Creationism: It Denies God's Clear Word
Excerpts from the article "Old-Earth Creationism" by Dr. Morris of ICR
Many evangelical leaders today, unfortunately, have capitulated to the evolutionary timescale of modern unbelieving geologists and astronomers. They feel that they must somehow reinterpret the Genesis record of creation to allow for billions of prehistoric years, which the evolutionists must have in order to make cosmic evolution and biological evolution seem feasible. This compromise is necessary, they say, in order to win scientists and other intellectuals to the Lord.
We strongly believe that it is a serious mistake when Bible-believing Christians compromise with the great ages demanded by the evolutionists. Various interpretive devices have been suggested by Bible expositors as they try to convert the six-day creation record of Genesis into billions of years. Some will frankly advocate "theistic evolution," but others will call it "process creation," "progressive creation," "multiple creation," or some other term, implying that they still believe in some sort of “creation.”
Every such group must turn to either the "local flood theory" or the "tranquil flood theory" if they are going to hold to the geologic ages, since a global cataclysm such as the Bible describes would have destroyed all evidence for the geologic ages.
Then they go on to patronizingly deplore the supposed anti-intellectualism of what they call "young-earth creationism" (this is their term; we prefer "biblical creationism" or "literal creationism"). They think this position is an embarrassment (one has even called it a "scandal") to evangelicalism.
Indeed, there are now thousands of scientists who believe in recent six-day creation. There are also organizations of scientists who are young-earth creationists in many different countries, as well as in many states in this country.
The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.
It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18).**
Others have said: "But God could have created by a long evolutionary process if He wanted to." No, He couldn't! God can do everything except contradict Himself and His own nature. Evolution is the most wasteful and most cruel process that one could ever devise by which to "create" men and women. Christians should not accuse God of being responsible for the evolutionary process.
To us literal creationists, on the other hand, it seems unthinkable that the God of the Bible--the God who is omniscient and omnipotent, merciful and loving--would do anything like that. Surely He could devise and implement a better plan than this. It is true, of course, that in this present age "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22), but God did not create it as a groaning, dying world. At the end of the creation week, "God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).
The problem is sin. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). It will not do, of course, to argue that death affected only Adam and his human descendants, for "death reigned--even over them that had not sinned" (Romans 5:14). God’s curse was on Adam's whole dominion, even the very elements. "Cursed is the ground for thy sake," God told Adam (Genesis 3:17).
Nor will it do to say that the curse applied only to "spiritual" death, on the premise that Adam would eventually have died physically anyway. If that were the case, the bitterly cruel physical suffering and death of Christ on the cross for our sins becomes a travesty.
Unbelievers seem to have a better understanding of this obvious truth than old-earth creationists do. By accepting the geological ages, such creationists are accepting billions of years of suffering and death in God's creation even before sin entered the world--not only man's sin, but even Satan's sin. Thus God would be directly responsible for creating a world which is not good!
Thus the wonderful saving gospel of Christ is essentially subverted and destroyed if we must accept the vast ages of the evolutionary cosmologists and geologists, with their eons-long spectacle of suffering and death as recorded in the global fossil graveyard. Sound theology must say no to any such concession! Fossils speak of death, and death results only from sin and judgment. "Sin...bringeth forth death" (James 1:15). Death is only a temporary intruder into God's very good creation, of course, and in the new earth which is to come, "there shall be no more death" (Revelation 21:4).
"But science has proved the earth is old," they still insist, "and we dare not alienate the academic community by insisting on a literal Genesis." No, "science" has not proved the earth is old! The oldest written records we have, apart from the Bible, are in Egypt and Sumeria, and these only go back a few thousand years. The great fossil "record," instead of displaying vast ages of evolution, really shows the remains of a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm.
In any case, the only way we can know anything about the date of creation (and remember that the word "science" means knowledge!) is for God--who was there--to tell us when He did it. And, of course, He has told us, in His inspired Word. The question is, do we really believe what He says?
****Exo 20:11 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.
Exo 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
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.
Heb 1:3 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,
In another article, ICR rightly says:
Many Bible scholars today are buying into the day-age theory of origins. They seem to believe that their biblical views must conform to their mental image of how the world functions today and must be confirmed by members of the non-Christian world, whose minds are darkened (Ephesians 4:17-19).
The claim that yom is a long but finite time period is based on the assertion that yom means "age" in Genesis 2:4. However, in the Hebrew Old Testament yom normally means either a 24-hour day, or the daylight portion of a 24-hour day ("day" as distinct from "night"). It may occasionally be used for an indefinite time (e.g., "days of the judges"), but never as a definite long period of time with a specific beginning and ending.
It is not used even in this indefinite sense except when the context clearly indicates that the literal meaning is not intended. When ordinals or the phrase "evening and morning" are connected with yom, it always means a solar day. The context of the six days of creation account in Genesis 1 precludes any meaning of indefinite time.
Many evangelical leaders today, unfortunately, have capitulated to the evolutionary timescale of modern unbelieving geologists and astronomers. They feel that they must somehow reinterpret the Genesis record of creation to allow for billions of prehistoric years, which the evolutionists must have in order to make cosmic evolution and biological evolution seem feasible. This compromise is necessary, they say, in order to win scientists and other intellectuals to the Lord.
We strongly believe that it is a serious mistake when Bible-believing Christians compromise with the great ages demanded by the evolutionists. Various interpretive devices have been suggested by Bible expositors as they try to convert the six-day creation record of Genesis into billions of years. Some will frankly advocate "theistic evolution," but others will call it "process creation," "progressive creation," "multiple creation," or some other term, implying that they still believe in some sort of “creation.”
Every such group must turn to either the "local flood theory" or the "tranquil flood theory" if they are going to hold to the geologic ages, since a global cataclysm such as the Bible describes would have destroyed all evidence for the geologic ages.
Then they go on to patronizingly deplore the supposed anti-intellectualism of what they call "young-earth creationism" (this is their term; we prefer "biblical creationism" or "literal creationism"). They think this position is an embarrassment (one has even called it a "scandal") to evangelicalism.
Indeed, there are now thousands of scientists who believe in recent six-day creation. There are also organizations of scientists who are young-earth creationists in many different countries, as well as in many states in this country.
The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.
It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18).**
Others have said: "But God could have created by a long evolutionary process if He wanted to." No, He couldn't! God can do everything except contradict Himself and His own nature. Evolution is the most wasteful and most cruel process that one could ever devise by which to "create" men and women. Christians should not accuse God of being responsible for the evolutionary process.
To us literal creationists, on the other hand, it seems unthinkable that the God of the Bible--the God who is omniscient and omnipotent, merciful and loving--would do anything like that. Surely He could devise and implement a better plan than this. It is true, of course, that in this present age "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22), but God did not create it as a groaning, dying world. At the end of the creation week, "God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).
The problem is sin. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). It will not do, of course, to argue that death affected only Adam and his human descendants, for "death reigned--even over them that had not sinned" (Romans 5:14). God’s curse was on Adam's whole dominion, even the very elements. "Cursed is the ground for thy sake," God told Adam (Genesis 3:17).
Nor will it do to say that the curse applied only to "spiritual" death, on the premise that Adam would eventually have died physically anyway. If that were the case, the bitterly cruel physical suffering and death of Christ on the cross for our sins becomes a travesty.
Unbelievers seem to have a better understanding of this obvious truth than old-earth creationists do. By accepting the geological ages, such creationists are accepting billions of years of suffering and death in God's creation even before sin entered the world--not only man's sin, but even Satan's sin. Thus God would be directly responsible for creating a world which is not good!
Thus the wonderful saving gospel of Christ is essentially subverted and destroyed if we must accept the vast ages of the evolutionary cosmologists and geologists, with their eons-long spectacle of suffering and death as recorded in the global fossil graveyard. Sound theology must say no to any such concession! Fossils speak of death, and death results only from sin and judgment. "Sin...bringeth forth death" (James 1:15). Death is only a temporary intruder into God's very good creation, of course, and in the new earth which is to come, "there shall be no more death" (Revelation 21:4).
"But science has proved the earth is old," they still insist, "and we dare not alienate the academic community by insisting on a literal Genesis." No, "science" has not proved the earth is old! The oldest written records we have, apart from the Bible, are in Egypt and Sumeria, and these only go back a few thousand years. The great fossil "record," instead of displaying vast ages of evolution, really shows the remains of a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm.
In any case, the only way we can know anything about the date of creation (and remember that the word "science" means knowledge!) is for God--who was there--to tell us when He did it. And, of course, He has told us, in His inspired Word. The question is, do we really believe what He says?
****Exo 20:11 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.
Exo 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
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.
Heb 1:3 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,
In another article, ICR rightly says:
Many Bible scholars today are buying into the day-age theory of origins. They seem to believe that their biblical views must conform to their mental image of how the world functions today and must be confirmed by members of the non-Christian world, whose minds are darkened (Ephesians 4:17-19).
The claim that yom is a long but finite time period is based on the assertion that yom means "age" in Genesis 2:4. However, in the Hebrew Old Testament yom normally means either a 24-hour day, or the daylight portion of a 24-hour day ("day" as distinct from "night"). It may occasionally be used for an indefinite time (e.g., "days of the judges"), but never as a definite long period of time with a specific beginning and ending.
It is not used even in this indefinite sense except when the context clearly indicates that the literal meaning is not intended. When ordinals or the phrase "evening and morning" are connected with yom, it always means a solar day. The context of the six days of creation account in Genesis 1 precludes any meaning of indefinite time.
Tullian Tchividjian Is A Good Fit For Kennedy's Church But Not For God's Flock
News:
First of all, and I've seen this always proclaimed by both the voting congregation and the man who is candidating for the job of pastor: numbers dictate to them if its God's will.
This is a problem because its relying on sight not faith, on majority not Truth. When Moses Joshua was to lead the Jews back to the Promised land, there were twelve spies and only two came back with a report of assurance of overtaking the land. The rest thought it was impossible. See Numbers 13:30-31 and also chapter 14. Had Moses (and eventually Joshua) gone with today's "majority means God's will" view, he would have NEVER entered into that land as God commanded. Majority in this case was really the fear of man. As it is today. Security in numbers is NOT fear of God nor trust in HIM. This is absolutely the wrong way to determine God's will. After all His ways are narrow and the pool of biblical believers is few in number anyway.
Now, on to Tullian's hiring as senior pastor. I've noticed that Reformers have been enamoured with this grandson of Billy Graham. I find that interesting considering the man-centeredness that flows through that family's beliefs.
Consider these things:
His second book, Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different (foreword by Tim Keller), is due out from Multnomah next month."
Keller is Emergent with a Reformed bent. But as long as he claims TULIP he gets a free pass AND a big push by Reformers.
The latest on Keller:
Tim Keller is to be a speaker at the 2009 Leadership Summit at Willow Creek Community Church, which includes speakers like: Bill Hybels; Dr. Henry Cloud; Bono.
“Innovation3 is happening later this month in Dallas… January 27-28 to be exact.
Leadership Network has invited over a hundred of the best and brightest ministry leaders to present at Innovation3. You’ll hear from people like Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Dino Rizzo, Nancy Ortberg, Larry Osborne, Matt Chandler, Dave Gibbons, Darrin Patrick, Dave Ferguson, Ed Stetzer, Neil Cole, and many more. We’ll be lead in worship by the Robbie Seay Band!” Also Chris Seay will be mc’ing.
Leadership Network is a well established Emergent company that pushes this movement hard, especially this year.
As is normal for Emergent gatherings, many women will be teaching men. This also includes women “ministers” such as Nancy Ortberg who is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois,Theresa McBean, Pastor Laurie Beshore,Missy Hannon is co-executive pastor of Living Hope Church.
Tim Keller is sharing the pulpit with these people.
Tim Keller shares the platform with Gary Lamb at Exponential 09: “Gary Lamb is on the record saying that one of his biggest regrets is that he didn’t club a church lady with a baseball bat, punch her husband in the face and set fire to the church organ.” –Slice of Laodicea
Go here to hear him say it. Note the background stage production (Las Vegas style). He calls the woman he hates “Lucifer” from his last church, blamed that church for almost divorcing, and was responsible for him hating Christians. Yup that’s the man to speak at this conference. NOT.
A Little Leaven reports:
Read what Lamb wrote on his blog to the person who stole one of his church’s trailers:
To the people who stole our trailer:
First let me say, God loves you. Second let me say we forgive you. We really don’t want to forgive you, but God says we should so we do. Third of all I want you to know that I think you are scum bags. I think you are lowlife degenerates who need a good butt kicking. Matter of fact I feel so strongly about the fact that you need a good butt kicking that I am volunteering to do it. I hope you believe in God because you should get on your knees and cry out to Him like never before because if we find you, I can promise we will kick the crap out of you. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be over quickly, and it will be very painful. I know that doesn’t sound very nice but I feel pretty strongly that is what you need.
Unquote.
Note the women who will be teaching men at this conference.
Francis Chan and Tim Keller will be sharing the pulpit with:
Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Alan Hirsch, Erwin McManus, ECM leaders
So to have a connection with Tim Keller isn't good; its bad.
Tullian's list of favorite books include interfaith and ecumenical authors listed. Shane Trammel notes: "T.M. Moore, J.I. Packer, Os Guinness, and Chuck Colson. All four of these men signed the document “Evangelical and Catholics Together”"
Tullian likes Rick Warren. Go here and here on why Rick Warren is a false teacher.
A woman is Director of Ministry Development at his New City Church. Her "testimony" as well as having this kind of leadership role over the direction of the church gives one pause.
His New City Church is EPC which is doctrinally find with the ordination of women. How is this biblical or reformed?
All these issues gives a red flag for Tchividjian being a senior pastor of anything. Of course, D. James Kennedy was pretty man-centered as well, so I think this is actually a good fit. However, the rubber stamping of men who either have famous connections or claim TULIP or Reformed, is utterly shameful, when its clear that such men have shown a lack of biblical discernment.
Members of a prominent Florida megachurch voted
overwhelmingly Sunday to call the Rev. William Graham Tullian Tchividjian to
serve as its new senior minister.
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church members also agreed to merge with
Tchividjian’s New City Presbyterian Church in Margate and elected its officers
to serve the Fort Lauderdale congregation.
Tchividjian, a grandson of world renowned evangelist Billy Graham,
called Sunday “momentous and historic.”
“91% of the congregation voted to support the call,” he reported Sunday
in his church blog. “That is a much higher percentage than I anticipated given
the fact that this call involved a merger of two congregations.
“God made his will known with an exclamation point this morning,”
the 36-year-old minister exclaimed.
First of all, and I've seen this always proclaimed by both the voting congregation and the man who is candidating for the job of pastor: numbers dictate to them if its God's will.
This is a problem because its relying on sight not faith, on majority not Truth. When Moses Joshua was to lead the Jews back to the Promised land, there were twelve spies and only two came back with a report of assurance of overtaking the land. The rest thought it was impossible. See Numbers 13:30-31 and also chapter 14. Had Moses (and eventually Joshua) gone with today's "majority means God's will" view, he would have NEVER entered into that land as God commanded. Majority in this case was really the fear of man. As it is today. Security in numbers is NOT fear of God nor trust in HIM. This is absolutely the wrong way to determine God's will. After all His ways are narrow and the pool of biblical believers is few in number anyway.
Now, on to Tullian's hiring as senior pastor. I've noticed that Reformers have been enamoured with this grandson of Billy Graham. I find that interesting considering the man-centeredness that flows through that family's beliefs.
Consider these things:
His second book, Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different (foreword by Tim Keller), is due out from Multnomah next month."
Keller is Emergent with a Reformed bent. But as long as he claims TULIP he gets a free pass AND a big push by Reformers.
The latest on Keller:
Tim Keller is to be a speaker at the 2009 Leadership Summit at Willow Creek Community Church, which includes speakers like: Bill Hybels; Dr. Henry Cloud; Bono.
“Innovation3 is happening later this month in Dallas… January 27-28 to be exact.
Leadership Network has invited over a hundred of the best and brightest ministry leaders to present at Innovation3. You’ll hear from people like Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Dino Rizzo, Nancy Ortberg, Larry Osborne, Matt Chandler, Dave Gibbons, Darrin Patrick, Dave Ferguson, Ed Stetzer, Neil Cole, and many more. We’ll be lead in worship by the Robbie Seay Band!” Also Chris Seay will be mc’ing.
Leadership Network is a well established Emergent company that pushes this movement hard, especially this year.
As is normal for Emergent gatherings, many women will be teaching men. This also includes women “ministers” such as Nancy Ortberg who is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois,Theresa McBean, Pastor Laurie Beshore,Missy Hannon is co-executive pastor of Living Hope Church.
Tim Keller is sharing the pulpit with these people.
Tim Keller shares the platform with Gary Lamb at Exponential 09: “Gary Lamb is on the record saying that one of his biggest regrets is that he didn’t club a church lady with a baseball bat, punch her husband in the face and set fire to the church organ.” –Slice of Laodicea
Go here to hear him say it. Note the background stage production (Las Vegas style). He calls the woman he hates “Lucifer” from his last church, blamed that church for almost divorcing, and was responsible for him hating Christians. Yup that’s the man to speak at this conference. NOT.
A Little Leaven reports:
Read what Lamb wrote on his blog to the person who stole one of his church’s trailers:
To the people who stole our trailer:
First let me say, God loves you. Second let me say we forgive you. We really don’t want to forgive you, but God says we should so we do. Third of all I want you to know that I think you are scum bags. I think you are lowlife degenerates who need a good butt kicking. Matter of fact I feel so strongly about the fact that you need a good butt kicking that I am volunteering to do it. I hope you believe in God because you should get on your knees and cry out to Him like never before because if we find you, I can promise we will kick the crap out of you. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be over quickly, and it will be very painful. I know that doesn’t sound very nice but I feel pretty strongly that is what you need.
Unquote.
Note the women who will be teaching men at this conference.
Francis Chan and Tim Keller will be sharing the pulpit with:
Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Alan Hirsch, Erwin McManus, ECM leaders
So to have a connection with Tim Keller isn't good; its bad.
Tullian's list of favorite books include interfaith and ecumenical authors listed. Shane Trammel notes: "T.M. Moore, J.I. Packer, Os Guinness, and Chuck Colson. All four of these men signed the document “Evangelical and Catholics Together”"
Tullian likes Rick Warren. Go here and here on why Rick Warren is a false teacher.
A woman is Director of Ministry Development at his New City Church. Her "testimony" as well as having this kind of leadership role over the direction of the church gives one pause.
His New City Church is EPC which is doctrinally find with the ordination of women. How is this biblical or reformed?
All these issues gives a red flag for Tchividjian being a senior pastor of anything. Of course, D. James Kennedy was pretty man-centered as well, so I think this is actually a good fit. However, the rubber stamping of men who either have famous connections or claim TULIP or Reformed, is utterly shameful, when its clear that such men have shown a lack of biblical discernment.
Man Is Born A Lover Of Lies And Hater Of God's Truth
This poisonous virus!(Arthur Pink, "The Word of Truth")
By nature, both writer and reader are liars. "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3). No child has to be taught to lie--it comes naturally to him. Nor does he have to be corrupted by contact with others--he is born corrupt at the core of his being! This is the inevitable consequence of the Fall. Our first parents preferred the Devil's lie--to God's Truth, and all of their descendants inherit this poisonous virus.
In consequence "the whole world lies in the wicked one" (1 John 5:19) and he is "a liar--and the father of lies" (John 8:44). Thus by nature, we have no love for the Truth--but instead, we all have a strong antipathy and resistance against it. The unregenerate do not want to know the truth about themselves--no, they wish to be flattered and encouraged to entertain a good opinion of themselves. Hence, the Lord Jesus declared "Because I tell you the Truth--you do not believe" (John 8:45). Had He told them pleasant lies--they would have welcomed Him.
Since the whole world lies in the wicked one, and he is the arch-liar, we should not be surprised at the world being so full of pretense and deceit--and that the Truth of God is so bitterly hated. The fact is, that "Truth has fallen in the street!" (Isaiah 59:14) and is now being ruthlessly trampled on, on every side.
How indeed even sadder when professing Christians use deceit and are full of hypocrisy---two things that are themselves grounded in lies! All in HIS name no less and "for His glory"!
By nature, both writer and reader are liars. "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3). No child has to be taught to lie--it comes naturally to him. Nor does he have to be corrupted by contact with others--he is born corrupt at the core of his being! This is the inevitable consequence of the Fall. Our first parents preferred the Devil's lie--to God's Truth, and all of their descendants inherit this poisonous virus.
In consequence "the whole world lies in the wicked one" (1 John 5:19) and he is "a liar--and the father of lies" (John 8:44). Thus by nature, we have no love for the Truth--but instead, we all have a strong antipathy and resistance against it. The unregenerate do not want to know the truth about themselves--no, they wish to be flattered and encouraged to entertain a good opinion of themselves. Hence, the Lord Jesus declared "Because I tell you the Truth--you do not believe" (John 8:45). Had He told them pleasant lies--they would have welcomed Him.
Since the whole world lies in the wicked one, and he is the arch-liar, we should not be surprised at the world being so full of pretense and deceit--and that the Truth of God is so bitterly hated. The fact is, that "Truth has fallen in the street!" (Isaiah 59:14) and is now being ruthlessly trampled on, on every side.
How indeed even sadder when professing Christians use deceit and are full of hypocrisy---two things that are themselves grounded in lies! All in HIS name no less and "for His glory"!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Shack: Author William Young Denies the Penal Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus and Denies the Trinity
Have you heard or seen the book "The Shack" by William Young? Do you think its odd but you aren't quite sure why?
Listen to this clip with the author and you'll know why. Now I highly disagree with The White Horse Inn on many things. But I want you to hear what the author is saying (or in some cases not saying). He denies the penal substitutionary atonement made by Jesus Christ. He denies the Trinity. He denies the wrath of God on SINNERS (not just sin).
For more info go to http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=22246
And
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/07/shack-elousia-mythical-mystical-black.html
Listen to this clip with the author and you'll know why. Now I highly disagree with The White Horse Inn on many things. But I want you to hear what the author is saying (or in some cases not saying). He denies the penal substitutionary atonement made by Jesus Christ. He denies the Trinity. He denies the wrath of God on SINNERS (not just sin).
For more info go to http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=22246
And
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/07/shack-elousia-mythical-mystical-black.html
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Dr. John Ankerberg : Defender of the Faith Now Attacks It
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Behold, another "evangelical Christian apologist" caves to error:
Excerpts:
Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg
by Institute for Creation Research
Of course, the Institute for Creation Research is all for science. As the founder of the modern creation science movement (many decades ago), ICR has led the way in conducting the most comprehensive and professional research within the various disciplines of science, but with one very important component: science never trumps Scripture. God’s Word is the ultimate interpreter of all things, even in the realm of science.
This is not to say that the Bible was written as a science textbook. But it does mean that God does not lie, nor has He communicated in a way that confuses His people. However, the way some are beginning to “interpret” Scripture today suggests they believe that God did not speak plainly and only “qualified” Ph.D.’s know the real secret behind God’s straightforward writing.
At the very start of the Ankerberg letter is his connection between “the latest scientific evidence” and the ministry of evangelism, with the statement that believers can now “use this evidence to lead your non-Christian friends to believe God exists and is the Creator of everything.” What you are not told in the first two pages of his appeal is that Dr. Ankerberg has publicly changed his view about how God’s creatorship can be proven.
While admitting he still holds to his belief that God is Creator—and there is no reason to believe that he denies this fact—he is now saying that “science” has finally proven how God created the heavens and the earth. In fact, he states that one man has not only discovered this, but also has made 90 startling scientific predictions that will be revealed in the new Ankerberg television series. Ankerberg concludes, “Unfortunately, many Christians do not know this evidence and can’t share the good news about God and creation with their friends.”
So just how did Christians evangelize for the previous 2,000 years without this “new” evidence? Did Christians really not know how to properly share the Good News without these startling new scientific discoveries?
Dr. Ankerberg rightly laments that “more students at our universities” don’t believe in God. But he claims science is the key to correcting this travesty. And the proper understanding of science in his view—which is the hybrid creation theory called day-age creation—will solve this dilemma in Christian ministry.
However, Romans 1 clearly states that mankind possesses a sinful predisposition to reject God’s many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Rejecting these proofs leaves man “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is not because the evidence has not been communicated well to unbelieving minds. Jesus states that many would not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31).
However, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that evangelism is actually hindered by those who believe and teach that God created the world in six 24-hour days and that the earth is around 6,000 years old. He attacks the many-decades ministry of ICR leaders Dr. John Morris and Dr. Duane Gish because of their uncompromising stance on the 24-hour days God used to create the world. He states, “At the time I thought, it’s going to be difficult to defend the young earth position if no scientist has been persuaded by the scientific evidence to accept it.”
If our goal is ultimately to please or placate modern scientists or theologians, what divine miracle will Dr. Ankerberg suggest we do away with next?
The bottom line is that anyone—be it scientist, scholar, or TV personality—must come to Christ by faith, not by sight.
Science is not God’s means to salvation; the cross is. Science, if used in a manner that does not disparage the Word of God, can be used to help some people take notice of God, the Creator. But science is only one of a myriad methods God uses to attract men and women and children to Himself.
Dr. Ankerberg urges his followers—with some trepidation—to abandon their traditional heartfelt beliefs in Genesis in order to adopt his new understanding of science and the Bible:
In essence, Dr. Ankerberg believes he has discovered new revelation from Hugh Ross—revelation that casts aside the belief of most Christians for over two millennia. So, when God wrote “evening and morning,” He apparently did not mean “evening and morning.” Do the peoples of the world now also need naturalistic training in order to understand God?
From this point on, Dr. Ankerberg shifts between his statements of disbelief in the normal six days of creation to his repeated attempts to use the words “literal,” “inerrant,” and “infallible” in describing his own heartfelt beliefs in the Bible. In true Clintonesque style, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that the “literal” meaning of the word “day” can sometimes have a different “literal” meaning (i.e., “seven long periods of time”).
Dr. Ankerberg is naturally banking on the goodwill of his loyal viewers, his “friends for close to 30 years.” Many have come to trust him to present biblical truth that is relevant to many sticky issues facing believers.
But now he is begging his constituents (“please hear me out”) to let him explain about this one man, Dr. Hugh Ross, who has revealed to him this “new” theory, day-age creation (no matter what he labels it), that makes Scripture conform to modern science.
And that’s where the rub comes: attempting to force Scripture to fit “the latest scientific evidence.”
End quote.
Letter by John Ankerberg is here.
Besides his blatant error and disregard for CLEAR Scripture, I'd like to quote his letter and point something else out.
He comes at his supporters with empathy:
"Believe me"
"I understand your feelings" "I held that exact viewpoint"
We are not called to believe anyone, but test everyone. In fact we as Christians are called to destroy all arguments that set themselves up against Christ Jesus. Feelings aren't the issue here, TRUTH IS.
He is coming at his listeners with authority and relies on the past and their trust of him:
"I wrote two books"
"I poured over Scripture (it took 15 years)"
"You have trusted me to teach you many biblical doctrines over the last 28 years so please hear me out"
"give me a chance to explain"
He is relying on the past to give credibility to his blatant error now. He is at least admitting that his newest doctrine IS a doctrine. But this proves an important, I think THE most important point: folks, you CANNOT trust a teacher by what he USED to teach. You must CONTINUALLY TEST HIM NOW. My old church went through this very thing. Relying on the past they hired a man to preach for four weeks. Thinking his past link to a large well-known church was good enough, they brought him in, only to send out a letter of apology following his fourth week of utter nonsense from the pulpit where he did nothing but plagerize Josh McDowell and tell stories and mention only one verse the entire sermon, which was taken way out of context.
People change. If they are not HIS they will reveal that over time. Their unbelief in Scripture will begin to show and eventually they will unashamedly proclaim their new way is the better way. In hopes of getting a following, they will pull the heartstrings of their former listeners and then pull the "I taught you so much, I can't be wrong now!" card. DO NOT LISTEN when they are off Scripture!
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth:
"I would not even consider another stance if it required me to DENY a LITERAL, inerrant, infallible interpretation of the Bible. Never! BUT...a literal reading of the biblical text is teaching the seven creation DAYS are seven LONG PERIODS.'
Sorry but that isn't a literal rendering of the text. Its error and unbelief and came along to get along with God-haters. Go here for why its wrong. He IS denying the literal interpretation of Scripture. The definition of "day" is right there in Genesis:
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb 11:2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. Heb 11:3 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.
What we are seeing is not new, but it is becoming pervasive. Look at what Robert Shindler said well over a hundred years ago when dealing with Modernists:
The Down Grade SECOND ARTICLE April 1887 Sword and Trowel
By Robert Shindler
"But in too many cases sceptical daring seems to have taken the place of evangelical zeal, and the husks of theological speculations are preferred to the wholesome bread of gospel truth.....But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him....But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result."
Is all truth God’s truth? (a philosophy many "Christians" use to go to God-haters for Truth because Scripture is not enough for them.) Go here for the answer.
John Ankerberg would do well to consider the whole of 1Cor. 1-2. He should repent. Here are a few verses:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
How horribly sad that Ankerberg has been so decieved. He is not trusting in God's Word or power, but is relying on man and theories to "prove" God is Creator. Clearly for this man, Scripture is not enough and that is an absolute disgrace for a Christian, let alone an "apologist".
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Behold, another "evangelical Christian apologist" caves to error:
Excerpts:
Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg
by Institute for Creation Research
Of course, the Institute for Creation Research is all for science. As the founder of the modern creation science movement (many decades ago), ICR has led the way in conducting the most comprehensive and professional research within the various disciplines of science, but with one very important component: science never trumps Scripture. God’s Word is the ultimate interpreter of all things, even in the realm of science.
This is not to say that the Bible was written as a science textbook. But it does mean that God does not lie, nor has He communicated in a way that confuses His people. However, the way some are beginning to “interpret” Scripture today suggests they believe that God did not speak plainly and only “qualified” Ph.D.’s know the real secret behind God’s straightforward writing.
At the very start of the Ankerberg letter is his connection between “the latest scientific evidence” and the ministry of evangelism, with the statement that believers can now “use this evidence to lead your non-Christian friends to believe God exists and is the Creator of everything.” What you are not told in the first two pages of his appeal is that Dr. Ankerberg has publicly changed his view about how God’s creatorship can be proven.
While admitting he still holds to his belief that God is Creator—and there is no reason to believe that he denies this fact—he is now saying that “science” has finally proven how God created the heavens and the earth. In fact, he states that one man has not only discovered this, but also has made 90 startling scientific predictions that will be revealed in the new Ankerberg television series. Ankerberg concludes, “Unfortunately, many Christians do not know this evidence and can’t share the good news about God and creation with their friends.”
So just how did Christians evangelize for the previous 2,000 years without this “new” evidence? Did Christians really not know how to properly share the Good News without these startling new scientific discoveries?
Dr. Ankerberg rightly laments that “more students at our universities” don’t believe in God. But he claims science is the key to correcting this travesty. And the proper understanding of science in his view—which is the hybrid creation theory called day-age creation—will solve this dilemma in Christian ministry.
However, Romans 1 clearly states that mankind possesses a sinful predisposition to reject God’s many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Rejecting these proofs leaves man “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is not because the evidence has not been communicated well to unbelieving minds. Jesus states that many would not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31).
However, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that evangelism is actually hindered by those who believe and teach that God created the world in six 24-hour days and that the earth is around 6,000 years old. He attacks the many-decades ministry of ICR leaders Dr. John Morris and Dr. Duane Gish because of their uncompromising stance on the 24-hour days God used to create the world. He states, “At the time I thought, it’s going to be difficult to defend the young earth position if no scientist has been persuaded by the scientific evidence to accept it.”
If our goal is ultimately to please or placate modern scientists or theologians, what divine miracle will Dr. Ankerberg suggest we do away with next?
The bottom line is that anyone—be it scientist, scholar, or TV personality—must come to Christ by faith, not by sight.
Science is not God’s means to salvation; the cross is. Science, if used in a manner that does not disparage the Word of God, can be used to help some people take notice of God, the Creator. But science is only one of a myriad methods God uses to attract men and women and children to Himself.
Dr. Ankerberg urges his followers—with some trepidation—to abandon their traditional heartfelt beliefs in Genesis in order to adopt his new understanding of science and the Bible:
I realize that some of you reading this letter believe with all of your heart that the Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth approximately 6,000 years ago. You believe the only correct literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 teaches God created in six 24-hour days. Therefore, if anyone suggests otherwise, they are speaking against the clear meaning of the Bible, and this is unacceptable.
In essence, Dr. Ankerberg believes he has discovered new revelation from Hugh Ross—revelation that casts aside the belief of most Christians for over two millennia. So, when God wrote “evening and morning,” He apparently did not mean “evening and morning.” Do the peoples of the world now also need naturalistic training in order to understand God?
From this point on, Dr. Ankerberg shifts between his statements of disbelief in the normal six days of creation to his repeated attempts to use the words “literal,” “inerrant,” and “infallible” in describing his own heartfelt beliefs in the Bible. In true Clintonesque style, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that the “literal” meaning of the word “day” can sometimes have a different “literal” meaning (i.e., “seven long periods of time”).
Dr. Ankerberg is naturally banking on the goodwill of his loyal viewers, his “friends for close to 30 years.” Many have come to trust him to present biblical truth that is relevant to many sticky issues facing believers.
But now he is begging his constituents (“please hear me out”) to let him explain about this one man, Dr. Hugh Ross, who has revealed to him this “new” theory, day-age creation (no matter what he labels it), that makes Scripture conform to modern science.
And that’s where the rub comes: attempting to force Scripture to fit “the latest scientific evidence.”
End quote.
Letter by John Ankerberg is here.
Besides his blatant error and disregard for CLEAR Scripture, I'd like to quote his letter and point something else out.
"Believe me. I completely understand your feelings. I held the exact same viewpoint when I wrote two books arguing for the young earth position years ago. I want you to know I would not even consider another stance if it required me to deny a literal, inerrant, infallible interpretation of the Bible. Never! But as I have poured over Scripture, I slowly (it took over 15 years) began to believe the Bible revealed more information than I first understood and was teaching something different than my views. Now, you have trusted me to teach you many biblical doctrines over the last 28 years, so I would ask that you please hear me out, and give me a chance to at least explain to you the reasons why I came to believe that a literal reading of the biblical text is teaching the seven creation days are seven long periods of time."
He comes at his supporters with empathy:
"Believe me"
"I understand your feelings" "I held that exact viewpoint"
We are not called to believe anyone, but test everyone. In fact we as Christians are called to destroy all arguments that set themselves up against Christ Jesus. Feelings aren't the issue here, TRUTH IS.
He is coming at his listeners with authority and relies on the past and their trust of him:
"I wrote two books"
"I poured over Scripture (it took 15 years)"
"You have trusted me to teach you many biblical doctrines over the last 28 years so please hear me out"
"give me a chance to explain"
He is relying on the past to give credibility to his blatant error now. He is at least admitting that his newest doctrine IS a doctrine. But this proves an important, I think THE most important point: folks, you CANNOT trust a teacher by what he USED to teach. You must CONTINUALLY TEST HIM NOW. My old church went through this very thing. Relying on the past they hired a man to preach for four weeks. Thinking his past link to a large well-known church was good enough, they brought him in, only to send out a letter of apology following his fourth week of utter nonsense from the pulpit where he did nothing but plagerize Josh McDowell and tell stories and mention only one verse the entire sermon, which was taken way out of context.
People change. If they are not HIS they will reveal that over time. Their unbelief in Scripture will begin to show and eventually they will unashamedly proclaim their new way is the better way. In hopes of getting a following, they will pull the heartstrings of their former listeners and then pull the "I taught you so much, I can't be wrong now!" card. DO NOT LISTEN when they are off Scripture!
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth:
"I would not even consider another stance if it required me to DENY a LITERAL, inerrant, infallible interpretation of the Bible. Never! BUT...a literal reading of the biblical text is teaching the seven creation DAYS are seven LONG PERIODS.'
Sorry but that isn't a literal rendering of the text. Its error and unbelief and came along to get along with God-haters. Go here for why its wrong. He IS denying the literal interpretation of Scripture. The definition of "day" is right there in Genesis:
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb 11:2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. Heb 11:3 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.
What we are seeing is not new, but it is becoming pervasive. Look at what Robert Shindler said well over a hundred years ago when dealing with Modernists:
The Down Grade SECOND ARTICLE April 1887 Sword and Trowel
By Robert Shindler
"But in too many cases sceptical daring seems to have taken the place of evangelical zeal, and the husks of theological speculations are preferred to the wholesome bread of gospel truth.....But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him....But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result."
Is all truth God’s truth? (a philosophy many "Christians" use to go to God-haters for Truth because Scripture is not enough for them.) Go here for the answer.
John Ankerberg would do well to consider the whole of 1Cor. 1-2. He should repent. Here are a few verses:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
How horribly sad that Ankerberg has been so decieved. He is not trusting in God's Word or power, but is relying on man and theories to "prove" God is Creator. Clearly for this man, Scripture is not enough and that is an absolute disgrace for a Christian, let alone an "apologist".
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Michael Steele Reveals The GOP Problem
I've already pointed out that Michael Steele reveals the problem--the foundational problem--with the RNC and thus the GOP. That's why many conservatives have rejected the GOP, because its a party of absolute compromise, lies, liberalism, and hypocrisy. With such a party, who needs the Democrats?
News item:
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell predicted on Thursday that Michael Steele's "days are numbered" as chairman of the Republican National Committee. "
He's in trouble because I just think that those who control the Republican Party don't want a big tent," Rendell told reporters during a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"I don't know if they want a chairman who is basically pro-choice," Rendell said, referring to an answer Steele gave to GQ magazine in which he described abortion as an “individual choice."
Steele has since backtracked, saying in a statement to POLITICO, “I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.” But Rendell said Steele's explanations of that comment and of other recent gaffes may not be enough to save his job, even though Rendell believes Steele could be "effective in time."
News item:
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell predicted on Thursday that Michael Steele's "days are numbered" as chairman of the Republican National Committee. "
He's in trouble because I just think that those who control the Republican Party don't want a big tent," Rendell told reporters during a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"I don't know if they want a chairman who is basically pro-choice," Rendell said, referring to an answer Steele gave to GQ magazine in which he described abortion as an “individual choice."
Steele has since backtracked, saying in a statement to POLITICO, “I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.” But Rendell said Steele's explanations of that comment and of other recent gaffes may not be enough to save his job, even though Rendell believes Steele could be "effective in time."
The Real Character of Man Revealed At The Trial And Crucifixion of Jesus Christ: the demand for His death
From A. W. Pink ("Beholding the Crucified Christ")
So why do "Christians" want to befriend the world, the sinners, the God-haters? Why is it that they want to accomodate those who would mock and demand the death of Christ Jesus now? Indeed every unbeliever is in the shoes of both the Romans and Jews of that dreadful day.
Or is it that most professing Christians do not see unbelievers the same as God: desperately wicked, His enemies, haters of Christ, vipers, white-washed tombstones, dogs, pigs, under the law, in Adam, blind, deaf, dead, etc? It seems to me most would see sinners as less sinners and more saints.
Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 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.
1Jn 3:12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
It could be that the "gospel" professing Christians believed and thus in turn proclaim to the lost does not show the sinner of his sin in the light of all that occured up to and including Calvary. In fact, they've reverse, often times, the two: Jesus as the one who "could" have sinned and the sinner who was pretty holy.
Their "gospel" tells them a lie that sinful man was NOT crying out "Crucify him, crucify him!" but rather, "I'll help Him out. Let's get the water. Let's get the first aid kit. Let's make him more comfortable." Indeed their view of Man is that he's not God's enemy but God's friend! They have Jesus saying "Father, see how good they really are? Their motives are sincere!"
People are bound and determined to have the Cross glorify Man and denegrate "helpless" "loving" ("see how much He loves me...he stretched out his arms to say 'I love you this much' then died" ) Jesus. This just proves that most have no clue about the True Gospel, to their own destruction, because if they did, they would be in total humility and tears and mourning, instead of boasting about their "worth". The Cross of Christ did NOT show the worth of Man, but his horrific sin, indeed! As long as Man thinks "he's worth it", he will not have a true view of his sin and desperate need for the Savior and Master. He is still in his sin and pride. He is still boasting. He still thinks he's not all that bad. And he will duplicate such destructive man-glorifying thinking to others, the blind leading the blind in the dark. They do not know true Grace!
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1Co 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
"They kept shouting--Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Luke 23:21
Multitudes go through the form of paying homage to God--but it is a "god" of their own imagination. They hate the true and living God, and were it possible--they would rid the universe of His existence! This is clear from their treatment of Christ, for He was none other than "God manifest in flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). They hated and hounded Him to death--and nothing short of His cruel death by crucifixion would appease them!
Here at Calvary the real character of man was revealed, and the desperate wickedness of his heart was laid bare. There it was shown,that man was capable of the blackest of all crimes!
As evil as man had shown himself all through his history--the coming of Immanuel to this earth brought sin to such a head--that all that which had gone before, was relatively but a trifling thing--when compared with the monstrous wickedness which was done against Love incarnate! In
the treatment which the Son of God received at the hands of men--we see sin in its true colors, stripped of a disguise, exposed in its hideous reality; revealed in its true nature as contempt of God, and rebellion against Him. Here at Calvary we behold the climax of sin--and the fearful and horrible lengths to which sin is capable of going! That sin which germinated in Eden--culminated in the crucifixion! Here at Calvary, we see sin at it's apex--Deicide--in the slaying of the Lord of Glory!
So why do "Christians" want to befriend the world, the sinners, the God-haters? Why is it that they want to accomodate those who would mock and demand the death of Christ Jesus now? Indeed every unbeliever is in the shoes of both the Romans and Jews of that dreadful day.
Or is it that most professing Christians do not see unbelievers the same as God: desperately wicked, His enemies, haters of Christ, vipers, white-washed tombstones, dogs, pigs, under the law, in Adam, blind, deaf, dead, etc? It seems to me most would see sinners as less sinners and more saints.
Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 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.
1Jn 3:12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.
It could be that the "gospel" professing Christians believed and thus in turn proclaim to the lost does not show the sinner of his sin in the light of all that occured up to and including Calvary. In fact, they've reverse, often times, the two: Jesus as the one who "could" have sinned and the sinner who was pretty holy.
Their "gospel" tells them a lie that sinful man was NOT crying out "Crucify him, crucify him!" but rather, "I'll help Him out. Let's get the water. Let's get the first aid kit. Let's make him more comfortable." Indeed their view of Man is that he's not God's enemy but God's friend! They have Jesus saying "Father, see how good they really are? Their motives are sincere!"
People are bound and determined to have the Cross glorify Man and denegrate "helpless" "loving" ("see how much He loves me...he stretched out his arms to say 'I love you this much' then died" ) Jesus. This just proves that most have no clue about the True Gospel, to their own destruction, because if they did, they would be in total humility and tears and mourning, instead of boasting about their "worth". The Cross of Christ did NOT show the worth of Man, but his horrific sin, indeed! As long as Man thinks "he's worth it", he will not have a true view of his sin and desperate need for the Savior and Master. He is still in his sin and pride. He is still boasting. He still thinks he's not all that bad. And he will duplicate such destructive man-glorifying thinking to others, the blind leading the blind in the dark. They do not know true Grace!
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
1Co 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The biblical drift among today's evangelicals starting with Genesis 1-2
Here's one reason for the collapse of Evangelical Christianity (excerpts):
Anchors Away? Confronting biblical drift among today's evangelicals
by Lawrence Ford
On the last evening [at a national pastors conference], a young ministerial student approached the ICR booth and listened to our description of ICR’s mission and ministry.
"Oh, I really don't see it that way," he stated. "My church teaches that the Bible may be inspired, but it's not inerrant. It's all about man's description of God."
I couldn't keep my jaw from dropping at this very matter-of-fact admission. This was supposed to be an "evangelical" pastors conference, sponsored by one of the largest Christian publishers in the world--a Bible publisher, no less.
The philosophy of evolution popularized by Charles Darwin in 1859 has literally transformed the thinking of societies around the world. And even though many honest scientists would distance themselves from much of the inadequate scientific conclusions of Darwin, they nonetheless cling to this origins-by-accident "theory" as the only alternative to man’s enduring belief in a Creator.
Why? Because evolution, though dogged by scientific weaknesses (admitted by evolutionists of every generation), is the most acceptable explanation of the origin of life for those who are running as far from God (and moral responsibility) as they can. Darwin is atheism's prophet and evolutionary science is its sacred book.
The church today speaks of the priority of evangelism in ministry, and I would second this commitment. But I fear for those churches that place a ministry objective over doctrine, a task over the text of Scripture. Evangelism is not just any task--it is a priority command by Christ Himself. But Christ, the Creator of the entire world, did not expect His own Word to be diminished when His people carry out that commission. (See Psalm 138:2.)
Can you recall the last time your pastor or Sunday school leaders tackled the topic of creation and the book of Genesis? Do you even know for certain where your pastor stands on Genesis 1 and 2? Does he believe God created the world in six 24-hour days, or in millions and billions of years? Does he believe that the Flood covered the entire earth? Is your pastor one of the over 12,000 clergy who recently signed the pro-Darwin and pro-evolution statement? Ask your church leaders where they stand. I think you will be surprised and challenged by what you hear.
This current drift from biblical truth was brought home to us recently in an appeal letter sent out by television personality John Ankerberg, parroting the views of astronomer Hugh Ross and his evolution-based day-age theory of creation.
Those who claim that God sparked the Big Bang, that "evening and morning" in Genesis 1 really represent millions and billions of years, that there were too many events on "Day 6" for God to have accomplished them in 24 hours, etc., exalt the science of men over the Word of God. It's a drift from orthodoxy. And ICR is concerned about this in two fundamental areas.
First, the "science" of those who refuse to take God at His Word, opting rather to trust in naturalistically-based theories, is fundamentally flawed. And second, these same leaders suggest that God does not mean what He said; evidently, only Ph.D. scientists can interpret the Bible correctly. Both issues contribute to a growing lack of confidence in the Bible, as the young Bible college student I met illustrates.
I am reminded of the Apostle Paul's warning in 2 Corinthians 11:4: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
Paul warned us in Colossians 2:8 that we are to beware of those who would attempt to take us captive through various philosophical arguments and hollow deceptions that are based on the "traditions of men" rather than "according to Christ."
My prayer is that you will hold steadfast to the anchor of Scripture, which will never lead you astray.
End quote.
Anchors Away? Confronting biblical drift among today's evangelicals
by Lawrence Ford
On the last evening [at a national pastors conference], a young ministerial student approached the ICR booth and listened to our description of ICR’s mission and ministry.
"Oh, I really don't see it that way," he stated. "My church teaches that the Bible may be inspired, but it's not inerrant. It's all about man's description of God."
I couldn't keep my jaw from dropping at this very matter-of-fact admission. This was supposed to be an "evangelical" pastors conference, sponsored by one of the largest Christian publishers in the world--a Bible publisher, no less.
The philosophy of evolution popularized by Charles Darwin in 1859 has literally transformed the thinking of societies around the world. And even though many honest scientists would distance themselves from much of the inadequate scientific conclusions of Darwin, they nonetheless cling to this origins-by-accident "theory" as the only alternative to man’s enduring belief in a Creator.
Why? Because evolution, though dogged by scientific weaknesses (admitted by evolutionists of every generation), is the most acceptable explanation of the origin of life for those who are running as far from God (and moral responsibility) as they can. Darwin is atheism's prophet and evolutionary science is its sacred book.
The church today speaks of the priority of evangelism in ministry, and I would second this commitment. But I fear for those churches that place a ministry objective over doctrine, a task over the text of Scripture. Evangelism is not just any task--it is a priority command by Christ Himself. But Christ, the Creator of the entire world, did not expect His own Word to be diminished when His people carry out that commission. (See Psalm 138:2.)
Can you recall the last time your pastor or Sunday school leaders tackled the topic of creation and the book of Genesis? Do you even know for certain where your pastor stands on Genesis 1 and 2? Does he believe God created the world in six 24-hour days, or in millions and billions of years? Does he believe that the Flood covered the entire earth? Is your pastor one of the over 12,000 clergy who recently signed the pro-Darwin and pro-evolution statement? Ask your church leaders where they stand. I think you will be surprised and challenged by what you hear.
This current drift from biblical truth was brought home to us recently in an appeal letter sent out by television personality John Ankerberg, parroting the views of astronomer Hugh Ross and his evolution-based day-age theory of creation.
Those who claim that God sparked the Big Bang, that "evening and morning" in Genesis 1 really represent millions and billions of years, that there were too many events on "Day 6" for God to have accomplished them in 24 hours, etc., exalt the science of men over the Word of God. It's a drift from orthodoxy. And ICR is concerned about this in two fundamental areas.
First, the "science" of those who refuse to take God at His Word, opting rather to trust in naturalistically-based theories, is fundamentally flawed. And second, these same leaders suggest that God does not mean what He said; evidently, only Ph.D. scientists can interpret the Bible correctly. Both issues contribute to a growing lack of confidence in the Bible, as the young Bible college student I met illustrates.
I am reminded of the Apostle Paul's warning in 2 Corinthians 11:4: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
Paul warned us in Colossians 2:8 that we are to beware of those who would attempt to take us captive through various philosophical arguments and hollow deceptions that are based on the "traditions of men" rather than "according to Christ."
My prayer is that you will hold steadfast to the anchor of Scripture, which will never lead you astray.
End quote.
Rick Warren Interview With Reader's Digest
The latest on Rick Warren (yup he's NOT going away...he's now on the cover of the current Reader's Digest magazine and being pushed on the American people yet again). The following are excerpts and my comments are italicized.
Quote:
Warren changed a great deal as he progressed from a preacher who wanted to "build a church for people who hate church" to worldwide religious leader. He spoke with Reader's Digest—whose parent company recently launched his new magazine, Purpose Driven Connection—twice in recent months.
Q. How did you choose Southern California to start spreading your message?
A..... We arrived here on January 1, 1980, in the middle of rush-hour traffic—I grew up in a village of about 500 people—and I said, "God, you got the wrong guy. What am I doing here?"
Q. How did you find your answer?
A.I pulled off the highway, and we walked into this real estate office and met an agent named Don Dale. I said, "My name is Rick Warren. I am 25 years old. I'm here to start a church. I don't have any members. I don't have a building. I don't know anybody here. I don't have any money, and I need a place to live." Within two hours, that guy found us a condo. He convinced the owner to give us a free month of rent and nothing down.
Q. Did Don join your church?
A. We were driving to the condo with him and I said, "Hey, Don, do you go to church anywhere?" He said, "No, no. I hate church." I said, "Great. You're my first member." We started with my family and his family. Our first service was on Easter Sunday in 1980, with 200 people. For Easter in 2008, we had 14 services back-to-back, with 45,000 people. Don is still a member here.
According to Scripture a church is an assembly of called out ones, believers. Every letter written in the NT was written to believers, and several were written to churches. See also Rev. 1-3. Warren violated this very thing. He wanted to appease the God-haters. But God will not do such a thing. We come to God on HIS terms. God does NOT come to us on our's.
Heb 10:25 Do not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
Assemblying together of the elect = eclessia. Also see 1Cor. 6 about being called out and separate from the world.
Is Don a biblical Christian?
Q. When did you decide to expand beyond Lake Forest?
A. In our second decade, we said, "Okay, now we're going to go national, and we're going to help others." I cared about the little churches with 50 or 75 members. Maybe they couldn't afford to pay someone full-time to be their pastor, and I said, "Let's help these guys." So I started training pastors, and in the '90s, I trained about 250,000 people all over America. After that, we reached out globally.
This is why Warren is so dangerous. Its not only his subtle and now his not-so-subtble false teaching, but his wide reach of pastors.
Q. What have your travels around the world taught you?
A. I have seen the quick jump from political division to hatred in too many countries. All of a sudden, the guy you disagree with is evil, and you demonize him. In Rwanda you call him a cockroach and you create this mentality that can lead to genocide. It's one step from dehumanizing people who have a different view on a value that you hold dear to depersonalizing them so they are no longer human—and then you have a right to just get rid of them. Hitler did it. I don't think we want to go down that path.
I wonder if he has spoken to his apologist Richard Abanes? He's very hateful toward anyone who dares question or show the falsehood of Warren. Also Warren wrote the forward to a book which had an entire chapter on how do deal with dissenters. Warren says that disunity is of the devil. So which is it? Disunity (aka disagreement) is ok or not? Or is it only ok if he is the one disagreeing?
Q. How do we ensure that we don't?
A. The idea of tolerance has to come back into style. Tolerance means I treat you with respect even when we totally disagree on a particular issue. You're a child of God. You're worthy of dignity. We may disagree, but we're going to tolerate each other, and even more than that, we can be friends.
Again I point to the dissenters of PDL nationwide and how PDL followers including Warren, isolates and demonizes those who will not accept his error. God is not tolerant. Scripture says we are not to follow the ways of the world (Rom. 12:2). Ananais and Sephira were struck dead by God for lying to HIM and to the leaders of their church (Acts 5:1-3). Does Warren think God has changed? HE has said HE changes not.
There's also this deal with the biblical command of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-19; 1 cro. 5:1-13). But if you build a church for the unregenerate God-haters, you can't nor won't have church discipline. Rather you'll have a luv fest, but its not agape love whatsoever. Agape rejoices not in evil, but in TRUTH (1Cor. 13).
Jesus did not "agree to disagree."
Q. You've said it's important for evangelicals to be more about what they're for than what they're against. When you came out against gay marriage, Saddleback was picketed. One woman, a lesbian who attends Saddleback, said how disappointed she was in you.
A. You're never going to please everybody. I don't need to agree with somebody in order to love them. I don't need to agree with somebody in order to help them either. I hope they feel the same way about me.
Herein is my point: lesbians and all manner of sinners are comfortable at his social club. Scripture demands that those in unrepentant sin to go through the process of Matt. 18 and if they continue, they are to be thrown OUT OF CHURCH. Again, Paul demonstrates this in 1Cor. 5 where they were so proud of being tolerant of two members who were sexually immoral. Paul harshly rebuked them and demanded they put out the brother immediately. See also Gal. 6:1-3.
Q. What's your advice for someone who wants to live a more meaningful life?
A. Love God and other people with all you've got! Living a purpose-driven life means making an intentional shift from self-centered thinking to other-centered thinking. Ask yourself, "What should be the contribution of my life?" By knowing your combination of gifts, abilities, and experiences, you'll see where you can make a difference.
Nothing about being Christ-centered. Nothing about repenting of one's sins. Nothing about bowing to the Holy God of this universe in humility. Its all about ME. MY purpose, MY meaning, MY life, MY gifts, abilities, experiences. This is nothing more than what celebrities do when they serve Thanksgiving meals in front of the cameras and express how good they feel for doing their good deed.
For more on why Rick Warren is a false teacher go here.
Quote:
Warren changed a great deal as he progressed from a preacher who wanted to "build a church for people who hate church" to worldwide religious leader. He spoke with Reader's Digest—whose parent company recently launched his new magazine, Purpose Driven Connection—twice in recent months.
Q. How did you choose Southern California to start spreading your message?
A..... We arrived here on January 1, 1980, in the middle of rush-hour traffic—I grew up in a village of about 500 people—and I said, "God, you got the wrong guy. What am I doing here?"
Q. How did you find your answer?
A.I pulled off the highway, and we walked into this real estate office and met an agent named Don Dale. I said, "My name is Rick Warren. I am 25 years old. I'm here to start a church. I don't have any members. I don't have a building. I don't know anybody here. I don't have any money, and I need a place to live." Within two hours, that guy found us a condo. He convinced the owner to give us a free month of rent and nothing down.
Q. Did Don join your church?
A. We were driving to the condo with him and I said, "Hey, Don, do you go to church anywhere?" He said, "No, no. I hate church." I said, "Great. You're my first member." We started with my family and his family. Our first service was on Easter Sunday in 1980, with 200 people. For Easter in 2008, we had 14 services back-to-back, with 45,000 people. Don is still a member here.
According to Scripture a church is an assembly of called out ones, believers. Every letter written in the NT was written to believers, and several were written to churches. See also Rev. 1-3. Warren violated this very thing. He wanted to appease the God-haters. But God will not do such a thing. We come to God on HIS terms. God does NOT come to us on our's.
Heb 10:25 Do not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
Assemblying together of the elect = eclessia. Also see 1Cor. 6 about being called out and separate from the world.
Is Don a biblical Christian?
Q. When did you decide to expand beyond Lake Forest?
A. In our second decade, we said, "Okay, now we're going to go national, and we're going to help others." I cared about the little churches with 50 or 75 members. Maybe they couldn't afford to pay someone full-time to be their pastor, and I said, "Let's help these guys." So I started training pastors, and in the '90s, I trained about 250,000 people all over America. After that, we reached out globally.
This is why Warren is so dangerous. Its not only his subtle and now his not-so-subtble false teaching, but his wide reach of pastors.
Q. What have your travels around the world taught you?
A. I have seen the quick jump from political division to hatred in too many countries. All of a sudden, the guy you disagree with is evil, and you demonize him. In Rwanda you call him a cockroach and you create this mentality that can lead to genocide. It's one step from dehumanizing people who have a different view on a value that you hold dear to depersonalizing them so they are no longer human—and then you have a right to just get rid of them. Hitler did it. I don't think we want to go down that path.
I wonder if he has spoken to his apologist Richard Abanes? He's very hateful toward anyone who dares question or show the falsehood of Warren. Also Warren wrote the forward to a book which had an entire chapter on how do deal with dissenters. Warren says that disunity is of the devil. So which is it? Disunity (aka disagreement) is ok or not? Or is it only ok if he is the one disagreeing?
Q. How do we ensure that we don't?
A. The idea of tolerance has to come back into style. Tolerance means I treat you with respect even when we totally disagree on a particular issue. You're a child of God. You're worthy of dignity. We may disagree, but we're going to tolerate each other, and even more than that, we can be friends.
Again I point to the dissenters of PDL nationwide and how PDL followers including Warren, isolates and demonizes those who will not accept his error. God is not tolerant. Scripture says we are not to follow the ways of the world (Rom. 12:2). Ananais and Sephira were struck dead by God for lying to HIM and to the leaders of their church (Acts 5:1-3). Does Warren think God has changed? HE has said HE changes not.
There's also this deal with the biblical command of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-19; 1 cro. 5:1-13). But if you build a church for the unregenerate God-haters, you can't nor won't have church discipline. Rather you'll have a luv fest, but its not agape love whatsoever. Agape rejoices not in evil, but in TRUTH (1Cor. 13).
Jesus did not "agree to disagree."
Q. You've said it's important for evangelicals to be more about what they're for than what they're against. When you came out against gay marriage, Saddleback was picketed. One woman, a lesbian who attends Saddleback, said how disappointed she was in you.
A. You're never going to please everybody. I don't need to agree with somebody in order to love them. I don't need to agree with somebody in order to help them either. I hope they feel the same way about me.
Herein is my point: lesbians and all manner of sinners are comfortable at his social club. Scripture demands that those in unrepentant sin to go through the process of Matt. 18 and if they continue, they are to be thrown OUT OF CHURCH. Again, Paul demonstrates this in 1Cor. 5 where they were so proud of being tolerant of two members who were sexually immoral. Paul harshly rebuked them and demanded they put out the brother immediately. See also Gal. 6:1-3.
Q. What's your advice for someone who wants to live a more meaningful life?
A. Love God and other people with all you've got! Living a purpose-driven life means making an intentional shift from self-centered thinking to other-centered thinking. Ask yourself, "What should be the contribution of my life?" By knowing your combination of gifts, abilities, and experiences, you'll see where you can make a difference.
Nothing about being Christ-centered. Nothing about repenting of one's sins. Nothing about bowing to the Holy God of this universe in humility. Its all about ME. MY purpose, MY meaning, MY life, MY gifts, abilities, experiences. This is nothing more than what celebrities do when they serve Thanksgiving meals in front of the cameras and express how good they feel for doing their good deed.
For more on why Rick Warren is a false teacher go here.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Collapse of Evangelicalism: A Low View of Scripture, A Low View of Doctrine, A Low View of Discernment
Today I saw an article at Slice of Laodicea on the "Coming Collapse of Evangelicalism", which is actually being reported by the Drudge Report. I think many of us with discernment has seen this coming for a while, but as I was searching for something else, I found a sermon by John MacArthur that I thought is applicable to this situation. I also find it helpful in that I am always dealing with a family member that is deceived and unable to discern truth from error and it has affected our entire family.
Bad doctrine has huge practicle implications. So does RIGHT doctrine, contrary to what someone recently said to me. Now, we have to make sure we're talking about professing Christians here, obviously. Every Christian has the Holy Spirit and Scripture. God says that IS enough. And Scripture says that godly doctrine leads to godly living. Let the following excerpts exemplify what I mean.
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.
Psa 119:104 Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple
2Pe 1:3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,
"A Call For Discernment Part 2http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/52-33" (1Thes. 5:21-22)
Let me remind you of its truth with a simple and straight forward reading. "But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil." This is a call to discernment. Examine everything carefully. Beloved, this is absolutely critical in the Christian life, absolutely critical. The Christian life is the most precise life of all. It is the most disciplined pattern of thinking and conduct. It calls for exacting precision, in comprehension, in deed, precision that conforms to an absolute standard revealed by God in Scripture. The Christian life is a life that pursues perfect and total conformity to fixed laws commanded and empowered by God Himself. There is no life so precise and demanding as the Christian's life because it not only calls for precision on the outside in terms of behavior, but precision on the inside in terms of thought and belief. ...The Word of God sets fixed demands for every area of our lives. There are no changing doctrines in Christianity. There are no changing values. There are no changing morals. There are no changing ethics.
We are required to live in a disciplined pattern of thinking and we are required to live in a disciplined pattern of conduct. And at the very foundation of this disciplined precise kind of living is the necessity for discernment. We must be able to discern what is true from what is false. We must be able to discern truth from half truth as well as truth from error. And when the church loses its ability to so discern, it therefore forfeits its precise theology, it forfeits its precise morals, values, ethics and doctrines and therefore abandons any hope of precise living...precise conduct. And when you look at Christianity today and you see it filled with immorality and a low-level commitment to holy living, you must understand that that imprecise kind of conduct is the result of imprecise kind of thinking which is the product of an inability to make discernment work.
And unfortunately the church has fallen into chaos and confusion under this onslaught. It is unable today to discern true from false and good from evil and that is creating imprecise doctrine, imprecise conduct.
In fact, as essential as it is to precise Christian living, being discerning and discriminating is not popular today even in the church. If you take stands strongly on issues you are looked down on.
There is today an assault on doctrine. And any assault on doctrine is ultimately an assault on God. It is an assault on knowing God truly and knowing His truth properly...therefore it is an assault on His character, is an assault on worshiping Him accurately, it is an assault on morality as well.
Evangelical Christianity is in a severe state of confusion. It is not sure how it is supposed to act because it is not sure what it's supposed to think because it is not sure what it believes. Watered down diluted theology will fail to produce deep reverence, deep worship, deep repentance, deep humility, deep understanding of God, His nature, His work, His ministry, His laws, His standards, His principles. It fails to make people God centered. The church today caught up in relativistic thinking about doctrine, relativistic thinking about morality cannot then come to precise living. Discernment then is crucial.
And the Word must be properly interpreted and it will yield all necessary truth precisely for holy living, if rightly understood.
How can we be discerning if doctrine isn't an issue? How can we be discerning if we're not willing to say this is right and this is wrong and get rid of relativity? How can we be discerning if we're trying to compromise and make the world comfortable? How can we be discerning if we don't even know how to rightly interpret Scripture?
We can't lower the standard. We can't accumulate sinning Christians or sinning non-Christians. We've got to purge and discipline and sift and purify and if God does that at His own church as a first priority, then what in the world is He going to do to the unbelievers? So if we preached judgment and chastening and purity to the church, we have to preach judgment and chastening and salvation to the lost. We have to confront their sin. Start that judgment in the church, he says. And remember, if God wants His church pure and He's going to judge the church if it isn't, what do you think He's going to do to the unbelievers?
There's no discernment in immaturity.
Ephesians 4:14 says this, "We are no longer to be children, we're no longer to be children...here's why...children are tossed here and there by waves and they're carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men and craftiness and deceitful scheming." There you are. Spiritual immaturity makes victims out of people...makes victims out of them. They don't know what's right. They don't know what's wrong. They're yanked all over the place, blown all around. They're deceived easily. How do you change that? Verse 15, "Speak the truth in love so we can grow up," verse 15.
"Solid food is for the mature who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." [Heb. 5] Discernment and maturity go hand in hand. Discernment and maturity go hand in hand. Sitting under the Word, understanding the word of righteousness, taking in solid food, engaging in spiritual practice, conduct, trains your senses to discern good and evil.
Bad doctrine has huge practicle implications. So does RIGHT doctrine, contrary to what someone recently said to me. Now, we have to make sure we're talking about professing Christians here, obviously. Every Christian has the Holy Spirit and Scripture. God says that IS enough. And Scripture says that godly doctrine leads to godly living. Let the following excerpts exemplify what I mean.
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.
Psa 119:104 Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple
2Pe 1:3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,
"A Call For Discernment Part 2http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/52-33" (1Thes. 5:21-22)
Let me remind you of its truth with a simple and straight forward reading. "But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good, abstain from every form of evil." This is a call to discernment. Examine everything carefully. Beloved, this is absolutely critical in the Christian life, absolutely critical. The Christian life is the most precise life of all. It is the most disciplined pattern of thinking and conduct. It calls for exacting precision, in comprehension, in deed, precision that conforms to an absolute standard revealed by God in Scripture. The Christian life is a life that pursues perfect and total conformity to fixed laws commanded and empowered by God Himself. There is no life so precise and demanding as the Christian's life because it not only calls for precision on the outside in terms of behavior, but precision on the inside in terms of thought and belief. ...The Word of God sets fixed demands for every area of our lives. There are no changing doctrines in Christianity. There are no changing values. There are no changing morals. There are no changing ethics.
We are required to live in a disciplined pattern of thinking and we are required to live in a disciplined pattern of conduct. And at the very foundation of this disciplined precise kind of living is the necessity for discernment. We must be able to discern what is true from what is false. We must be able to discern truth from half truth as well as truth from error. And when the church loses its ability to so discern, it therefore forfeits its precise theology, it forfeits its precise morals, values, ethics and doctrines and therefore abandons any hope of precise living...precise conduct. And when you look at Christianity today and you see it filled with immorality and a low-level commitment to holy living, you must understand that that imprecise kind of conduct is the result of imprecise kind of thinking which is the product of an inability to make discernment work.
And unfortunately the church has fallen into chaos and confusion under this onslaught. It is unable today to discern true from false and good from evil and that is creating imprecise doctrine, imprecise conduct.
In fact, as essential as it is to precise Christian living, being discerning and discriminating is not popular today even in the church. If you take stands strongly on issues you are looked down on.
There is today an assault on doctrine. And any assault on doctrine is ultimately an assault on God. It is an assault on knowing God truly and knowing His truth properly...therefore it is an assault on His character, is an assault on worshiping Him accurately, it is an assault on morality as well.
Evangelical Christianity is in a severe state of confusion. It is not sure how it is supposed to act because it is not sure what it's supposed to think because it is not sure what it believes. Watered down diluted theology will fail to produce deep reverence, deep worship, deep repentance, deep humility, deep understanding of God, His nature, His work, His ministry, His laws, His standards, His principles. It fails to make people God centered. The church today caught up in relativistic thinking about doctrine, relativistic thinking about morality cannot then come to precise living. Discernment then is crucial.
And the Word must be properly interpreted and it will yield all necessary truth precisely for holy living, if rightly understood.
How can we be discerning if doctrine isn't an issue? How can we be discerning if we're not willing to say this is right and this is wrong and get rid of relativity? How can we be discerning if we're trying to compromise and make the world comfortable? How can we be discerning if we don't even know how to rightly interpret Scripture?
We can't lower the standard. We can't accumulate sinning Christians or sinning non-Christians. We've got to purge and discipline and sift and purify and if God does that at His own church as a first priority, then what in the world is He going to do to the unbelievers? So if we preached judgment and chastening and purity to the church, we have to preach judgment and chastening and salvation to the lost. We have to confront their sin. Start that judgment in the church, he says. And remember, if God wants His church pure and He's going to judge the church if it isn't, what do you think He's going to do to the unbelievers?
There's no discernment in immaturity.
Ephesians 4:14 says this, "We are no longer to be children, we're no longer to be children...here's why...children are tossed here and there by waves and they're carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men and craftiness and deceitful scheming." There you are. Spiritual immaturity makes victims out of people...makes victims out of them. They don't know what's right. They don't know what's wrong. They're yanked all over the place, blown all around. They're deceived easily. How do you change that? Verse 15, "Speak the truth in love so we can grow up," verse 15.
"Solid food is for the mature who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." [Heb. 5] Discernment and maturity go hand in hand. Discernment and maturity go hand in hand. Sitting under the Word, understanding the word of righteousness, taking in solid food, engaging in spiritual practice, conduct, trains your senses to discern good and evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)