Discernment Naysayers Revisited

Due to Tim Challies coming against discernment bloggers yet again* (this time in relation to Sovereign Grace Ministries, CJ Mahaney, and the lawsuit against Mahaney and his  church for not dealing with sexual  abusers--go here for info), I wanted to re-post what I wrote in response to Challies same accusations against us 4 years ago. It still is just as relevent today as it was back then.

(*See my update at the bottom of this article)

April 27, 2009:

Discernment Naysayers

I read with relief Daniel's post *on his response to Tim Challies' arrogant swipe at all Discernment Ministries. While some have taken Challies on, some took the middle road (as usual). Daniel didn't do that. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

In his highly inflammatory post, Challies utilizes zero Scripture to support his case and through analogy with the secular world accuses watchblogs or discernment blogs as utilizing evil as entertainment, merely because such watchblogs act as watchmen in portraying the errors within the professing visible Church. The irony that Challies is, in this one post of his, doing exactly what he accuses the watchblogs as doing (portraying the errors within the professing visible Church) is seemingly lost on him  as it has been written:

Take note of the irony here: what we just read was a blogger concerned about watchbloggers watchblogging, issuing a very pointed criticism against watchbloggers in general, but in point of fact was watchblogging about other watchbloggers on his own blog. [5]

Whether rightly or wrongly, criticism comes to all of us, and to attack the act of discernment and discernment ministries themselves because criticism occurs is utterly fallacious. In fact, since Challies is discerning the watchblogs here, why isn't this act of his done in the flesh?

The second links to New Evangelical Frank Turk's article that discernment is to be exercised within the local church. Since discernment ministries are meant to inform people of error and in so doing contributing to the Great Commission by warning the flock of possible soul-destroying error, Turk's peculiar ecclesia localis centrism logically leads to the conclusion that evangelism is to be done only within the Local Church! This is simply untenable, and therefore Turk's view of the Local Church is in error.

Last of all, it will suffice that Turk is violating his own advice since this article of his is not posted within the context of the Local Church anyway, not to mention Turk is not a pastor or elder so he has disqualified himself on his own principles!
Challies finished by basically repeating the essence of his initial post. In his own words:

But a blog that has as its bread and butter exposing error in the church, and especially error that is completely decontextualized and irrelevant to any of its readers, is a blog I think we ought to avoid. A Christian’s thoughts ought to be dominated by “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). As I said last Monday, “Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church, when such things happen thousands of miles away, among people I will never meet and in places I will never be? Such news is plenty entertaining, but it is useless to me. It does nothing to further my faith or to cause me to grow in godliness.”

How does Challies know whether a person is operating a watchblog because he is concerned over others, or because he wants to destroy others or entertain others with evil? He doesn't! Also, we shouldn't confuse the motives of the writers with the motives of the readers. If people read it because they want to be entertained by evil, the blame should be placed on the reader not the sharer of information, unless it can be proven that that was the motive of the sharer in posting it also.

Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened....

End quote. For the full context please go here: Source. (emphasis, mine)

My observations: 

Discernment is seen as a negative gift and therefore is one of the most unwanted and unwelcomed gifts from God by those who claim Christ. Why would a Christ-follower reject God's gift?

Discernment is judged by self-proclaimed non-judgmentalists as judgmental.

Discernment is seen as unloving, but it is precisely because of God's agape that He has gifted some of His children and therefore churches, with it. It is for their protection, as the Great Shepherd of the Sheep should be doing. Likewise a true Undershepherd as well, should appreciate and utilize the Discernment gifts to help aid in the protection of his flock. (You ought to see the persecution of those who have this gift--most wouldn't be able to stand up under such furious fight from "christians"--we're the first to feel the rejection).

People who have a distain for discernment like to determine how the discernment is to operate. These people don’t have the gift themselves, but they sure want to decide how and when and with whom and what it will be used for. Isn’t that hypocritical? Discernment naysayers desire to dictated and control those with the gift, and we know what that means: SHUT UP and SHUT DOWN the gift. It is the height of pride to neglect and reject discernment, for it is a spiritual gift God gives to protect His children and to honor His Word.

Challies, Turk, and their defenders should read what GOD Says about the gifts HE gives:

1Co 12:5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
1Co 12:6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
1Co 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
1Co 12:11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
1Co 12:18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
1Co 12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
1Co 12:22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
1Co 12:23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,
1Co 12:24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
1Co 12:25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
1Co 12:26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

The Discernment Naysayers ARE saying "I have no need of you", when GOD says, "Oh yes you do!". Why do they quarrel with their Maker? And where is the reverence of the Sovereignty of God they say they hold to?

I find it interesting that Challies denies the right, even the necessity of being “negative” for everyone but himself. This is hypocrisy. Apparently only he can determine what is useful for folks and what is not. Now, why is he the determiner of these things? Could it be that he thinks higher of himself and his influence than he ought? I say yes he does.

Rejecting God’s discernment gift is one of the reasons so many people have been captivated by Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, Paul Tripp, the Emergent Church Movement, the Seeker/Pagan Friendly movement, Eastern Mysticism, Contemplative prayers, prayer labyrinths, etc.

While Challies makes a sweeping smear of Discernment sites that actually help others obey Scripture, he himself embraces the very evil we seek to caution others about.

Challies has applauded Donald Whitney and his book on “Spiritual Disciplines”. While Challies questioned the use of Richard Foster (a New Ager), he managed to swallow the pill despite the poison and then write highly of it. In other words, Challies finds a lot he likes in the book (calling certain actions "spiritual disciplines" even if its not biblically supported, or moreover, promotes a false teacher like Foster), yet he finds little use for Discernment websites that caution against such error as New Ageism, Romanism, carnality, etc? 

I wonder if these Discernment Naysayers would slam Paul, John the Baptist, John, Jesus, Jude, or Peter for being so negative? Are we not to follow their example as they followed Christ’s?

2 Tim. 2: 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 2Tim 2: 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

2Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first,will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. 3John 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

In essence, Challies is decrying what these men wrote. And it should be clear: these letters were circulated to multiple churches. In addition they became even more public as they were Scripture!

See the Sacred Sandwich for more examples of how today’s “evangelical Christians” Discernment Naysayers would take on the apostles or Christ Himself.

So what it comes down to is this: positive = godly, negative = fleshly. Who decided this and how do they define these things, given the "negative" statements made about specific people in Scripture? Or is it ok only if the person is dead? Do we have a new secret standard God to only a few?

End quote.

As I said elsewhere: 

“It seems to me in this Post-Modern “Christianity”, that people are very willing to put up with error (as Scripture defines it), but are quick to slam, insult, and aim shut down those who expose such error. They shoot the messenger.Why don’t they get behind the message at least? Why do they reject a spiritual gift and its benefits, yet DEFEND false teachers and those who promote them? God says "no lie is of the truth".

Those whom God has gifted with discernment often are looked upon as a bother, a thorn in the side of many. The gift of discernment doesn't fit into the Post-Modern thinking in today's "evangelical" circles. 

We are seen as negative, simply because we are showing the difference between truth and error, and are therefore unwilling to abide with the error. 

We are black and white, because God is black and white. 

Truth has no common ground with error. God demands purity in doctrine and practice. Those that want to reach a wide audience to gain applause, to sell books, to get the numbers, will seek to quiet people whom God uses to expose the error. Its likely that such people have accepted error (under the guise of “tolerance” and “love”) and therefore are personally guilty themselves. The light of Truth also shines on them and they don’t like it.” 

As Spurgeon said in "A Reply To Our Critics" in "The Downgrade Controversy":

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

End quote.

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1Jn 2:15  "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. " 

***UPDATE***

Daniel Chew once again deals with Challie's continued attacks on discernment bloggers. He says in part:

"Regardless, the main issue is that Tim Challies has decided that the best way to take revenge against the person who wronged him, is to condemn "discernment ministries" without distinction or exception, and smear them with the same broad brush as being essentially Pharisees...."

Challies and Discernment Bloggers: his rant continues as does his hypocrisy

It appears that Tim Challies is once again slamming, even slandering discernment bloggers.(Go here for Daniel Chew's recent article on Challies' continued attack on discernment blogs) The watchman, the discerner of discernment bloggers, the critic of critics, the bloggers of bloggers, Challies is this time up in arms about criticism he has gotten. No names of persons or blogs are given; no facts with evidence; only a general swipe at them as bullies, fear mongers, and liars because he says so.

Challies' Hypocrisy:

"The Christian’s attitude toward others, especially in difficult times, is to be one of optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than doubt. We, of all people, should be slow to put aside hope and belief. This means that I owe it to C.J.Mahaney, to SGM and to those who have levelled allegations to believe the best about them, to hope all things for them."

~Challies on the sexual abuse charges against Sovereign Grace Ministries/church headed by CJ Mahaney (the case is going to court; go here for more info)

Yet the standard is different for discernment bloggers who take his public opinions, actions, etc. and test them against Scripture:

"The second lesson is one I am surprised I did not see before: Discernment bloggers often operate by fear...The discernment blogs are too often marked by neither truth nor love. " ~Challies

Indeed, Challies plays the victim when he's at fault for his own actions and double standards. He has repeatedly  given credence to enemies of the Cross (Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll Ann Voskamp, Donald Witney), shows little anger toward the nastiness going on at SGM, and then complains when his error is revealed by the light of truth.

The hypocrisy of Challies is that while he continues to slam discernment bloggers by slander (he claims they operate on fear and lies--accusations he doesn't back up in any specific way--just accusations of nameless people), he himself wrote a book on discernment. He allows himself to be the discernment blogger of discernment bloggers. He is unwilling to assign motives and indeed gives wide grace to the SGM sexual abuse charges ( or  false teacher Rick Warren for example), but is generous with his assigning motives and allegations against discernment bloggers that he doesn't like. He is unwilling to give the same grace and thus withhold his opinion and slander that he demands of everyone re: himself. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

If Challies is upset with bloggers exposing his error, then he should either stop his error or stop reading about himself.  Perhaps he's in the wrong field of choice. Liberals want to consort with the enemy of Christ and then complain with those in Christ expose their disloyalty toward HIM and His flock. You can't play with fire and then complain when the fire department shows up with hoses turned on and dowsing the entire house. Its your fault for playing with the matches and starting a fire.

Challies' standard for everyone else but himself is hypocritical. Did he personally try to approach those he claims have slandered him? Does he see into their hearts to see if they have love or not? He knows their motives?  Did he verify the facts? Oh, he had them from their website? Cannot the same be said for those bloggers he's railing against? So how is his violation of his own standrd ok? If a person consorts with false teachers, they have invited rightful criticism. 2John 9-11 makes this very clear.

By trying to denigrate a much needed spiritual gift like discernment, into something so nasty he uses it like a cuss word (perhaps now he and others like him will just use the phrase "the D word"), labeling it as gossip, intimidation, lies, slander, bullying, merely shows that he can't stand under the weight of discernment. Are there people who really  do say nasty things? Sure. But so what? Challies  yet again makes sweeping generalizations and lumps all discernment bloggers into his trash can as worthless and gossiping bullies. A true mature believer won't keep reading about himself and then write a whole article about how he's a "victim" of his own public words. One thing I've learned is that when "famous online Christian experts" get publicly exposed for their error, their pride comes out in major ways. The non-committed, take-no-sides men suddenly take a side vehemently and come out slandering others themselves. 

God Settled The Matter: there's no room for debating

"When God has spoken, that settles the matter. No room is left for debating or reasoning. It is vain for us to discuss and dispute. Our duty is to submit. The Word itself must regulate our worship and service, as well as everything else. Human opinions, human traditions, custom, convenience, have nothing to do with it. Divine revelation is our only Court of Appeal."

(A.W. Pink - Gleanings In Exodus).

To debate an issue God has already spoken on is to engage the Serpent who says "Hath God said?". We instead are to demolish, utterly destroy all arguments and thoughts that set themselves up against Christ, NOT entertain them as valid or an option!


2Co 10:5  We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

1Co 1:18  For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 

1Co 1:19  For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 

1Co 1:20  Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 

1Co 1:21  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 

How To Know That You Are Dying Spiritually

2Co 13:5  Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

White Liberals The Worst Racists

Dr. Ben Carson sums it up well:

Dr. Ben Carson on Tuesday blasted his critics for heat he’s taken recently over controversial remarks on gay marriage, calling his white liberal detractors “the most racist out there.”


“They want to shut us up completely, and that’s why the attacks against me have been so vicious,” Carson said on the Mark Levin radio show. “I represent an existential threat to them. They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me, they can’t find anything else to delegitimize me, so they take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot.”

Levin said Carson was being targeted for his race.

“You’re attacked also in many respects because of your race,” Levin said. “You’re not supposed to talk like this, and a lot of white liberals just don’t like it, do they?”

“They’re the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box,” Carson responded. “How could you dare come off the plantation?”

~The Hill

Others who have also been in the same position: Larry Elder, Dr. Thomas Sowell, and Dr. Walter Williams.

Homosexuality Is Always Wrong

All People Are Sinners And Need Salvation

Rom 3:9  What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
Rom 3:10  as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11  THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12  ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Rom 3:18  "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." 

Rom 3:21  But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 

Rom 3:22  even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 

Rom 3:23  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 

Rom 3:24  being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 

Rom 3:25  whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 

Rom 3:26  for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 

Repent and turn to Christ Jesus and trust in HIS finished work, HIS righteousness, HIS deity and Lordship. Apart from salvation by Him and in Him, all men will spend eternity in Hell for their eternal sin. Today is the day to see the horror if your sin before a thrice Holy God, Whose laws you have violated. Today is the day to bow before Him and cry out for His mercy. You have sinned against HIM and because God is just, you must be dealt with as a violator of His laws. This will be either through the Person and work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ who paid the full penalty for many sinners while He was without sin Himself, OR by you paying personally in Hell for eternity, having zero forgiveness because you refused to come to Christ on His terms, acknowledging your wicked sin before the holy holy holy One of Israel.

Homosexuality Is Not The "New Black"

Excerpts from Voddie Baucham's article , "Gay Is Not the New Black" (please read the entire article for the full context along with all footnotes):

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?

Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage.

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. 

End quote.

For the full article that includes all footnotes and more treatment of the issue, go here.

God's Word

True Marriage

Any other attempt whether through living together unwed or as homosexuals, is merely an imposter and a failure while trying to mimic the real deal. It will never be legitimate nor have the approval and blessing of God because anything short of a true marriage as defined by God is earning His wrath as the result of violating what HE has created and instituted.


Gen 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 8  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen 1:31  God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 

Gen 2:21  So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22  The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24  For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. 

Biblical Definition of Marriage

Gen 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen 2:22  The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24  For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

This also means I am against homosexuality because it violates God's holy laws found in His holy Word.

So You're A Democrat and You Claim to be Pro-Choic?

Pro-choice?

Pro-choice isn't for choice, the tolerant are intolerant, and the anti-bullies are very much bullies. The liberals are walking contradictions and irrational as well we hypocritical.

Warren and Piper: Birds of A Feather Tweet Together

Rick Warren and John Piper both tweet acceptance of the unholy Roman Catholic Church's papacy, which itself is blasphemous. Apprising Ministries shows both tweets as well as the reason this is biblically wrong.

Salvation One Way Only: Through Christ Jesus the Risen Lord

The Cross of God's Wrath

Do You Think You Can Justify Yourself Before God?

Absolutely right. Not one thing. Not who you are, not a decision you make, not some good things you've done, not the church you are in or who your parents are, not reading teh Bible, not being sorry for your sins, not feeding the poor, not building houses for the homeless. NOTHING you do can justify you before the thrice Holy God. His holiness is absolutely unattainable for you to match.


Mat 5:20  "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Rom 4:2  For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 

Rom 4:3  For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 

Rom 4:4  Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 

Rom 4:5  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 

Rom 4:6  just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 

Rom 4:7  "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 

Rom 4:8  "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT." 

Rom 4:9  Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 

Rom 4:10  How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 

Evangelism-less "Missions"

Today's "missions trips" are nothing than charity events mixed with vacation. This is  pathetic but very typical of today's "Christianity". They don't even seem to know the Gospel, much less have a desire to proclaim it.



Here are but a few examples to show that the Gospel must be proclaimed. Good works are not a proclaimation of Christ--even unbelievers can do "good" works (although not good enough to enter Heaven--their works are dead because they aren't in Christ Jesus nor doing things for Him). So what distinguishes the works of a Christian from that of a Buddhist or Hindu or New Ager? Silence does not proclaim Christ to dead and blind men. They cannot see your silent motive for what you do. Preaching Christ is necessary. This will likely bring persecution as Acts demonstrates so clearly, but that is a reason to rejoice. At least 16 times "heard" or "spoken" is used in relation to the Gospel. That's not counting the word "proclaim",either.

Luk 8:15  As for that in the good soil, they are those who,  HEARING THE WORD, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.

Rom 10:13  For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."14  How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never HEARD? And how are they to HEAR without someone preaching?15  And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"17  So faith comes from HEARING, HEARING THROUGH THE WORD OF CHRIST. 

Act 4:4  But many of those who had  HEARD THE WORD believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Act 10:44  While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who  HEARD THE WORD.

Act 13:46  And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that  THE WORD OF GOD BE SPOKEN first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47  For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" 44  The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD. 48  And when the Gentiles  HEARD this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the THE WORD OF THE LORD, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. 49  And  THE WORD OF THE  LORD was spreading throughout the whole region.

Act 19:10  This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia HEARD THE WORD OF THE LORD, both Jews and Greeks.

Act 24:24  After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him SPEAK ABOUT FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. 

Eph 1:13  In him you also, when you HEARD THE WORD OF TRUTH,  THE GOSPEL of your salvation,  AND BELIEVED IN HIM, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Col 1:3  We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,4  since we  HEARD OF YOUR FAITH in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints,5  because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have HEARD BEFORE IN THE WORD OF TRUTH,  THE GOSPEL, 

Is the Doctrine of Justification Optional To Believe?

Which is biblically right....

This:

The gospel we present has eternal consequences. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not a trivial matter for theologians to speculate on. It is an issue every lay person must understand and get right. 

~ John MacArthur

or this:

The reason for saying, “when consistently worked out,” is because I think it is possible to inconsistently deny the truth of imputation while embracing other aspects of the gospel (blood bought forgiveness, and propitiation, for example), through which God mercifully saves.

I am thankful that God is willing to save us even when our grasp of the gospel may be partial or defective. None of us has a comprehensive or perfect grasp of it.

~ John Piper  (This was a clarification of his tweet on praying for a new pope.)

One of them is completely wrong and it's not John MacArthur. 

2Co 5:20  Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 

2Co 5:21  He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 

Rom 5:18  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19  For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 

John MacArthur also stated in part in "Jesus' Perspective of Sola Fide" :

Many who have embraced "the New Perspective on Paul" are also proposing a different slant on the doctrine of justification by faith. When the text of Scripture is interpreted in the new light, they say, Pauline support for the principle of sola fide, the doctrine of imputation, and the distinction between law and gospel doesn't seem quite so strong.

We say that's nonsense. We reject the historical and hermeneutical revisionism of the New Perspective, but regardless of how one interprets the apostle Paul, it is quite clear that Jesus taught justification by faith alone. To abandon this truth is to abandon biblical soteriology altogether.

No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone--the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther rightly said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine.

Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive--if not the single most important doctrine to get right. This is the doctrine that makes authentic Christianity distinct from every other religion. Christianity is the religion of divine accomplishment--with the emphasis always on Christ's finished work. All others are religions of human achievement. They become preoccupied, inevitably, with the sinner's own efforts to be holy. Abandon the doctrine of justification by faith and you cannot honestly claim to be evangelical.

In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide. Israel's apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3).

What must we do to be saved? The apostle Paul answered that question for the Philippian jailer in the clearest possible terms: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).

Paul's key doctrinal epistles--especially Romans and Galatians--then expand on that answer, unfolding the doctrine of justification by faith to show how we are justified by faith alone apart from human works of any kind.

At least, that is the historic evangelical interpretation of Paul. But that's the very thing under attack by the New Perspective.

The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation. Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.

That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel. All other points of theology emanate from it.

End quote.

See the entire article here.

Because Federal Visionism/ New Perspective on Paul is acceptable to Piper,  it may account for his tossing it aside as unnecessary to believe. Go here for a treatment on Piper's view of Justification/Federal Visionism (note: I don't accept Robbin's Convenantalism, but he's right on the rest in his critique on Piper). Also note that Piper has had Federal Visionism proponent Doug Wilson at repeated conferences, last year at the  Conference  For Pastors, being the most recent.

What is Justification? As John MacArthur notes:In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner's nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. Forensic decrees like this are fairly common in everyday life.

In biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of "not guilty — fully righteous." It is the reversal of God's attitude toward the sinner. Whereas He formerly condemned, He now vindicates. Although the sinner once lived under God's wrath, as a believer he or she is now under God's blessing.

Justification is more than simple pardon; pardon alone would still leave the sinner without merit before God. So when God justifies He imputes divine righteousness to the sinner (Romans 4:22-25). Christ's own infinite merit thus becomes the ground on which the believer stands before God (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:9). So justification elevates the believer to a realm of full acceptance and divine privilege in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17). Here are the forensic realities that flow out of justification:

- We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)
- We become fellow-heirs with Christ (v. 17)
- We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)
- We are henceforth "in Christ" (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

End quote.

Source: The Gospel According to the Apostles, by John MacArthur

John Piper is saying all of this about Justification can be rejected and still be saved. He couldn't be more wrong.

35,000 Protestant Denominations Claim By Roman Catholics: yes its a myth

Ever get the "35,000 Protestant denominations" claim from Roman Catholics? Wonder where that statistic came from? Wonder if its accurate? Here's an excellent treatment, short and sweet, with this issue by James White.

Time Well Spent

Take the time to carefully read Ps. 119 and Colossians 1-3. Very practical, exhorting, corrective, and encouraging.

John Piper and Rick Warren Pray for a New Pope

"O Lord of truth and mercy, put in place a Pope most willing to reform the Catholic Church in accord with your most holy word."

~ John Piper on Twitter


"Join me today in fasting and prayer for the 115 Cardinals seeking God's Will in a new leader."
~Rick Warren on Twitter

"The RCC’s popes usurp the titles "Holy Father" from God the Father, "The Head of the Church" from the Lord Jesus Christ and "The Vicar of Christ" from the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised to send in His place." 

~Proclaiming The Gospel

I consider Piper to be the spiritual twin of Warren. Both see Rome the same way, both went to Fuller Theological Seminary which is VERY liberal, both were on committees of the Lausanne Congress.

Consider that Piper claims to be a Reformer. But also consider that Piper loves Roman Catholic philosopher GK Chesterton. This is why Piper must be rejected: he believes a false religion with a blasphemous leader can be a reformer of a dead church full of dead people. He sees legitimacy in Rome. Piper continues to bear bad fruit that can't be excused or justified. He's not a novice. He's not ignorant. He's well read, well educated, and claims to be a fan of the Puritans and Reformers, even claiming to be Reformed himself. If he believed in Total Depravity (T of the TULIP), then he would know that dead men are dead  and lifeless and cannot change. Moreover a church of dead people is a dead church. And an anti-Christ blasphemer against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He sided with the enemy in that post. But he's done this continually through the years, not the least of which is with Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, and Doug Wilson.

Is Jesus Enough?

2Co 13:5  Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

"The Bible" Miniseries Is Unbiblical

With this Bible miniseries, I have been feeling like I was reliving The Shack controversy all over again. During all The Shack hoopla, we had people mad at us, furious, for daring to challenge the portrayal of God in The Shack. The argument was that, well, hey, maybe it's not totally accurate, but at least people are interested in God because of it! (and never mind that the "God" of The Shack was presented heretically, with the Trinity being tossed out, and a sly form of Universalism undergirding the story). With the Bible miniseries, we're hearing much the same argument. Many Christians are stating that the Bible miniseries will spur lost people to be interested in the Bible. Christians are telling me, Stop being so nitpicky over doctrine! At least this will get people interested in the Bible! But how can that be true? I contend that (as in The Shack, as in the Bible miniseries) a wrong portrayal of God and his character and nature won't make lost people want to know God more; it will only serve to make them more confused and unclear about who God really is. If that's not clear enough, let me put it this way: if someone came to me and described a man who was violent, verbally abusive and addicted to pornography, and THEN told me they were describing my husband, I would be furious! That is not an accurate description of my husband at all. So it really does matter that we are honest in what we say about others, doesn't it? And beyond that, shouldn't we be striving to be the most honest, the most accurate of all when attempting to depict God? Well, the "God" in the Bible miniseries is NOT the God of the Bible. Nope.

~ Sola Sisters 

Go here for the complete post.

Half truths won't lead people to the Truth. The Gospel cannot be sloppily given, nor the Triune God of Scripture  partially portrayed, if one wants to represent, proclaim, and lead people to the only Truth that saves. Jesus never mixed truth with error. Ever. And Scripture itself is pure truth and also does not mix truth with error. To think a bunch of heretics and worldlings can get dead men interested in holy things is not only pragmatic, its an offense to the holy holy holy God of Israel.  If people are "won over" with this miniseries, it will only lead to more tangles and battles biblical Christians must deal with as the result, much like the false man-centered "gospel" given by decisionalists.

The Gospel, Not Education

Parenting

Disappointment

Marriage

The History Channel's "The Bible" Isn't Based on the Holy Bible

The History Channel has started its miniseries called "The Bible. Its not Christian and its not accurate. Open up the Scriptures and READ what it actually says and you will see a huge difference. Taking license with the Truth to entertain thousands is wrong. God will not be mocked.

Pro 30:6  Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Mike Ratliff talks about this and shows an example of how "The Bible" not only false short, it changes the meaning of the text. You must know that most of those who were behind this project are not biblical Christians.


2Pe 3:15  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16  as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17  You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 



Deu 4:2  You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Isa 8:20  To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Rev 22:18  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds

to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19  and if anyone takes

away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life

and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 

The fatal flaw of "Decisional Regeneration" aka "making a decision for Christ".

After reading the first chapter of Pink's "Practical Christianity" on Saving Faith, I can now better understand, although not without the need to examine my own heart, what James Smith meant when he said:

An almost Christian

(James Smith, "The Way of Salvation Set Forth")

"Then Agrippa said to Paul: You almost persuade me to become a Christian!" Acts 26:28 

There are many who conclude that they are Christians, because they have been enlightened to see something of their state, danger, and deserved doom. But many are only lighted to Hell, for light in the mind--is not life in the soul. Hebrews 6:4, 10:20.

A person may be awakened to feel, to tremble, to desire salvation--as did Felix and Balaam, Acts 24:25, Numbers 23:10.

He may be reformed, and turn from open profanity to strict morality--as did some in Peter's day, 2 Peter 2:20.

He may be assisted to do many things which are in themselves good, such as reading the Scripture, attending divine ordinances, engaging in prayer, and working miracles, Matthew 7:21-23, Mark 6:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3.

He may experience God's power put forth restraining him, and keeping him back from sin, as did Abimelech, Genesis 20:6.

He may humble himself before God, as did Ahab, 1 Kings 21:27-30.

He may possess joy and be exceeding glad under the Word, Matthew 13:20.

He may believe the Word, receive the testimony, and admire the preacher, Luke 4:22-29, 8:13, Ezekiel 33:31-32.

He may be filled with zeal for Christ and his cause, like the multitude, John 6:15, 16; Matthew 21:8-11; Luke 23:18-23.

He may be baptized upon a profession of faith, join a Christian church, and imitate the saints in his conduct--as did Simon Magus, Acts 8:13.

He may fill an office in the church, preach the gospel, and act consistent for a time--as did Judas; and yet Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place, Acts 1:25.

He may be highly esteemed by others, be sound in doctrine, and suffer for the cause of Christ, and yet be destitute of the vital principle of saving faith--like Demas, Alexander, Hymeneus, and Philetus, 2 Timothy 2:16-18, 4:10-14, 1 John 2:15.

He may have many excellent qualities, so that he may be admired and loved by others, like the rich young ruler in Matthew 19.

He may have all that has been named above--but ONE THING may be lacking, and he be found at last, merely an almost Christian.

End quote.

If you made it through reading this, I congratulate you. Most, like me initially, kind of got scared b/c it leaves you with asking one question: then what DOES saving faith look like? What IS evidence of true faith,living faith in Christ? The answer is over in Pink's book "Practical Christianity".

Homosexuality as a "Civil Right": should Christians accept this thinking?

Homosexuals see the problem of dealing with homosexuality's acceptance based on sexuality, so they rather turn it illegitimately into a civil rights issue to gain more support. There are many flaws with this thinking.

Al Mohler states in part:

Discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable characteristic such as skin color would be wrong. But Christians cannot accept the argument that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. While recognizing the complexity of issues related to sexual orientation, we cannot define a behavior as an intrinsic characteristic. On that basis, why not grant theft or other sinful behavior the same civil rights protection? 

Furthermore, we recognize that marriage, like human rights, exists prior to the law. Christians understand that marriage was instituted by the Creator, who designed marriage and the family as the foundational social unit of human society. Marriage unites a man and a woman in a holy covenant that should last as long as they both live. 

- See more at Answers In Genesis