Rick Warren At Desiring "God" Conference

Discerning the Times has two videos that deal with the problem of Rick Warren's recent prostylitzing at DIDKWKOG Conference.

Warren says that too much knowledge is bad, you need to dream, and you need to buy his book on how to self-feed. This Scripture-twisting pelagianist dares to say he can teach people about studying Scripture when he consistantly teaches against ...it?

Case in point:

Quote:

Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great
dreamers."Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:8)In the
last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and
daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will
dream dreams. (Acts 2:17, NIV)

End quote.

The guy just twisted these two passages yet dares to say people are given too much knowledge and then says we need to learn from his book on how to study the Bible? The guy doesn't know how to himself! He's a SELF-feeder alright.

Christians And Politics: How Do You View Politics?

John MacArthur on Christians and Politics (part 3) excerpts:

Quote:

My point is not that Christians should remain totally uninvolved in politics or civic activities and causes. They ought to express their political beliefs in the voting booth, and it is appropriate to support legitimate measures designed to correct a glaring social or political wrong. Complete noninvolvement would be contrary to what God's Word says about doing good in society: "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10; cf. Titus 3:1-2). It would also display a lack of gratitude for whatever amount of religious freedom the government allows us to enjoy. Furthermore, such pious apathy toward government and politics would reveal a lack of appreciation for the many appropriate legal remedies believers in democracies have for maintaining or improving the civil order. A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern with current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that that interest is not vital to our spiritual growth, our righteous testimony, or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believer's political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel.

...The issue again is one of priority. The greatest temporal good we can accomplish through political involvement cannot compare to what the Lord can accomplish through us in the eternal work of His kingdom. Just as God called ancient Israel (Ex. 19:6), He has called the church to be a kingdom of priests, not a kingdom of political activists. The apostle Peter instructs us, "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).....

Christ, however, was not devoid of care and concern for the daily pain and hardships people endured in their personal lives....

...Jesus' earthly ministry took place right in the midst of that difficult social and political atmosphere.Many of His followers, including the Twelve, to varying degrees expected Him to free them from Rome's oppressive rule. But our Lord did not come as a political deliverer or social reformer. He never issued a call for such changes, even by peaceful means. Unlike many late twentieth-century evangelicals, Jesus did not rally supporters to some grandiose attempt to "capture the culture" for biblical morality or greater political and religious freedoms.

Still, as beneficial and appreciated as His ministry to others' physical needs was, it was not Jesus' first priority. His divine calling was to speak to the hearts and souls of individual men and women. He proclaimed the good news of redemption that could reconcile them to the Father and grant them eternal life. That message far surpasses any agenda for political, social, or economic reform that can preoccupy us. Christ did not come to promote some new social agenda or establish a new moral order. He did come to establish a new spiritual order, the body of believers from throughout the ages that constitutes His church. He did not come to earth to make the old creation moral through social and governmental reform, but to make new creatures holy through the saving power of the gospel and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. And our Lord and Savior has commanded us to continue His ministry, with His supreme priorities in view, with the goal that we might advance His kingdom: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20).

In the truest sense, the moral, social, and political state of a people is irrelevant to the advance of the gospel. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).

End quote.

For the full article go here.

When you go to vote this election, consider your loyalty. It is to Christ or Man? Where do you place your hope? Whom do you fear? What do you really believe? What makes you truly a Christian and Conservative? Because you say you are or because your actions, including how you vote (or don't vote) makes it clear?

Are you willing to compromise biblical principles just to save a little cash? Are you willing to trample over the blood of unborn babies so you get to keep more of your money through lower taxes? What are you willing to give up? Why?

As I see it, politics are not to be conducted pragmatically. We are to vote (and run) by principles. You cannot be a Christian and a pragmatist. Sorry. To be pragmatic is to deny the authority and commands of Scripture, which aren't optional. Pragmatism says God's commands are optional. Scripture goes against pragmatism which says "the ends justify the means" or "the ends are the lesser evil". God calls us to not compromise His standards. Politics will reveal if you do.

Fear God.

Vote Biblically.

Don't Compromise.

John Piper Says We Slandered Warren: this AFTER Warren's Pelagian Teaching at DGC

From the Lighthouse Trails Research group:

Quote:

In a Christianity Today interview with popular evangelical teacher John Piper, Piper is questioned for his recent invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God conference, which brought criticism to Piper. In the interview, Piper states the following:

CT: You invited Rick Warren; would you say he exemplifies [your] “thinking”?

Piper: No, I don’t think he exactly exemplifies what I’m after. But he is biblical. He quoted 50 Scriptures from memory. Unbelievable, his mind is Vesuvius. So I asked him what impact reading Jonathan Edwards had on him. What these authors like Karl Barth and Edwards do for him is give him a surge of theological energy that then comes through his wiring. What I wanted to do with Rick is force him to talk about thinking so pragmatists out there can say, “A lot of thinking goes into what he does.” (emphasis added)

CT: You received some negative feedback for inviting him.

Piper: It was real risky. I don’t even know if I did the right thing. If somebody said, “Are you sure you should have invited him?” “No.” I think the first thing I’d say—maybe the only thing—is I think he’s been slandered. I think we probably need to work harder at getting him right. (emphasis added)

Lighthouse Trails authors and editors have written extensively on the teachings and promotions of Rick Warren. Our question, after reading this interview is, in what way have we slandered Rick Warren? What has been said from this ministry that is not true about Rick Warren? Has Rick Warren really been slandered, or is John Piper just another evangelical leader who gives credibility to another leader who is leading millions toward a mystical/emerging/ecumenical spirituality?

End quote.

I agree with Lighthouse. How have we slandered Warren when we've proven with facts that Warren is a false teacher and the epitome of an unbiblical teacher?

Just yesterday Warren proved me (us) right again by Tweeting that his "ministry" is ALL about him.

Interesting the man-centeredness of Piper the "Reformer". He doesn't worry about Scripture being the tool to correct theology and thinking. Theologians are seen to give men "theological energy". Whatever that is. All theology, all doctrine should be from Scripture. Period. Not dead men. Not a council. Not a book. Truth is from the Word of Truth, that is, Scripture, which alone is God-breathed and sufficent for all things pertaining to life and godliness, "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2Tim. 3:16-17).

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,

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

Piper is bearing false witness against us and needs to repent. He also needs to stop being a silly man and mindlessly believe what Warren tells him. He can start here. I've rarely seen anything so ridiculous in my life: a grown man, a pastor, a teacher, a "mature Christian" so easily be swayed by a snake like Warren. Its as if Piper wants to be taken in, be mesmerized, be swayed by Warren. Its very strange indeed, and not biblical by any means whatsoever.

I also find it funny how Piper keeps showing up in the media when he's supposed to be on a sabbatical. I mean, the man just can't help himself.

You might notice, too, the false humility of "I just don't know". Piper continues to use that phrase which is mock humility. He SHOULD know that it was sinful and treasonous to invite Warren to DIDKWKOG Conference; He SHOULD know that Warren is a liar and deceiver. He SHOULD know what language is acceptable or not (recall last year's X-rated parading of Driscoll at the same conference...and Piper's promo video of "not knowing" how far to go with language). "I don't know" is UNEXCUSEABLE. Its what Joel Osteen claimed over 45 times on Larry King's show a few years ago.

What's with pastors not knowing? Not being decisive? Thinking ignorance is a virtue? Its not! Ignorance and immaturity in a pastor especially, is an utter shame. And its cancerous.

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.

Eph 5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Jas 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Spurgeon, in regard to his leaving the Baptist Union said, in "An Attempt At The Impossible" in the Sword and Trowel:

My course has been of another kind. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my one counsel has been, "Come ye out from among them." If I have rejoiced in the loyalty to Christ's truth which has been shown in other courses of action, yet I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil.

I may, however, venture to express the opinion, that the evangelical brethren in the Association have acted with much kindness, and have shown a strong desire to abide in union with others, if such union could he compassed without the sacrifice of truth.

The points mentioned were certainly elementary enough, and we did not wonder that one of the brethren exclaimed, "May God help those who do not believe these things! Where must they be?" Indeed, little objection was taken to the statements which were tabulated, but the objection was to a belief in these being made indispensable to membership. It was as though it had been said, "Yes, we believe in the Godhead of the Lord Jesus; but we would not keep a man out of our fellowship because he thought our Lord to be a mere man. We believe in the atonement; but if another man rejects it, he must not, therefore, be excluded from our number."

To this hour, I must confess that I do not understand the action of either side in this dispute, if viewed in the white light of logic. Why should they wish to be together? Those who wish for the illimitable fellowship of men of every shade of belief or doubt would be all the freer for the absence of those stubborn evangelicals who have cost them so many battles. The brethren, on the other hand, who have a doctrinal faith, and prize it, must have learned by this time that whatever terms may be patched up, there is no spiritual oneness between themselves and the new religionists. They must also have felt that the very endeavor to make a compact which will tacitly be understood in two senses, is far from being an ennobling and purifying exercise to either party.The brethren in the middle are the source of this clinging together of discordant elements. These who are for peace at any price, who persuade themselves that there is very little wrong, who care chiefly to maintain existing institutions, these are the good people who induce the weary combatants to repeat the futile attempt at a coalition, which, in the nature of things, must break down. If both sides could be unfaithful to conscience, or if the glorious gospel could be thrust altogether out of the question, there might be a league of amity established; but as neither of these things can be, there would seem to be no reason for persevering in the-attempt to maintain a confederacy for which there is no justification in fact, and from which there can be no worthy result, seeing it does not embody a living truth. A desire for unity is commendable. Blessed are they who can promote it and preserve it! But there are other matters to be considered as well as unity, and sometimes these may even demand the first place. When union becomes a moral impossibility, it may almost drop out of calculation in arranging plans and methods of working. If it is clear as the sun at noonday that no real union can exist, it is idle to strive after the impossible, and it is wise to go about other and more practicable business.

End quote.

Rick Warren Tweets: Its all about ME!

Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease." 31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.



"What people SAY with their mouths SHOWS what's in the hearts & THOSE are the things that make people unclean"'Jesus Mt5:18 about 5 hours ago via web Retweeted by 72 people

RickWarren
Rick Warren

So, when he says:

"Everytime haters attack me ,I get 2,000 new followers! Free PR! "They mean it for bad but God means it for good"Gen50:20"

RickWarren
Rick Warren

7:13 AM Oct 11th via web Retweeted by 57 people

...we can see what's in his heart: idol worship of himself! Where he gets that number can only be found in one place: his dark egotistical imagination. But he proves he's nothing more than a self-promoter, in love with himself, and set on numbers. He doesn't know Christ nor His gospel, therefore he can only talk about himself and his followers that are increasing by the thousands. Where's Christ Jesus in all of this? There's no room with all that pride. And by the way, the Road to Eternal life is NARROW and few that find it, Warren. A heart is already unclean because of the sin nature. But this Pelagian doesn't even understand the basic Gospel. Romans 1-7 bears this out clearly. Yet he's "theologically sound"??

I wonder if Piper and PiperFans get it yet?

The Doctrine of Creation Is Inseparable To The Doctrine of The Fall And Of Redeption

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.
The reason so many theologians end up rejecting biblical Christianity to one level or another, is because they don't really believe God's Word is inspired by Him, inerrant,living, active, and clear. Therefore every wayward "Christian leader" has denied the Genesis account of Creation as it is written, mouthing the words of the ancient serpent, the Devil, "Has God said?"

If you find a man off on any major doctrine of Scripture, most assuredly he will be off with the Beginning.

For example:

John Piper, purveyor of cussing x-rated, justification-by-works, universalist and pelagian preachers, denies the Genesis account as written and holds to the damnable Evoultion theory of the Gap Theory.

John Stott, Anglican and denier of a literal Hell , denies the creation of Adam from dust by God's hand.

Peter Enns, suspended then forced to exit from Westminster Theological Seminary for his heretical book that denies of the the innerancy of Scripture , flat out denies the Adam of Scripture as the first man created and our head (Romans 5).

Mike Huckabee, ex-pastor and former presidential candidate refused to declare faith in the Genesis account; leaving it open to either six literal days or the evolution Gap theory.

Tim Keller, Reformergent and endorser/writer for the evolutionistic Biologos, also doesn't know how God created; denies the sufficiency of Scripture. ; denies a literal Genesis account (p. 4-5 "Creation, Evolution, and Lay People")

Justin Taylor of The "Gospel" Coalition and Reformation 21 denies a literal six 24 hour day creation.

J.I. Packer endorses a book on evolution and wrote the forward to another book on evolution. Answers In Genesis has written critiques on these two books here and here.
Are you seeing a pattern?

If you have a problem with faith in Genesis 1-3 as written, that is to say, as declared by God and understood in its clear, simple proclamation, you WILL have doctrinal heresy elsewhere. Guaranteed. Why? Because True faith, given by God to His elect at regeneration, has as its first object the Creator God. Heb. 11:1-3 states this boldly. After defining true faith, the first object of our faith is "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." If you deny this, deny God created this universe as HE SAID, by His word instantly, then you have no real faith.

None.

Five times in Genesis 1 it says, "God said....and it was so."

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Psa 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Isa 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

Al Mohler said recently:

"The biblical record of creation is more than just a statement of fact. It is a purposeful account of why the universe was created by a sovereign, holy, and benevolent God as the theater of His own glory. It reveals purpose not only in creation, but also as part of redemptive history. The doctrine of creation is absolutely inseparable from the doctrine of redemption."

Lawrence Ford, Executive Editor of ICR's "Acts And Facts" correctly states:

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

John MacArthur states:

Quote:

Now as we have already learned in our study of origins in the study of the first Chapter of Genesis, it is sheer foolishness scientifically and it is utter unbelief Biblically to impose on creation any kind of evolution. Evolution is not a reasonable explanation for the universe or life on earth in any sense whatsoever. It is scientifically impossible, and it is Biblically rejected. If we look closely at the issue of Genesis 1 and creation, we find no evidence of evolution whatsoever in the text of scripture; nor is there any indication by any kind of reasonable science that any form of evolution from species to species could at all take place. And I've suggested to you a number of times, and I do it again, that as you look more closely at the issue of unbelief and denial of the clearly revealed account of creation in the book of Genesis, it is fair to say that anyone who rejects the Genesis creation account, anyone who rejects that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days, makes an assault on scripture; makes an assault on the historicity of scripture, the accuracy of scripture, the inspiration of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture and the authenticity of scripture.

It is no small thing to deny the straightforward creation account of Genesis Chapter 1. And we could go so far as to say that in actuality, the Bible itself stands or falls with the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If we cannot trust the creation account, then why should we trust anything else on the pages of scripture? It is sad to say that even the secular world has through the years better understood this than many Christians.

End quote.

If someone believes in Evolution on any level, they will also believe in a man-centered gospel and think they have some good in them and not only that, they can loose their salvation. Their evolution of creation extends to their evolution of a Christian. This is not the way of Scripture. Just as God created this universe by His mere word and it instantly came into being, so too is our New Creation in Christ, just as instantaneous. Both are held by the power of HIS Word:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
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.3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.

Loyalty To Piper While Disloyal to Christ

I find it so sad to see people be so loyal to a man who promotes heretics and damnable gospels, and therefore be so disloyal to Christ Jesus and His Word. I think he's become an idol to them. Wolves like Warren are counting on this. He knows this better than these blind followers of Piper who are impotant to reject him for some reason.

“Error is like leaven, of which we read, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and, therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.” - Dr. Harry Ironside, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Memorial Church from 1930-1948


The Gospel of Satan by AW Pink--excerpts

The gospel of Satan is not a system of revolutionary principles, nor yet a program of anarchy. It does not promote strife and war, but aims at peace and unity. It seeks not to set the mother against her daughter nor the father against his son, but fosters the fraternal, spirit whereby the human race is regarded as one great "brotherhood". It does not seek to drag down the natural man, but to improve and uplift him. It advocates education and cultivation and appeals to "the best that is within us". It aims to make this world such a congenial and comfortable habitat that Christ’s absence from it will not be felt and God will not be needed. It endeavors to occupy man so much with this world that he has no time or inclination to think of the world to come. It propagates the principles of self-sacrifice, charity and benevolence, and teaches us to live for the good of others, and to be kind to all. It appeals strongly to the carnal mind and is popular with the masses, because it ignores the solemn facts that by nature man is a fallen creature, alienated from the life of God, and dead in trespasses and sins, and that his only hope lies in being born again.

In contradistinction to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of Satan teaches salvation by works. It inculcates justification before God on the ground of human merits. Its sacramental phrase is "Be good and do good"; but it fails to recognize that in the flesh there dwelleth no good thing. It announces salvation by character, which reverses the order of God’s Word—character by, as the fruit of, salvation. Its various ramifications and organizations are manifold. Temperance, Reform movements, "Christian Socialist Leagues", ethical culture societies, "Peace Congresses" are all employed (perhaps unconsciously) in proclaiming this gospel of Satan—salvation by works. The pledge-card is substituted for Christ; social purity for individual regeneration, and politics and philosophy for doctrine and godliness. The cultivation of the old man is considered more practical" than the creation of a new man in Christ Jesus; whilst universal peace is looked for apart from the interposition and return of the Prince of Peace.

LDS Leader Softens Speech and Stance on Homosexuality--Like Is Son Glenn Beck

LDS Leader Softens Speech and Stance on Homosexuality:

Well, interesting in the timing, considering Glenn Beck is soft on homosexuality himself---especially since the LDS was a large backer in one way or another for Prop 8 here in CA on the ballot some months ago, which was passed and then rejected by one judge--that's the bill that would keep marriage to one man and one woman. Perhaps Beck was readying the LDS followers for the upcoming speech....whether deliberate or not. Timing is everything.

Then again, LDS's foundation is based on control and sexual immorality (polygamy) anyway. Like Islam. They can't promise freedom because they themselves are enslaved to sin, dead in their sins and trespasses, and can only violate God's commands.

LuvFest over Rick Warren's message at Desiring-I-Don't-Know-What-Kind-of-God Conference

The panel discussion of the speakers at DIDKWKOG Conference 2010 on Rick Warren's message is as puddle deep as the man and the man's message itself:

1. Can you give us your initial reflections on the message we just heard from Rick Warren?

Burk Parsons: I saw a man with character and with simple, childlike dependence on Christ.

John Piper: "An unbelievable communicator with incredible application. Be encouraged and relax with who you are, and give it all to Jesus while learning all you can from Rick."

He's certainly picking up the PDL "its all about you" lingo. It certainly isn't about Christ. I mean, why bother speaking about how in love you are with the wolf? Why sit there in a pow-wow and drool over the wolf? Why even talk about Warren?

After 8 questions and responses, they finally get to Jesus, thus proving again, its not about Jesus Christ, its about YOU. Warren got all these men to focus on man, not God, even in their discussion afterwards, at least according to the notes given; notes that presumably are the highlights or the most important issues discussed by the panel for folks to get the salient points of that discussion. Jesus bearly made into their discussion, and then I found this interesting that yet again Piper has to bring in Warren and himself (which could have been avoided if he saw the error in doing so)....someone continues to be highly defensive for a person who is convinced it was a good choice:

8. What would you say to our "non-thinkers" who are here tonight? Surely the
conference isn’t made up completely of those who consider themselves "thinkers,"
right?

Piper: There are people in here who love to think and there are others who don’t like to think. This conference is a pain in the rear end to them. They’re just here to see Warren and Piper fight. Here’s how I would say the question: What do you have to say to people who don’t want to think?

Ok, and how is this relevent to the question of thinking (what's a non-thinker?)?

What's Warren and Piper got to do with it?

And why is Piper, who is overwhelmingly generous toward Warren since at least, his announcement of Warren speaking at the conference, yet Piper attacks and presumes upon the motives of certain people?

Where's his generosity toward them? And why does he then bring in "people who don't want to think"?

Ironically, those who have publicly rebuked Piper are the ones with the "mind of Christ", thinking biblically, and its Piper who isn't at all. He's thinking according to the flesh, and still is focused on himself and his new comrade. How is his response, which ends in a question (more POMO chaotic thinking), even beneficial to the audience?

Last question in the notes:

9. Would you connect this conference theme of the life of the mind with the person of Jesus?

Very quick answers, which given the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and the HOLY SPIRIT, should have been the bulk of the discussion in relation to how that affects one's mind.

Its truly sad.

Puddle deep thinking after being fed pelagian poison.

This, folks, is Christian Hedonism in all its YOU-Glory.

Matt Chandler Endorses Emergent New Ager Leonard Sweet

"Today I'm sharing an interview with Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola about their recently published book, Jesus Manifesto. I think the response to the book has been fascinating to watch. For example, you don't often see a book endorsed by Ed Young, Matt Chandler, Jack Hayford, and Steve Brown. And, since Len and Frank are willing to dialogue today, I wanted to bring it to you attention. (By the way, Frank has been here at the blog before. See this interview.)" - Ed Stetzer

For helpful information on Leonard Sweet go here

Our Sympathetic High Priest: rest for the weary soul

The problem of suffering has ever been a perplexing one. Why should suffering be necessary in a world that is governed by a perfect God? A God who not only has the power to prevent evil, but who is love. Why should there be pain and wretchedness, sickness and death? As we look out on the world and take cognizance of its countless sufferers, we are bewildered. This world is but a vale of tears. A thin veneer of gaiety scarcely succeeds in hiding the drab facts of life. Philosophizing about the problem of suffering brings scant relief. After all our reasonings we ask, Does God see? Is there knowledge with the Most High? Does he really care? Like all questions, these must be taken to the cross. While they do not find there a complete answer, nevertheless they do meet that which satisfies the anxious heart. While the problem of suffering is not fully solved there, yet the cross does throw sufficient light upon it to relieve the tension. The cross shows us that God is not ignorant of our sorrows, for in the person of his Son he has himself "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4)! The cross shows us God is not unmindful of our distress and anguish, for becoming incarnate, he suffered himself! The cross tells us God is not indifferent to pain for in the Saviour he experienced it!

What then is the value of these facts? This: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted (or tried) like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Our Redeemer is not one so removed from us that he is unable to enter, sympathetically, into our sorrows, for he was himself "the Man of Sorrows". Here then is comfort for the aching heart. No matter how despondent you maybe, no matter how rugged your path and sad your lot, you are invited to spread it all before the Lord Jesus and cast all your care upon him, knowing that "he careth for you" (1 Peter 5:7). Is your body wracked with pain? So was his! Are you misunderstood, misjudged, misrepresented? So was he! Have those who are nearest and dearest turned away from you? They did from him! Are you in the darkness? So was he for three hours! "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest" (Heb. 2:17).

~ A.W. Pink, "The Seven Sayings Of the Savior On the Cross"

Extinct Species Were Not Extinct, Only Hard To Find

Like I have said, scientists can't prove an animal is extinct, unless they cover every area of the world, look under every bush, etc. But they will, in their elitist mentality, deem all kinds of species near extinct, thus making their habitate hands off. Putting an animal on the "extinct list" is cause for mourning by these pagans. Turns out, they are wrong. Again.

As The Mail reports:

"A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.

Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild."

You might consider that these "scientists" prove they don't believe in Evolution's most fundamental theory: survival of the fittest. Maybe they will now.

Naw.

The Truth About The Salvation Army

Many may not be aware that Salvation Army isn't a Christian church, although it claims to be one.
It is not a legitimate church nor Christian b/c it doesn't have male only leadership nor baptisms nor the Lord's Table. Rather, it has women in leadership:

"It was not until 1860 that Catherine Booth first started to preach. One day in Gateshead Bethesda Chapel, a strange compulsion seized her and she felt she must rise and speak. Later she recalled how an inner voice taunted her: "You will look like a fool and have nothing to say". Catherine decided that this was the Devil's voice: "That's just the point," she retorted, "I have never yet been willing to be a fool for Christ. Now I will be one."

"Catherine's sermon was so impressive that William changed his mind about women's preachers. Catherine Booth soon developed a reputation as an outstanding speaker but many Christians were outraged by the idea. As Catherine pointed out at that time it was believed that a woman's place was in the home and "any respectable woman who raised her voice in public risked grave censure."

1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Titus 1 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,

Jesus commanded for believers to participate in the Lord's Table and to be baptized as new Christians. To deliberately reject His commands is a denial of Him. Scripture however states:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The Salvation Army is ecumenical and inter-faith in nature. 2Cor. 6:14-18 talks about separation. Unity is based on biblical doctrinal Truth, which isn't optional.

It doesn't proclaim Christ Jesus alone for salvation by grace through faith alone; rather they teach one must keep one's self saved by works. This is a false gospel and denies the sufficiency of the solitary work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and His declaration, "It is finished!". Their covenant also requires a promise to give as much money as possible to this "church" even though it is not a legitimate church (see above).

"We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ." - Salvation Army Covenant


Scripture however, says that salvation and sanctification is by grace through faith. We are kept not by our works, but by Him who started our salvation:

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith,

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2:10 For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Salvation by grace through faith, eternal security the same way, both done by way of Jesus Christ and HIS sufficient work, and to deny this is to deny the Gospel itself and HIS work on the cross and His resurrection.

In addition the Salvation Army doesn't use biblical titles or terms for leadership. Rather than pastors/elders and deacons, teachers,believers, brethern/children of God/sons, those in Christ, Christian, fellow slave/bond-servant, here are some of their terms that are deliberately military terms:

Adherent :A person who regards The Salvation Army as his/her spiritual home but has not made a commitment to soldiership. (More about becoming an adherent member.)Cadet :A Salvationist in training for officership.Chief of the Staff: The officer second in command of the Army throughout the world.
Corps :A Salvation Army unit established for the preaching of the gospel and service in the community.
Corps Cadet :A young Salvationist who undertakes a course of study and practical training in his or her corps, with a view to becoming efficient in Salvation Army service.
General :The officer elected to the supreme command of the Army throughout the world. All appointments are made, and all regulations issued, under the General’s authority (see under High Council).
Junior Soldier :A boy or girl who, having professed conversion and having signed the junior soldier’s promise, becomes a Salvationist.
Salvation:The work of grace which God accomplishes in a repentant person whose trust is in Christ as Saviour, forgiving sin, giving meaning and new direction to life, and strength to live as God desires. The deeper experience of this grace, known as holiness or sanctification, is the outcome of wholehearted commitment to God and enables the living of a Christlike life.
Self-Denial Appeal :An annual effort to raise funds for the Army’s worldwide operations; also known as the annual appeal in some countries.
Soldier :A converted person at least 14 years of age who has, with the approval of the census board, been enrolled as a member of The Salvation Army after signing the articles of war (soldier's covenant).

Ergun Caner Continues His Lies And Arrogance

Ergun Caner continues in his arrogance and mocks his critics. James White discusses Caner's lies.

Lordship Salvation

1Pe 4:3 For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.
1Pe 4:4 In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;
1Pe 4:5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

The Power of Scripture: excerpts from John MacArthur

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple....

We must have childlike faith, not skeptic's unbelief. Logic cannot explain any miracle, much less the Death of the Sinless Lord and His resurrection! Man's mind is as fallen and deceitful as his wicked heart.

Excerpts from John MacArthur on why we believe the Bible--and he touches on various reasons, but this struck a chord with me:

Why We Believe The Bible :

That's why when you're trying to deal with a non-believer you can stack up and stack up and stack up all kinds of evidences, all kinds of reasonable arguments. And believe me, the truth is rational. And the truth is reasonable. But that doesn't take people there. If you want to present the case for biblical authenticity and I want to do that every single time I step in this pulpit, I do not get up here and tell you what are the reasonable evidences that the Bible is true, I just open it up for it is sharper, more powerful than any other weapon. It carries its own power with it.

You either believe that a human being has a rational power on his own to ascend to the truth of God's Word or you believe he doesn't. If you believe he does, you have an unbiblical view of man. If you believe he doesn't, then you know that the power is not in evidences to the rational mind, but the power is in the proclamation of the Word of God. And what you have in ministry today that is nothing but trying to convince people with cleverness and reasonableness and whatever other manipulating forces that somehow within the heart of man is the capability for him to rise out of his spiritual death, rise out of his spiritual blindness, rise out of divine judicial blindness and on his own believe because you've made it so easy for him. Ludicrous...but it's what drives so much of so-called evangelism. The sinner's opposition to the Word of God, the sinner's opposition to divine holy truth, the sinner's opposition to the gospel does not arise from legitimate intellectual issues regarding the truth or the veracity of Scripture. It rises from the rebellion of a sinful soul and because he is natural and even at his best rational level, he cannot attain to this spiritual knowledge. Man is not the final court of appeal. You cannot let the sinner think that his reason is the deciding factor in his salvation. According to God, God is the final court of appeal. His revelation decides what's true, not man's reason. Sinners have for centuries applied their reason to the Bible and come up with all kinds of damning heresies. "And all men...writes Van Til...do their thinking on the basis of a position accepted by faith and your faith is either in God...he says...or in yourself and your reason. I will not put my faith in human reason, so I do not preach things that manipulate human reason. I preach the Word of God because my faith is in His power and His Word. Thus to know divine truth and to understand the Bible, the sinner must call on God. The sinner must be overwhelmed with the truth of the Word of God. Preach anything other than the Scripture and you are wasting your time. The sinner must understand the truth. He must have that information. He must have that interpretation. We are begotten again by the Word of Truth, but he must cry out for God to save him, to give him life, to take off the blinders, to overpower the enemy who has blinded him, to remove the things that God Himself has hidden from him and bring them into the light. The sinner has to throw himself before the throne of God and cry out with the depths of his fearful soul, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner. Give me an understanding of the truth." It's all the work of God.

End quote.

And this is what I've been trying to say for so long. As a pastor friend said a few years ago, most professing Christians don't think the MIND FELL along with everything else at The Fall of Adam. That's why they appeal to the the intellect, which is a grave error, since the mind is just as consumed with sin as the heart and soul.

"The Bible Is God's Word" by MacArthur:

The New Testament agrees with the Old, calling God a God of truth. John 3:33 says, "God is truthful." John 17:3, Jesus said, "That they may know You, the only true God." 1 John 5:20, "He is the true God." Three times the Scripture says God cannot lie...Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; and Hebrews 6:18. God cannot lie. It is impossible. The Bible is therefore infallible and inerrant because it is written by God who is truth, speaks only truth, cannot speak anything but truth.

Kay Arthur Teaching Men And Women At Emergent "Break Forth Finland 2011"

Kay Arthur teaching to men and women again at Emergent Break Forth conference in Finland 2011:

"Break Forth Finland presenters included multi-million selling author, Kay Arthur. Her sessions were filled to capacity as people longed to learn more about growing deeper in their study of the Word. Other presenters came from Brazil, the USA, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Israel." -Break Forth

Last year in an interview for BF Finland man, Pauli Hyppoen talks about Arthur's teaching.

Christ Could Not Be Tempted

Jesus is eternally God, therefore His very unchanging being is God and couldn't sin (impeccable). Nothing in Him is attracted to sin and disobedience.

Check it out:

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

MacArthur states:

Paul began by affirming that Jesus is God. That is the point where the incarnation began and from which Christ began the descent of His humiliation. The Greek word translated "existed" (huparch[ma]o) is not the common verb for being (eimi). Huparch[me]o stresses the essence of a person's nature--the continuous state or condition of something (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35). It expresses what one is unalterably and inalienably by nature. Paul's point was that Jesus Christ is unalterably and continuously existing in the form of God.

The meaning of the Greek word translated "form" (morphe) is crucial for a proper understanding of this passage. In English we have used that word to form terms like endomorph and ectomorph. Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417). The word describes the essential being or nature of what it refers to--in this case the essential being of God.

Morphe is better understood when compared to the Greek word schema. Both words are translated in English as "form." That's the best English word for each term, but the meaning of each is not properly represented unless a distinction is made between them.

Morphe expresses is the essential character of something--what it is in itself. Schema emphasizes outward form or appearance. What morphe expresses never changes, while what schema represents can. For example, all men possess manhood. They possess manhood from the time they are conceived until they die. That is their morphe. But the essential character of manhood is shown in various schema. At one time a man is an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a boy, then a youth, then a young man, then an adult, and finally an old man. The morphe of manhood remains the same, but the schema changes.

In using the word morphe in Philippians 2, Paul was saying Jesus possessed the unchangeable essential nature of God. That interpretation of the first phrase of verse 6 is strengthened by the second phrase, which says Jesus was equal with God. Being in the form of God speaks of Christ's equality to God.

Though He had all the rights, privileges, and honors of being God, Christ didn't grasp onto them. The word translated "grasp" originally meant "robbery" or "a thing seized by robbery." It eventually came to mean anything clutched, embraced, held tightly, prized, or clung to. Paul meant that though He was God, Christ refused to cling to His favored position with all its rights and honors, but was willing to give them up for a season.

When Christ emptied Himself, He not only gave up His privileges, but also became a servant. Paul used the Greek word morphe ("form") again to indicate that Christ's servanthood was not merely external (Gk., schema), but of His essence. It was not like a cloak, which can be put on and taken off. Christ was truly a servant. The only other New Testament use of the word morphe is in Mark 16:12. There Jesus appears in a resurrection morphe--a form fully expressing the nature of a resurrection body. In Philippians 2 Christ is shown as a true bondservant, doing the will of the Father. He submitted to the Father and the needs of men as well. Jesus was all that is portrayed of Him in Isaiah 52:13-14--a Messiah who was a servant.

~Read more here

W.E. Best demonstrates why its impossible for Jesus to have sinned (as if Phil. 2:6 wasn't enough): "Christ Could Not Be Tempted".

Politics Of Evil

Oh, my head is about to explode. My friend sent me a few articles that demonstrate the problem of "Christians" in the political arena.
First is feminist Schafly: "Jesus isn't on the ballot"

So...what then? Vote for the evil? This is the same type of argumentation people use when they don't want to be held accountable for doctrine and behavior: "no one's perfect". Really? Jesus isn't on the ballot? I can't vote for Him? No one's perfect? Shoot! I'm devisated.

Pragmatism why we're in such a mess, especially in CA. Professing Christians voted for Schwarzeneggar TWICE (thank you "Christians" and "Conservatives")and he made our state far worse than it was. Socially liberal, he wasn't even a fiscal conservative (I know that will likely be the case with Meg Whitman, the RINO). Such an animal doesn't exist. Who ever thought Jesus is or SHOULD be on the ballot? Only those who reject His lordship put Him on the ballot of their heart, voting Him in and out at will, depending on the issue.

In another article about Schafly:

"Preaching to the CPAC choir in her allotted seven minutes on the "Saving Freedom from the Enemies of our Values" panel, Schlafly warned about the futility of a Tea Party third party. Too expensive, too inefficient, and, in the end, pointless because every single one of those 435 House members and 100 Senators will end up aligning with the Republicans or Democrats. Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."

CPAC is not conservative, its LIBERAL. It was sponsored this year by GOPROUD, the sodomite GOP group that claims to be "conservative". How sodomy can be akin to conservative is beyond my comprehension...unless one starts to REDEFINE terms.

This is what I mean. GOP = RINOS. She's one of them. Maybe she slipped a cog when she turned 55-60 (a theory of my friend that continues to be proven true --we see it in Evangelicalism too--the older people get, the more liberal they become...with a tiny few exceptions). The Tea Party is the revolt of the liberal GOP, but she doesn't get that. Politics as usual. Who said there has to be ONLY RINOS and DEMS? Where is that written? Funny how its the leadership of the GOP that cries about it---because they've had a liberal chokehold on the GOP for years. They see a political loss and can't handle the threat. They recoil at the demand of accountability, which is the Tea Parties (not an actual party...the very movement is not a singular party) are demanding.Its people like her that made me see that there was no one in the GOP standing for the principles it used to hold to and which I still do.

She goes on: "Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."

Ok, she's lost her senses. This is the MOST LIBERAL this party has been! CPAC is exhibit #1. Ann Coulter is exhibit #2. McCain is exhibit #3. Schwarzeneggaar is exhibit #4. #5 is Mitt Romney. (None of these is in order except #1). See what I mean? I could go on. If she means just the platform, then why did the liberals sponsor the CPAC? And let's say the platform is "conservative". Ok, well, is anyone in the GOP living up to said platform? NOPE.


Schafly's feminist mindset in guise of "tradition" is revealed in this interview:

"So, I asked Mrs. Schlafly -- you don't really think she's ever called Ms. Schlafly? -- when might this country elect a woman president?"I don't see it happening because I don't see one coming up the line in either party," she said. Democrat Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama because "people don't want to elect a feminist because they are not likeable. You have to be likeable to be elected." She paused a moment before musing that "the best route is probably being a governer," never mind that at this moment, "the pickings among [women] governors are very slim."

Elsewhere she indicates that time is what makes one not a feminist:

Quote:

To Schlafly, this is a simple question of practicality. "You can't have it all at the same time. There are not that many hours in the day," she asserts. "Now, with our lengthened lifespan, a woman can have it all; I think I've had it all," she says, "but you don't have it at the same time. A baby is extremely demanding -- even more demanding than a husband."

"A lot of the newspapers ... have published articles about how some of the most highly educated women -- women who graduated from the elite colleges and then got graduate degrees like MBAs or JDs -- have put their career ahead of husband and family," Schlafly notes. "In many of these cases, in the woman's scale of values, the husband is ranking third," she says.
The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around.

End quote.

Time doesn't make one not a feminist. Its in the mindset. God says women are not to rule over men (Gen. 3, and below). Just having some years inbetween doesn't relieve one of the view that women CAN have it all (do men EVERY say that?) nor is it accurate. Because for a Christian, we're to be about our Father's business, not being poster girls for Loreal. A 60 year old woman working full time is cutting short her ministry to her own husband, kids, grandkids and church. Please, do not tell me women can have it all....someone will always suffer. Besides, that view of time just means that her desire to have something more fulfilling than mere family, etc., reveals it is seeded in her desire, as it was in Eve's.

And here's the more appalling article:

Quote:

Scarborough, himself a former Southern Baptist minister, told the audience his story of recognizing the need for pastors to snap out of political complacency and get involved in the cultural war for the soul of the nation.

Shortly thereafter, Scarborough explained at "Taking America Back," he began to free his congregation from excessive church responsibilities to take up civic duties. Members of his church were elected to the school board and city council and began to reassert Christian values in the public arena.

"We just got the people in the churches to stand up and do what they ought to be doing," Scarborough said.

End quote.

Is that why those of us who don't vote for any evil are bullied by those folks?

Here's another issue: its these very people who have doctrinal problems with the Lordship of Christ. Had "Christians" never sat there and questioned Scripture, but believed it and obeyed it, we wouldn't be in such a pathetic mess!

Morever, its too late. This country is under God's judgment and we're seeing it starting in the churches and work its way outward.

WOW. Deny the command to be ministrying in the church, but get tangled up in the affairs of the world. Switch a committment (whatever was left) from the church to the political scene??? Its because people see church as optional and doctrine as optional that people put their hope in politics!

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.’”

Isa 3:12 My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.

Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! 2 And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity.

“You know what party politics are. We are all trying to [usher] in another set of maggots to eat the cheese; that is about all it amounts to; first turn out one lot, and then turn in another. It comes to little more than that. Even in the pursuit of really good matters of policy, do you know any Christian man who goes into politics who is the better for it? If I find such a man, I will have him stuffed if I can, for I have never seen such a specimen yet. I will not say, do not attend to politics; but I do say, do not let them spot you.”
- Charles Spurgeon

Kudos to Kirk Cameron

Kudos to Kirk Cameron for stepping away from endorsing Glenn Beck. Our loyalty is to God, not some political Mormon.

John MacArthur on Assorted Attacks On the Bible

We believe in the Word of God. We believe that it is inspired. We believe that it is without error in the original autographs and God has protected and preserved it to this day so that it substantially remains faithful to its original revelation. We believe that when the Word speaks, we are commanded to listen. That's why the Bible is the theme of everything we do. We define life and ministry in biblical terms. It is what we believe, it is how we behave and it is the message we proclaim. And the Bible claims to be the very Word of God and it does so in an unaffected and unambiguous way. Old Testament writers, for example, refer to what they wrote as the very words of God over 3800 times. New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as the Word of God 320 times and refer to it at least a thousand times. And New Testament writers repeatedly claim divine inspiration as did the Old. Jesus Himself claims that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired by God.

Now obviously everything we need to know about God and about us and about salvation and about the future and time and eternity is contained in the Scripture. Everything is here. All that God wants us to know is here. That's why at the end of the last book, the book of Revelation, the Spirit of God prompted John to write not to add anything to this book, nor take anything away. This is consummate, this is complete. It is even referred to by Jude as "the once for all delivered to the saints faith," it is a body of truth that was delivered at one time, not to be diminished and not to be embellished. Everything we need to know is here in this book in terms of our understanding of the universe and God and our relationship to Him, as well as all other relationships.

Because everything that we need is in the Scripture, because we are saved by the Word of truth, because we are sanctified by the truth, the Word of God, because we find our hope of glory in the Word, because all instruction for living is contained here, this then becomes the point of the enemies constant and relentless assault...

...There are always attacks, finally, on the Scripture from carnal wisdom. The people look at the Bible and they say, "Well, that's not reasonable. I don't like the doctrine of election. I don't like the doctrine of eternal punishment. I'm going to trump God." The attacks from carnal wisdom. "I can't accept that." Dangerous stuff. We bow the knee completely to the Word of God. We stand in defense of it by lifting it up and letting it defend itself.

...To give you an illustration of the clarity of Scripture, I would only say this. The Old Testament Scripture which may seem to some people a bit unclear is in fact so clear that God holds people and has always held them responsible for what was revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus Himself, for example, in His teaching, in His conversations, in His dialogues and disputes and debates never ever one time said to the Jews, "I understand your confusion. The Old Testament is really hard, very difficult and often unclear." He never says that...never. He is speaking to first century people. They are...they are a thousand years from David. They are 1500 years from Moses. And they are two thousand years after Abraham. And Jesus still assumes that they are able to read and rightly interpret the Old Testament Scripture. If it were impossible to understand the Scriptures for some people who were removed a thousand years away, or two thousand years away as they're telling us it is for those of us now removed two thousand years from the writing of the New Testament, then we would expect that Jesus would say something like, "I see how your problem arose." But He never said that. And whether He is speaking to scholars, Pharisees and scribes, or to common people, He always assumes that they are to blame for their misunderstanding of any teaching in the Scripture. Again and again He says, "Have you not read? Have you never read? Have you never read the Scriptures?" He says to them, "You're wrong because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Your problem is, you don't search the Scriptures. They are they which speak of Me."

Would you also go so far as to say this? It is even to be understood by uninitiated Gentiles. Paul writing to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 10, says, "The Old Testament Scriptures were given for our instruction even as Gentiles." And when the Lord was on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, He opened the Old Testament, the law of the prophets and the holy writings, and He explained to them the things concerning Himself which they ought to have already understood.

I think about the New Testament epistles. You say, "Well, the New Testament's really hard." Is that right? New Testament epistles were not written to theologians, they were not written to church leaders, they were not written to scholars, they were written to congregations, to the church of God at Corinth, to the churches of Galatia, to all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, and so forth. Always to the churches, to the lowest common denominator, the person who was a new believer in Jesus Christ. And Paul assumes in every letter and so does Peter, and so does James, and so does John, so does Jude, that his hearers will understand exactly what he writes. For example, in Colossians 4:16 Paul says, "When this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans and see that you read the letter from Laodicea ." Spread the letters around and read them all in every church.

So you have to understand that first century Christians were held responsible for an understanding of the Scripture.

Read the whole article (or download the audio) here.