If you scroll down, you'll find a post entitled: Batting .333 which reads:
If I'd ever been good enough to play pro baseball, a .333 average might have been pretty good.....but in this world of picking and recommending doctrinally-sound ministry sites, it ain't too hot.
That's what I did about 2 or 3 months ago when I posted an article here recommending 3 sites I had just discovered.
About a month later, I had to delete one when I found out the main emphasis was the bitterness of the author who used the site for his personal ax-grinding.
Today, I had to delete another one, having learned that the leader of this one is just another "I am not accountable to anyone" ego-driven juvenile. I'm sure there are lots of Godly people involved in that one but fear that they'll not get much guidance from this "pastor"
Sad, but not surprising.
Here's an update: I am now batting 0 for 3. The last of those 3 "exciting" ministries has showed itself to be less than one would hope. The idea of exposing the Word of Faith wolves is still commendable but the leadership there has been carried away by various winds of doctrine, trying to be all things to all men in the worldly way. Currently they are enamored of all the anti-Obama nonsense: "he's a Muslim" "he's the Anti-Christ" and they seem to find this much more urgent than striving for pure doctrine in their churches.
I expressed my thoughts to the leadership there and found that criticism is not wanted.....lol. Actually the leadership did not bother responding to my personal email but threw out a few public comments and then did the ultimate dismissal: he defriended me on Facebook! So, I'm in mourning over that.....
Seriously, though, I recommended this ministry because I appreciated what they were then doing. I now un-recommend it (for what that's worth) because they have lost their way. We're praying (I'm not the only one who has been discarded) that God will lead them back to the battlefield.
Showing posts with label False Teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Teachers. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Part 2. UN-REFORMING: THE ROAD BACK TO ROME
In the previous post I postulated that the current "resurgence" of sound doctrine seems to have peaked and is now on a downward slope. My view of this is two-fold: Practice and Doctrine.
In the area of Practice: Local churches arose during this resurgence, preaching the doctrines of grace, aiming at a truly-regenerate membership, exercising Biblical church discipline, emphasizing expository preaching, etc. Now, at this point in the journey, I see the leaven beginning to work. All around these "sound" churches were the world's pseudo-churches with their Word of Faith, prosperity "gospel" teachings, big crowds, big budgets, high-flying celebrity preachers. Some of this has been assimilated into the doctrinal assemblies.
One begins to hear the distant echo of "prosperity" preaching amongst the nuggets of Truth. As budget shortfalls occur, as leaders try to maintain their salaries and their multi-million dollar edifices, the appeals for increased offerings include tales of "how God blessed me" for various feats of giving money. Of course, since my experiences are almost 100% Baptist, one is never far from Malachi 3:10 and the absolute dictum that all giving must come to the local church.
The Doctrine side, however, is even more telling, it seems to me. Basically, the Reformation was about Justification by faith alone, apart from works. Now, as we approach the 500th anniversary of Luther's declaration, we see this doctrine in dispute again. Today, however, the idea of Justification by faith alone is not being undermined by Rome and their Tetzels selling indulgences....but by men who are labeled by themselves and by others as "reformed".
First, a bit of an aside as to what I see as an underlying element in the problem today. If one is labeled "reformed" he is "in".....whatever else he might say or do is acceptable to the "reformed" world. That's why we have foul-mouthed pastors like Mark Driscoll being pampered and tolerated: oh, he's "reformed" That's why we have theologians pushing heretical doctrines like "conditional justification" being welcomed by prominent leaders: oh, they're reformed.
I'm not going to re-hash all the fine points of the doctrines involved here. I've ranted about them elsewhere and any Google search you do will provide loads of details if you are not familiar with the "New Perspective on Paul" born out of the writings of N. T. Wright and the idea of "Federal Vision" promoted by Doug Wilson among others. These are tied in with modern views on Second Temple Judaism and all involve "conditional justification" in one way or another.
What is eye-catching: the "welcome mat" being rolled out for these heresies by John Piper and those who are in his "camp" within "reformed" theology, within this resurgence of the past 30 years. Piper defends to some degree or another both these men and their philosophies and flatly will not say that they are preaching "another gospel" when in fact that is exactly what they are doing. These guys are great intellects. Calvinism has always had a weak spot in that there is such a great appeal to the intellect; calvinists are often accused (and often rightly so) of being intellectual snobs and possessed of an air of academic superiority over the lowly, ignorant arminians. The younger set in this resurgence is enamored of Piper and now enamored of the following generation: Driscoll, Chandler, Chan....They are also impressed by the intellectual prowess of Wright and perhaps of Wilson (who is not an academic). There is some fallow ground for these poisonous seeds......and here's the "father-figure" to all these young calvinists fawning all over these heretics.
R. Scott Clark has written very well on the technical, theological aspects of this, far beyond my abilities. I want to give you a brief, summarizing comment from one of his articles:
"Here's a gift and here's what you have to do to keep it" isn't good news for sinners who cannot do "their part," not even with the help of grace. If "grace and cooperation with grace" is such good news, why not skip the FV and simply become Roman Catholic? Honestly? That's been the consistent Roman doctrine since the early middle ages. It's been the official Roman doctrine since the session 6 of the Council of Trent.
"...simply become Roman Catholic".....exactly! That's where this is heading folks....not a surprise if you've ever read the Revelation. A week of so ago, I was reading on a particular point in The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement by Oxenham. Their idea of "infused" righteousness as opposed to "imputed" righteousness fits right into this "conditional justification" heresy. The idea is, basically, that rather than having the Righteousness of Christ put on us as sinners (imputed), we have righteousness put into us (infused) by Him and thereby become righteous in and of ourselves. And now, Wright and Wilson say that in the final judgment we shall learn if we did well enough with that "righteousness" and have earned the reward of eternal life.
And this kind of stuff is coming from "reformed" preachers and being promoted by the leadership of the "reformed" church today. I think I can see the Seven Hills on the horizon.
In the area of Practice: Local churches arose during this resurgence, preaching the doctrines of grace, aiming at a truly-regenerate membership, exercising Biblical church discipline, emphasizing expository preaching, etc. Now, at this point in the journey, I see the leaven beginning to work. All around these "sound" churches were the world's pseudo-churches with their Word of Faith, prosperity "gospel" teachings, big crowds, big budgets, high-flying celebrity preachers. Some of this has been assimilated into the doctrinal assemblies.
One begins to hear the distant echo of "prosperity" preaching amongst the nuggets of Truth. As budget shortfalls occur, as leaders try to maintain their salaries and their multi-million dollar edifices, the appeals for increased offerings include tales of "how God blessed me" for various feats of giving money. Of course, since my experiences are almost 100% Baptist, one is never far from Malachi 3:10 and the absolute dictum that all giving must come to the local church.
The Doctrine side, however, is even more telling, it seems to me. Basically, the Reformation was about Justification by faith alone, apart from works. Now, as we approach the 500th anniversary of Luther's declaration, we see this doctrine in dispute again. Today, however, the idea of Justification by faith alone is not being undermined by Rome and their Tetzels selling indulgences....but by men who are labeled by themselves and by others as "reformed".
First, a bit of an aside as to what I see as an underlying element in the problem today. If one is labeled "reformed" he is "in".....whatever else he might say or do is acceptable to the "reformed" world. That's why we have foul-mouthed pastors like Mark Driscoll being pampered and tolerated: oh, he's "reformed" That's why we have theologians pushing heretical doctrines like "conditional justification" being welcomed by prominent leaders: oh, they're reformed.
I'm not going to re-hash all the fine points of the doctrines involved here. I've ranted about them elsewhere and any Google search you do will provide loads of details if you are not familiar with the "New Perspective on Paul" born out of the writings of N. T. Wright and the idea of "Federal Vision" promoted by Doug Wilson among others. These are tied in with modern views on Second Temple Judaism and all involve "conditional justification" in one way or another.
What is eye-catching: the "welcome mat" being rolled out for these heresies by John Piper and those who are in his "camp" within "reformed" theology, within this resurgence of the past 30 years. Piper defends to some degree or another both these men and their philosophies and flatly will not say that they are preaching "another gospel" when in fact that is exactly what they are doing. These guys are great intellects. Calvinism has always had a weak spot in that there is such a great appeal to the intellect; calvinists are often accused (and often rightly so) of being intellectual snobs and possessed of an air of academic superiority over the lowly, ignorant arminians. The younger set in this resurgence is enamored of Piper and now enamored of the following generation: Driscoll, Chandler, Chan....They are also impressed by the intellectual prowess of Wright and perhaps of Wilson (who is not an academic). There is some fallow ground for these poisonous seeds......and here's the "father-figure" to all these young calvinists fawning all over these heretics.
R. Scott Clark has written very well on the technical, theological aspects of this, far beyond my abilities. I want to give you a brief, summarizing comment from one of his articles:
"Here's a gift and here's what you have to do to keep it" isn't good news for sinners who cannot do "their part," not even with the help of grace. If "grace and cooperation with grace" is such good news, why not skip the FV and simply become Roman Catholic? Honestly? That's been the consistent Roman doctrine since the early middle ages. It's been the official Roman doctrine since the session 6 of the Council of Trent.
"...simply become Roman Catholic".....exactly! That's where this is heading folks....not a surprise if you've ever read the Revelation. A week of so ago, I was reading on a particular point in The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement by Oxenham. Their idea of "infused" righteousness as opposed to "imputed" righteousness fits right into this "conditional justification" heresy. The idea is, basically, that rather than having the Righteousness of Christ put on us as sinners (imputed), we have righteousness put into us (infused) by Him and thereby become righteous in and of ourselves. And now, Wright and Wilson say that in the final judgment we shall learn if we did well enough with that "righteousness" and have earned the reward of eternal life.
And this kind of stuff is coming from "reformed" preachers and being promoted by the leadership of the "reformed" church today. I think I can see the Seven Hills on the horizon.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
UN-REFORMING: THE ROAD BACK TO ROME
First, let me say that I am not only a premillennialist, my eschatology is pretty much standard fundamentalist Baptist stuff which means I see a real possibility of connection between the Church of Rome today and the future world government/church of the Revelation. That might be in the "less-than-dogmatic" column, however.
What's more clear is history. There was a Reformation. Certain dramatic changes transpired as Protestant churches were born out of the move to correct Rome's perversion of Biblical teachings.
Another thing clear, to me at least, is that the Reformation was not complete nor perfect. Many (most?) of those Protestant churches did more to correct doctrinal error than other aspects of Romanism, like liturgy, iconography, other trappings which were to some degree or another carried into the "new" churches.
One would have hoped, had he lived in the 16th century, to see the purification of doctrine continue through the years, getting purer and purer as time went on. I don't think this happened either. It peaked somewhere. Someone with a better grasp of church history might be able to pinpoint a date.....my guess is that the peak of "improvement" was long before 1840......maybe in the mid-1700's.
Since that peak, whenever it occurred, the doctrinal stance of the Protestant churches in general has been on a downhill slide. Consider a few factors: mid-19th century: Finney-ism begins, the German Biblical "higher criticism" begins; early 20th century, American "modernism" begins, led by the Fosdicks and Van Dykes among others. By the mid-20th century, we have the new permutation of Finney-ism promoted by the "fundamentalists" so-called, the decisional regeneration movement from Billy Graham to Jack Hyles.
A reaction to that superficial theology of the late 20th century gave birth to a resurgence of calvinist soteriology, especially in the Baptist world. The idea that God is truly sovereign regained a place of prominence in some circles. From 1990 or so, we have been taught and led by men like Al Mohler, John Piper, John MacArthur, and many others, and this has led to to a renewed appreciation of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, A. W. Pink, the Puritans, and other sources of solid Biblical teaching from the past.
I think another peak has been reached and passed, however, and will elaborate on that thought in Part Two.
What's more clear is history. There was a Reformation. Certain dramatic changes transpired as Protestant churches were born out of the move to correct Rome's perversion of Biblical teachings.
Another thing clear, to me at least, is that the Reformation was not complete nor perfect. Many (most?) of those Protestant churches did more to correct doctrinal error than other aspects of Romanism, like liturgy, iconography, other trappings which were to some degree or another carried into the "new" churches.
One would have hoped, had he lived in the 16th century, to see the purification of doctrine continue through the years, getting purer and purer as time went on. I don't think this happened either. It peaked somewhere. Someone with a better grasp of church history might be able to pinpoint a date.....my guess is that the peak of "improvement" was long before 1840......maybe in the mid-1700's.
Since that peak, whenever it occurred, the doctrinal stance of the Protestant churches in general has been on a downhill slide. Consider a few factors: mid-19th century: Finney-ism begins, the German Biblical "higher criticism" begins; early 20th century, American "modernism" begins, led by the Fosdicks and Van Dykes among others. By the mid-20th century, we have the new permutation of Finney-ism promoted by the "fundamentalists" so-called, the decisional regeneration movement from Billy Graham to Jack Hyles.
A reaction to that superficial theology of the late 20th century gave birth to a resurgence of calvinist soteriology, especially in the Baptist world. The idea that God is truly sovereign regained a place of prominence in some circles. From 1990 or so, we have been taught and led by men like Al Mohler, John Piper, John MacArthur, and many others, and this has led to to a renewed appreciation of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, A. W. Pink, the Puritans, and other sources of solid Biblical teaching from the past.
I think another peak has been reached and passed, however, and will elaborate on that thought in Part Two.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE HONORS AT SBTS....
Recently I blogged about the outrageous expenditure of $$$ for extravagant buildings, etc, at "Christian" colleges and seminaries, with an additional remark or two regarding the SBTS honor afforded Bible-denier and former seminary president Duke McCall. That was prompted by the arrival of that month's issue of the SBTS magazine.
Yesterday, my current issue arrived. Apparently it is designed as fodder for my rants....because this current issue celebrates the 15th anniversary of the "Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism" there on the Louisville campus. Billy Graham!....ain't that wonderful?
Yes, that naming did take place 15+ years ago, but.....even then, I had a pretty good idea where Billy Graham was coming from, so it's hard to believe that Al Mohler, Thom Rainer, et al, were duped like the large majority of churchdom which still views Graham as a reincarnation of the Apostle Paul.
So, two issues, two great bits of man-worship: one guy who as a theologian was a great politician, and one man who made decisional regeneration and ecumenism the American Standard. (I might excuse Mohler and the teaching staff at SBTS somewhat because I know they do not make these decisions. This is the stuff decided by dollars; whoever pays the piper calls the tune. What I rebuke them for is not standing against these "honors" publicly)
Anyway, in the spirit of the moment, I am privileged to announce some future plans for Honors at SBTS. Several other such events are in the works; I am privy to the "inside dope" and am going to give you a peek at these exciting developments right here, and now!
The next three events will honor some well-known public figures who are also Southern Baptist deacons and leaders. Here are the names and the Honor which is forthcoming:
BILL CLINTON: He will have a chair endowed in his honor: The William Jefferson Clinton Chair for Ethical Studies.
AL GORE: SBTS is adding a wing onto the Science Building to be named in Al's honor: The Gore Global Warming Wing.
JIMMY CARTER: Another endowed chair--this one The Jimmy Carter Chair for Studies in International Diplomacy and Terrorist Appeasement
I'm sure you will all agree that those 3 Southern Baptist gentlemen are every bit as deserving as the two previously discussed.
The Powers That Be have also decided, in the spirit of ecumenism, to honor someone from outside the SBC camp. The first recipient of such an honor will be:
ORAL ROBERTS. This pioneer in televangelism and mass-marketing of religion will be honored with a new building on campus:
The Oral Roberts Student Medical Center
(actually, this will not be a large building.....more of a kiosk or gazebo-type structure which contains a portrait of Roberts and an icon or relic, perhaps one of his sweat-stained hankies. Students who are ill can come into the kiosk, into the presence of the portrait, touch the relic, and be healed!)
I'm sure all of you are excited by these prospects as I am....and I'm sure there will be more such Honors down the road--just so the $$$ keep rolling in to support this Kingdom Work.
Yesterday, my current issue arrived. Apparently it is designed as fodder for my rants....because this current issue celebrates the 15th anniversary of the "Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism" there on the Louisville campus. Billy Graham!....ain't that wonderful?
Yes, that naming did take place 15+ years ago, but.....even then, I had a pretty good idea where Billy Graham was coming from, so it's hard to believe that Al Mohler, Thom Rainer, et al, were duped like the large majority of churchdom which still views Graham as a reincarnation of the Apostle Paul.
So, two issues, two great bits of man-worship: one guy who as a theologian was a great politician, and one man who made decisional regeneration and ecumenism the American Standard. (I might excuse Mohler and the teaching staff at SBTS somewhat because I know they do not make these decisions. This is the stuff decided by dollars; whoever pays the piper calls the tune. What I rebuke them for is not standing against these "honors" publicly)
Anyway, in the spirit of the moment, I am privileged to announce some future plans for Honors at SBTS. Several other such events are in the works; I am privy to the "inside dope" and am going to give you a peek at these exciting developments right here, and now!
The next three events will honor some well-known public figures who are also Southern Baptist deacons and leaders. Here are the names and the Honor which is forthcoming:
BILL CLINTON: He will have a chair endowed in his honor: The William Jefferson Clinton Chair for Ethical Studies.
AL GORE: SBTS is adding a wing onto the Science Building to be named in Al's honor: The Gore Global Warming Wing.
JIMMY CARTER: Another endowed chair--this one The Jimmy Carter Chair for Studies in International Diplomacy and Terrorist Appeasement
I'm sure you will all agree that those 3 Southern Baptist gentlemen are every bit as deserving as the two previously discussed.
The Powers That Be have also decided, in the spirit of ecumenism, to honor someone from outside the SBC camp. The first recipient of such an honor will be:
ORAL ROBERTS. This pioneer in televangelism and mass-marketing of religion will be honored with a new building on campus:
The Oral Roberts Student Medical Center
(actually, this will not be a large building.....more of a kiosk or gazebo-type structure which contains a portrait of Roberts and an icon or relic, perhaps one of his sweat-stained hankies. Students who are ill can come into the kiosk, into the presence of the portrait, touch the relic, and be healed!)
I'm sure all of you are excited by these prospects as I am....and I'm sure there will be more such Honors down the road--just so the $$$ keep rolling in to support this Kingdom Work.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
BATTING .333
If I'd ever been good enough to play pro baseball, a .333 average might have been pretty good.....but in this world of picking and recommending doctrinally-sound ministry sites, it ain't too hot.
That's what I did about 2 or 3 months ago when I posted an article here recommending 3 sites I had just discovered.
About a month later, I had to delete one when I found out the main emphasis was the bitterness of the author who used the site for his personal ax-grinding.
Today, I had to delete another one, having learned that the leader of this one is just another "I am not accountable to anyone" ego-driven juvenile. I'm sure there are lots of Godly people involved in that one but fear that they'll not get much guidance from this "pastor"
Sad, but not surprising.
That's what I did about 2 or 3 months ago when I posted an article here recommending 3 sites I had just discovered.
About a month later, I had to delete one when I found out the main emphasis was the bitterness of the author who used the site for his personal ax-grinding.
Today, I had to delete another one, having learned that the leader of this one is just another "I am not accountable to anyone" ego-driven juvenile. I'm sure there are lots of Godly people involved in that one but fear that they'll not get much guidance from this "pastor"
Sad, but not surprising.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE CHURCH
The Church has been under assault in this country for over 100 years--primarily, or initially, by the modernists, the "higher-criticism" crowd, the "Jesus was just a good man" crowd, and so forth. In the past 30 years or so, a new front opened by forces within the Bible-believing church. This front is waged upon the ground of God's sovereignty vs Man's ability. Decisionism and various aspects of pelagianism and semi-pelagian theology are involved on this front.
During the time I've been watching this war, a new front opened and I just about missed it. Maybe it hasn't had much action yet, but I can see major battles forthcoming in this area. In the back of my mind, I've been aware of what I'll call the "Americanization of Christianity"--the conforming of church practice and teaching to the underlying tenants of American cultural fundamentals. Politics and this Americanized Christianity are often melded. Churches have big patriotic services on national holidays, do the pledge of allegiance, feature American flags on the podium, allow politicians to stand in the pulpit, etc.
The American concepts of democracy, freedom, individual liberty, etc, are incorporated into some theologies as fundamentals of the faith. Essentially, men have taken the Biblical Christianity which was born in Eastern culture, in enslaved nations, among enslaved people, and labeled it: Made in U.S.A. In order to pass as genuinely American, however, some changes had to be made! This nation of rugged individualism, self-made men cannot be brought down to the point of submission, humility, and meekness called for in the Christianity of the Bible. Some modification required.
Just today I saw some signs of what might be the beginning of the end for Biblical churches in the United States. Right-wing politics has always been more comfortable in the Bible-preaching world than left-wing politics. The lefties, if claiming Christ at all, tend toward the social-gospel, liberal churches. At least one right-winger, would-be presidential contender, Chuck Baldwin, is touting on his website a new organization of churches.
This is a group called "Black Regiment" churches. (Named after a Revolutionary War situation, apparently. I'm not certain if there is any historical accuracy in that). Baldwin is creating a directory of churches which "will courageously preach and promote the principles of liberty and independence....Men who support and defend the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence."
In all the qualifications for making this directory, the Gospel is not mentioned; the Bible maybe once. What is important to them is the political structure of the nation. Baldwin states that his list has churches which represent a wide divergence in theology, but he leaves that to us to "discern"......Never mind they're heretics, boys; they're on Our Side!
The really scary part of this to me is that I can see it being very popular. I've written before about church members who have their worldview shaped and influenced by Fox News, etc, rather than by the Word of God. Those folks will fall right into this mess. Churches led by men whose grasp of the Bible is weak and shallow, by men who can more easily play on the emotions of patriotism and nationalism, than preach with power in the Spirit of God, will thrive in this environment, especially during these days when we are seeing the destructive effects of left-wing government for the first time, up close and personal. It will be very easy for men to be swayed into answering the siren call of political activism, nationalism, even revolution, rather than resting in the promises given by a Sovereign God in His Word.
Churches in this movement will abandon the Gospel, if they have not already done so. The political icons will be seen as equal to or greater than the Word of God (if they are not already so seen). Men will follow the politicians with the loudest voices and most appealing agenda.....and they will be led down this path of destruction by "pastors" in such movements as this.
During the time I've been watching this war, a new front opened and I just about missed it. Maybe it hasn't had much action yet, but I can see major battles forthcoming in this area. In the back of my mind, I've been aware of what I'll call the "Americanization of Christianity"--the conforming of church practice and teaching to the underlying tenants of American cultural fundamentals. Politics and this Americanized Christianity are often melded. Churches have big patriotic services on national holidays, do the pledge of allegiance, feature American flags on the podium, allow politicians to stand in the pulpit, etc.
The American concepts of democracy, freedom, individual liberty, etc, are incorporated into some theologies as fundamentals of the faith. Essentially, men have taken the Biblical Christianity which was born in Eastern culture, in enslaved nations, among enslaved people, and labeled it: Made in U.S.A. In order to pass as genuinely American, however, some changes had to be made! This nation of rugged individualism, self-made men cannot be brought down to the point of submission, humility, and meekness called for in the Christianity of the Bible. Some modification required.
Just today I saw some signs of what might be the beginning of the end for Biblical churches in the United States. Right-wing politics has always been more comfortable in the Bible-preaching world than left-wing politics. The lefties, if claiming Christ at all, tend toward the social-gospel, liberal churches. At least one right-winger, would-be presidential contender, Chuck Baldwin, is touting on his website a new organization of churches.
This is a group called "Black Regiment" churches. (Named after a Revolutionary War situation, apparently. I'm not certain if there is any historical accuracy in that). Baldwin is creating a directory of churches which "will courageously preach and promote the principles of liberty and independence....Men who support and defend the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence."
In all the qualifications for making this directory, the Gospel is not mentioned; the Bible maybe once. What is important to them is the political structure of the nation. Baldwin states that his list has churches which represent a wide divergence in theology, but he leaves that to us to "discern"......Never mind they're heretics, boys; they're on Our Side!
The really scary part of this to me is that I can see it being very popular. I've written before about church members who have their worldview shaped and influenced by Fox News, etc, rather than by the Word of God. Those folks will fall right into this mess. Churches led by men whose grasp of the Bible is weak and shallow, by men who can more easily play on the emotions of patriotism and nationalism, than preach with power in the Spirit of God, will thrive in this environment, especially during these days when we are seeing the destructive effects of left-wing government for the first time, up close and personal. It will be very easy for men to be swayed into answering the siren call of political activism, nationalism, even revolution, rather than resting in the promises given by a Sovereign God in His Word.
Churches in this movement will abandon the Gospel, if they have not already done so. The political icons will be seen as equal to or greater than the Word of God (if they are not already so seen). Men will follow the politicians with the loudest voices and most appealing agenda.....and they will be led down this path of destruction by "pastors" in such movements as this.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"JOHN MACARTHUR IS NOT SAVED" (The Accuser)
Based on an interview in which MacArthur cannot pinpoint the exact date and circumstances of his conversion, a handful of internet "preachers" are now pronouncing him "unsaved." I've not seen the interview and am not focused on it at this moment.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A LITTLE LEAVEN......
A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
(Gal 5:9)
Good ministries are being undermined. Not new, not a surprise, but still disturbing. First let me say what I mean by "good ministries" I'm talking about churches and other ministries which adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, are evangelistic, own the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, and hold to the doctrines of Grace, eschewing decisional regeneration and works-based salvation.
The other "ministries"--those compromised by the church-growth movement, entertainment theology, and living their best life now--when they go further astray, I'm not much bothered. It's seeing churches where I've always thought: That's my kind of church/preacher/ministry--seeing them polluted by the leaven of this world's perversion of Christianity--that's disturbing, saddening, and maddening.
Recently I've blogged a bit about seeing the "Prosperity Gospel" making inroads into "good ministries" There's so much of this stuff being peddled on TV and in the Lifeway Stores that the infection finally has been transmitted to formerly-sound Baptists, I guess. And, I suspect part of the reason is that Success Sells. Everybody wants to get a piece of the pie....
Now, I find a new virus infecting another "good ministry"--not really "new" but new with respect to its appearance in the part of the world where I live. Someone wrote me the other day and asked what I knew about Neil Anderson. Well, I'd never heard of him. I've managed pretty successfully to miss all the trendy "new idea" theologies for the past 30 years or so. They come and go without appearing on my radar. I'm still reading stuff written in 300-400 A.D.
Neil Anderson is a demon-hunter. He sees Satan everywhere. He is more impressed with Satan's power than with Christ's from what I can see. I'm not going to repeat a lot of what I've read since hearing the name, but here's a good place to get some background:
http://www.withchrist.org/MJS/neil_anderson2.htm
Anyway, that called my attention to the leader of a "good ministry"--one I am (was) very much supportive of, impressed by, blessed by, etc, this leader quoting Anderson and touting his specious theology of demonology. The Anderson "method" includes believers having to repent for their ancestors' sins of idolatry since they are, because of the ancestors, under the "curse of God."
I have to ask: What are these people thinking? Do they not recall certain admonitions about forsaking Grace and returning to the bondage of the Law? Have they forgotten the "Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin"?
From that website I noted above:
These demonization ministries are Satan-centered, with Christ brought in to save the situation. If they were Christ-centered they would seek to minister the two aspects of the Christian life: death to sin (the old man, the law, the world, and Satan), and Christ as Life, with the Christian life hidden with Christ in God. Romans. 5-7 comes before Romans 8. All ascended life is predicated upon death. The believer is to be taught to count himself dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:11).
Both these sets of error--prosperity gospel and the demon business--were born (or revived) in the Charismatic movement; they thrive in the Charismatic movement. Seeing them make inroads into formerly-sound, non-charismatic churches and ministries is frightening. It's another step down the road to the final apostasy. Biblically sound churches have been few and far between for the past 30 years in my personal experience, and obviously will become more scarce as time goes on.
It is imperative that we take a stand for the Truth. The cost is going to be increasingly high. Are we prepared to pay?...or will we allow just a bit of leaven for comfort's sake?
(Gal 5:9)
Good ministries are being undermined. Not new, not a surprise, but still disturbing. First let me say what I mean by "good ministries" I'm talking about churches and other ministries which adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, are evangelistic, own the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, and hold to the doctrines of Grace, eschewing decisional regeneration and works-based salvation.
The other "ministries"--those compromised by the church-growth movement, entertainment theology, and living their best life now--when they go further astray, I'm not much bothered. It's seeing churches where I've always thought: That's my kind of church/preacher/ministry--seeing them polluted by the leaven of this world's perversion of Christianity--that's disturbing, saddening, and maddening.
Recently I've blogged a bit about seeing the "Prosperity Gospel" making inroads into "good ministries" There's so much of this stuff being peddled on TV and in the Lifeway Stores that the infection finally has been transmitted to formerly-sound Baptists, I guess. And, I suspect part of the reason is that Success Sells. Everybody wants to get a piece of the pie....
Now, I find a new virus infecting another "good ministry"--not really "new" but new with respect to its appearance in the part of the world where I live. Someone wrote me the other day and asked what I knew about Neil Anderson. Well, I'd never heard of him. I've managed pretty successfully to miss all the trendy "new idea" theologies for the past 30 years or so. They come and go without appearing on my radar. I'm still reading stuff written in 300-400 A.D.
Neil Anderson is a demon-hunter. He sees Satan everywhere. He is more impressed with Satan's power than with Christ's from what I can see. I'm not going to repeat a lot of what I've read since hearing the name, but here's a good place to get some background:
http://www.withchrist.org/MJS/neil_anderson2.htm
Anyway, that called my attention to the leader of a "good ministry"--one I am (was) very much supportive of, impressed by, blessed by, etc, this leader quoting Anderson and touting his specious theology of demonology. The Anderson "method" includes believers having to repent for their ancestors' sins of idolatry since they are, because of the ancestors, under the "curse of God."
I have to ask: What are these people thinking? Do they not recall certain admonitions about forsaking Grace and returning to the bondage of the Law? Have they forgotten the "Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin"?
From that website I noted above:
These demonization ministries are Satan-centered, with Christ brought in to save the situation. If they were Christ-centered they would seek to minister the two aspects of the Christian life: death to sin (the old man, the law, the world, and Satan), and Christ as Life, with the Christian life hidden with Christ in God. Romans. 5-7 comes before Romans 8. All ascended life is predicated upon death. The believer is to be taught to count himself dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:11).
Both these sets of error--prosperity gospel and the demon business--were born (or revived) in the Charismatic movement; they thrive in the Charismatic movement. Seeing them make inroads into formerly-sound, non-charismatic churches and ministries is frightening. It's another step down the road to the final apostasy. Biblically sound churches have been few and far between for the past 30 years in my personal experience, and obviously will become more scarce as time goes on.
It is imperative that we take a stand for the Truth. The cost is going to be increasingly high. Are we prepared to pay?...or will we allow just a bit of leaven for comfort's sake?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
PHYSICAL HEALING IN THE ATONEMENT?
James K. A. Smith teaches philosophy at Calvin College and is the author of a book, Thinking in Tongues: Elements of a Pentecostal Worldview which will be published next year. In a recent article in Christianity Today, he wrote of his theological position, that of a calvinist pentecostal. It's an interesting article; I think he's probably a nice fellow, and I have no reason to doubt his salvation. Most of what he wrote simply did not resonate with me, but that's cool--much of it is experiential stuff anyway. He did make some theological statements, too--one of which is so blatantly wrong, I am compelled to write about it.
"First, Pentecostals believe in healing--and they don't mean only "spiritual" healing. They think physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished. God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body. The Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment."
That is just so outrageous in so many ways, I hardly know how to begin.
1.) Non-pentecostals believe in healing also. Anyone who has ever gotten over an illness or recovered from an injury has been healed.....healed by God. God is the only source of healing. God also uses means. Not all His healing is delivered by direct intervention in some openly "miraculous" way (though all healing is indeed miraculous). God has provided, in His grace, doctors, medicines, and all that accompanies them.
2.) Mr Smith implicitly equates physical healing with spiritual healing so let's carry on the thought about means. Just as physical healing is accomplished by Him through means, He uses means to spread the Gospel of salvation: men, preaching the Word to every creature. God could have, in His sovereignty, intervened directly with the Good News. All men could have gotten the Word by some direct communication, just as God could heal any and all sickness by direct action. That is not the manner in which He has chosen to work out His plan.
3.) "Physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished" Yes..........and No.........that is, No, not now. We all know ISA 53:4: with His stripes we are healed. This is the key verse for the "Healing in the Atonement" advocates. I am yet to be convinced that it refers to physical healing at all, though obviously all believers will experience an eternal "healing" when we are glorified. So, for this discussion, I will allow that it refers to physical healing as well as the very obvious spiritual healing.
First of all, then, healing for whom? Mr Smith is a calvinist and thus should know that the work on the Cross is efficacious only for the elect. So, there is no physical healing for the non-elect? But lost people get healed all the time, as an aspect of God's common grace.
And, the main question: healing when? If healing is "in the Atonement" then we believers should never be sick! Oh, wait.....some pentecostals make that healing dependent upon how much "faith" one has. Now, Mr Smith did not fall into that pit, but by staying out of it, he still must answer: If, like salvation of our souls, physical healing is a "benefit" of Christ's work on the Cross, then that healing should be ours, unqualifiedly, as the elect of God, as His children chosen before the foundation of the world.
If healing is in the Atonement, how can we explain Paul's ongoing infirmities? How do we explain: Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
(2Ti 4:20)
Why did the Apostles die? They had the power to heal the sick and to raise the dead! (Matt 10)
4.) As I said, I am convinced that the healing referred to in Isaiah is specifically "spiritual" healing from the sickness of sin. Let's consider two passages of Scripture:
Peter quoted Isa 53 in one of his epistles--writing to believers, he said: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pet 2:24)
Note the past tense. In verse 21, he wrote "Christ also suffered for us....."........PAST TENSE......Done. Finished.
Christ suffered for us.
By His stripes we WERE healed.
Obviously, this does not refer to my arthritis from which I have not been healed. It is decidedly a reference to the sin-sickness of those to whom Peter wrote, and it is a reference to the sin-sickness of all those who have been born again by the Spirit of God, had their sins forgiven, been made new creations in Jesus Christ. We WERE healed.
5.) A final word on ultimate healing. There's no doubt about eventual glorification for believers. Romans 8:30
That this final phase of our salvation, following justification and sanctification, is a product of Christ's work on the Cross is undeniable. And, it's plain from Scripture that it is not something which happens in this sin-corrupted body. We must be changed. We are temporarily bound to a death-doomed, sin-weakened body. It's end is certain: death and the grave. But.......death was defeated on the Cross, right? Yes!
"Christ has broken the power of Satan, who held the power of death (Heb 2:14), at the Cross. But Satan will not be permanently divested of his weapon of death until the end of the Millennium. " John MacArthur
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
(1Cor 15:26)
6.) "God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body" At first glance, it seems risky to contradict that statement. You want to say that God does not care about your body? But what Mr Smith is doing here, by accident or design I'm not sure, is equating spiritual salvation and physical healing--making them equals. I want to state unequivocal disagreement with that notion. God did not send his only begotten Son to die on that cross with a view to redeeming our corrupt bodies. Those bodies are temporal things of His creation. All His creation is perverted and corrupted by sin. He sent His Son to redeem us from sin and the ultimate redemption of all His creation comes with that, but these bodies are going to be changed, changed into glorious bodies like unto His. The work of Christ in redemption was not a job of patching up damaged goods. When a man is born again by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, he is a New Creation, not a repaired sinner. When God heals our temporal body, it is just that: a temporary repair done to something which is doomed to the grave, now or later, it's going there. The two works are by no means equal. God's concern cannot be considered equal between the salvation of the souls of His elect and the temporary delaying of an inevitable physical death.
7.) "Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment." OK, my first thought here is: What on earth is "affirmation of the goodness of embodiment"? "Affirmation" and "embodiment" must be a couple of the latest buzz-words in neo-evangelicalism. I do hear the "affirmation" word now and then in my circles (and think maybe I've fallen into using it myself once or twice). To me, it means: I did X and the next day Y happened giving me affirmation that God was in it. True affirmation from God comes via the witness of the Spirit and the Word of God, not from fleshly rationalizations or coincidences.
Anyway, what is this he has affirmation of?--"the goodness of embodiment"..........I re-read the article hoping to find that he had defined that jewel of an expression and, sure enough, here it is:
"An important piece of that affirmation is the goodness of embodiment--the goodness of the stuff we bump into, the bodies we inhabit."
Got it now? Me, neither......But it's born out of his view that Reformed theology has a strong appreciation for the "goodness" of God's creation, the material universe. And, since our bodies are part of that Creation, we should see and enjoy the "goodness" of them.
First of all, I've never seen much emphasis in Reformed writing or preaching about the "goodness" of the material universe in the way Mr Smith sees it. Subject to correction, I do not think he is echoing the Psalmist who wrote:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psa 19:1)
Mr Smith seems to be overlooking the fact that all God's once "good" Creation is now under a curse. The once eternal bodies of Adam and Eve are now cursed by the effects of sin and ultimately, death. What was once "good" "very good" and indeed perfect, has become corrupt, defiled, twisted, and defeated by sin.
That Fall is what necessitated the work of our Redeemer. Not only does man need to be redeemed from the curse of sin and death, but all God's Creation:
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
(Rom 8:21-22)
CONCLUSION:
The danger of this emphasis on physical healing and the "goodness" of the material universe lies in overlooking the great cost of sin and its effect on man and the rest of God's creation. If this material universe is "good" well, maybe man isn't so bad, either. We just need to appreciate ourselves more, seek out that notorious "spark of goodness" which lies buried in every heart (!) It's a short step from this kind of thinking to a watered-down gospel which is not the Gospel.
"First, Pentecostals believe in healing--and they don't mean only "spiritual" healing. They think physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished. God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body. The Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment."
That is just so outrageous in so many ways, I hardly know how to begin.
1.) Non-pentecostals believe in healing also. Anyone who has ever gotten over an illness or recovered from an injury has been healed.....healed by God. God is the only source of healing. God also uses means. Not all His healing is delivered by direct intervention in some openly "miraculous" way (though all healing is indeed miraculous). God has provided, in His grace, doctors, medicines, and all that accompanies them.
2.) Mr Smith implicitly equates physical healing with spiritual healing so let's carry on the thought about means. Just as physical healing is accomplished by Him through means, He uses means to spread the Gospel of salvation: men, preaching the Word to every creature. God could have, in His sovereignty, intervened directly with the Good News. All men could have gotten the Word by some direct communication, just as God could heal any and all sickness by direct action. That is not the manner in which He has chosen to work out His plan.
3.) "Physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished" Yes..........and No.........that is, No, not now. We all know ISA 53:4: with His stripes we are healed. This is the key verse for the "Healing in the Atonement" advocates. I am yet to be convinced that it refers to physical healing at all, though obviously all believers will experience an eternal "healing" when we are glorified. So, for this discussion, I will allow that it refers to physical healing as well as the very obvious spiritual healing.
First of all, then, healing for whom? Mr Smith is a calvinist and thus should know that the work on the Cross is efficacious only for the elect. So, there is no physical healing for the non-elect? But lost people get healed all the time, as an aspect of God's common grace.
And, the main question: healing when? If healing is "in the Atonement" then we believers should never be sick! Oh, wait.....some pentecostals make that healing dependent upon how much "faith" one has. Now, Mr Smith did not fall into that pit, but by staying out of it, he still must answer: If, like salvation of our souls, physical healing is a "benefit" of Christ's work on the Cross, then that healing should be ours, unqualifiedly, as the elect of God, as His children chosen before the foundation of the world.
If healing is in the Atonement, how can we explain Paul's ongoing infirmities? How do we explain: Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
(2Ti 4:20)
Why did the Apostles die? They had the power to heal the sick and to raise the dead! (Matt 10)
4.) As I said, I am convinced that the healing referred to in Isaiah is specifically "spiritual" healing from the sickness of sin. Let's consider two passages of Scripture:
Peter quoted Isa 53 in one of his epistles--writing to believers, he said: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pet 2:24)
Note the past tense. In verse 21, he wrote "Christ also suffered for us....."........PAST TENSE......Done. Finished.
Christ suffered for us.
By His stripes we WERE healed.
Obviously, this does not refer to my arthritis from which I have not been healed. It is decidedly a reference to the sin-sickness of those to whom Peter wrote, and it is a reference to the sin-sickness of all those who have been born again by the Spirit of God, had their sins forgiven, been made new creations in Jesus Christ. We WERE healed.
5.) A final word on ultimate healing. There's no doubt about eventual glorification for believers. Romans 8:30
That this final phase of our salvation, following justification and sanctification, is a product of Christ's work on the Cross is undeniable. And, it's plain from Scripture that it is not something which happens in this sin-corrupted body. We must be changed. We are temporarily bound to a death-doomed, sin-weakened body. It's end is certain: death and the grave. But.......death was defeated on the Cross, right? Yes!
"Christ has broken the power of Satan, who held the power of death (Heb 2:14), at the Cross. But Satan will not be permanently divested of his weapon of death until the end of the Millennium. " John MacArthur
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
(1Cor 15:26)
6.) "God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body" At first glance, it seems risky to contradict that statement. You want to say that God does not care about your body? But what Mr Smith is doing here, by accident or design I'm not sure, is equating spiritual salvation and physical healing--making them equals. I want to state unequivocal disagreement with that notion. God did not send his only begotten Son to die on that cross with a view to redeeming our corrupt bodies. Those bodies are temporal things of His creation. All His creation is perverted and corrupted by sin. He sent His Son to redeem us from sin and the ultimate redemption of all His creation comes with that, but these bodies are going to be changed, changed into glorious bodies like unto His. The work of Christ in redemption was not a job of patching up damaged goods. When a man is born again by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, he is a New Creation, not a repaired sinner. When God heals our temporal body, it is just that: a temporary repair done to something which is doomed to the grave, now or later, it's going there. The two works are by no means equal. God's concern cannot be considered equal between the salvation of the souls of His elect and the temporary delaying of an inevitable physical death.
7.) "Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment." OK, my first thought here is: What on earth is "affirmation of the goodness of embodiment"? "Affirmation" and "embodiment" must be a couple of the latest buzz-words in neo-evangelicalism. I do hear the "affirmation" word now and then in my circles (and think maybe I've fallen into using it myself once or twice). To me, it means: I did X and the next day Y happened giving me affirmation that God was in it. True affirmation from God comes via the witness of the Spirit and the Word of God, not from fleshly rationalizations or coincidences.
Anyway, what is this he has affirmation of?--"the goodness of embodiment"..........I re-read the article hoping to find that he had defined that jewel of an expression and, sure enough, here it is:
"An important piece of that affirmation is the goodness of embodiment--the goodness of the stuff we bump into, the bodies we inhabit."
Got it now? Me, neither......But it's born out of his view that Reformed theology has a strong appreciation for the "goodness" of God's creation, the material universe. And, since our bodies are part of that Creation, we should see and enjoy the "goodness" of them.
First of all, I've never seen much emphasis in Reformed writing or preaching about the "goodness" of the material universe in the way Mr Smith sees it. Subject to correction, I do not think he is echoing the Psalmist who wrote:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psa 19:1)
Mr Smith seems to be overlooking the fact that all God's once "good" Creation is now under a curse. The once eternal bodies of Adam and Eve are now cursed by the effects of sin and ultimately, death. What was once "good" "very good" and indeed perfect, has become corrupt, defiled, twisted, and defeated by sin.
That Fall is what necessitated the work of our Redeemer. Not only does man need to be redeemed from the curse of sin and death, but all God's Creation:
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
(Rom 8:21-22)
CONCLUSION:
The danger of this emphasis on physical healing and the "goodness" of the material universe lies in overlooking the great cost of sin and its effect on man and the rest of God's creation. If this material universe is "good" well, maybe man isn't so bad, either. We just need to appreciate ourselves more, seek out that notorious "spark of goodness" which lies buried in every heart (!) It's a short step from this kind of thinking to a watered-down gospel which is not the Gospel.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Dispensationalism's Loosening Grip.....
When God saved me in 1976, I immediately began attending church with the men who had been faithfully witnessing Christ to me for the preceding year or so. It was not only a "King James Only" church but one where many of the members carried and read the same edition of an Oxford Press Scofield Reference Bible.....the so-called "old Scofield" to distinguish it from the 1960-ish "New Scofield" which had updated some of the archaic language in the King James (a real no-no in the KJO world). This Bible was so popularly used that the preacher could say "Turn to page 1114" and we'd all be looking at John 1.
My point is that I was "raised" a Scofield-type dispensationalist. I left Scofield behind some time ago but have continued to consider myself a dispy, especially in the negative sense--that is to say: I am NOT a follower of "covenant theology" Though I long ago abandoned ideas like "God saved men in different ways in different dispensations" I have continued, rather thoughtlessly I'm afraid, to follow dispensationalism in general. As I examine my somewhat unquestioning allegiance to this position, it seems that much of the motivation is my continued rejection of the alternative (or what I view as the alternative): Covenant Theology.
I admit up front, because it will be obvious soon enough, that I am no authority on Covenant Theology. I am just beginning to study it carefully. The initial stumbling block to me is infant baptism. My understanding is that covenant theology teaches that infant baptism is the New Testament (or Church Age) equivalent to circumcision. Sorry folks, there is NO scripture to back that up--not in my Bible anyway. Baptism is for believers...period.
Further, I am under the impression, subject to correction, that covenant theology leads to Amillennialism. That view of eschatology requires one to spiritualize much of OT prophecy. Can't do it......the Word of God stipulates a 1000-year reign of Christ on this Earth and I'm lookin' for it! Tied in with that is a denial of the literal restoration of Israel, the idea that the Church is Israel and all the promises, spiritual and earthly, given to Israel may be claimed by the Church. All this requires suspension of belief in the literal truth of the Word and the substitution of man's spiritualized interpretation.
So, when I look at the leading proponents of Dispensationalism, like Scofield and Ryrie, and see their errors--like the "different means for different dispensations" of Scofield and the idea of the Cross being "Plan B" I don't want to be too strongly identified as a Dispy, any more than I want to be identified with a bunch of baby sprinklers. This Scofield idea of the Church Age being a "parenthesis" in the plan of God is becoming repugnant to me. I've not read Ryrie thoroughly but will take a chance and relate what Dr Alan Cairns states as Ryrie's position (knowing that Cairns is strongly anti-dispensational and might have exaggerated this): Ryrie has carried the "parenthesis" idea even further. In a sentence, parenthetical remarks have relationship to the words before and after the parentheses. Ryrie says that the Cross and the ensuing Church Age are not parenthetical, but that they are an intercalation --that means the parenthetical words have no relationship whatsoever to the other words in the sentence, either before or after the parentheses. Ryrie is saying that the Cross and the Church have no relationship to the Old Testament economy, nor to the future Kingdom....that it is a totally separate and stand-alone event or phenomenon. All I can do is hope I've misunderstood that......if that's true, what is the Book of Hebrews doing in the Bible?
more later..........I welcome your views and am open to correction--just provide the Scripture with your thoughts.
My point is that I was "raised" a Scofield-type dispensationalist. I left Scofield behind some time ago but have continued to consider myself a dispy, especially in the negative sense--that is to say: I am NOT a follower of "covenant theology" Though I long ago abandoned ideas like "God saved men in different ways in different dispensations" I have continued, rather thoughtlessly I'm afraid, to follow dispensationalism in general. As I examine my somewhat unquestioning allegiance to this position, it seems that much of the motivation is my continued rejection of the alternative (or what I view as the alternative): Covenant Theology.
I admit up front, because it will be obvious soon enough, that I am no authority on Covenant Theology. I am just beginning to study it carefully. The initial stumbling block to me is infant baptism. My understanding is that covenant theology teaches that infant baptism is the New Testament (or Church Age) equivalent to circumcision. Sorry folks, there is NO scripture to back that up--not in my Bible anyway. Baptism is for believers...period.
Further, I am under the impression, subject to correction, that covenant theology leads to Amillennialism. That view of eschatology requires one to spiritualize much of OT prophecy. Can't do it......the Word of God stipulates a 1000-year reign of Christ on this Earth and I'm lookin' for it! Tied in with that is a denial of the literal restoration of Israel, the idea that the Church is Israel and all the promises, spiritual and earthly, given to Israel may be claimed by the Church. All this requires suspension of belief in the literal truth of the Word and the substitution of man's spiritualized interpretation.
So, when I look at the leading proponents of Dispensationalism, like Scofield and Ryrie, and see their errors--like the "different means for different dispensations" of Scofield and the idea of the Cross being "Plan B" I don't want to be too strongly identified as a Dispy, any more than I want to be identified with a bunch of baby sprinklers. This Scofield idea of the Church Age being a "parenthesis" in the plan of God is becoming repugnant to me. I've not read Ryrie thoroughly but will take a chance and relate what Dr Alan Cairns states as Ryrie's position (knowing that Cairns is strongly anti-dispensational and might have exaggerated this): Ryrie has carried the "parenthesis" idea even further. In a sentence, parenthetical remarks have relationship to the words before and after the parentheses. Ryrie says that the Cross and the ensuing Church Age are not parenthetical, but that they are an intercalation --that means the parenthetical words have no relationship whatsoever to the other words in the sentence, either before or after the parentheses. Ryrie is saying that the Cross and the Church have no relationship to the Old Testament economy, nor to the future Kingdom....that it is a totally separate and stand-alone event or phenomenon. All I can do is hope I've misunderstood that......if that's true, what is the Book of Hebrews doing in the Bible?
more later..........I welcome your views and am open to correction--just provide the Scripture with your thoughts.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Sad Stories...part 2
That day he told me about the so-called "preacher of the gospel" who held him up to scorn because of his "improper baptism" I got some insight into Brother G's heart. When he told me his story, I was furious! That some perverter of Truth would deliberately ridicule a young believer like that is just unthinkable. As I counseled with him in that office, my own emotions overcame me and I choked up in my efforts to comfort and reassure him. I stopped talking and rested my arms on the desk, taking a moment to regain my composure. Brother G reached over and patted me on the arm, the patient comforting the doctor! That would have been quite a sight to an outsider....seeing this former gangsta affectionately responding to his brother in Christ.
But our contacts continued to decrease. I would ask about him every week and the inmate leader of our group would report that Brother G was around but not fellowshipping with them. At one point, I heard that he was being sought out by members of his former gang and that he was perhaps associating with them again. Another time, or more than once, I heard that he was fellowshipping with some of the Muslim inmates. Following that story, I heard that he had denounced the Bible as "only partly true" and one man reported that Brother G had told him: "God told me to not believe all the Bible, just certain parts"
Now prisons are great breeding grounds for rumors, just as in the military you never believe more than 10% of what you hear. After the rumors of his apostasy reached me, I searched him out again and tried to pin him down. In response to my direct questions about his faith, his behavior and his attitudes, he assured me he was "good" and continuing his own study of the Word, sticking to himself as had been his pattern for several months.
Then, a couple weeks ago, we learned that he had been moved to another part of the prison. The unit he was in, where we have weekly services, is a minimum security section where only the "best behaved" inmates live. They must maintain certain stardards of behavior or they will be moved to higher security areas where they will enjoy less freedom and fewer privileges. Brother G had been moved back to the main compound, a medium security unit. It took me another week to find out why that had happened. One of the officers with whom we have dealt for over two years and who has been very helpful in many ways told me that Brother G was a "check in" (Prison life has its own language......I didn't know that phrase when I first heard it) That means he had deliberately done something to get himself moved out of the unit. Men get in trouble with the gangs, get in debt, get into some conflict where they are (or think they are) in danger, so they do enough trouble-making to get enough write-ups so that they get moved. These cases are obvious to the officials: an inmate (like Bro G) who never is any problem suddenly starts trouble, seeking write-ups. It doesn't take much, not what we would think of as "serious trouble"....carrying food out of the chow hall, sassing an officer, violation of any of the myriad rules.......and pretty quickly, you're gone.
So, maybe there was some basis for the rumors of his dealing with his old gang; maybe he got in debt to them and couldn't pay; maybe this, maybe that. And then, the optimist in me thinks: Maybe he realized that he was in danger of straying from his faith, that he was being tempted by the Muslim influence or the gang influence, or some other influence that I have no idea about, and he acted in the only way he could find to remove himself from that which was causing him to sin. It is just not possible for me to view Brother G as apostate, despite the rumors. Part of this, I admit, is the difficulty I would have in admitting that I was so wrong in being so convinced of the genuineness of his conversion. My co-workers and I often cited him as an example of the "real thing". But the Biblical evidences of the New Birth are stated and he demonstrated so much evidence that lined up with Scripture that I am still convinced that he is a child of God. I'm hoping to see him soon. We are starting a monthly service in that main compound in November and I plan to write to him and invite him to come to the meeting. In the interim, I am praying that God will continue to deal with Brother G, convicting him of sin and guiding him in his study of the Word. I hope readers of this blog will pray for him as well.
But our contacts continued to decrease. I would ask about him every week and the inmate leader of our group would report that Brother G was around but not fellowshipping with them. At one point, I heard that he was being sought out by members of his former gang and that he was perhaps associating with them again. Another time, or more than once, I heard that he was fellowshipping with some of the Muslim inmates. Following that story, I heard that he had denounced the Bible as "only partly true" and one man reported that Brother G had told him: "God told me to not believe all the Bible, just certain parts"
Now prisons are great breeding grounds for rumors, just as in the military you never believe more than 10% of what you hear. After the rumors of his apostasy reached me, I searched him out again and tried to pin him down. In response to my direct questions about his faith, his behavior and his attitudes, he assured me he was "good" and continuing his own study of the Word, sticking to himself as had been his pattern for several months.
Then, a couple weeks ago, we learned that he had been moved to another part of the prison. The unit he was in, where we have weekly services, is a minimum security section where only the "best behaved" inmates live. They must maintain certain stardards of behavior or they will be moved to higher security areas where they will enjoy less freedom and fewer privileges. Brother G had been moved back to the main compound, a medium security unit. It took me another week to find out why that had happened. One of the officers with whom we have dealt for over two years and who has been very helpful in many ways told me that Brother G was a "check in" (Prison life has its own language......I didn't know that phrase when I first heard it) That means he had deliberately done something to get himself moved out of the unit. Men get in trouble with the gangs, get in debt, get into some conflict where they are (or think they are) in danger, so they do enough trouble-making to get enough write-ups so that they get moved. These cases are obvious to the officials: an inmate (like Bro G) who never is any problem suddenly starts trouble, seeking write-ups. It doesn't take much, not what we would think of as "serious trouble"....carrying food out of the chow hall, sassing an officer, violation of any of the myriad rules.......and pretty quickly, you're gone.
So, maybe there was some basis for the rumors of his dealing with his old gang; maybe he got in debt to them and couldn't pay; maybe this, maybe that. And then, the optimist in me thinks: Maybe he realized that he was in danger of straying from his faith, that he was being tempted by the Muslim influence or the gang influence, or some other influence that I have no idea about, and he acted in the only way he could find to remove himself from that which was causing him to sin. It is just not possible for me to view Brother G as apostate, despite the rumors. Part of this, I admit, is the difficulty I would have in admitting that I was so wrong in being so convinced of the genuineness of his conversion. My co-workers and I often cited him as an example of the "real thing". But the Biblical evidences of the New Birth are stated and he demonstrated so much evidence that lined up with Scripture that I am still convinced that he is a child of God. I'm hoping to see him soon. We are starting a monthly service in that main compound in November and I plan to write to him and invite him to come to the meeting. In the interim, I am praying that God will continue to deal with Brother G, convicting him of sin and guiding him in his study of the Word. I hope readers of this blog will pray for him as well.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Sad Stories--part 1
Prison ministry is no mean source of sad stories. Young men with lives shattered by sin--drugs, alcohol, lying, stealing, sexual perversions, etc. Old men with lives shattered by sin, thirty, forty years later, still paying the terrible cost extracted by the sins of their youth.....
It's also a place filled with great stories of God's redeeming love, of His power to change lives and to make new creations of fallen men. What a blessing it is to fellowship with our brothers who have been snatched as brands from the burning and washed in the Blood of the Lamb of God!
Last summer, I thought I had come across an inspiring example of this New Life in Christ in an inmate I'll call Brother G. In the middle of the week, I had gone into a minimum security unit where we hold weekly services (starting our 3rd year next month) and some of our "congregation" came up with an air of excitement to introduce a new resident in their unit: Brother G, a 40-ish black man with gang tattoos creeping out from under his t-shirt, up onto his neck, cheeks, even his forehead.
He proved to be a soft-spoken, humble fellow, with a mild speech impediment and an apparent love for Christ and His Word. He told me that he had seen me with the chaplain in the high security unit just the day before and could not wait to get involved in worship services in his new unit. And so he did, attending regularly our services and some of the others during the week, actively participating in testimony times and singing hymns of praise.
All his conversation was about our Lord; his Bible was nearly worn out and almost every verse was underlined or highlighted. He was always full of questions and seeking deeper understanding of God's Word. He'd not been raised in church and had no background at all regarding Christianity. All he knew was what he read in his Bible. He told me he'd been saved in July 2006, so he was a very young believer.
One story will illustrate his level of understanding scripture. We're usually seated just inside the door of the chapel as the men come in for our services. Most of them shake hands with us as they walk by. Brother G would come in, shake hands with the men who were seated ahead of me, shake my hand, then go to his pew, bypassing my wife. One night he asked her if he was doing the right thing, not shaking her hand. It didn't seem right to him but, he said, his Bible said that he should not touch a woman. So, we had a talk about that and he was much relieved to find that it was permissible for him to shake hands with a woman!
We were able to give him a good study Bible (MacArthur) and he reported that he was spending hours in it each day. He was a slow reader, a struggling reader, but he worked hard. Despite his hesitation because of the speech impediment, he would participate in the scripture readings and public prayer during the services.
In the Spring of this year, he began missing some of our services. I knew that he had had some conflicts with some other professing Christians as he was wont to confront them about inconsistencies in their lifestyle, pointing out that their behavior was not in line with the Word. Prisons are, just like the "free world," a place of "haves" and "have nots"--some inmates have money and some are penniless. Some have jobs (scarce in some prisons) and get $35-75/monthly; some have families which send them money; and some, like Brother G, have nothing. The state supplies essentials like toothpaste but the "wealthy" inmates have bi-monthly commissary purchases laden with canned drinks, tuna fish, Ramen noodles, and other delicacies.
Brother G, as I've said, knew only what the Bible says about the Church. He made the mistake of reading Acts 2 and taking it literally. He had the idea that the brethren who had should share with those who had not, liberally and joyfully. So, there were conflicts there, and disappointments.
When I saw him and asked about his absences and asked if he was going to other services, his usual reply was that he just holed up in his cell and read the Bible, staying away from other inmates as much as possible. I encouraged him to not forsake the assembling together with other believers and showed him the scriptural teachings on fellowship in the Church. He was also discouraged by having attended several times the services of one of the "baptismal regeneration" bunch, where the preacher openly scoffed at his testimony and mocked him because he had not been "properly baptized".
..to be continued
It's also a place filled with great stories of God's redeeming love, of His power to change lives and to make new creations of fallen men. What a blessing it is to fellowship with our brothers who have been snatched as brands from the burning and washed in the Blood of the Lamb of God!
Last summer, I thought I had come across an inspiring example of this New Life in Christ in an inmate I'll call Brother G. In the middle of the week, I had gone into a minimum security unit where we hold weekly services (starting our 3rd year next month) and some of our "congregation" came up with an air of excitement to introduce a new resident in their unit: Brother G, a 40-ish black man with gang tattoos creeping out from under his t-shirt, up onto his neck, cheeks, even his forehead.
He proved to be a soft-spoken, humble fellow, with a mild speech impediment and an apparent love for Christ and His Word. He told me that he had seen me with the chaplain in the high security unit just the day before and could not wait to get involved in worship services in his new unit. And so he did, attending regularly our services and some of the others during the week, actively participating in testimony times and singing hymns of praise.
All his conversation was about our Lord; his Bible was nearly worn out and almost every verse was underlined or highlighted. He was always full of questions and seeking deeper understanding of God's Word. He'd not been raised in church and had no background at all regarding Christianity. All he knew was what he read in his Bible. He told me he'd been saved in July 2006, so he was a very young believer.
One story will illustrate his level of understanding scripture. We're usually seated just inside the door of the chapel as the men come in for our services. Most of them shake hands with us as they walk by. Brother G would come in, shake hands with the men who were seated ahead of me, shake my hand, then go to his pew, bypassing my wife. One night he asked her if he was doing the right thing, not shaking her hand. It didn't seem right to him but, he said, his Bible said that he should not touch a woman. So, we had a talk about that and he was much relieved to find that it was permissible for him to shake hands with a woman!
We were able to give him a good study Bible (MacArthur) and he reported that he was spending hours in it each day. He was a slow reader, a struggling reader, but he worked hard. Despite his hesitation because of the speech impediment, he would participate in the scripture readings and public prayer during the services.
In the Spring of this year, he began missing some of our services. I knew that he had had some conflicts with some other professing Christians as he was wont to confront them about inconsistencies in their lifestyle, pointing out that their behavior was not in line with the Word. Prisons are, just like the "free world," a place of "haves" and "have nots"--some inmates have money and some are penniless. Some have jobs (scarce in some prisons) and get $35-75/monthly; some have families which send them money; and some, like Brother G, have nothing. The state supplies essentials like toothpaste but the "wealthy" inmates have bi-monthly commissary purchases laden with canned drinks, tuna fish, Ramen noodles, and other delicacies.
Brother G, as I've said, knew only what the Bible says about the Church. He made the mistake of reading Acts 2 and taking it literally. He had the idea that the brethren who had should share with those who had not, liberally and joyfully. So, there were conflicts there, and disappointments.
When I saw him and asked about his absences and asked if he was going to other services, his usual reply was that he just holed up in his cell and read the Bible, staying away from other inmates as much as possible. I encouraged him to not forsake the assembling together with other believers and showed him the scriptural teachings on fellowship in the Church. He was also discouraged by having attended several times the services of one of the "baptismal regeneration" bunch, where the preacher openly scoffed at his testimony and mocked him because he had not been "properly baptized".
..to be continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
