Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Infallibility in The Bible, But Not in Your Pastor


Quoting JC Ryle . . .

"I do not doubt that the one volume known as The Pilgrim's Progress, written by a man who knew hardly any book but his Bible, and was ignorant of Greek and Latin, will prove in the last day to have done more for the benefit of the world, than all the works of the schoolmen put together. Learning is a gift that ought not to be despised. It is an evil day when books are not valued by the Church. But it is amazing to observe how vast a man's intellectual attainments may be, and yet how little he may know of the grace of God. I have no doubt the Authorities of Oxford in the [18th] century, knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, than Wesley or Whitefield. But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is not to be found among learned men, but in the Bible. For another thing, let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he may be.

Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err. Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and example; but do not make a pope of him. Do not place his word side-by-side with the Word of God. Do not spoil him by flattery. Do not let him suppose he can make no mistakes. Do not lean your whole weight on his opinion, or you may find to your cost that he can err.

It is written of Joash, King of Judah, that he "did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoiada the priest" (2 Chronicles 24:2). Jehoiada died, and then died the religion of Joash. Just so your minister may die, and then your religion may die too. He may change, and your religion may change. He may go away, and your religion may go.

Oh, do not be satisfied with a religion built on man! Do not be content with saying, "I have hope, because my own minister has told me such and such things." Seek to be able to say, "I have hope, because I find it thus and thus written in the Word of God." If your peace is to be solid, you must go yourself to the fountain of all truth. If your comforts are to be lasting, you must visit the well of life yourself, and draw fresh water for your own soul. Ministers may depart from the faith. The visible Church may be broken up. But he who has the Word of God written in his heart, has a foundation beneath his feet which will never fail him. Honor your minister as a faithful ambassador of Christ. Esteem him very highly in love for his work's sake. But never forget that infallibility is not to be found in godly ministers, but in the Bible.

--J.C Ryle, The Fallibility of Ministers

Monday, February 26, 2007

Disappearing Doctrine

From Kjos Ministries:

"Growing daily is the cancerous attack on doctrine. In fact THE fundamental mark of liberalism is its constant attack against solid biblical teaching. A growing number of people such as Rick Warren, Joel Olsteen, Benny Hinn, and the many, many others in the worldly ecumenical movement are saying, "Doctrine is not important. God is important. Let's lay aside our petty doctrinal differences and get back to God."

My first question is ‘Which God are you preaching?” But more than that, where is Jesus Christ in all of this and which Jesus are you following?

The number one top and most important doctrine of the church is none other than "Jesus Christ."

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 1:9-11 (KJV)

You see, in attacking doctrine, the ultimate goal is to attack Jesus Christ himself.

How many of you have noticed that everywhere you look you hear about “God is Love” and “God is everywhere” and “God is in all of us.” This is all find and dandy, but where is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Well, Ray, “Doctrine is Divisive”.

So if doctrine is divisive then what parts of doctrine should we get rid of or change?

Can we do away with the doctrine of the virgin birth?

How about the deity of Christ?

Better yet let’s muck with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

What about the inerrant word of God? Shoot, it is taking place already. We have over 200 modern versions, why not write another? In fact there is even one for sodomites. What is next; the pedophile or bestiality version of the bible? Why not? Doctrine divides!

In fact let’s just go all the way and discount the entire plan of salvation and invalidate all that Christ did for us by dying on the cross for our sins. But you know what; even the blood of Christ is being attacked by calling it a “slaughterhouse religion.”

Folks if you have not guessed it by now, we are focusing in this issue on Doctrine and the lack of in today’s modern church."

Sunday, February 25, 2007


Comfortable Christianity

"Is the Christianity of our day of the lofty kind of which apostolic men have left us so bright an example? Is it not feeble, indolent, self-indulgent, second-rate? Is there in it anything of the presentation of ‘living sacrifices’ to God, which is our acceptable and reasonable service? Are we not seeking our own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s? Are we not feasting when the world is starving? Are we not at ease in Zion? Are we not sitting still and in luxurious comfort, when many noble and self-sacrificing ones amongst us are rushing into the toil or the war, and, for want of being supported by their fellow Christians, are sinking under the burden and heat of the day?

O easy, luxurious, comfortable Christian! While you are lolling on your couch the sinner is going down to woe! While you are soothing your conscience with the opiates of religious routine; or pampering the flesh; or killing time in mirth and music, at the concert, or oratorio, or social party; or idling days in sport; or talking politics; or drinking in the applause of public opinion; or sunning yourself in the blaze of the ballroom; or absorbed in the latest novel; or engrossed with the unmeaningness of the card table;—men are dying, the present scene is passing, the eternal world is hastening on, and the Judge is at the door!

Rouse thyself from thy indulgence, and work! Do it with thy might. Spend and be spent. Give thy money to the Master; give thy strength and thy life to Him. For He is at hand. He may be nearer than thou thinkest. And how shouldst thou like to be caught by Him lounging on thy soft couch, or feasting at thy well-spread table, when thou shouldst have been working for Him, or fighting His battles,—visiting His brethren, soothing His sorrowing children, ministering to His poor disciples, grudging no weariness or hardship for a Master like Him?"

-Taken from Light & Truth: Bible Thoughts and Themes, Vol. IV, The Lesser Epistles, by Horatius Bonar, 1870.

Friday, February 23, 2007


Counterculture's Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel

by John MacArthur

One of the favorite topics on the evangelical agenda these days is how the church should "engage the culture." Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain "relevant"? Some evidently think so.

We keep hearing from evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture.

You have no doubt heard the arguments: We need to take the message out of the bottle. We can't minister effectively if don't speak the language of contemporary counterculture. If we don't vernacularize the gospel, contextualize the church, and reimagine Christianity for each succeeding generation, how can we possibly reach young people? Above all else, we have got to stay in step with the times.

Those arguments have been stressed to the point that many evangelicals now seem to think unstylishness is just about the worst imaginable threat to the expansion of the gospel and the influence of the church.
They don't really care if they are worldly. They just don't want to be thought uncool.

That way of thinking has been around at least since modernism began its aggressive assault on biblical Christianity in the Victorian era. For half a century or more, most evangelicals resisted the pragmatic thrust of the modernist argument, believing it was a fundamentally worldly philosophy. They had enough biblical understanding to realize that "friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

But the mainstream evangelical movement gave up the battle against worldliness half a century ago, and then completely capitulated to pragmatism just a couple of decades ago. After all, most of the best-known megachurches that rose to prominence after 1985 were built on a pragmatic philosophy of giving "unchurched" people whatever it takes to make them feel comfortable. Why would anyone criticize what "works"?

Whole churches have thus deliberately immersed themselves in "the culture", by which they actually mean, whatever the world loves at the moment. We now have a new breed of trendy churches whose preachers can rattle off references to every popular icon, every trifling mime, every tasteless fashion, and every vapid trend that captures the fickle fancy of the postmodern secular mind.

Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display, even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with "the culture" they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of "South Park"; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They've adopted both the style and the language of the world, including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator, a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of "grunge" music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll's unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled "post-grunge."His language, even in his sermons, is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the "Emerging Church" movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him "Mark the Cussing Pastor."

I don't know what Driscoll's language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn't use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words, nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.

Some of the things Driscoll talks freely and frequently about involve words and subject matter I would prefer not even to mention in public, so I am not going to quote or describe the objectionable parts. Besides, the issue has already been discussed and dissected at several blogs. Earlier this year, Tim Challies cited one typical example of Driscoll's vulgar flippancy from Confessions of a Reformission Rev. The sermons I listened to also included several from Driscoll's "Vintage Jesus" series, including the one Phil Johnson critiqued in October.

The point I want to make is not about Driscoll's language per se, but about the underlying philosophy that assumes following society down the Romans 1 path is a valid way to "engage the culture." It's possible to be overexposed to our culture's dark side. I don't think anyone can survive full immersion in today's entertainments and remain spiritually healthy.

Let's face it: Many of the world's favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descendsfurther in its spiritual death-spiral. It's like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those "who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn't sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we're not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.

We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, "while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols."

When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn't adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God's Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That's to be expected. Jesus said, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:18-19).

Even Jesus' high priestly prayer included a thorough description of the Christian's proper relationship with and attitude toward the world: "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world" (John 17:14-16).

Whenever Jesus spoke of believers being in the world, He stated that if we are faithful, the world will be a place of hostility and persecution, not a zone of comfort. He also invariably followed that theme with a plea for our sanctification (cf. John 17:17-19).

The problem with the "grunge" approach to religion is that it works against the sanctifying process. In fact, in one of the messages I listened to, Driscoll actually boasted that his sanctification goes no higher than his shoulders. His defense of substitutionary atonement might help his disciples gain a good grasp of the doctrine of justification by faith; but the lifestyle he models, especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world's filthy fads, practically guarantees that they will make little progress toward authentic sanctification.

I frankly wonder how any Christian who takes the Bible at face value could ever think that in order to be culturally relevant Christians should participate in society's growing infatuation with vulgarity. Didn't vulgarity and culture used to be considered polar opposites?

-- John MacArthur, Does Doctrine Really Matter

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Earth Can Become Heaven?

"The old Gospel teaching separated Heaven distinctly from Earth. Earth is where we now live, but it won't last forever; it will perish. Heaven is eternal, and where we go when we die -- if, in fact, we die "in Christ." In fact, this old Gospel teaching about Heaven was so manifestly adhered to that believers suffered fiery trials, persecutions and loss of life. They endured the loss of everything so that they might obtain a heavenly portion. They had no illusions about a man-constructed "peace" on Earth.

The modern-day church teaches that Heaven can be brought down to Earth, and that Earth can become Heaven."


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Jesus - the Liberating King?

From Ken Silva of the Christian Research Network:

“Did you know that the First Church in Acts is actually the original Emerging Church?” This from the back cover of the the book The Dust Off Their Feet (DOF) where we’re also told we can experience “a life-changing retelling of the Book of Acts!” And who is qualified to undertake this repainting - to borrow from Rob Bell - of the Book of Acts? Why, “Pastor and accomplished author Brian McLaren” (bold in original).

Interestingly enough the backcover of DOF also says it “is a foundational read for all Christians, but particularly those of today’s Emergent Church movement” (bold mine). You may recall a bit ago I put together a short piece called The Emergent Social Gospel and Liberation Theology. In it I give you some background material to help you see this new cult of liberal theology now Emergent for what it is. A working knowledge of liberation theology should also help you see why the Emergent Church movement would want to realign with the Church of Rome.

As a quick example let’s take McLaren’s reimagined - to borrow from Doug Pagitt - look at the Paul and Silas with the Philippian jailer in Acts chapter 16. In what is becoming a typical and annoying Emergent trait there are no page numbers so I simply present McLaren’s refurbished rendition so you can see the social gospel of liberation for yourselves. We note that earlier in Acts 4 of McLaren’s fantasy the Apostle Peter has already spoken of the ultimate “authority of Jesus, the Liberating King of Nazareth”:

Jailer: Gentlemen, please tell me, what must I do to be liberated?

Paul and Silas: “Just believe - believe in the ultimate King, Jesus, and not only will you be rescued, but your whole household as well.”

"Honest Doubt"

"Find if you can, beloved, one occasion in which Jesus inculcated doubt or bade men dwell in uncertainty. The apostles of unbelief are everywhere today, and they imagine they are doing God service by spreading what they call “honest doubt.” This is death to all joy! Poison to all peace!

The Savior did not so. He would have them take extraordinary measures to get rid of their doubt. Jesus appeals tenderly saying, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matthew 14:31) He would have you believe in the substantial reality of His religion, and handle Him and see; trust Him largely and simply, as a child trusts its mother and knows no fear."

--Charles Spurgeon

Sunday, February 18, 2007

"Spiritual Pez Dispenser"

"Listen, Jesus Christ isn't anybody's "spiritual Pez dispenser" that we can turn into whomever we choose by repackaging Him in order for Him and His message to relate to our lost world. He is not to be triffled with. He is God incarnate, beloved, and He must be reckoned with in His virgin birth, His sinless life, His gospel of sola fide, His once for all death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, His reign as King and Mediator at the right hand of the throne of God. He is not asking you to accept Him, fall in love with Him, shower bouquets of flowers at His feet, bring Him candy, or date Him. He is not proposing to you or asking you to marry Him. He is commanding you to repent of your sins; submit to Him as Lord of your life; forsake all other loves and all other claims to eternal life; to come to the end of yourself; believe solely in Him; take up your cross and follow Him. You don't have the luxury or His permission to turn Him into a passive, effeminate Divine lover who can only beg, but cannot elect."

--Steve Camp, Removing the Offense of the Cross.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

He Is Not Saved

"If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord's will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness."


Friday, February 16, 2007

We As Parents Need To Repent

"A sinful age, a sinful age like ours rips apart the home, rips apart
the home. A wicked generation like ours turns the hearts of the
children against their parents.

This age, this age breeds children who would defy their parents, drive
them to rebel against all authority, especially in the home. And this
sinful age also breeds parents who would neglect their children and
their responsibility. They will refrain from discipline, they will let
go of all authority. Tragically, even love for their children.

That's what a sin plague like ours will do. We must be honest, we must
be honest today. The homes of God's people are being tragically
affected by this age, the homes of God's people are being tragically
affected by this age.

We live in a day and age when as never before the fathers or parents
are controlled by the children.

We live in a day and age when as never before the fathers are concerned
about the children.

We live in a day and age when as never before the fathers are condemned
by the children.

We live in a day and age when as never before the fathers are
commissioned for the children.

We live in a day and age when as never before, as never before the
fathers are compared with the children."

-- Keith Daniel, "A Message to Fathers and Children" Malachi 4:5-6

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Young and Foolish

I do not know who this guy is but I DO AGREE with his analysis of the Emergent Church.

I am not in 100% agreement with his take on music but he is right on about carnality, rebellion, and what the Emergent Church stands for.

Check it out! He slams Emergent- calls it what it is- Rebellion!


HERE is Ken Silva's article showing how the Emergent Church movement is catagorized as a cult.

Please read if you haven't yet!

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Emerging Church (in their own words)

Thanks Brannon Howse of the Christian Worldview Network for THIS POST on the Emergent Church. I love how he continues to identify this movement as REBELLION, which is exactly what it is!

Here are Brannon's comments:

"Want to hear what the Emerging Church believes in their own words? Click the link below to view an 11 minute video featuring people from an Emerging Church. Listen as they declare the Bible is not "static" or fixed absolute truth. Listen as they use four letter words to describe their theology and philosophy. Many things come to mind when viewing this video but one of the strongest messages I get is rebellion. This looks and sounds like a coffee house from the 1960s that is filled with a group of liberal hippies.

We could take you to thousands of churches throughout America that look and believe just like this one. Just because you may not have heard of the Emerging Church or understand it does not mean it is not a huge movement. Most Bible-believing Christians will wake up to this movement and what they are doing to their kids and grandkids long after it is too late."

CLICK HERE to watch the video.


"Am I a soldier of the cross,
a follower of the Lamb,
and shall I fear to own his cause,
or blush to speak his name?

Must I be carried to the skies
on flowery beds of ease,
while others fought to win the prize,
and sailed through bloody seas?

Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
to help me on to God?

Sure I must fight, if I would reign;
increase my courage, Lord.
I'll bear the toil, endure the pain,
supported by thy word.

Thy saints in all this glorious war
shall conquer though they die;
they see the triumph from afar,
by faith they bring it nigh.

When that illustrious day shall rise,
and all thy armies shine
in robes of victory through the skies,
the glory shall be thine."

--Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Do Not Meddle With God's Word


Quoting Charles Spurgeon . . .

"Take care my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God's Word. I have heard of folks altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God's grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God.

If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understandings; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our perception of divine things, and in this way only may we hope to obtain the blessing."

--Charles Spurgeon, Sermon 241

Friday, February 09, 2007

Jim Wallis Promotes Contemplative Prayer

This may not come as a big shock to anyone familiar with Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo of "God's Politics" blog but HERE Jim Wallis is promoting Contemplative prayer via the monastics and mystics.

The Contemplative prayer trend seems to be showing up all over the place.


Here is an excerpt from the article:

"...prayer is more often becoming a time of listening than talking. There is so much noise in our world and our lives (much of our own making); prayer becomes a quiet space enabling us to stop talking long enough to see what God might be trying to say to us. The disciplines of prayer, silence, and contemplation practices by the monastics and mystics are precisely that – stopping the noise, slowing down, and becoming still, so that God can break through all our activity and noise in order to speak to us."

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Two-Timing Theology

This article is from It asks a great question, one which I would also like to know the answer to:

"... I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

Why do we so readily want to accept, tolerate, embrace the preaching of two-timing theology?"

Two-timing Theology

Even this clock will be correct two times a day, but how many of us would rely on it?

Then I must wonder why we rely on such a system in our approach to God & the Bible? Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?

Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

Why do we so readily want to accept, tolerate, embrace the preaching of two-timing theology? Much of the theology being espoused today is simply a rehash of classic socialism where we Christians are being told we ought to be more concerned with the material & physical well-being of our fellow man. It is more akin to John Lennonism than Christianity.

Jesus didn't come to preach social welfare. He came preaching, REPENT & BELIEVE but in our current climate that is the last thing you often hear coming from the lips of preachers. Instead, they preach how "Jesus loves you & has a wonderful plan for your life". The plan is that these people REPENT & BELIEVE, that is the Gospel & if we aren't preaching THAT then we aren't really preaching the Gospel.

People can speak of "love" & "compassion" all day long but as long as they are simply trying to clean up the outside of peoples' lives, they don't really care about love & compassion. It is the eternal state of people with which we should be concerned.

Perhaps someone will claim, "Yes, but we think we should address the daily situation of people first before they will receive the Gospel".

I ask, where do we see that methodology in Scripture? When Jesus originally sent out the disciples, He told them not to even take any provisions & that they should rely on the charity of those receiving the Gospel. (Mark 6:7-10) There would not even been ability to carry out a Social Gospel even if the disciples wanted to -- they didn't have anything to give to the poor & down trodden EXCEPT what they were commanded to give them -- THE GOSPEL.

Lastly, any charity you see in the N.T. from Christians was NOT from Christians to non-Christians but was mutual help among the brethren. They weren't helping pagan widows. They weren't going to visit pagan persons in prisons.

This is what is wrong with the Church today. We have been told for so long that our mission is to minister to the pagans that no one has been ministering to the Body of Christ. It would be comparable to seeing the disciples taking extremely "loving" & "compassionate" care of the bodies of the thieves on the cross while leaving the Body of Christ to rot in the open air.

It is time to get back to ministering & encouraging the Body of Christ, believers instead of trying to save the world through socialistic syncretism.


Some people have taken this article to mean I am implying we shouldn't care for non-Christians. They even referenced the "Good Samaritan" parable from Luke 10:30-37. Interesting enough it was not the Samaritan that was lying along side the road, but merely a certain man. Being a Samaritan was to be an outcast, thus it was the outcast helping the certain man. The point was, the others that passed by thought they were too good to help. This article IS NOT advocating that Christians are too good to help others.

As a matter of fact, most of the world's original hospitals, universities, & charities were started by Christians. The point of this article was that we Christians are often told to purposely wander along the road looking for that certain man to help & yet leaving our house (the Christian community) uncared for. What does the Bible say about this?

1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

If God puts your path to cross the path of a certain man lying in the road, by all means help -- but at the same time, we ought to be "providing for our own & especially for those of our own 'house'".

Monday, February 05, 2007

Brian McLaren's True Views?

How does Brian McLaren top this one?

An even bigger question is...How can Brian McLaren be categorized as a Christian author after comments such as these?

Look at what he says in this article for "The Vision Project":

"So how do we understand the vision that Jesus’ term “kingdom of God” evoked in its original hearers? One phrase has been echoing in my imagination lately: “beautiful whole.”

...But Jesus broke down the walls of all their boxes. He called people to see themselves as part of a beautiful whole in which all were included, all were equal, none boxed in.

But this beautiful whole wasn’t just for human beings. He spoke of the Creator’s love for sparrows and crows, wildflowers and weeds. He looked at human society as a fragment of this larger reality … the reality of “beloved creation” – the beautiful whole that is as big as the cosmos, and bigger still, in which every particle is known, named, and loved.

Can we even say something absurd? Can we say that this beautiful whole is even bigger than God, because it begins with God in all God’s infinite fullness, and then adds creation? Isn’t that the most beautiful whole imaginable?

This is, to me, the vision that our world needs. To believe in this vision is to make the beautiful whole absolute, and to relativize every other box (or human construction) in its presence. It truly is a call to “rethink everything.”

So let me get this right. Brian McLaren is saying that God + His creation is bigger than God-The Alpha and Omega-the infinite, omniscient, sovereign God? This "beautiful whole" is actually the completed God? God needs His creation to be complete?


If someone wants to defend Brian McLaren as a Christian author after Panentheistic statements like these they are going to have a hard time, unless of course they choose to redefine or "rethink" a new kind of Christian faith.

Please consider this warning--If this is truly what Brian McLaren means by this statement, this is not Biblical Christianity and he should not be considered a Christian author.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Emergent Dreaming

John Pipes from The Bororean blog alerted me to this video on youtube.

I am reluctant to even post stuff like this as I attempt to point out how unbiblical the Emergent mentality is. Dave Parker, host of "The Living Room", shares his dream for this alterna-emerging-church gathering. He suggests we call his dream God's dream.

If this is a picture of where the church is headed then I suggest we fall on our knees immediately in fervent and desperate prayer realizing the state of apostasy in the present day church.

I don't know anything about this guy. This is simply an attempt to point out how far out and distorted the mindset of the Emergent church is.

This is what you get when you have a dose of the Timothy Leary of the Emergent movement-Brian McLaren, a dash of the Jim Morrison of Emergent-Rob Bell, topped off with Ken Kesey of Emergent–Tony Campolo in a generation with little or no training in solid Biblical doctrine.

Here is an quote from the video:

"In this community…young and old, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, upper class and lower class, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, everyone found commonality and community at the foot of Christ. And God added to their number daily those who were being saved. And by saved, I mean that a kingdom of God mindset was being sculpted and refined and fleshed-out in their lives. And I thought, that's the kind of community I want to be a part of."

Thursday, February 01, 2007

"Go Dogs, And Eat The Garbage!"

"So that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe." Philippians 2:15

"I believe that one reason why the church at this present moment has so little influence over the world, is because the world has so much influence over the church! Nowadays, we hear professors pleading that they may do this, and do that—that they may live like worldlings. My sad answer to them, when they crave this liberty is, "Do it if you dare. It may not cost you much hurt, for you are so bad already. Your cravings show how rotten your hearts are. If you are hungering after such dogs food—go dogs, and eat the garbage!

Worldly amusements are fit food for pretenders and hypocrites. If you were God's children, you would loathe the thought of the world's evil joys. Your question would not be, "How far may we be like the world?" but your cry would be, "How can we get away from the world? How can we come out of it?"

"Whatever is true,
whatever is noble,
whatever is right,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable,
if anything is excellent or praiseworthy
—think about such things."
Philippians 4:8

--Charles Spurgeon, "The Soul Winner"