Menu

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa EMERGENT??

S
sermonindex

[b]Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model with false fire with it's latest announcement!

Starting May 29th, 2009 Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa is inviting The Movement to their Main Sanctuary.[/b]

Worship Generation is led by Senior Pastor Joey Buran, who had been a Calvary Chapel Pastor for many years, but left Calvary in 2005 and started "The Movement"

[url=http://www.worshipgeneration.com/movement/]THE MOVEMENT----WORSHIP GENERATION[/url]


The Movement-----ABOUT:

[b]For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:[/b] (Acts 13:36)

Every generation has a responsibility to reach its own generation. And every generation must find its own voice in its worship of God and its declaration of truth. Our desire is to see a new generation of young people passionate about their faith and active in reaching their world for Christ. With this goal in mind the Refuge High School Ministry (of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) and Calvary Chapel High School in conjunction with Movement Ministries are excited to announce that they will be hosting a missional event called “Movement.”

This is the second year of Movement. Last year Movement drew over seven thousand young people from all over Orange County, and witnessed over two hundred young people make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Movement will again be a two-day event with two goals in mind. The first goal of Movement is designed to inspire Christian youth to get moving, to get engaged, and to get passionate about their faith and reaching their generation for Christ. The second goal is to reach out to the un-churched and non-Christian youth of Orange County and the surrounding areas with the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a relevant and cutting edge event.

The first night, Friday May 29, is going to be a special night of worship with music by Phil Wickham and the Rock Harbor worship team, and a message by Mike Erre, pastor of Rock Harbor church. The goal of Friday night is to inspire and exhort the youth of Orange County and the surrounding areas to get passionate about their faith and challenging them to bring their friends out the following day.

The next day, Saturday, May 30th will start off with free workshops from 3-5PM at the Movement Conference. The goal of the conference is to provide practical workshops on issues regarding reaching and serving this next generation.

Then that evening from 5-10 PM we will have the main event, the Movement Outreach. Saturday night is designed as an outreach out to the un-churched and non-Christian youth of Orange County. This is not a Christian hangout night but rather a relevant, cutting edge event that young believers can invite their unsaved friends to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The outreach will include:

Pro BMX Demo
Skateboard demo with Untitled Skate Team, King of Kings Skate Team, Boarders For Christ, and pro skaters Josh Harmony and Christian Hosoi
$1000 best skateboard trick contest
Premiere of the new Christian snowboard film “One Year” on a 40 foot outdoor screen with special guest pro snowboarders Andy Finch and Dave Downing
Free Snowboard giveaways
Live DJ set with DJ Promote
Live mural painting by Lance Mountain with all proceeds going to charity
Hip Hop concert with LA Symphony and Ambassador from Cross Movement
Art show
Festival area with food vendors and cutting edge ministry presenters
Live Music by Hawk Nelson and Phil Wickham
Film Festival featuring independent Christian films including: “Beyond the Dream: The Joey Buran Story” and “The Rescue” by Invisible Childen
Bios

People


Phil WickhamPhil Wickham
Phil Wickham is an amazing worship leader and songwriter from San Diego, CA. His latest album “Cannons” was released on INO Records. For more information check out www.philwickham.com


Britt Merrick

Britt Merrick is the dynamic young pastor of Reality Church in Carpinteria, CA. Britt who is the son of famous surfboard shaper Al Merrick is a gifted Bible teacher, evangelist and leader for this generation. For more information check out www.jesusisreality.com


Mike Erre

Mike is the gifted Teaching Pastor of Rock Harbor Church in Costa Mesa, CA. For more information go to: www.rockharbor.org


Joey Buran

Joey Buran is the Senior Pastor and Founder of Worship Generation. For more information go to: www.worshipgeneration.com


Bianca Juarez

Bianca, the daughter of pastor Pancho Juarez, is an anointed young speaker and the media relations press secretary at Calvary Chapel Montebello. For more information go to: www.ccmtb.com


Michael Smith

Michael is a science professor at Vanguard University and the pastor of the Saturday Night study at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. For more information go to: www.calvarychapelcostamesa.com


Mike Doyle

Mike is the founder and director of the Movement ministry and the pastor of a new church plant in New York City. For more information go to: www.themovementishere.com

DJ PromoteDJ Promote

DJ Promote, aka Carlos Trevino, is an incredible new DJ from San Angelo, Texas. For more information go to: www.djpromote.com


Bryan Jennings

Bryan is a former pro surfer, film producer, and the founder and director of Walking On Water. For more information go to: www.walkingonwater.com


Christian Hosoi

Christian Hosoi is a legendary skateboarder from Southern California. Christian who is considered one of the greatest skateboarders of all time is a powerful speaker and an associate pastor at The Sanctuary Church in Huntington Beach, CA. For more information go to www.sanctuaryhb.com


Andy Finch

Andy is a professional snowboarder from Fresno, California. His accomplishments include winning the overall U.S. Grand Prix Halfpipe Title in 2003 and 2004, taking first place in the Arctic Challenge in Norway in April 2004, winning the Vans Triple Crown in February 2004, winning the O’Neill Snowboard Jam in January 2005, and finishing in second place in Northstar Resort’s Vans Tahoe Cup. In addition, Finch competed in the 2006 Winter Olympics for the United States. For more information go to: www.andyfinch.net


Dave Downing

Dave is professional snowboarder for Burton from Encinitas, CA.


Josh Harmony
Josh is a professional skateboarder and musician from Long Beach, California.

L.A. Symphony
Hawk NelsonBands
L.A. Symphony

Is a Christian hip hop group from Los Angeles, CA. Their latest album Unleashed was released on Syntax Records. For more info check www.lasymphony.com


Hawk Nelson

Hawk Nelson is a four member pop-rock band from Ontario, Canada. The Tooth and Nail recording artists have sold over a half a million albums and landed personal appearances on major television and motion picture projects, and gained high-profile song placement (“Bring ‘Em Out”) with NBC’s NFL Sunday Night Football campaign. For more information go to: www.hawknelson.com


[url=http://www.movement2009.com/about.php]THE MOVEMENT- ABOUT:[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter

C
Christisking

Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model

What is meant by "emergent model" or the phrase "emergent church"? Are they preaching another gospel? If so, what is the message they preach? I have heard this term (emergent church) many times, but am not sure I understand what is meant by it.

God bless,

Patrick Ersig
www.jonahproject.org

W
White_Stone

Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model with false fire with it's latest announcement!

I do not understand what this means.

The first statement seems like it is a condemnation and the balance reads like an advertisement.

I must be missing something.

Please explain,
ws

S
sermonindex

Its just divisive religionist garbage, a luxury that walt seems to be able to afford. Sister, just attend to your garden, read your Bible, take care of your chickens and just rest in Christ in these turbulent days, and of course ...pray.

much love in Christ, neil

M
MJones


Natan4Jesus wrote:
Sister, just attend to your garden, read your Bible, take care of your chickens and just rest in Christ. . .
much love in Christ, neil

Too fitting! Love it.

Mike

PS Whitestone - my garden is doing well.

S
sermonindex


http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1491&more=1&c=1

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/lighthousetrails/09/5-Calvary-Chapel.htm


Patrick, the Emerging Church is "forget Biblical Truth and let's just come together and do good deeds to bring heaven to earth." All religions merged and formed the One World Church or United Religion.
At this stage of the game - it is actually dangerous to not study up on it.
They plan to rid the world of Fundamental Bible Believing Christians eventually.


http://www.understandthetimes.org/topics/ec.shtml

[url=http://www.crossroad.to/text/search_results.html?cx=015736079649539019301%3A-bdcqxfnx98&cof=FORID%3A11&q=emergent+church&sa=Search#1145]crossroad.to[/url]

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?cat=8

http://herescope.blogspot.com/search?q=emergent

M
matt2442

I don't understand them calling Calvary Chapel "Emergent". Chuck Smith has denounced and warned his congregation repeatedly against the Emergent trend.

S
sermonindex

I think there's been some confusion caused by not reading the links.

LighthouseTrailsResearch have been in contact with CC and on friendly terms. It's a long story between them and they quote Chuck Smith and all on these links. There were appeals and conversations between them in love and concern.
It would help if folks would read what was discussed between and by all parties before assuming the worst or making uninformed judgments.

[url=http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=44070390&pageid=r&n=0&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=calvary+chapel&mode=ALL]Some articles praising Calvary Chapel and others voicing concern of new events[/url]

These folks have been rooting for CC and only voiced concerns as they arose.


Edit to add: possibly Walter could explain the article he posted and it's source.

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


I wondered if I could share some thoughts with you all, though [i]not directly[/i] in response to this topic.


I believe that it can be very much valid, honest, righteous, and sincere, to be concerned about how the things of God and the Bible are presented to others.

I believe that the message of the Bible and of the Gospel should be treated as sacred and holy, and with great reverence, and that we should strive to communicate that, and that we hold these things to be so, to those who would hear about it from us.


I have, for about six years now, been sharing the Gospel in the cities that I've lived in, with all different sorts of people. I think that(all honour be to God) it has been possible to communicate the message of the Gospel in plain and simple terms and as an ordinary working person to all different sorts of people from different backgrounds.

I believe that our culture in America is in desperate need of being elevated.

That we are in desperate need of being elevated as a people, to love and to appreciate what is beautiful, and lovely, and pure, and honest and true.


I believe that there is a winning and shining way for us to live in our day.

W
White_Stone

I believe that the message of the Bible and of the Gospel should be treated as sacred and holy, and with great reverence, and that we should strive to communicate that, and that we hold these things to be so, to those who would hear about it from us.

Hello Chris,

That deserves repeating! Well said.

white stone

T
TaylorOtwell

Thanks for those thoughts, Chris.

S
sermonindex

If our Classic Authors or Apostles were still here, they would "care" about what enters the Church and all the more to see the formation of the World Church.

This generation is on some sort of last days opiate spiritually and without upholding The Truth, expects to see 'revival'.

Revival of what?

We see in His Word, that because they had not the love for The Truth - all they will get is a revival of the dark ages.

Apologists, watchmen, teachers with high standards on Truth and prophets are not welcome in that revival.

T
Tears_of_joy


Jesus-is-GOD wrote:

This generation is on some sort of last days [b]opiate spiritually[/b] and without upholding The Truth, expects to see 'revival'.

Revival of what?

We see in His Word, that because they had not the love for The Truth - all they will get is a revival of the dark ages.

Exactly.

Also,

Rom 13:11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to [b]awake out of sleep[/b]*; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.

*hoop'-nos

[b]Edit:[/b]

I suppose the word hypnosis is coming from here also.

I believe what you said "opiate spiritually" is very accurate description of what is going on right now. (2Th 2:3)

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made [b]drunk with the wine[/b] of her fornication.

Rev 18:3 For all nations have[b] drunk of the wine[/b] of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Paul exhorts us:

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Is it possible a christian to be drunk with the babylonian wine?

There is one major characteristic of the drunk, opiate, dreaming and hypnotic man and that's the [b]unreality[/b] of perception of the things in and around them.

S
sermonindex


To Jesus-is-GOD:

You asked:

"Possibly Walter could explain the article he posted and it's source. "

Walter's response:

I have been a member of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa for many years and have been under the authority of Chuck Smith as my Pastor. Over the years I have sung the praises of Calvary Chapel, especially the Bible Teaching that has taken place each and every week. Through the Bible, over and over and over, year after year. Chuck has taken us through the entire Bible 8 times!

However, in 2005, on the daily radio show with Pastor Chuck (Brian Broderson was with him that day, as well) called “For Every Man An Answer”, Chuck made comments supporting Rick Warrens purpose driven Church, and found no fault with it. In fact the Calvary Chapel Book Store carried all of Warren’s books at that time. However, in May of 2006 all of the Rick Warren Books were pulled from the bookstore and Chuck, (I don’t remember exactly when, but I did hear the show) on the daily radio show “For Every Man An Answer” made the announcement that Calvary Chapel rejected the “Purpose Driven Model” or something to that effect. All of the Warren’s books were removed from the Bookstore as well.

So, we (Members of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) have been happy with the rejection of the purpose driven model, and the embrace of Classic Christianity. We study the Word, line by line and Book by Book.

Now, you can imagine our shock. Paul Smith, the Brother of Chuck Smith who has been with him since 1951 was fired in an unannounced board meeting. Someone on the board brought up motion for the immediate termination of Paul, and it was seconded, and he was terminated.

It was Paul’s sole job to keep Calvary Chapel on the straight and narrow, to keep it away from the "Emergent, Purpose Driven Model". The powers that be wanted the Purpose Driven, Emergent Church model for Calvary Chapel. Now they have it (the Emergent Church), while many of us long time members, who are aware of what is going on, are searching for a new Church.


Sincerely,

Walter


Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
I think there's been some confusion caused by not reading the links.

LighthouseTrailsResearch have been in contact with CC and on friendly terms. It's a long story between them and they quote Chuck Smith and all on these links. There were appeals and conversations between them in love and concern.
It would help if folks would read what was discussed between and by all parties before assuming the worst or making uninformed judgments.

[url=http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=44070390&pageid=r&n=0&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=calvary+chapel&mode=ALL]Some articles praising Calvary Chapel and others voicing concern of new events[/url]

These folks have been rooting for CC and only voiced concerns as they arose.


Edit to add: possibly Walter could explain the article he posted and it's source.

S
sermonindex

[i]"There is one major characteristic of the drunk, opiate, dreaming and hypnotic man and that's the unreality of perception of the things in and around them."[/i]


Tears-of-Joy and Walter, both your posts have put a lump in my throat and tears building in my eyes.

Paul asked his people, "do you hate me because I've told you the truth"? "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved."


It takes much more love to tell The Truth than to compromise. We cannot say we Love Jesus if we do not Love and guard His Truth. He Is The Word of God and He is The Truth and our love for Jesus [b]is[/b] measured by our protective, jealous love for the Word of God.


C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hello all,

I would like to interject my concerns with the difficulty behind the underlying principle of “upholding the Truth.” Everyone who is a real believer assumes that they are upholding “high standards on Truth.” Every man of God (professional or layman) holds to a set of ideals that he believes to be “Truth.” Yet there will always be some man or woman, congregation, apologist or would-be “prophet” and “watchman” who will disagree.

Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the KJV is the only true Word of God. Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there will be no “gathering of the saints” before the period of God’s wrath. Some people think that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there WILL be a “rapture.” Some churches truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they set particular standards for modesty that they believe is clearly spelled out in Scripture (such as women wearing only dresses…or physical head coverings). Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that “once you’re saved, you will always be saved.” Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim an opposite viewpoint. Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim otherwise regarding tongues.

Do you see the difficulty behind a set definition of “upholding the Truth?” Taking a stand on one or all of these is not necessarily “upholding the Truth.” Rather, it is upholding doctrinal peculiarities. How do I know? Because, a very large percentage of true believers cannot agree on any number of such issues.

I certainly believe in prophets…and defenders of the faith…and watchmen. Yet, it is my experience that many would-be “prophets” and “watchmen” are merely proclaiming doctrinal peculiarities than “Truth.” Far too often, they are willing to point the finger of “heresy” at anyone who disagrees with their particular doctrinal views…with a smugness that comes as though they believe that they are doing their “duty” for Christ. For over five years on SermonIndex, I have noticed that most of the heated disputes occur when one believer proclaims something to be “Truth” in the face of other believers.

One thing that I love about Leonard Ravenhill is that I don’t necessarily know where he “stood” on many of the issues that divide much of the Body of Christ. I don’t know where he stood on “eternal security” or “head coverings.” I don’t know what he thought about music. I don’t know where he stood on many, many issues. Even on those issues that he did have some semblance of a “stand,” I don’t know that I ever saw him “proclaim” such things as “standards” by which he was “upholding the Truth.” This is even interesting in the fact that I met with him in his home when I was a young teenager shortly before he died.

During that meeting, Brother Ravenhill told me that he was going to tell me one of the most important things that he had learned during his life. He didn’t proclaim some supposed “truth” about the coming of the Lord, the extent to which salvation can be lost or not, or whether he felt one translation of the Bible was supreme to all others. He didn’t instruct me about music…or a personal definition about “worldliness.” Rather, Brother Ravenhill simply urged me to “test everything.” He literally told me to not believe anything that I had ever been taught or read…because this is largely the reason why the Church is in the condition that it is in. Believers are too quick to believe something. He explained that the Church is in the condition that it is in because the Church has been operating like it has for a long time. A true revival, he explained, is when each person is consumed with an unquenchable hunger to know and fellowship with Jesus…and where nothing else matters as much.

There are a lot of silly definitions being spread around the Body of Christ regarding what a “revival” will be. Many supposed “watchmen” seem to think that a “real” revival will occur when everyone will embrace and uphold their particular ideas about doctrinal “Truth.” How silly. I seriously doubt that a time will come on this side of Eternity in which all believers will agree upon every last doctrinal detail. Leonard Ravenhill could be considered a “watchman” by some – not because he upheld and proclaimed a particular set of doctrines, but because he stressed the need for mere men to take Christ (and eternity) seriously. Too often, I think, “truth” is lost in the details.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and simple. It is men who complicate it. It is men who create particular standards for “Truth” (which is often what they consider “doctrinal purity”) and then proclaim as much to their listeners. I think that this is what Brother ChrisJD was saying in his post (correct me if I am wrong, brother). I believe part of the reason that the Church needs to be revived is because the Church has left the simplicity of the Gospel and begun focusing upon doctrinal issues and persuasions that divide the Body of Christ. Yet it is possible to have true Biblical unity of the faith without agreeing on every last dot and tittle. Remember, if any person were to stand (even here in SermonIndex) and proclaim EVERYTHING that they believe to be “truth”…quite a few people will stand in opposition.

There are some things that are undeniable foundational truths. These things are spelled out clearly in the Word of God. The most important of these is a deep awareness of our need for the Lord and a longing to have a relationship with Him. I am troubled, however, by those who would choose to proclaim remote doctrinal peculiarities as “upholding the Truth.” Even many of those who would agree on a “need for particular doctrinal clarity” and “obedience” would be surprised to find that many people would agree with the notion but disagree on the definition of “Truth” in regard to such peculiarities.

Please do not make the mistake that I am trying to say that doctrine is not important. We need to uphold what is true. Yet the problem of division comes in the details…in which some men would become confrontational by insisting on a particular set of doctrines that are not largely agreed upon by those people who truly seek Jesus. Thank God that He does not make an exhaustive list of doctrinal “conditions” for becoming a child of God! Many would be prophets walk around with a “victim syndrome” as they complain that some people do not listen to them regarding a peculiarity – and then equate this to a rejection of “Truth.” There is something wrong with this picture…when we can’t distinguish between a peculiar set of doctrinal views and “undeniable truth.”

Anyway, please understand that I am not trying to be discordant about such things. This has been an issue on SermonIndex – and in the Body of Christ – for a long time. If anyone here (including those who believe that they are “watchmen”) were to stand up and proclaim [u]exactly[/u] what they considered to be “Truth” – there will be an dispute or debate (even from their closest brethren). Another very sincere believer (with a jealous love for our Lord) will point to what is being proclaimed and say that it is not “truth.” Will the original proclaimer of that supposed "truth" be so bold and audacious as to proclaim that those with whom they disagree to be in an error or delusion...or will they simply feel that they have a difference of opinion on a particular matter?

S
sermonindex


Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words.

From what you have written, it is not clear what you believe.

What is your opinion of the Emergent Church?

What is your opinion of the Purpose Driven Church, that is part of the Emergent Church that will march into the Tribulation, very soon .

Do you feel that the Emergent Church is a threat to the Christianity of the Bible?

Do you see any problem with lead-in to “THE MOVEMENT”, which states at the beginning of it’s webpage:
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: (Acts 13:36)

It then continues:
Every generation has a responsibility to reach its own generation. And every generation must find its own voice in its worship of God and its declaration of truth. Our desire is to see a new generation of young people passionate about their faith and active in reaching their world for Christ. With this goal in mind the Refuge High School Ministry (of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) and Calvary Chapel High School in conjunction with Movement Ministries are excited to announce that they will be hosting a missional event called “Movement.”

What is your pesonal opinion of the works of Roger Oakland in regards to the Emergent Church?

Would appreciate your thoughts, from your heart, on this matter. Please, be specific.


Thank you,

Walter


ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hello all,

I would like to interject my concerns with the difficulty behind the underlying principle of “upholding the Truth.” Everyone who is a real believer assumes that they are upholding “high standards on Truth.” Every man of God (professional or layman) holds to a set of ideals that he believes to be “Truth.” Yet there will always be some man or woman, congregation, apologist or would-be “prophet” and “watchman” who will disagree.

DELETED

S
sermonindex

walter wrote:

Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words.

shame on you, sir. If that isnt the most clear instance I've seen of the pot calling the kettle, as you sir, have spent many a kilobyte of bandwidth opining on religious matters, both large and small, usually in the most contentious of subjects.

and yet you close with this to Chris:

Would appreciate your thoughts, from your heart, on this matter. Please, be specific.

Christ did write from the heart, Chris did express his thoughts, most coherently and specifically, the problem lay, as I see it, is that your heart and your mind are not open, they are shut tight with a large lock that has the words "religious pride" stamped on it, which is tragic in its own sense, but in your overweening desire to "be right", you trample on those saints yearning to graze in the vast green pastures of God. That is the ultimate shame and reproach you bring upon the ministry of the Word, Which is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Furthermore, I have found, you missue the word "emergent". I didnt know this until yesterday. I try to "stay small", and not get caught up in the "intramural" scrum matches of the Faith, I didnt know too much about the Emerging Church and the "Emergent Church", so I went to wikipedia to get an overlay of the subject.... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church]Emerging Church[/url]

Hoping against hope, I hope you will give it a read. I did, and its very illuminating, and in many points I found myself saying, "yes, good" and in other points rolling my eyes, but I did find this, what is referred to as the [b]emerging[/b]Church is much different from what is called [b]emergent[/b] the "Emergent" movement comes from a fellow by the name of Brian Mclaren.

admittedly, I have not read any of Messrs McLaren's writing. (its part of my "stay small" leading) I've seen much scorn heaped on him, and from what saw of what he proposes/opines, its really not where God is calling me.

two paragraphs struck me in this wikipedia entry:

According to Stuart Murray, Christendom is the creation and maintenance of a Christian nation by ensuring a close relationship of power between the Christian Church and its host culture.[24] Today, churches may still attempt to use this power in mission and evangelism.[25] The emerging church considers this to be unhelpful. Murray summarizes Christendom values as: a commitment to hierarchy and the status quo; the loss of lay involvement; institutional values rather than community focus; church at the centre of society rather than the margins; using political power to bring in the Kingdom; religious compulsion; punitive rather than restorative justice; marginalisation of women, the poor, and dissident movements; inattentiveness to the criticisms of those outraged by the historic association of Christianity with patriarchy, warfare, injustice and patronage; partiality for respectability and top-down mission; attractional evangelism; assuming the Christian story is known; and a preoccupation with the rich and powerful


and this:

The emerging church is a response to the perceived influence of modernism in Western Christianity. As some sociologists commented on a cultural shift that they believed to correspond to postmodern ways of perceiving reality in the late 20th century, some Christians began to advocate changes within the church in response. These Christians saw the contemporary church as being culturally bound to modernism. They changed their practices to relate to the new cultural situation. Emerging Christians began to challenge the modern church on issues such as: institutional structures, systematic theology, propositional teaching methods, a perceived preoccupation with buildings, an attractional understanding of mission, professional clergy, and a perceived preoccupation with the political process and unhelpful jargon ("Christian-ese").

As the Lord leads me, there is legitimacy in this, whether you or anybody agrees, it matters not to me. But i wish to say one more thing to you in closing walter, in reading many many of yur postings, I have never seen you use the word "[b]love[/b]". That alone, bespeaks more to me, than the volumnes you have written here. I would look into that, if i was you.

Chris, my brother, you spoke well, I am in full accord of what you have written and expressed from your heart and I thank you in the love of the Lord.

neil

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Dear Brother Walter...

Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words.
?

I'm not sure what the purpose of your response is, but it certainly doesn't seem very kind. Whether or not you will have to repent for it is between you and God. Brother, you do not hold a monopoly on "truth." That is the problem with pointing out "truth" -- because there will always be someone around to say that it isn't truth...or to call into question the character of the person who speaks it.

As far as the "emergent church" is concerned: I really do not care. I don't want to know much about it...nor do I want to spend a lot of time and effort learning about it. I prefer to spend my time and effort learning from Christ...rather than dissecting the words of some religious movement. I don't need to know all of the doctrinal views of the Mormon Church to know that it is false. I don't have to exhaust years of study into their doctrinal peculiarities in order to know something that is apparent from the get go -- that the Mormon Church teaches an entirely different gospel.

Yet, brother, I am concerned by the amount of time that you (and others) spend debating other believers about certain differences that we may have. I don't believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the Word of God. Yet you have spent many, many posts proclaiming such a notion as if it were a fact -- a "truth." Thus, it seems that in your posts, it appears that we who use a different version might be in "danger." Brother, there are many people who disagree with you. If you really think that we are in danger of "delusion," there is something very, very wrong.

This is the case with much of what is debated over and over again on SermonIndex, in books and from the pulpits of Churches across the Western World. We debate DOCTRINE. We pride ourselves into be "apologists" who "defend the faith" -- when we are merely arguing about doctrine with other people who profess to be believers.

Wouldn't it be great to harness our time and effort into just seeking God's face? Wouldn't it be great if we used some of that time and effort spent arguing into actually telling someone who is going to Hell about the "good news" of Jesus Christ?

Brother, there are many, many believers who I don't agree with regarding certain issues. In fact, I disagree with many of the fellow brethren that I know. Yet I won't pretend to make such petty issues a matter of "life and death." The important foundations MUST be kept -- but what could be more "foundational" than knowing and seeking our Lord and Savior?

I fear that we might be "in danger" of breaking fellowship with the brethren who simply disagree with certain petty doctrinal issues. So what if I use both the KJV and the NIV? So what if I believe that the Lord may gather His Bride before the time of wrath? So what if I don't believe that a woman must cover her head with a physical piece of cloth each time she is praying. Is someone going to play the role of the Holy Spirit and literally question my relationship with the Lord simply because I disagree with their "findings?"

Such doctrinal differences seem silly. Yet to many would-be "watchmen," such issues are "foundational doctrines" and "indisputable truth." There is a problem when we focus much of our time and effort on matters that deviate us from spending time with Christ Jesus or away from our Hebrews 10:24-25 calling to "encourage" one another! We do not have to agree on every last dot and tittle in order to fellowship and encourage one another in the Lord! If you want to continue using the KJV...praise God! If someone else wants to continue using the NIV...praise God! It is the Holy Spirit who will lead us and guide us into all truth -- and not ccchhhrrriiisss, waltern or some other would-be "prophet" or "watchman."

Out of this great, vast Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, one thing is abundantly clear: We have different ideas, opinions and viewpoints regarding certain matters. Denominations often seperate the Body by such differences of opinion. Is this what God desires for the Body of Christ? Should the Body of Christ be broken by different camps who align themselves with the peculiar babelings of supposed "teachers?" Can the Body of Christ get together without being in 100% agreement about peculiarities?

On the day of Pentecost, the Church was in "one accord." Something tells me that they weren't focused on divisive issues such as opinions about the Lord's return...precise defintions of modesty...or Bible translations. I have a strong feeling that they purely sought God. They didn't care about learning all sorts of doctrines; I think that they cared about being close to our Lord. Isn't this what the Lord instructed them?

Jesus told those who were concerned with times and seasons, "[i]It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power[/i]" (Acts 1:7) and continued by reminding him about what he had said earlier (in Acts 1:4-5) by saying, "[i]But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth[/i]" (Acts 1:8). It was almost as if the Lord was trying to prevent them from getting distracted by such things.

Brother Walter, I am convinced that you long for the Lord. I am convinced many of those who visit this website are longing for the Lord. Isn't this the great condition for salvation? Salvation isn't earned by aligning ourselves with a particular set of doctrines. In fact, most of us were plain doctrinally "stupid" when we first came to Christ. Doctrine didn't matter to us. We just wanted to know Him. I just wish that many of us would return to that simplicity.

To be honest, I grow very tired of doctrinal discussions...especially when there is so much diversity of thought in the Body of Christ regarding such things. I don't mind hearing about the ideas that other people have...but I really do prefer to prayerfully read the Bible for myself and do my best to "learn from" Christ (Matthew 11:28-30). The Church needs a revival. Yet this isn't a revival of doctrine (in the sense of denominational or doctrinal peculiarities). Rather, we need people to seriously seek God. I can gather with brethren of all diverse backgrounds AS LONG AS they are brethren. I don't care if they are calvinists...or KJV-only...or if they wear head coverings. If my mind is consumed by such things (the differences that we might have), then there is something that is VERY wrong with me.

I guess that is ultimately what I am trying to say. There are far too many people who equate their particular persuasions as "truth" and proclaim/present it as such. If someone doesn't agree with them, they feel "persecuted" or even "rejected." How silly! It is just a disagreement about some guy's idea or "truth" rather than a spiritual rejection of the man himself (or the man's spiritual integrity).

To be clear: There are certainly foundational truths that should be clear to all believers and proclaimed and taught. Yet most of the divisions in the Body of Christ are not over "foundational truths." The long debated issues on SermonIndex usually revolve around some guy presenting something that he thinks to be true and some other guy publicly disagreeing with it. Should we be so easily persuaded about the things that we argue to be "truth?"

*EDIT - I just read your post, Natan. I think that you understand what I am trying to say. There have been times that I disagreed with Brother Natan on certain issues...but I have always considered him a brother...and have earnestly desired to esteem him "better than myself" (Philippians 2:2-3). Thank you, brother, for your encouragement.

W
wayneman

A true revival, he explained, is when each person is consumed with an unquenchable hunger to know and fellowship with Jesus…and where nothing else matters as much.

There are a lot of silly definitions being spread around the Body of Christ regarding what a “revival” will be. Many supposed “watchmen” seem to think that a “real” revival will occur when everyone will embrace and uphold their particular ideas about doctrinal “Truth.” How silly. I seriously doubt that a time will come on this side of Eternity in which all believers will agree upon every last doctrinal detail. Leonard Ravenhill could be considered a “watchman” by some – not because he upheld and proclaimed a particular set of doctrines, but because he stressed the need for mere men to take Christ (and eternity) seriously. Too often, I think, “truth” is lost in the details.

Good word. That's an interesting statement by Ravenhill. He wasn't one for doctrinal quibbling. He was a Methodist who fellowshipped with everyone from Baptists to Pentecostals and admired George Fox (Quakers). No dogmatist could be that broad-based. But he got burned a few times. He joined the Vineyard/Kansas City Prophets movement for a while because he believed it might be the beginning of the worldwide revival he had been praying for all those years. But when I met him in '92 he said, "I've lost confidence in those guys. They just bounce around from one fad to another. They won't center on the Cross"

And I think that is the first test that should be applied to everything: If it is centered on Christ and Him crucified, it is of God; if it is centered on human performance, a dogma, a system, a program or some exalted leader--if it is man-centered in any way--it is not of God.

The first-generation Fundamentalists had a pretty good standard: If a person believes in the Five Fundamentals--the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, His substitutionary death on the Cross, the resurrection and the second coming--he should be regarded as a brother in Christ, unless his moral conduct identifies him otherwise. 1 Cor. 5:11

And if he is a brother in Christ, the word of Christ is, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12 And that must always remain foremost in our minds as we debate. Ranters who use this forum to shag anyone who disagrees with them are only fooling themselves when they say "I'm upholding the truth in love." They are not fooling anyone else. People who are consumed with rage, bitterness and high-mindedness cannot conceal their true nature because it comes out in their words.

"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18 But some guys are in such a fever to push their doctrinal peculiarities that they can't even be bothered to "love in word." Normal fanatics at least have the good taste to throw in the occasional "dear brother" and "God bless you" as they bight and devour one another.

Last night a KJV-only Independent Baptist handed me a bundle of about 200 tracts to peruse at my leisure. Here is a sampling:

Jack Van Impe, Master of Memory, Minister of Compromise

Why We Cannot Support the Billy Graham Crusade

Apostasy Chart

Martin Luther and Baptismal Regeneration

Signs, Wonders and Rattlesnakes

Is Your Church Going Purpose Driven? How You Can Tell

The Bible Believer and Heretics

Why I Am a Baptist and Not a Seventh Day Adventist

Seven Reasons to Avoid False Doctrine

Harry Potter, Witchcraft and the Bible

List of Heresies

Wanted! True New Testament Independent Baptists

It goes on and on like this. Every tract is an attack on some heretic. There is an important place for refuting error, but when it becomes an obsession, heresiology is an error in itself. It assumes that what God requires of His children is doctrinal purity, that verbally abusing those who disagree with us is the "ministry of the Watchman," that the church does not have revival because it does not universally accept our peculiar doctrines, and the fact that so many people disagrees with our doctrines is proof that we are living in the end times.

It assumes that "loving the brethren" consists mainly in correcting the brethren's doctrinal opinions, because if they disagree with us they are in danger of hell fire. Therefore love compels us to correct their errors whether they want to hear it or not and in the most abusive language allowable.

Consider poor Roger Oakland, who has spent years obsessing over the errors of others and has become so narrow and severe that even Chuck Smith is no longer pure enough for him. Pastor Chuck is 82 years old. He is too old to change. It is Roger who has changed.

Pastor Chuck has been a faithful, Bible-anchored minister for 60 years. There is no reason to believe that he would suddenly go soft in the head and abandon his Bible-based ministry in favor of something as vapid as the Emerging Church fad. He's old but not senile. And we don't know the whole story behind Paul Smith's departure. Maybe he got canned for the same reason Roger Oakland got canned; maybe he's right about the Emerging fad but unproductively pugnacious and dogmatic about it.

Aristotle said that the golden mean of virtue lies between two opposing errors. I willingly run the risk of a beating at the hands of the God Squad for quoting a pagan philosopher because I think that is very often true. Neglect of sound doctrine made the Emergent Church possible, but we will not correct emergent errors by polarizing over into the opposite error, which is dead dogmatism. Sloppy theology and iron-clad theology are both errors to be avoided.

S
sermonindex

There have been times that I disagreed with Brother Natan on certain issues

These "certain issues" have been of a strategic geopolitical/military nature of which I have always been in the right, seeing as I possess a "Davidic" gift for war and strategy.........
....................
....................

[b]I'm teasing Chris![/b] (sort of...no I'm completely teasing)

You know Chris, intelligence work was my first job, my first love, and I was just thinking the other day, when the DPRK started acting up, I would have had 32 years in the halls of analysis. Who knows where I'd be now, in regards to national security, but God in is His Wisdom removed me...nothing bad, I just saw a few things and got sour. Nothing I want to go into, except that I dont abide by.....no, I cant say, but anyway, my individual prayer, is that I may be of some service to the Ministry of the Word, and I share in your heartspace of esteeming you better than myself.....we share in a High and Heavenly calling, all of us, it takes my breath away, awe-struck, and I will continue to encourage you, I pray for you, I pray for the Body of Christ, and close with this; everything gonna be alright, [b]we KNOW this...amen.[/b]

in Jesus love, neil xo

S
sermonindex

well spoke sir!

well spoke indeed!

I keep putting off buying a printer, I must not tarry on this, as many saints here have been speaking words of "balm in Gilead" as from the very Throne itself.

well spoke, God bless you brother, I love you in Jesus' love, neil

S
sermonindex

Quote:

[b]PHASE ONE:[/b]

The first phase of the dialectic, THESIS, is "THE THESIS INTERROGATION." It involves three sub-phases that lead each person within a diverse group setting from the initial sub-phase of 1) stating his position (thesis) to the compromising, feelings-laden effect of 2) defining the meaning of his position, aided by the facilitator, while trying not to offend others in the group (antithesis). This sub-phase deliberately produces internal conflict, known as cognitive dissonance, which I consider micro-terrorism. This internal tension is the natural response we have when we want to be accepted by others yet realize that our position, if strongly held to, will most likely stand in the way of that happening. The pain induced by this sub-phase of anxiety forces us to 3) the self-realization (synthesis) that because we cannot properly define our position, comfortably change it, or rationally defend it, we are not its cause.

Christians need to realize that they can never properly define, comfortably change, or rationally defend the word of God to the world's satisfaction, not even for the sake of relationship building. We can only accept it as truth and preach it. There is no room for dialogue such as "I think..." or "I feel..." in the hope of finding common ground with the world. According to God's Word, to do so is to commit adultery with the world.

THESIS—"THESIS INTERROGATION" where the facilitator sets the individual up.

thesis—position—stating one's belief such as a thesis or position paper.


antithesis—definition—interpreting what one means to others with differing views.


synthesis—self-realization—realizing the source of one's (limiting) position.


[b]PHASE TWO:[/b]

The "Thesis Interrogation" leads into the second phase of the dialectic process, ANTITHESIS, what I call "CLIMATE or ENVIRONMENT CONTROL for the purpose of RELATIONSHIP BUILDING." Most behavioral modification takes place in this phase. It also involves three sub-phases that bring all participants into a group-think experience. Beginning with the "right" to negate all or at least most prior "cannot," "should not," and "must not" rules and commands set by parents, teachers, government, or God—that interfere with relationship building—each individual is given an equal opportunity to explore and discover the beliefs and values held by others within the group. This first sub-phase, "negation of negation," or saying no to restraining commands (thesis), leads into the second sub-phase of "conflict," or chaos (anti-thesis), that, with the help of the facilitator, is followed by the final sub-phase of "mediation," or conflict-resolution training (synthesis).

[b]continues on to PHASE THREE, Etc..[/b] excerpt from Dean Gotcher on "Diaprax" in the Church.

[url=http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ecsolascriptura.html]Good-bye Sola-Scriptura![/url]

[url=http://www.erwm.com/TheNewSpiritualFormation.htm]A threat or not a threat?[/url]


S
sermonindex

are you referencing McLarens' stuff. "Emergent"?

as I have been investigating there is a wide gulf between "Emergent" and the loose grouping of what can be called "emerging"....at least that's the way I read it.

Personally, I'm of the firm conviction that if any HUMAN denies the Bible, as the Word of God, any human who lifts up the Holy Ghost and signs and manifestations above Jesus, all are adrift, destined to go onto the shoals of error, that said I would resist "labels", other than "follower of Jesus".

I couldnt understand any of that stuff you pasted, who would supp from such swill?

sounds like that new age babble that tormented my ears when I lived in a very dark community by the name of Topanga.....gotta go

much love in Jesus, neil

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


I wonder if I could share just a bit more here.


During the time that I've been speaking to others about the Gospel, I've also found there has been many times of confrontation.


Just tonight, I was called a devil after suggesting to a group of people that were preaching in public to others about obeying the commands of Christ, that the Lord Jesus told us to love our enemies.

As I recall it, the man speaking said to me that I was not one of the enemies that Christ commanded to love, and this is when he called me a devil. Afterwards I objected to those listening, saying to them that the man had just called me this without knowing anything about me. One of the people nearby spoke up and asked me what did the word devil mean.

I said at first 'a deciever', and then afterwards, that it means slanderer.

I do sympathise with those who feel compelled to challenge error and other things that they percieve as destructive. I also feel, and this I think from experience, of the great difficulty and danger in doing so and our great need of wisdom and grace from God.


I believe that there must be a way for us to turn many to rightesouness [b]and[/b] shine like the stars of heaven, to let our light so shine before men that they see our good works and glorify God, that there is a word and a mouth that none of our adversaries can gainsay or resist, and sound speech that cannot be condemened.

And this, and not rather, that in trying to oppose the adversary, we would become like him.


I wish you all well.

S
sermonindex


Hello Natan4Jesus:

You went online to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the Emergent Church? I used Google, and found hundreds of other links than Wikipedia, that explain exactly what it is, and what it is has no relationship to what Wikipedia has to say.

What follows is a in-depth study that goes into detail about the Emergent Church that is forming before our very eyes, and getting ready to march into the Tribulation===The Emergent Church where Biblical Doctrine is no longer required.

The Emergent Church is forming before our eyes!

To bring yourself up to speed, a excellent place to go to is:

Understand the Times Ministry of Roger Oakland
An International Missionary Outreach Dedicated to Evangelizing the Lost and Equipping the Church for Discernment

http://www.understandthetimes.org/ec/exposingec.shtml

You may not have heard of "The Emerging Church but chances are you have been exposed to it's methods. Below are many articles and commentary about this movement.


Commentary by Roger Oakland exposing the Emerging Church:

The Inclusive Gospel
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c66.shtml

New Spiritual Disciplines From Ancient Roman Catholic Sources
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c62.shtml

Are Emerging Church Critics Too Critical?
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c62.shtml

Drumming Up "Jesus"
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c61.shtml

Home To Rome
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c60.shtml

The Emergence Of The Eucharist In The Emerging Church
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c53.shtml

Exposing The Emerging Church
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c58.shtml

What Ever Happened to The Bible?
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c55.shtml

How to Know When the Emerging Church Shows Signs of Emerging in Your Church
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c54.shtml

The Emerging Church And Bible Prophecy
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c40.shtml

Reemerging Of The Emerging Church
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c43.shtml

The Emerging Church: Another Road To Rome
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c46.shtml

The Emerging Church: Last Days Apostasy and a Return To Darkness
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c29.shtml

Other articles exposing the Emerging Church:
Brian McLaren on Change and the Emerging Church 5/15/08
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080515/32386_Interview:_Brian_McLaren_on_Change_and_the_Emerging_Church.htm

Catholics Join Emerging Church Conversation - 3/13/09
Missional Church Movement - The Next Big Thing? - 3/13/09
Most Americans Pick and Choose Religious Beliefs - 1/12/09
Emergent's Divergence - Leaders hope decentralizing power will revitalize the movement - 12/18/08
Schullers' rift centers on 'Hour of Power' - 10/27/08
Beatles songs as likely to explain Christianity as the Bible, says bishop - 10/19/08
A Monastic Kind of LifeHow Catholic religious communities are trying to attract young people again - 10/14/08
Emerging Leader Urges Christians to Shape Culture from Within - 10/12/08
'Emerging church' seeks the justice Jesus sought - 6/5/08
Interview: Brian McLaren on Change and the Emerging Church - 5/15/08
Church Basement Roadshow Press Release - 5/15/08
Global Summit comes to Orange County - 5/13/08
Richard Foster's Life with God - 5/6/08
Becoming a Purpose-Filled Woman - 5/4/08
Christianity without Christ - 5/3/08
Warren will lead 40 Days of Purpose in New York City - 5/1/08
The next peace - 4/26/08
Lessen focus on eternity, McLaren says at Willow Creek student ministries conference - 4/18/08
Spiritual path can take unexpected turns - 3/28/08
Reworked Bible stories feature Goliath as a drunk and Eve as sex mad - 3/26/08
Taking Christ out of Christianity - 3/22/08
Children of a modern God - 3/16/08
Feeling Renewed By Ancient Traditions - 3/8/08
Gregorian chant leads revival of church's music - 3/8/08
'Conspirators' Bring Together New Styles of Christianity - 3/7/08
No Future for Methodists Unless Change Occurs, Say Leaders - 3/3/08
'Conspirators' Plot New Ways to Be Christian - 2/28/08
Mars Hill Pastor Ditches 'Emerging' Label for Jesus - 2/27/08
Monk leads young people in meditation - 2/22/08
Brian McLaren: Postmodern Christianity Understood as Story - 2/18/08
Portrait of Christianity in the Next 1,000 Years - 2/9/08
Ancient-Future People - 2/8/08
Pastor Argues Faith is Missing Link - 2/5/08
Leader urges evangelicals to heal the world - 2/1/08
Amid growth, church congregations sprout - 1/20/08
Author's Brand Of Christianity Strikes a Chord With Young Adults - 1/19/08
Cultural Architect: Why Churches are Declining in America - 1/15/08
More Americans' spiritual growth nurtured within - 1/14/08
To believe, or not to believe: Author examines what moves people toward or away from God, church - 1/12/08
Study: What brought people to church may not keep them there - 1/11/08
In Search of a Label? (by Brian Mclaren) - 1/3/08
News Alert - The Collapse Of The Emerging Church And The Kingdom Of God - 1/4/08
Filling spiritual voids, not just pews - 12/31/07
Reform find inspiration in mega-church techniques - 12/31/07
Rob Bell: Christians shouldn't fear controversy over doctrine - 12/21/07
Emerging Pastor to Young Believers: Ask Anything - 12/17/07
Keating moved the movement - 12/14/07
Sitting in silence - 12/14/07
Praying with a mantra - 12/14/07
Trends Analysis: Americans Reformulating Christianity - 12/4/07
What Leaders Can Learn from Rob Bell - 11/26/07
Christian meditation finds a sanctuary at Georgetown University - 11/14/07
Let the labyrinth take the lead - 11/11/07
Kid contemplatives: UW neuroscientist's project aims to give middle-schoolers tools of 'mindfulness' and meditation - 11/8/07
A Dominican Ashram: Friends of God - 11/7/07
Mission Meets Innovation at Largest Outreach Convention - 11/7/07
Church Losing the Institution, Following Jesus - 11/2/07
Got sin? YouTube, shredders your modern confessional - New ways to confess your sins point to a revival of the ancient religious rite - 10/30/07
What is Robert Schuller 'rethinking'? - 10/30/07
Holy Spirits! Aussies turn pub into church - 10/29/07
Spiritual Wellness Week to help de-stress students - 10/29/07
Mass appeal to Latin tradition - 10/28/07
Couple brings Zen enlightenment to Toledo - 10/27/07
Campolo: 'Time to Start Taking Jesus Seriously' - 10/18/07
Catalyst Powers Up Next Generation Leaders for Christ - 10/5/07
'Evangelical Prophet' to Speak on Campus - 10/5/07
Novelist tackles pastor's faith journey through St. Francis of Assisi - 10/5/07
Woman looks to various denominations for mystical guidance - 9/28/07
Prof sees a role for ancient spiritual practices - 9/28/07
Anglicans look to 'emerging church' to heal wounds - 9/27/07
Zondervan / National Pastor's Convention & Events - 9/27/07
High-Tech Churches Worry Traditional Worshippers - 9/26/07
How to Harness Millennials for Christ - 9/25/07
U2charists combine U2 music and worship in Wellington church - 9/9/07
Contemplative prayer branches out from Catholicism to all Christianity - 4/18/07
Thousands Pray to 3 Miracle Icons - 4/12/07
U2charist Comes to Trinity Church - 1/20/07
Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century? - 1/4/07
From the margins, a new center is emerging - 11/25/06
Evangelical Author Puts Progressive Spin On Traditional Faith - 9/10/06
New Faithful Practice Away From Churches - 7/10/06
Contemplative Prayer - Emerging Church and Roman Catholicism - 5/29/06
Reemerging Of The Emerging Church - 5/2/06
The Emerging Church And Bible Prophecy - 4/10/06
McLaren's Position on Hell and Homosexuality - 4/1/06
Emerging church' mixes constructive criticism with errors - 2/2/06
The Emergent Church Markets Catholicism
Christianity Defaced
Emerging Church Indoctrinates with Catholic Style Eastern Mysticism
News Alert

Plans Changed for Bob Coy and the Exponential Conference - 10/12/07
'Velvet Elvis' Author Encourages Exploration of Doubts - 9/18/07
Feeling the beat: The spiritual side of drum circles - 3/10/07
Evangelical Author Puts Progressive Spin On Traditional Faith - 10/25/06


Sincerly,

Walter


Natan4Jesus wrote:
are you referencing McLarens' stuff. "Emergent"?

as I have been investigating there is a wide gulf between "Emergent" and the loose grouping of what can be called "emerging"....at least that's the way I read it.

Personally, I'm of the firm conviction that if any HUMAN denies the Bible, as the Word of God, any human who lifts up the Holy Ghost and signs and manifestations above Jesus, all are adrift, destined to go onto the shoals of error, that said I would resist "labels", other than "follower of Jesus".

I couldnt understand any of that stuff you pasted, who would supp from such swill?

sounds like that new age babble that tormented my ears when I lived in a very dark community by the name of Topanga.....gotta go

much love in Jesus, neil

S
sermonindex

thank you for that testimony, and word.

I can only imagine what that street corner confrontation must have been like, it even breaks my heart, as I sit typing this..terrible.

just terrible, I can only imagine what those around who do not know the Riches of Christ, the Shalom of the Lord, what must they have been thinking......

"look how they love one another".

sigh.

I'll bet those Christ-less souls were very envious of our so great a salvation.

I'm very sorry that happened to you Chris, how do we change that?

you see, thats the part of the, let me call it "emerging conversation" that I don't mind, that I don't feel denies the Riches and the Glory of a life lived IN Christ, IN Messiah, that we are different, that we live in love because God is love, as John so beautifully puts it in 1st John Chapter 4. That we shine as sons and daughters of Light in a crooked and twisted generation, who have been fooled by a crooked and twisted world.

when do we as the Body of Christ have that conversation? We obviously can always start the first part of this conversation on our knees before God, that is an imperative, foundational, but the second part, the horizontal part, me to you (for example) thats the tough one.

Below this post, my response to you, there's a very long walter post to me, not talking with me, but at me, I saw a bunch of links, I saw some questioning of me reading from wikipedia, and I'll do the man the respect of reading his post, going to a few links, being open, but in the end, methinks I'm just going to get a very hard-hearted, brittle offering that will not resonate in the corridors of my heart. Such is the way of religion.

You know what "religion" is to me? Religion is a fellow strapping 70 pounds of mil-spec C-4 plastique on his body, with nails and marbles, and blows himself up with 100 souls, women and children. Religion is to me, a poor soul, who has been "accused" of heresy tied to a stake with brush and tar pitch, and then set on fire.

I depise religion, and the hard heart of self righteous man, so wrapped tight in their fleshly self righteousness. Oh, I love Jesus! I love God! I long to live in Gods Heart, sing in the New Jerusalem, with countless saints, but "religion"....you see, that's why a dialogue is starting, on the fringes of the Body of Christ, I am not the only one that feels this way, so many others have been bound in the tight chains of ecclesiastical bondage, and sectarianism, and denominationalism, and right now, that fringe, that conversation is called "emerging", because people NEED labels....and like every new thing God does, there will ALWAYS be fierce vehement opposition from the old order......and you know what?

Two things, if Jesus isnt at the center, it will fail, and as Gamaliel so correctly pointed out in Acts, if this thing is NOT of God, it will fail. That I know.

in Jesus' love . neil

now what do I write to walter?

S
sermonindex

You went online to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the Emergent Church?

yes, I did. Gives me a concise overview.

I used Google, and found hundreds of other links than Wikipedia, that explain exactly what it is, and what it is has no relationship to what Wikipedia has to say.

excellent, I frequently use google too, and I know that there is a dividing line between "Emergent" and "emerging church".

You see Walter, I'm not you, and you're not me. I don't say this in insult, I am positive that God gave you gifts as He is a loving Father. One of the gifts he gave me, and I praise His Name everyday single for it, is a facile mind, meaning there are certain things I'm "closed hand", and others that I am "open hand", for instance I am "closed hand" about this:

Jesus is Son of God, Messiah, His Blood atones for the sins of man, who believe that He is the Risen Son of God, and that the Bible is the THE Word of God, period, end of sentence.

Closed hand, absolute.

Walter, I went to many of Roger Oakland's articles that you posted, because I am of open mind, I've googled some of his video's, and I've watched and read a lot now, in fact I'm listening to his voice right now, and quite frankly, I dont read McLaren, listen to Driscoll, dont practice new age nonsense, and on and on.

so all I have to say is may God love and bless you, Roger Oakland, et al, work out your own salvations with fear and trembling.

Now Walter, dear brother, I listened to your friend Roger, can you listen to my friend, Duncan Campbell, speaking on "Heart Preparation for Revival ,you'll like it. Its from this site, and at last check, I'm absolutely positive Dear Greg Gordon has not gone off the rails.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=999]Heart Preparation for Revival[/url]

That is the type of preaching I listen to, as well as the daily Bible reading and prayer, just so you know what terrain I camp in.

Love you Walter, in Jesus love, neil (natan is my Hebrew name..yes, I come from them. )

Y
yoadam


Christisking wrote:
Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model

What is meant by "emergent model" or the phrase "emergent church"? Are they preaching another gospel? If so, what is the message they preach? I have heard this term (emergent church) many times, but am not sure I understand what is meant by it.

God bless,

Patrick Ersig
www.jonahproject.org


Well Patrick a better question might be: Do they preach?
:-(

T
Tears_of_joy

The Dialectic process is just what you mentioned which also works in person. It's actually what's happening in the PDC (in person) and in the Emerging Churches (in person) in all their small groups. It's also in internet forums, and more new internet forums are popping up weekly, such as these as you know. For others who don't know anything about the Dialectic Process which is also a part of Marxism, here's another description of what Marxist people are doing who have taken over those false churches and other false churches are being built as well with new names to try to stand out seeming like they are not of the Emergent/ing False churches, but they are. ~~[b]This is how the Marxist-Dialectic Process works - we all come together share our own thoughts, we don't get God's Authority on things, but the rules is to converse "respectfully" (which is a false peace) since others may not be of our "belief" so we must 'be silent' about what God's Authority says.[/b] And then once many put in their own ideas it then comes to consensus of the group and once again you have a Purpose Driven Internet Forum or in person what you suggested ormondotvos, that gets futher from The Bible and God's Authority on any topic to slowly, post by post which is a faster pase (faster than blogs), be turned it into a group compromised of God's Heavenly Father's Authority and away from God's Word because 'the group decided' (let us make a tower and a reputation...) what's best and what's true. It then becomes, 'Thus saith the group!' But since this gather together in-person or on Internet Forums, (even the so called Christian Forums - WATCH OUT and though you might think your trying to Evangelize others to Christ in them - your not - that's the cloak and the deception), is Marxism (the dialectic process) this means what the group agrees on may not be true for next week, it's always "changing". And as long as it's "changing" (a key Maxist's word these days without using God's Word or Authority) away from The Heavenly Father's Authority then the Dialectic Process formula is right on course and it's deceiving others by they hundreds of thoughts if not by the millions! Most false churches are getting on board with more internet forums to spread their Dialectic Process false teaching. If you all want to great write up on this here it is: [b][url=http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm]http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm[/url][/b] Just don't be deceived beloved if you are in an Internet Forum "discussing and trying to understanding each other for the greater good and peace on earth, dialoguing back and forth, keeping rules made by men which are controlled by Facilitators (Admin's and Moderators etc.) you have hocked yourself in the World Wide doctrines of demons which men have called "Marxism - The Dialectic Process". God bless those of you who are His and who are warning all men preaching and teaching Christ Jesus with all Wisdom (from God) so that they might present every man (who repents and believes the Gospel) perfect in Christ Jesus.

Taken from [url=http://jesus-is-real777.blogspot.com/]here.[/url]

My question is: How to deal with a drunk person? If you talk to him he cannot understand, because he is drunk (or brainwashed if you like), so, how to deal with drunk in order to get sober about the realities in and around them?

B
BenBrockway

"You went online to Wikipedia to find the meaning of the Emergent Church? I used Google..."


Should I be bowing before you Walter? It seems that you are indicating that you are SO MUCH better than Natan.

You know, I could be imagining things, but never once in my prayer time has God ever spoken to me and said, "Walter has the upmost authority on Scripture and internet searching. When in doubt, turn to Walter, as he has all the answers." I'm pretty sure God never spoke that to me. Wait, no, I'm sure. He hasn't.

Walter, you need to spend some time on your knees in deep, deep prayer. In fact, anytime you feel like making a negative and derogatory comment on here, first spend an hour or two on your knees asking God to fill you with love and compassion.

B
BenBrockway

"Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words."

Walter,

You definitely never run out of divisive words.

You seem to be more of a discourager rather than an encourager. I'll pray that God change your heart.

S
sermonindex

Could we once, just in this situation, take into consideration that this Topic has affected Walter personally and Know the pain of what any of us go through when after years of being in and loving a Church, we find that we may need to leave.
I've been in that position, and it's like being physically torn asunder and spiritually as well I might add.
My thoughts are that, This is a time for empathy with a "Brother".


waltern wrote:

You asked:

"Possibly Walter could explain the article he posted and it's source. "

Walter's response:

I have been a member of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa for many years and have been under the authority of Chuck Smith as my Pastor. Over the years I have sung the praises of Calvary Chapel, especially the Bible Teaching that has taken place each and every week. Through the Bible, over and over and over, year after year. Chuck has taken us through the entire Bible 8 times!

However, in 2005, on the daily radio show with Pastor Chuck (Brian Broderson was with him that day, as well) called “For Every Man An Answer”, Chuck made comments supporting Rick Warrens purpose driven Church, and found no fault with it. In fact the Calvary Chapel Book Store carried all of Warren’s books at that time. However, in May of 2006 all of the Rick Warren Books were pulled from the bookstore and Chuck, (I don’t remember exactly when, but I did hear the show) on the daily radio show “For Every Man An Answer” made the announcement that Calvary Chapel rejected the “Purpose Driven Model” or something to that effect. All of the Warren’s books were removed from the Bookstore as well.

So, we (Members of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) have been happy with the rejection of the purpose driven model, and the embrace of Classic Christianity. We study the Word, line by line and Book by Book.

Now, you can imagine our shock. Paul Smith, the Brother of Chuck Smith who has been with him since 1951 was fired in an unannounced board meeting. Someone on the board brought up motion for the immediate termination of Paul, and it was seconded, and he was terminated.

It was Paul’s sole job to keep Calvary Chapel on the straight and narrow, to keep it away from the "Emergent, Purpose Driven Model". The powers that be wanted the Purpose Driven, Emergent Church model for Calvary Chapel. Now they have it (the Emergent Church), while many of us long time members, who are aware of what is going on, are searching for a new Church.


Sincerely,

Walter


Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
I think there's been some confusion caused by not reading the links.

LighthouseTrailsResearch have been in contact with CC and on friendly terms. It's a long story between them and they quote Chuck Smith and all on these links. There were appeals and conversations between them in love and concern.
It would help if folks would read what was discussed between and by all parties before assuming the worst or making uninformed judgments.

[url=http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=44070390&pageid=r&n=0&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=calvary+chapel&mode=ALL]Some articles praising Calvary Chapel and others voicing concern of new events[/url]

These folks have been rooting for CC and only voiced concerns as they arose.


Edit to add: possibly Walter could explain the article he posted and it's source.

S
sermonindex

Serious thoughts to ponder Brother.

Thank you for bringing this out for our consideration.


Tears_of_joy wrote:

The Dialectic process is just what you mentioned which also works in person. It's actually what's happening in the PDC (in person) and in the Emerging Churches (in person) in all their small groups. It's also in internet forums, and more new internet forums are popping up weekly, such as these as you know. For others who don't know anything about the Dialectic Process which is also a part of Marxism, here's another description of what Marxist people are doing who have taken over those false churches and other false churches are being built as well with new names to try to stand out seeming like they are not of the Emergent/ing False churches, but they are. ~~[b]This is how the Marxist-Dialectic Process works - we all come together share our own thoughts, we don't get God's Authority on things, but the rules is to converse "respectfully" (which is a false peace) since others may not be of our "belief" so we must 'be silent' about what God's Authority says.[/b] And then once many put in their own ideas it then comes to consensus of the group and once again you have a Purpose Driven Internet Forum or in person what you suggested ormondotvos, that gets futher from The Bible and God's Authority on any topic to slowly, post by post which is a faster pase (faster than blogs), be turned it into a group compromised of God's Heavenly Father's Authority and away from God's Word because 'the group decided' (let us make a tower and a reputation...) what's best and what's true. It then becomes, 'Thus saith the group!' But since this gather together in-person or on Internet Forums, (even the so called Christian Forums - WATCH OUT and though you might think your trying to Evangelize others to Christ in them - your not - that's the cloak and the deception), is Marxism (the dialectic process) this means what the group agrees on may not be true for next week, it's always "changing". And as long as it's "changing" (a key Maxist's word these days without using God's Word or Authority) away from The Heavenly Father's Authority then the Dialectic Process formula is right on course and it's deceiving others by they hundreds of thoughts if not by the millions! Most false churches are getting on board with more internet forums to spread their Dialectic Process false teaching. If you all want to great write up on this here it is: [b][url=http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm]http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm[/url][/b] Just don't be deceived beloved if you are in an Internet Forum "discussing and trying to understanding each other for the greater good and peace on earth, dialoguing back and forth, keeping rules made by men which are controlled by Facilitators (Admin's and Moderators etc.) you have hocked yourself in the World Wide doctrines of demons which men have called "Marxism - The Dialectic Process". God bless those of you who are His and who are warning all men preaching and teaching Christ Jesus with all Wisdom (from God) so that they might present every man (who repents and believes the Gospel) perfect in Christ Jesus.

Taken from [url=http://jesus-is-real777.blogspot.com/]here.[/url]

My question is: How to deal with a drunk person? If you talk to him he cannot understand, because he is drunk (or brainwashed if you like), so, how to deal with drunk in order to get sober about the realities in and around them?

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone,


Neil, may the Lord give us strength to endure with beauty and gracefulness the evils in this world.


I was thinking about the question that you asked: how do we respond?

Praying, and especially for those that mistreat us or do wrong to others is excellent.

I think too that we can strive to avoid being provoked into leaving the principles of the Bible because others might misuse or subvert them.

For instance, if some come together to share their own thoughts apart from the authority of the Bible, it does not mean that we should reject the admonition of scripture that there is saftey in a multitude of counselors(though it is assumed for us that all worthwhile counsel must be grounded in God and in His word).

Or also, that because others may strive to have peace through respectful disagrement, that we should neglect to remember that the servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle, apt to teach, and patient.


No, we must not embrace beligerence and unescessary divisions in order to reject an empty peace.


B
Blunt

Nonsense.....

Calvary Chapel Has always been faithfull to Christ and the Scriptures. Listen to the Teaching!

How many of these posting armchair quaterbacks can say they have or there pastors have given thier church the Whole counsel of God 7 times over? Thats verse by verse folks......As for the Movement and Calvary....Sorry folks no conspiracy! This event is an outreach to the Lost dying world without Christ...They will not be talking about ravenhill or Paris. They will be opening the scriptures up to sinners in need of forgiveness. They will be depending on God and not the music or fun.

Calvary Chapel is quick to dis-associate with any other Gospel then the true one. They are anti emergent!

S
sermonindex

Dear Blunt:

In 2005, while I was on the road listening to Pastors Perspective, Pastor Chuck Smith (accompanied that day by Pastor Brian Broderson) made a statement that concerned me deeply. A caller to the radio show asked the question” if Pastor Chuck found any doctrinal problems or issues with Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven model. Pastor Chuck and Brian responded that they supported Rick Warren and found nothing wrong in regards to the “purpose driven movement”. At that time, the Book Store at Calvary Chapel stocked all of the Purpose Driven Books.

In 2006, Pastor Chuck, on Pastors Perspective, made a statement (there was no outside caller this time) saying that Calvary Chapel rejected the Purpose Driven model, and was distancing himself from his prior statement made a year earlier. All of the Rick Warren Purpose Driven Books were removed from the Bookstore.

Calvary Chapel Recalls Chuck Smith’s Book / Drops Purpose Driven Materials
Orginally published on Monday, June 19, 2006 at 1:27 AM
by Todd Rhoades

According to a release on the Calvary Chapel Distribution website, a 'recall' of Pastor Chuck Smith's book "When Storms Come" has been issued [b]because of it's mention and support of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" movement.[/b] According to the release, the founder of Calvary Chapel's book is being recalled due to "issues with content and packaging"...

On the same webpage it says, “The teaching and positions of Rick Warren have come into conflict with us as Calvary Chapel. Pastor Chuck has directed us to discontinue this product effective immediately.”

[b]Calvary Chapel Fires Paul Smith, Brother of Chuck Smith Sr.: CCOCM shows signs of going Emergent

A heads-up from the Christian Research Network took me to this article on Calvary Chapel's firing of Chuck Smith's brother. There is some information from behind the scenes that prompted the firing of Paul Smith, which Lighthouse Trails Research has revealed. This is directly linked to the Emergent Church Movement's Eastern Mysticism infiltrating that church denomination.

In typical fashion, the liberals get rid of Christians who question and challenge the spiritual direction of the church. They welcome all who agree with them, but not those who dogmatically stand solely for Scriptural truth.[/b]

Here are some excerpts:

[b][color=990000]Lighthouse Trails regrets to report that on May 5th, Paul Smith, brother of Chuck Smith (the founder of the Calvary Chapel movement), was fired from his position in the Calvary Chapel (CCOF) organization during an unscheduled meeting that day. The motion to fire Paul Smith was made by board member Roger Wing and[b] seconded by Chuck Smith's son-in-law, Brian Broderson. Other board members affirmed the motion, and Paul Smith was dismissed.

Concerns over the direction that the Calvary Chapel movement may go after Chuck Smith is no longer heading the organization have continued to grow.[b] And now with Paul Smith, who strongly advocated and supported his brother's hopes of having a NON-contemplative/emerging/Purpose Driven movement, those concerns are mounting.

Just two weeks ago, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (home church of Chuck Smith Sr.) hosted a Pure Worship Conference, which included worship leaders from the nearby Rock Harbor church. Rock Harbor has shown signs that it is being significantly influenced by the emerging church, including having had their youth group study New Age sympathizer Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis , for three weeks. A few months ago, Rock Harbor held a meeting due to concerns by congregants as to whether they were going emergent or not. Approximately 700 people showed up!

Recently we reported on Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa's high school in which a teacher there asked his class to read, review, and study How to Stay Christian in College written by Protestant-turned-Catholic J. Budziszewski . The book has references in the back of some editions to mystic emergent Tony Jones, and Budziszewski himself is a proponent of contemplative prayer practices. Our article "Concerned Family Asks Legitimate Questions of Christian Leaders" illustrates what many families are going through in trying to protect their children and teens from spiritual deception. Christian parents must realize that the souls of their youth are at stake.[/color][/b]

[b]Paul Smith came on board to Calvary Chapel about four years ago to help with what could possibly be a sinking ship. Paul believed that the only answer for the movement was to hold to the basic tenets of biblical Christianity.

As he learned of the various merging/contemplative/Purpose Driven influences pouring into Calvary Chapel, he often spoke up but was also often received with resistance--until last Tuesday, when an impromptu meeting in the middle of the day brought his efforts to a halt.[/b]

[b][color=990000]This situation with Calvary Chapel is not isolated. Nearly every evangelical denomination and organization of any size in North America is going in this same direction to one degree or another. One key factor in why this is happening so rapidly is that Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries are heavily saturated with contemplative/emerging spirituality. Biola University, for instance, where many Calvary Chapel pastors have attended and graduated, is deeply involved in this "new spirituality."

End quote.

Earlier on (as the Lighthouse report states), Roger Oakland, who had a long standing ministry within the Calvary Chapel denomination in teaching and evangelism. He began to sound the warnings of the ECM and for a time, Calvary Chapel, including Chuck Smith Sr., agreed.

However as the pull of heresy continued, and the son of Chuck Smith Sr., Chuck Smith Jr., embraced Eastern Mysticism, the fight against the ECM started to crumble. Now they have fired Paul Smith, Smith Sr.'s brother.

Again we see two things I've pointed out repeatedly in the past: error comes in by way of schools, seminaries and colleges (it MATTERS what we read and who we listen to!) and when a relationship is at stake, as with Smith Jr.

Christ said that unless we're willing to give up even our family members for HIM, we are not worthy to be His disciples.

Loyalty to Christ Jesus at ANY COST!

On a side note, in this article from Lighthouse, I read with disappointment of another seemingly solid Christian leader leaving the faith, J. Budziszewski. It reminds me of the whole debacle with Ravi Zacharius. Very sad. [/color][/b]


Sincerely,

Walter


Blunt wrote:
Nonsense.....

Calvary Chapel Has always been faithfull to Christ and the Scriptures. Listen to the Teaching!

How many of these posting armchair quaterbacks can say they have or there pastors have given thier church the Whole counsel of God 7 times over? Thats verse by verse folks......As for the Movement and Calvary....Sorry folks no conspiracy! This event is an outreach to the Lost dying world without Christ...They will not be talking about ravenhill or Paris. They will be opening the scriptures up to sinners in need of forgiveness. They will be depending on God and not the music or fun.

Calvary Chapel is quick to dis-associate with any other Gospel then the true one. They are anti emergent!

In conclu[/color][/b]

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone,


Do you all think that when accusations and allegations against others are being made there should be sources qouted that can be verified or at least examined and those who are accused should be given an opportunity to respond to the accusations?


Has this person that was fired made a public statement about this? Or the founder of the denomination?


S
sermonindex


Jesus-is-GOD wrote:

I think there's been some confusion caused by not reading the links.

LighthouseTrailsResearch have been in contact with CC and on friendly terms. It's a long story between them and they quote Chuck Smith and all on these links. There were appeals and conversations between them in love and concern.
It would help if folks would read what was discussed between and by all parties before assuming the worst or making uninformed judgments.

[url=http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=44070390&pageid=r&n=0&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=calvary+chapel&mode=ALL]Some articles praising Calvary Chapel and others voicing concern of new events[/url]

These folks have been rooting for CC and only voiced concerns as they arose.


From page one.

C
ChrisJD

From page one.


Thank you for the links. However the page that you gave was 25 seperate links to I suppose more articles.

I think it would be appropriate to provide the sources for the things that are direcly alledged in context for the sake of those that are reading these things and not to expect that they dig for it themselves.


It is normally the burden of those that make accusations to prove and substantiate their claims.


What/where is response to this of the people being charged?

C
ChrisJD

What/where is response to this of the people being charged?


I noticed in the first article of the page of links, the authors claim that the man that was fired wrote them an e-mail afterwards and allowed them to publish it.


Did he make any of the same claims as to why he was fired that are being made here?

C
ChrisJD

Waltern,


On a side note, in this article from Lighthouse, I read with disappointment of another seemingly solid Christian leader leaving the faith,(name ommitted by this poster).

Has the man that you named above made a statement or defence in public about this accusation?

S
sermonindex

To ChrisJD

The main source for the article is Lighthouse Trail Research, plus a person that has attended Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa for many years (me). Many of us at Calvary have been concerned for sometime about what direction Brian Broderson, Chuck's son-in-law will take Calvary Chapel. It appears that our fears have been well founded.

Also, I just found an article about the firing in newstracts, here:

http://www.newstracts.org/

A REAL CONTROVERSY IN THE CHURCH

Paul Smith, brother of Chuck Smith (the founder of the Calvary Chapel movement), was fired from his position in the Calvary Chapel (CCOF) organization during an unscheduled meeting that day. The motion to fire Paul Smith was made by board member Roger Wing and seconded by Chuck Smith's son-in-law, Brian Broderson. Other board members affirmed the motion, and Paul Smith was dismissed.

The above story is linked to Lighthouse Trail Research.


If that is not enough for you, then perhaps you need to a written statement from Paul Smith, as well as the Board who fired him? Good luck!!!

Sincerley,

Walter

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1482&more=1&c=1


http://www.prophecynet.com/showthread.php?p=72496

http://surphside.blogspot.com/2009/05/calvary-chapel-fires-paul-smith-brother.html


http://vallee7.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/calvary-chapel-and-emerging-spirituality/


http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4777312


ChrisJD wrote:
Waltern,


On a side note, in this article from Lighthouse, I read with disappointment of another seemingly solid Christian leader leaving the faith,(name ommitted by this poster).

Has the man that you named above made a statement or defence in public about this accusation?

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


Waltern,


"...perhaps you need to a written statement from Paul Smith, as well as the Board who fired him? Good luck!!!"

I think it would be appropriate to hear from direct witnesess and those who are being publicly charged with apostasy when considering accusations about them and others.


Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:2-6, 1Ti 5:19, John 8:13-18, 7:50-51


S
sermonindex


Hi ChrisJD

Below, you will find information about a new type of Pastor that has been a guest speaker twice in the past month at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, Ca.. His focus is the youth of Calvary Chapel, and any others that show up.

Would you feel safe if your children went to hear this wolf in sheeps clothing?

You be the judge of what is taking place at the main Sanctuary of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa:

The guest speaker (twice now) was Mike Erre, Pastor of Rock Harbor Church, Costa Mesa, who has written a book entitled[b] “Death By Church; Rescuing Jesus from His Followers, Recapturing God’s hope for His People”[/b] and states the following:

[b][color=000000]Death by Church has a point to make--that God is saving "all of creation" (eg. p. 100) and that the "church" is not the substance of the kingdom of God (i.e., the whole of creation and all of humanity is). In fact, Erre says, the church is not the kingdom of God at all - it only points to the kingdom of God, which incorporates all of creation and, if the church does all the right things it can have the privilege of being part of that kingdom too. Erre seeks to prove his point but not just by turning to Scripture - he turns to prominent figures in the emerging/emergent church (those such as Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball), the contemplative mystical prayer movement (those such as Dallas Willard and panentheist Richard Rohr-a favorite of Erre's), and New Age sympathizers (those such as Marcus Borg, who believes Jesus did not see himself as the Son of God (see FMSN, p. 124), and Gregory Boyd, author of the not-yet published work, The Cosmic Dance). Couple Erre's frequent use of emerging/contemplative/New Age sympathizing authors with his kingdom-now theology wrapped in universalist/panentheistic overtones[/color][/b]

I surely would not want my son or daughters to hear what he has to say. [b]What he has to say and teach has nothing to do with God’s plan of Salvation that is taught throughout the new Testament. God is not saving ALL OF CREATION! Jesus Christ told us the following about those that will see heaven- and few there are that find it:[/b]

Matthew 7:13-15
[b][color=660000]13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.[/color][/b]


This is the link:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1491&more=1&c=1

And this is what the link has to say about what is going on. If this information is not of importance to you, then just ignore it.

“Death By Church”- Emergent New Paradigm Pastor to Speak at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.

Category: * Emerging (Merging) Church
Source: Editors at Lighthouse Trails

Emerging/emergent spirituality is making serious inroads into Christianity. Churches and Christian colleges, unaware of the subtle undermining of such spirituality, are embracing teachers and leaders of this movement and pointing others to them. Often they are unaware of what these teachers really believe and teach. In light of an event (Movement 2009) scheduled to take place on May 29th at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, the Calvary Chapel mother church, with RockHarbor pastor, Mike Erre (and a similar event (Pure Worship) that took place earlier this month), Lighthouse Trails is posting this special report.

In the pages of Death by Church: Rescuing Jesus from His Followers, Recapturing God's Hope for His People (Harvest House, 2009), author Mike Erre (pastor of RockHarbor Church in Costa Mesa, California) acknowledges that Jesus is Lord. He also references a number of Scriptures and talks about several different Bible stories. But for the discerning Christian who knows his Bible, it doesn't take too long into Erre's book to realize something is amiss, and such a reader soon begins to have a sense that he is theologically being tossed to and fro between the pages of this book and soon feeling like he is in a battle zone for the truth. Sandwiched between the Scripture references and the mention of "Jesus" is a theology that does not at all represent the Gospel.

Death by Church has a point to make--that God is saving "all of creation" (eg. p. 100) and that the "church" is not the substance of the kingdom of God (i.e., the whole of creation and all of humanity is). In fact, Erre says, the church is not the kingdom of God at all - it only points to the kingdom of God, which incorporates all of creation and, if the church does all the right things it can have the privilege of being part of that kingdom too. Erre seeks to prove his point but not just by turning to Scripture - he turns to prominent figures in the emerging/emergent church (those such as Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball), the contemplative mystical prayer movement (those such as Dallas Willard and panentheist Richard Rohr-a favorite of Erre's), and New Age sympathizers (those such as Marcus Borg, who believes Jesus did not see himself as the Son of God (see FMSN, p. 124), and Gregory Boyd, author of the not-yet published work, The Cosmic Dance). Couple Erre's frequent use of emerging/contemplative/New Age sympathizing authors with his kingdom-now theology wrapped in universalist/panentheistic overtones, and Death by Church actually takes on a pseudo-name, Death by Deception. But let's take a closer look:

Erre states in the beginning of the book that as Christians, "We have become famous for what we oppose, rather than who we are for" (p. 22). Relying heavily on statistics and studies in this first section of the book, Erre wants the reader to know that for the most part over the "majority of the last 2000 years" Christians have "been the sponsor and center of most of Western culture and civilization"(p. 20). But this has not been a good thing, according to Erre, who says that something has "gone very wrong," particularly with "American culture," which has been guilty of simplifying "complicated things." He gives an example: salvation. "We have reduced salvation into four steps that allow me entrance into heaven when I die. But in so doing, we have bypassed the gospel that Jesus preached--the gospel of the kingdom of God. This gospel deals much more with the 'here and now' that the 'then' ['then' meaning when Jesus died on the Cross] and there' [there meaning heaven, our eternal home]" (p. 26). And this is Erre's set up for the remainder of the book.

The kingdom of God theology that Erre presents is broad--in fact, very broad. That is why he turns to Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, and a number of other broad-minded thinkers to make his case. Erre is not merely quoting these figures in a benign manner--he clearly resonates with them and admits many of them have been "highly influential" in his life.1 He fondly and favorably tells his readers what they think and what they believe. Quoting Alan Hirsch, Erre says that "the major threat to the viability of our faith is that of consumerism" (p. 31). He eventually defines "consumerism" as individualism, saying that there has been too much emphasis within Christianity on individual salvation and nothing on corporate salvation (ie., all of the world and creation being saved).

As with most emerging authors, Erre exalts uncertainty and doubt (always searching, never finding). He states: "Jesus brings mystery, paradox, and tension--rarely did someone get a straight answer out of Him" (p. 36), which is not true about Jesus at all. To help build Erre's case, he turns a number of times to two Fuller Seminary professors, Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger. Interestingly, in Faith Undone, Roger Oakland's expose of the emerging church, Oakland discusses Gibbs and Bolger. He states: "They found that emerging church leaders are not impressed with Christians who defend the faith by offering definitive answers to those who doubt the faith (p. 182)." Doubt and uncertainty are vital to the emerging church thinking--and to their mission--and without this foundation, the emerging church cannot reach its goal of an all-inclusive kingdom (that Erre seeks to present in Death by Church). This resonates with Thomas Merton who told people of other religious traditions that we are already in unity, but we just don't realize it yet. (see ATOD, p. 159). Again from Faith Undone, Oakland quotes Gibbs and Bolger:
Evangelism or mission for me is no longer persuading people to believe what I believe, no matter how edgy or creative I get. It is more about shared experiences and encounters. It is about walking the journey of life and faith together, each distinct to his or her own tradition and culture but with the possibility of encountering God and truth from one another.2
Oakland shows how Gibbs and Bolger are presenting an "inclusive gospel," certainly the overall message of Erre's book.

Ironically, Gibbs and Bolger look to emerging church figure, Spencer Burke (of The Ooze), who, according to Burke's publisher's website (Zondervan), has had significant connections to Erre's RockHarbor Church.3 Roger Oakland reveals some disturbing things about Burke's spirituality that sound very inline with Erre's. Quoting Gibbs and Bolger again:
Burke's community is prepared to learn from faith traditions outside the Christian fold. There is a Buddhist family in their church. As a community, the church visited a Buddhist temple. They participated in a guided meditation with this family. Burke celebrates the many ways God is revealed. He recognizes that the Spirit has been with these people all along. The community celebrates other traditions. They reach out to other traditions, and see them as beloved children of God. With a focus on kingdom rather than on church, people find that their relationship with other faiths changes.
Back to Death by Church. Erre says that "Central to the kingdom is God's desire to renew, restore, and reconcile all things" (p. 41). Calling this a "deep theology" (p. 42), Erre says he would like to "lay a theological groundwork" (p. 45). First, he explains that a gospel that focuses on "going to heaven after you die, and praying the prayer of salvation" is "only a narrow slice of what the Scriptures teach about salvation" (p. 46). Erre adds: "His great purpose is to restore His fallen creation and renew it beyond the original" (p. 48). Numerous times throughout the book, he says that the "central theme" of the Bible is "the kingdom of God" (p. 54). But as the discerning reader pours through the pages of Death by Church, a clear and disturbing picture of what Erre means by "kingdom of God" begins to take shape--when Erre talks about the kingdom of God, he means that "the church" is "not the kingdom." The kingdom is "something bigger." "If the kingdom is inclusive," Erre says, "the church should be also" (p. 78).

Erre sounds very much like New Age Episcopalian priest, Matthew Fox, who calls the "deep theology" that Erre talks about a "deep ecumenism" ("deep" meaning all-inclusive). Fox expresses this clearly:
I foresee a renaissance, "a rebirth based on a spiritual initiative" ... This new birth will cut through all cultures and all religions and indeed will draw forth the wisdom common to all vital mystical traditions in a global religious awakening I call "deep ecumenism."4
While Erre himself does not speak of the "mystical traditions" in Death by Church, many of those he incorporates into his book (Willard, McLaren, Rohr, Borg, Bell, Kimball, etc.) abundantly do in their own writings (see LTRP for documentation).

Erre is not shy about sharing his replacement theology views. Speaking of a "coming restoration" (p. 88) and a "new order," he says that the "people of God" are "the new and renewed Israel" (p. 96). Reading through the book, one realizes that Erre sees no prophetic value or plan (for the future) in Israel.
"Jesus ... creates a new order--a new community, a new Israel" (p. 104).

"Jesus of Nazareth reconstructs a true Israel by choosing 12 disciples (one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel)" (p. 110).

"Central to understanding this call of Jesus is the idea that it concerned itself less with the salvation of individual souls and more with the formation of a renewed Israel, a community of disciples that would collectively embody the kingdom" (p. 111).

"The early Christians saw themselves as continuing Israel's story ... as messianic Israel" (p. 116).
Echoing his fellow emergent leaders, Erre minimizes "the question of what happens to me after I die" and talks about a "cosmic" Jesus who "sends His "new community, the church" into the world (p. 98). He states: "The New Testament ... regularly insists that the major, central, framing question is that of God's purpose of rescue and re-creation for human beings and the whole world" (p. 98). He calls it the "here and now" theology (p. 99). ("Our worn-out theology of escaping from this world does not do justice to the here-and-now work" (p. 99).

Erre's theme, that all of creation is being restored and saved, is redundant through the book. On one page alone, he drives the point several times:

1. "God wants to redeem the whole person and all of creation."
2. "The good news ... is about the rule of God being applied to all of creation--every part of human beings and the world."
3. "Our traditional conceptions of salvation are blatantly more individualist, focusing on one's individual reconciliation with God through a personal relationship with Jesus ... It is more concerned with getting souls to heaven than with bringing heaven to earth. [This resonates with Marcus Borg, who calls this old paradigm Christianity.] This narrow gospel focuses only on the salvation of the human soul, but the gospel of the kingdom s includes salvation of human beings within the context of the larger story of God restoring all of creation.
4. "[T]he consummation of the kingdom includes an entirely new creation.
5. This new and cosmic salvation is spoken of as the renewal, restoration, or reconciliation of all things."
6. (p. 125): "One of the ways that the kingdom is larger than the church is that the focus on the kingdom is the redemption of all creation. The message of the kingdom of God is cosmic in its proportions ... it [the kingdom] is ultimately aimed at redeeming and restoring all that God has made" (more on pp. 128-129; 210-211; 217).

Please understand that the view Erre is expressing in these statements is classic universalism (which negates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ because faith in Christ is not a requirement for salvation, and regardless of one's acceptance or rejection of the Gospel, he or she is saved. This would mean, as Neale Donald Walsch teaches, that even Hitler would be saved).5

It is important to note here that when Erre talks about God restoring and renewing all things, he is not talking about the new heaven and the earth that will take place after the events that are foretold in the Book of Revelation. He is espousing a view about a renewal and restoration that will occur prior to these events (this is called kingdom-now theology).

Erre says that this newly defined "Kingdom citizenship" incorporates those of other kingdoms as well, not just our own kingdom of God, which helps us to see "our place in the cosmic [meaning universal] story" (p. 112). This new "Kingdom" "has decreed that independence has no place in His kingdom. Instead collective interdependence is demanded," Erre states. One term that Erre uses frequently is a term that resembles New Age leader Barbara Marx Hubbard who also speaks of a "new humanity." When Marx Hubbard uses this term, she means man has been enlightened to understand his own divinity and now realizes all of humanity is being saved, along with all of creation. The stipulation for this "new humanity" is not whether someone has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through being born-again and regeneration through Christ--no, it is about a new humanity that has joined together and understands her cosmic divinity (see Reinventing Jesus Christ).

Erre's kingdom-now theology is expressed throughout the book. For instance on page 132, he states that the gospel is "something bigger" than the "story of Jesus' dying for the private sins of individuals.... it is the story of God's kingdom being launched, on earth as in heaven, generating a new state of affairs. Atonement, redemption, and salvation are what happen on the way." This is typical emerging spirituality that does not see atonement, redemption, and salvation as a moment in history when Jesus Christ died on the Cross but rather an ongoing process that is continually growing, expanding, changing (see our review of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope). Erre states that "the end of the age does not result in the destruction of the earth but rather in its renewal." He says: "[R]ather that waiting for the last days, we have been living in them since the coming of Jesus. Rather than waiting for the end to come, we are already living in the end times that will be consummated when Jesus returns" (p. 198). And, "[T]he end of the age does not result in the destruction of the earth but rather in its renewal"(p. 212).

Erre believes that the church "neither initiates nor sustains [God's] work" on the earth but must seek out where the work of God is already taking place and participate in that work. He says when we take on this view, we can then understand that the "whole of creation is now included in the scope of redemption." "The church is not the primary location of God in the world; the world is," he says (p. 133).

Death by Church lays out a perfect example of what Lighthouse Trails calls "the new missiology." In essence, Erre tells believers that "we don't take Christ to a region or people group, but we instead show up and pay attention to the work that Jesus is already doing. We have to move away from the current mind-set about church, ministry, and mission." (p. 136). In other words, we don't have to tell people about Jesus because Jesus is already there among them (before they hear the Gospel and believe; i.e, they can keep their same religion and still be connected to God). This is what William Young, author of the #1 best-seller The Shack, echoes when The Shack's "Jesus" says he has no desire to make anyone Christian. Erre states: "We don't do God's work in the world; we simply participate in God's work in the world that is already underway. ... He's always at work everywhere" (p. 162).

As if the kingdom-now theology, replacement theology, universalistic message, and new missiology were not enough, Erre presents to the reader a case for panentheism (God in all things). Given the fact that he includes Richard Rohr in his list of those he resonates with, this is no surprise. Rohr is the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation. His spirituality would be in the same camp as someone like Matthew Fox (author of The Coming of the Cosmic Christ) who believes in pantheism (God is all) and panentheism (God in all). Rohr wrote the foreword to a 2007 book called How Big is Your God? by Jesuit priest (from India) Paul Coutinho. In Coutinho's book, he describes an interspiritual community where people of all religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity) worship the same God.

In Death by Church, in Erre's presentation of panentheism, Erre quotes Madeleine L'Engle: "There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation" (p. 159). What she is saying here is that God (the sacred) can be found in everything (the secular). In that line of thinking, Erre himself says that his new kingdom "dismantles the sacred/secular distinction" and "all things are given over to God--including those things formerly thought to be secular or unspiritual" He adds: "Confessional worship ... seeks to see everything as having been made to reflect the glory of God. ... we reawaken to the possibilities of redemption in all areas of life" (pp. 158). This is the same theology as Sue Monk Kidd (see ATOD, p. 134). This concept reflects classic panentheism--God is in all things. Keep in mind, that there is a continuity of the theme that God is in everything with many of the figures that Erre turns to in his book. Richard Rohr, Marcus Borg, Brian McLaren, and John Dominic Crossan are four who hold to this view and are referenced in Death by Church. Borg is one of the leading champions of panentheisism of mainline Christianity, as is Brian McLaren through the emerging church. Rob Bell, who resonates with Marcus Borg, is also referenced in Death by Church. We want to reiterate here, Erre is not just referencing these figures--he has absorbed their theology!

In an emergent church setting, Erre's book would fit in well. But unfortunately, he is scheduled to speak at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa on May 29th at the Movement 2009 event as the featured speaker. From all that Calvary Chapel has stood for and represented over the last three plus decades, Erre's spirituality does not line up with Calvary Chapel. Even if Erre doesn't talk about these topics at the Movement 2009, to welcome him at a Calvary Chapel church (the mother church of Calvary Chapel, no less) is sending out a message far and wide that emerging spirituality is now acceptable and legitimate. Yet, Calvary Chapel founder Pastor Chuck Smith has made several strong statements over the past few years denouncing the spirituality of the emerging church. We hope and pray that he and other Calvary Chapel pastors will realize that many believers, from many different denominational backgrounds are watching and waiting and hoping that Calvary Chapel will stand firm in the faith and reject firmly, once and for all, these unbiblical teachings ... no matter the cost. No Bible-believing church should give a platform to those who espouse these views. Having Mike Erre speak at Calvary Chapel would be tantamount to having Marcus Borg or Richard Rohr speaking there.

We close with this. It's vital to understand that spiritual deception can sound very Christian. That is how deception works. Ray Yungen has given a solemn warning to this effect when he comments on occultist Alice Bailey's prediction of what her movement (the New Age) would do and how it would accomplish "world illumination":
In light of the many who will be coming in Christ's name, I believe the Alice Bailey prophecies can provide further insight into what the apostle Paul called in II Thessalonians the falling away. Bailey eagerly foretold of what she termed "the regeneration of the churches." Her rationale for this was obvious:
The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished.
In other words, instead of opposing Christianity, the occult would capture and blend itself with Christianity and then use it as its primary vehicle for spreading and instilling New Age consciousness! The various churches would still have their outer trappings of Christianity and still use much of the same lingo. If asked certain questions about traditional Christian doctrine, the same answers would be given. But it would all be on the outside; on the inside a contemplative [emerging] spirituality would be drawing in those open to it.6
Notes:
1. From Disclaimer in Death by Church at beginning of book.
2. Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic of Baker Publishing Group, 2005), p. 132. (This book cites Brian McLaren on back cover).
3. One source told us that Burke may no longer be on staff at RockHarbor.
4. Roger Oakland in Faith Undone (chapter 2), quoting Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, 1988, p. 5.
5. See "Enlightened Race" by Caryl Matrisiciana from Out of India.
6. Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing (Silverton, OR: Lighthouse Trails Publishing, LLC, 2nd ed., 2006), p. 123.


This article or excerpt was posted on May 25, 2009@ 5:02 pm

Sincerely,

Walter


ChrisJD wrote:
Hi everyone.


Waltern,


"...perhaps you need to a written statement from Paul Smith, as well as the Board who fired him? Good luck!!!"

I think it would be appropriate to hear from direct witnesess and those who are being publicly charged with apostasy when considering accusations about them and others.

Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:2-6, 1Ti 5:19, John 8:13-18, 7:50-51


C
ChrisJD

Waltern,

About the book review,


I would agree with you, if someone is qouting sources and authors and materials that are obviously contrary to Christian doctrine like it sounds those are, then yes, we can have good ground to be very concerned and to start asking some questions.


For someone that knows nothing about the situation like myself, neither the people that reviewed this book or the one that wrote it have any more or less credibility. I cannot fairly make a determination about a book based upon qoutes from a review of it without having the book itself to read those things in context.


In general, whenver I see comments inserted after things people have said that appear to be crafted to pursuade others as to the intentions or motives of others, or of drawing conclusions based upon appearant suppositions, I start to question their credibility and trustworthiness to report facts to me.


If we do not guard the words and reputations of others and represent them with as much honesty and fairness as possible I don't think there is any reason to take what we say seriously.

C
ChrisJD

Waltern,


You be the judge of what is taking place at the main Sanctuary of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa:


I can't honestly do that without being there or of hearing first hand from those who are as to [b][u]exactly[/u] what is going on[/b].



If this information is not of importance to you, then just ignore it.

It's not that it isn't important. It isn't a substitute for the testimony of direct witnesses or of people that are accused to speak and answer for themselves.


Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:2-6, 1Ti 5:19, John 8:13-18, 7:50-51

C
ChrisJD

Waltern,

I'm reposting this because it doesn't appear as though an answer was given. Has this man made a public response to the charges that are being made against him and that you have published here?

"Waltern,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, in this article from Lighthouse, I read with disappointment of another seemingly solid Christian leader leaving the faith,(name ommitted by this poster).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Has the man that you named above made a statement or defence in public about this accusation?"

W
White_Stone

Dear Waltern,

Your concerns for your House of Worship and the Church of Jesus Christ are touching. You and the Saints are in my prayers.

Somehow it appears that you have been put on trial for expressing these concerns. I live on the other side of the Country and will never be attending that particular Social Club but there are plenty of them here, should I care to select one. My husband and I gave up seeking out a local worship place and have Bible readings every morning between the two of us. (Where 2 or 3 are gathered - Praise Jesus!)

If this post has been any comfort to you it is through the power of Jesus, since I am lately aware of my inability to express myself as I wish. Jesus loves you & so do I,

white stone

S
sermonindex


To ChrisJD:

I would suggest that you purchase Erre's Book, "Death By Church:Rescuing Jesus from His Followers" and determine if what he has to say agrees with Scripure that you understand from the Bible. If you believe that the Bible teaches what his book has to say (that everyone is saved), then you believe in classic universalism :

1. "God wants to redeem the whole person and all of creation." (eveyone goes to heaven)

2. "The good news ... is about the rule of God being applied to all of creation--every part of human beings and the world."

3. "Our traditional conceptions of salvation are blatantly more individualist, focusing on one's individual reconciliation with God through a personal relationship with Jesus ... It is more concerned with getting souls to heaven than with bringing heaven to earth. [This resonates with Marcus Borg, who calls this old paradigm Christianity.] This narrow gospel focuses only on the salvation of the human soul, but the gospel of the kingdom s includes salvation of human beings within the context of the larger story of God restoring all of creation.

4. "[T]he consummation of the kingdom includes an entirely new creation.

5. This new and cosmic salvation is spoken of as the renewal, restoration, or reconciliation of all things."

6. (p. 125): "One of the ways that the kingdom is larger than the church is that the focus on the kingdom is the redemption of all creation. The message of the kingdom of God is cosmic in its proportions ... it [the kingdom] is ultimately aimed at redeeming and restoring all that God has made" (more on pp. 128-129; 210-211; 217).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

However, if you don't believe in Classic Universalism, and instead believe in Classic Christianity----that everyone will NOT be saved, and that there is a hell for those who do not come through the narrow path and the straight gate, through Jesus Christ, then for sure you
would not want your children infected by someone who does believe in Classic Universalism.

Matthew 7:13-15
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


[b]Read Erre's book, and let us know if it has been presented accurately and fairly, and after reading it, would you let your children sit under his authority as a Pastor, even if that was just for one night.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


ChrisJD wrote:
Waltern,


You be the judge of what is taking place at the main Sanctuary of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa:


I can't honestly do that without being there or of hearing first hand from those who are as to [b][u]exactly[/u] what is going on[/b].



If this information is not of importance to you, then just ignore it.

It's not that it isn't important. It isn't a substitute for the testimony of direct witnesses or of people that are accused to speak and answer for themselves.


Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:2-6, 1Ti 5:19, John 8:13-18, 7:50-51



C
ChrisJD

Waltern,


Read Erre's book, and let us know if it has been presented accurately and fairly, and after reading it, would you let your children sit under his authority as a Pastor, even if that was just for one night.

Based upon the things that were presented so far, I think that would be a good idea for those who are attending the congregation.


For us here and for those who have been specifically named or accused I think it would be fair to present thier response to these things if they have made one publicly.


Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:2-6, 1Ti 5:19, John 8:13-18, 7:50-51

S
sermonindex

To ccchhhrrriiisss, ChrisJD, Nata4Jesus, and others opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ:


Sound Doctrine and it's departure from the Body of Christ has taken place before my very eyes in the past 30 years!

[color=990000][b]A Departure from SOUND DOCTRINE


What is "new" from the pulpit has become more important than expositional teaching on what God has written (line by line, verse by verse, and Book by Book). Because of this emphasis, MANY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY ERROR, NOR HAVE A CLUE ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. BECAUSE OF THIS LACK OF CONVEYING DOCTRINE TO THE ASSEMBLY, WE ALSO FIND PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THEY CAN BE CHRISTIAN WITHOUT THE CONFINES OF DOCTRINE. THEY LIKE THE MORAL TEACHING AND HIGHER ETHICS JESUS OFFERS, THEY WILL EMULATE JESUS BUT THEY DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DO IT BY THE BOOK. JESUS BECOMES THEIR MENTOR AND HELPS REINFORCE THEIR VIEWS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT IN LIFE.
[/color][/b]

[b]Paul wrote to young Timothy who was trained in the Jewish Scriptures since his youth. 2 Timothy 4:3-5: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”[/b]

[color=990000][b]Paul spoke prophetically about that that “time” which should be apparent to all has come. They “will not endure sound doctrine.” They will NOT put up with those who teach correctly. Why? Because they have a need to scratch their ears with something new (like the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill). They intentionally turn from hearing the truth and appoint teachers that will speak (scratch) to what their itch (desire) dictates.[/color][/b]

[b]Some in the Church that have been persuaded not to sit under sound Bible teaching that will awaken them. More pulpit time is devoted to storytelling, jokes and illustrations (stories- fables and myths) than the exposition of the word. The sheep’s diet consists more of entertainment, with music, skits and dances with sermons that are like drinking warm milk that will only help them go to sleep.[/b]

Of course Bible verses are still used in these sermons (mostly principles), but these are an added [color=990000]content to a message that is not based on or out of the Scripture. This changes the whole substance of the message. The more alienated we are to Scripture teaching of verse upon verse the more we become susceptible to trends. We wait for the newest idea, the newest method that will help enhance our spirituality. We are convinced what worked before does not work for today. We need something different, fresh for our times; the people, fashions and culture have changed. New books, new seminars on the newest concepts. We are excited thinking where is God taking the church. The fact is, it is not God taking us anywhere, He has been pointing to where He has always been and where He wants us to be, in the WORD.[/color]

Paul wrote to Titus, a Greek convert who he appointed to set elders in the churches established in Crete.

[b]“Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

He likewise mentions in Philippians 2:15-16: “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.”

The Greek word for holding fast is epecho, it means to hold upon, i.e. to retain; to pay attention to. In Titus 1:9 when Paul mentions “holding fast the faithful word” the Greek word is antechomai – it is more active and intense, it means to hold oneself opposite to, or against, hold back, withstand, to keep oneself directly opposite to anyone, hold to him firmly, cleave to, paying heed to him (the Lord by His word).

Holding fast the word is someone who is Bible based, sound in his understanding of what the Scripture says and does not say. He understands what God has said as God’s word is living and active today just as it was when it was spoken or written.

“As he has been taught” the Greek means “According to the teaching.” Meaning they received the truth for some time and are trained up in it. There are some people that know the truth, but need encouragement to continue in it, others are ignorant and unintentionally oppose it. Then there are some who intentionally align themselves AGAINST the truth with full knowledge they are not esteeming God’s written word.

Titus is told, “Exhort” (convict)- who? Those who contradict the word- the gainsayers (v.10). They are to actively refute the objections and defend the truth.

If you are firm in your belief of the doctrines of the Christian faith, you can be relied on to maintain and defend those doctrines. You can be expected to withstand those in opposition because you have become familiar and digested the faithful word.

2 Thess. 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, (holding fast) and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Hold or stand fast is the Greek word steko, a perfect tense meaning to be stationary, to persevere: in other words we are not to be moved. Those who continue in sound doctrine have not moved from what they were taught, it is those who do not teach sound doctrine that have moved from where they once were.

Convince- Greek (elengchein) “convict.” We are to both exhort and to convince those who contradict. To persuade them and bring them over to God’s correct view by using kind exhortation, and by instruction that will convince them they are wrong and this is what is meant. We convince by the truth and we know they are of us if they are willing to hear and seek the truth. However, if they do not listen and are contentious then we must take the next step.

By “Sound” doctrine (Greek: hugiaino) means healthy, like the saying, “sound advice,” to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine). A church becomes unhealthy not because the gifts are not being used but because of no sound doctrine being consistently taught. This is our problem today. To be healthy means we are growing to maturity, we are growing in love, in grace, not being dysfunctional. If you are sound in doctrine the gifts will flow out correctly. When we see people have an unbalanced obsession with healing, miracles and rigorously pursue experiences it is because they have not been taught sound doctrine. They have neglected to train themselves in godliness that sound doctrine produces.

“The Faithful word” are the true doctrines. This means that we are to hold this, in opposition to those who would wrest it away, and in opposition to all false teachers we would encounter.
Titus 1:10 “For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision” Paul calls them unruly- rebellious people, deceivers. These are those that do not receive the sound doctrine, and are not willing to submit to the authority of Scripture. They are ruled by their own opinions, not Christ.[/b]

[color=000000]We find that THOSE WHO OPPOSE SOUND DOCTRINE ARE: Proud 1Tim. 6:3-4; Ignorant 1 Tim. 6:4; Doting about questions; 1Tim. 6:4; abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work Titus 1:16; Not to be received 2 John 1:10; To be avoided Rom 16:17; Not to be endured by the saints 2 Tim. 4:3. Do you do this? Do you separate, withstand or expose those who contradict the truth and shipwreck people? Jesus said you are either for me or against me.[/color]
[color=990000]Consider what the apostles did when they found false teachers or teaching surfacing or influencing a church. They wrote about it, they named names if necessary, they were actively withstanding the influence.[/color]

[color=000000]Today we are more concerned with a false teachers feelings than we are with those being harmed by their falsehood. The truth and the power to bring correction are put aside and we argue over so and so's reputation and make excuses like “ he’s done so much good,” or “look at all the people that attend his meetings.” [/color]

[color=990000]This didn’t stop Paul from rebuking Peter when he compromised on the gospel when eating with the gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). Because of his compromise he influenced others even Barnabas who traveled with Paul and knew better. Of course Peter could have been prideful and said to Paul I was following Jesus before you even believed, he appointed me to be the leader of the apostles, he personally instructed me. But Peter humbled himself and was willing to repent. All was fine between him and Paul afterwards, for he compliments Paul and says “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of evil (lawless) men and fall from your secure position” (2 Peter 3: 15-17). He calls those who persist in these teachings not from Scripture as EVIL men. That is a word we don’t use these days-evil. But that is what Peter calls those who twist the Scripture and do not want to be corrected.[/color]

[b]The fundamentals doctrines are simple and plain. These are the ABC’s of Christianity; the 1-2-3’s of math. These are the things we use daily in our lives, and to witness to others. But there are some deep things that are for our personal spiritual growth (that would be like algebra), these we may never use in speaking to others. Notice that even Peter says of Paul’s writings that some things are hard to understand. Not everything is simple. Yet Peter cautions us to not be removed and deceived by wicked men who have become teachers that do not understand these things in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 says, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions (heresies) exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be heresies among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.” We find those who stand in the truth by their resistance to the false. They test what is said, and it becomes evident who agrees with the word. This gives approval to those who correct in doctrine and helps us identify whom we are to separate from that are wrong in doctrine (Romans 16:17). But you can only do this if you are well trained. Those who argue against all sensibilities show their immaturity. They are unable to distinguish what is good and of God and what is evil that opposes God. Hebrews 5:13-14 gives us the reason for this: “For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” If someone cannot see a teacher is off on the fundamentals when they are shown the problem they are unable to receive from Scripture, they have not been trained by the word.
He admonishes us1 Tim 4:16: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” If you are not continuing in the apostles teaching found in Scripture then how can you save anyone else, you will also be shipwrecked.[/b]

[color=990000]The Church began “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Notice what came first, not food, not fellowship not prayer- TEACHING.

The transition of the Old Testament covenant to the new is through the teaching of the apostles- that’s our doctrine. John wrote “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you – The apostles made it known by the Scripture- we can share in the same revelation, knowledge and grace that they did. (2 John 1:9). The repeated emphasis on “sound” or “healthy doctrine” (1Tim 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim.1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1), “good doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:22) throughout the New Testament implies that a body of teaching has emerged by the appointed apostles. The faith has been delivered once to all the saints. This has become the body of truth (Jude 1:3). The apostles had a teaching/ equipping ministry to the church. The teaching ministry is about explaining Christ and answering people’s questions.[/color]

[b]Many want to be a Christian without the confines of doctrine explicitly or implicitly stated in the New Testament. The theological implications of this separation is nothing short of disastrous, because it makes the church into a LIBERAL ORGANIZATION that has NO ROOTS IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH STARTED BY THE APOSTLES.

[color=990000] The Pastoral and General Epistles are the revelation based on the new covenant of grace and are instructions on how to conduct ourselves until Jesus Christ comes again. They are to be continually taught to each succeeding generation.” The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”(2 Timothy 2:2).

John wrote, “Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God” – If someone is consistently going beyond the words of Scripture or abandons the doctrine which Christ taught, or what the apostles wrote respecting Him they are not in Christ.

Doctrine is like the lines on the road. People who do not stay in their lane or do not pay attention to the signs or stoplights are like those who make up their own doctrine. They can hurt, or destroy themselves and others.[/color]

[b]The New Testament focuses on the teaching ministry more than any other facet. Because we learn by communication- by seeing and hearing. It must be done but someone who has proven to have studied and learned, not a novice. Too many times a church puts in anyone into ministry because they have a zeal and willing to do work. Its been said that less than 10% of the church does 100% of the work. This should not excuse their finding anyone to work, what pastors need to do is begin to train individuals who believe they are called for ministry, make it hard to see who has endurance, willingness and the fortitude to actually be in leadership as a servant to the people. They will know who is called by those who persevere in the hardships of the discipleship process. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ - In the true teachings of Christ they will grow spiritually.

More often people depart from the truth because they did not have sound doctrine as their basis, so their living become affected. We preach with our life but not our life only, words need to be spoken.

Paul wrote in Phil. 3:15-17 “Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.”
Mature in what? The teachings, in Christ and the spiritually minded all walk by the same rule. When you find someone who is not willing to hear about their being wrong or open to discussion, they are prideful. If they are in leadership, they are turning into a cult. Paul says to look the apostles as the model for ministry.

[color=990000]So how do we avoid this from happening to us? 1 Timothy 4:6 Paul writes for us to be “nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.” The Greek word for carefully is parakoloutheo- to follow one as to be always at his side; to accompany; to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it to understand, and to follow faithfully, that is, a standard or rule, to conform oneself to. How careful are we in doing what we hear. “You obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered” (Romans 6:17). Doctrine is our guideline that educates and trains us to obey God so we can do His will and have His blessings.[/color]

[b]Gresham Machen wrote “The growth of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity. But whatever the causes for the growth of ignorance in the Church, the evil must be remedied…Christian education is the chief business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is” (Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism p. 176-177).

Doctrine teaches us how to live, practice a spiritual life, worship and serve our God. 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” what for--v.17: “So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready (furnished) for every good work.”

Doctrine may be a word that has repelled many people but without teaching we have no true knowledge of God or a relationship that will be sustained by the truth. Often times the Bible uses symbols or metaphors for people, one of them are plants-trees. A tree needs good soil, water, sun and nutrients to grow straight and strong so it can PRODUCE FRUIT. The Bible uses the word of God symbolically as water and bread for our spirit. If we are removed from this nourishment, we participate in self- starvation.
Paul continues to tell Titus “whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucere's sake” (Titus 1:10-11). Paul says they teach what no one should hear for the money and because of this they MUST (imperative) be stopped. If we say we love Jesus we should show it by separating from the false teachers, not embrace them. We should not be silent as we watch our friends being influenced in. We show our love for the Lord by our obedience to His word and our willingness to help others. That is what sound doctrine will prompt you to do.[/b]

Sincerely,


Walter

PS- If you respond, respond with Scripture

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Brother waltern...

To ccchhhrrriiisss, ChrisJD, Nata4Jesus, and others opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ:

Brother, you need to learn how to stop with this sort of nonsense. In fact, you just bore false witness against at least three of us here. Why? Is it because you misunderstood us? Or is it because anyone who disagrees with what YOU say is dismissed as someone who is "opposed to sound doctrine?" Brother, you must repent of this!

Brother, in all humility, you must learn to discern between what is undeniable truth or opinions guided by your passions. If you were to make a list of EVERYTHING that you profess to be "truth" (from this belief about us and "sound doctrine" to your notions about rapture and the KJV), you are going to find many, many people who don't agree with EVERYTHING. To dismiss us as the type of people that Paul spoke of in II Timothy 4:3-5 is foolish. We simply have a difference of opinion.

Walter, there is a difference between an undeniable truth and a perception about truth. You are not the Holy Spirit. You are not above flaw. You, like the rest of us, still see "through a glass, darkly." Your perception about controversial issues is totally acceptable...as long as you remember the flawed humanity we all have on this side of eternity. However, when you begin to dismiss the faith of individuals who do not see things the same as you (and that is what you have done by saying that we are "opposed to sound doctrine" as in II Timothy and the verse you quoted about those who "have not God" from 2 John)...then you have fallen into a terrible pit of judgmental error.

Brother, you are responsible for repenting in public since you stated this thing in public.

S
sermonindex

To ccchhhrrriiisss, ChrisJD, Nata4Jesus, and others opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ:

that is a lie.

PS- If you respond, respond with Scripture

alright Walter:

"But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Titus 3:9-11

so we're done.

S
sermonindex

The only Scripture that's laying on my heart is the same one, coincidently, that was quoted by Paul Smith. It came from his heart as well.

I pray that when we come against what may injure the Church's foundational beliefs, that people won't take it as a personal afront anymore, but from that "Truth & Love" that He is, and came for.


Taken from those who spoke with him --


""Paul Smith came on board to Calvary Chapel about four years ago to help with what could possibly be a sinking ship. Paul believed that the only answer for the movement was to hold to the basic tenets of biblical Christianity. As he learned of the various emerging/contemplative/Purpose Driven influences pouring into Calvary Chapel, he often spoke up but was also often received with resistance--until last Tuesday, when an impromptu meeting in the middle of the day brought his efforts to a halt.

When we spoke with Paul Smith this week, he was packing his things, preparing to leave Calvary Chapel. At approximately 80 years old, his mind sharp and his focus straightforward, Paul isn't sure where he will go from here. He isn't sure of the future of Calvary Chapel anymore either. But he is sure of this - the One whom He seeks to serve is faithful and will in these last days draw a line in the sand and ask every true believer to step on the side of biblical truth. Paul sent us an email a few days after his dismissal. We asked him if we could post [u]part of [/u]it, and he agreed:

[i]I have enjoyed serving our Calvary Chapel pastors through Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship. Calvary Chapel is a wonderful and surprising work of God. It has been used by God to hold fast to simply teaching the Word of God, book-by-book and verse-by-verse, the whole counsel of God.... It is my prayer that we hold fast to the sufficiency of the Word of God and the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit to guide this blessed ministry of God. My heart's desire is to follow the way of my Lord Jesus Christ. I like what the prophet Isaiah and David have to say about the true Judge who would come and dwell among us and His method and His heart in righteous judgment.

Isa 11:1-5: And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD ; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD : and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.[/i]""


W
wayneman

To ccchhhrrriiisss, ChrisJD, Nata4Jesus, and others opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ:

Thank you for rooting out these dangerous heretics.

Walter, your doctrine is undeniably sound, and like a porcupine you have a lot of good points, but an angry curmudgeon with a gift of invective is not necessarily a useful ally in the defense of sound doctrine. In fact, your manner of communicating "truth" seems calculated to drive people further into error. You posit "truth" and then defend it in such a belligerent and insulting tone that you almost force people to polarize against you--as if driving them away from the truth is your actual objective. In fact, you might be a mole sent here by Rick Warren himself to make sound doctrine appear boring and unappealing.

S
sermonindex

you wrote to Waltern:

Brother waltern...Brother, you are responsible for repenting in public since you stated this thing in public.

Dear brother Chris, I wouldnt hold your breath on that, ,a whole lots of head knowledge in that old boy, heart knowledge? .....grace?...well, only time and prayer will tell, but that silence sure do speaketh volumnes.

S
sermonindex

When do two wrongs make a right?

What is more important -- us being personally insulted or Biblical truth being upheld?

I've yet to see any of us not mix a bit of flesh in with the best of our own posts. Even Hudson Taylor said as much of himself and of all of his own prayers and sermons.

If we had a revival of the Truth in this apostate world - I think we'd overlook a few harsh words more easily or remember when we ourselves threw them at others as well.

The 'body' of what Walter wrote was excellent, though he may have failed in his addressing it.

So who will throw the next stone and how is that a witness to an unlooking unregenerate world?

Forgive me for the repeat - but these words of our LORD mean very much to me -

Joh 18:37b [b]To this end was I born,
and for this cause came I into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.[/b]


I'm going to copy Walter's defense of sound doctrine - minus the first lines and read it again.


I'm not perfect yet neither.

S
sermonindex

"personally insulted" no.

The reality is this, The Church, that is the Body of Christ, has always been "emerging", we are "living stones" after all, not baked bricks of clay, are we?

The Church emerged out of that Upper Room, from hiding in fright, Peter emerged from denial and fear to preach a Spirit filled message that saved 3,000 souls, Paul emerged out of pharasiacal bondage and anger and violence, took numberous beatings for the Name, and even "emerged" from being scorned by our people in the synagogues and went to the Gentiles, to proclaim the Good News of Messiah. Even Martin Luther, who I'm not that wild about, emerged from that whore of babylon, the roman institution and tacked his 95 thesis's to a church door, pretty radical I'd say.

and as far as this "defense of sound doctrine", Who is God that He needs mere men to defend Him?

Sound doctrine is this: the two Royal Commandments of Jesus, drape your soul and heart on Those, and you will be beloved by God, and rightly related to Him and Jesus, believe God, fear God, love God, eat of His Word, taste it, and would to God, followers of Jesus start by loving their neighbors as themselves, and then you will show them that they should be ENVIOUS of so great a salvation.

instead, do you think for an instant, that any person who does not know Jesus, would read this thread, and say I want what he's got?

quit fixating on a word "emerging", or the ministries of other men, and just A. Fix our thoughts on Jesus and B. make the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus in John 17, your heart longing!

I want to be around other Brothers and Sisters who love Jesus, more than they do the diviseness over arguing sound doctrine. I will not be wrapped into mans ecclesiastical bondage, or his backslidden denominations. As I have said repeatly the Body of Christ, the Church, is not some hundred headed monstrosity! The Head of the Church is Jesus.

I'm not insulted, I"M GRIEVED!!!

I downloaded a lot of sermons, and it seems to me there's no fruit in such cyber tussling, so i'm the fool for remaining, truly a fool, but there are many folks here i love dearly in the spirit.

i've said what i had to say, i'm done with this thread.

S
sermonindex


I'm sorry Neil, but I need to stick with what the Apostle Paul would say about this and heed Jesus' warnings of what this last days Church has become, just as He said it would.
More worried about numbers than truth.

He is much more "grieved" than you will ever be.

W
wayneman

Jesus-is-God wrote:

What is more important -- us being personally insulted or Biblical truth being upheld?

A more important question is: Why is Walter unable to separate the two? Why can't he uphold biblical truth without insulting people? He makes the truth repellent with his boorish behavior. The messenger is the message, and what comes through in Walter's rants is not the Word of Life, but Walter's bitterness and mental tyranny. The Kingdom of God would be better served if he would take up with the Jehovah's Witnesses and make them look bad instead.

S
sermonindex

He is much more "grieved" than you will ever be.

you KNOW He is!

Because man has turned the Body of Christ in to this hundred headed monstrocity that its become , thru innumberable millenia long arguments just like this.

Be like Gamaliel, what did he say? ";leave them alone, if its not of God it will fail. If it is of God........"

the problem is some here really don't trust God, search your hearts.

S
sermonindex

Neil, this "everything goes" resolve or mindset does not come from the Bible. Paul left Gamaliel and corrected Peter before all in Gal 2.

Brother, the Emerging/emergent church is the last days One World Church.

Are we not to try to save any from this falling away?

Why are you calling us the monsters when this Beast is about to devour those who you don't want warned?

Please read more from the Apostle Paul. I'm asking with my heart, appealing to you to not endorse this emergent-emerging movement. They are not different - emergent and emerging are one and merged with a one world utopian government dream - Dominionism on steroids.

We're praying for CC etc to steer clear. We're praying that all the leaders will hold the fort and not give into this Warren, McLaren and Co's apostasy. Paul would never just let us go this way. Every responsible Pastor/Teacher out there, even on radio, is preaching against this emerging/emergent thing,
why would anyone try to stop them from doing so?

S
sermonindex

first of all, start signing your name to ur posts. I dont like using God's name frivously, as in the moniker of a poster, I sign my name "neil", what is yours?

secondly, [b]DONT YOU DO THIS! Don't you start attaching values to my "mindset", or my heartset, which it is. I never said or implied "anything goes"! That is WRONG OF YOU!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE I STAND, except my confession that I BELIEVE GOD! This is wrong of you to do, you do not know me, and spare the patronizing advice about "reading more" from Paul. You have no idea how many times I've read my many Bibles over and over again, slowly deliberately over and over , lovingly. I just dont engage in the dueling verses GAME that some here enjoy to, to flash their fleshly religious pride, so please save your patronizing palaber for someone else. You are waaaay out of line[/b]

I have never been in an emerging church in my life, nor have I read anything by any of those MEN that waltern is hyperventilating about, except a book by SHane Claiborne, which I forget the name of ...and I never called anybody a monster.

I spoke very clearly where my heart is, and I will "endorse" what God the Holy Ghost leads me to cleve to, which is Jesus. For you to imply other in my name is just a lie, this is your first warning.

C
crsschk

Neil ...

first of all, start signing your name to ur posts. I dont like using God's name frivously, as in the moniker of a poster, I sign my name "neil", what is yours?

secondly, DONT YOU DO THIS! Don't you start attaching values to my "mindset", or my heartset, which it is. I never said or implied "anything goes"! That is WRONG OF YOU!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE I STAND, except ...


...I spoke very clearly where my heart is, and I will "endorse" what God the Holy Ghost leads me to cleve to, which is Jesus. For you to imply other in my name is just a lie, this is your first warning.

Don't you start dictating here.

You are a powder keg and this latest outburst only proves it once again. You posted this verse earlier;

[i]But [u]avoid[/u] foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.[/i] Tit 3:9

And yet here you are right smack in the middle of it once again. More on this, but you are not alone.

Chris and Chris ... others - The word 'antagonism' comes to mind reading through this whole post. Waltern comes across as brash, certainly but there is something observable that overshoots the content and goes after the person.

Waltern, you are much at fault for creating contentions in the first place - These barbs at others both unnecessary and untrue, these are not unsound Brethren by any stretch ...

Many here are tossing fuel around and catching each other on fire - Misconstruing each other, thinking you are being a help, decrying this that and the other and it is [i]yourselves[/i] that are becoming instigators and antagonizers.

Again, if this subject matter bothers you so much that you cannot behave civilly with each other, [i]avoid[/i] it, there are numerous other discussions to be entertained.

Jesus-is-God, you have been the primary one here to catch the bottom of the subject matter and to point out the various issues at hand and to do so charitably for the most part. (Edit: Can't let you completely off the hook however, see your part in this).

I can understand some empathy as well - But again, the conduct of many has clouded the issues and reorganized the motivations, including the author. Not necessary folks.

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


I think that our love for truth can not rise above our willingness to protect the reputations and characters of others, and to represent them as fairly as possible, even if we deem them to be our enemies.


Our attitude about truth and justice is not displayed anywhere else more clearly then in how treat those who are least in our own eyes(Luke 9:48, Deuteronomy 16:18-20,24:17).


Anyone can treat their friends fairly. Even the publicans and sinners do so.

Psalm 82:1

S
sermonindex


[b]A Departure from SOUND DOCTRINE[/b]


What is "new" from the pulpit has become more important than expositional teaching on what God has written (line by line, verse by verse, and Book by Book). Because of this emphasis, MANY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY ERROR, NOR HAVE A CLUE ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. BECAUSE OF THIS LACK OF CONVEYING DOCTRINE TO THE ASSEMBLY, WE ALSO FIND PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THEY CAN BE CHRISTIAN WITHOUT THE CONFINES OF DOCTRINE. THEY LIKE THE MORAL TEACHING AND HIGHER ETHICS JESUS OFFERS, THEY WILL EMULATE JESUS BUT THEY DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DO IT BY THE BOOK. JESUS BECOMES THEIR MENTOR AND HELPS REINFORCE THEIR VIEWS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT IN LIFE.

Paul wrote to young Timothy who was trained in the Jewish Scriptures since his youth. 2 Timothy 4:3-5: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

Paul spoke prophetically about that that “time” which should be apparent to all has come. They “will not endure sound doctrine.” They will NOT put up with those who teach correctly. Why? Because they have a need to scratch their ears with something new (like the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill). They intentionally turn from hearing the truth and appoint teachers that will speak (scratch) to what their itch (desire) dictates.

Some in the Church that have been persuaded not to sit under sound Bible teaching that will awaken them. More pulpit time is devoted to storytelling, jokes and illustrations (stories- fables and myths) than the exposition of the word. The sheep’s diet consists more of entertainment, with music, skits and dances with sermons that are like drinking warm milk that will only help them go to sleep.

Of course Bible verses are still used in these sermons (mostly principles), but these are an added content to a message that is not based on or out of the Scripture. This changes the whole substance of the message. The more alienated we are to Scripture teaching of verse upon verse the more we become susceptible to trends. We wait for the newest idea, the newest method that will help enhance our spirituality. We are convinced what worked before does not work for today. We need something different, fresh for our times; the people, fashions and culture have changed. New books, new seminars on the newest concepts. We are excited thinking where is God taking the church. The fact is, it is not God taking us anywhere, He has been pointing to where He has always been and where He wants us to be, in the WORD.

Paul wrote to Titus, a Greek convert who he appointed to set elders in the churches established in Crete.

“Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

He likewise mentions in Philippians 2:15-16: “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.”

The Greek word for holding fast is epecho, it means to hold upon, i.e. to retain; to pay attention to. In Titus 1:9 when Paul mentions “holding fast the faithful word” the Greek word is antechomai – it is more active and intense, it means to hold oneself opposite to, or against, hold back, withstand, to keep oneself directly opposite to anyone, hold to him firmly, cleave to, paying heed to him (the Lord by His word).

Holding fast the word is someone who is Bible based, sound in his understanding of what the Scripture says and does not say. He understands what God has said as God’s word is living and active today just as it was when it was spoken or written.

“As he has been taught” the Greek means “According to the teaching.” Meaning they received the truth for some time and are trained up in it. There are some people that know the truth, but need encouragement to continue in it, others are ignorant and unintentionally oppose it. Then there are some who intentionally align themselves AGAINST the truth with full knowledge they are not esteeming God’s written word.

Titus is told, “Exhort” (convict)- who? Those who contradict the word- the gainsayers (v.10). They are to actively refute the objections and defend the truth.

If you are firm in your belief of the doctrines of the Christian faith, you can be relied on to maintain and defend those doctrines. You can be expected to withstand those in opposition because you have become familiar and digested the faithful word.

2 Thess. 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, (holding fast) and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Hold or stand fast is the Greek word steko, a perfect tense meaning to be stationary, to persevere: in other words we are not to be moved. Those who continue in sound doctrine have not moved from what they were taught, it is those who do not teach sound doctrine that have moved from where they once were.

Convince- Greek (elengchein) “convict.” We are to both exhort and to convince those who contradict. To persuade them and bring them over to God’s correct view by using kind exhortation, and by instruction that will convince them they are wrong and this is what is meant. We convince by the truth and we know they are of us if they are willing to hear and seek the truth. However, if they do not listen and are contentious then we must take the next step.

By “Sound” doctrine (Greek: hugiaino) means healthy, like the saying, “sound advice,” to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine). A church becomes unhealthy not because the gifts are not being used but because of no sound doctrine being consistently taught. This is our problem today. To be healthy means we are growing to maturity, we are growing in love, in grace, not being dysfunctional. If you are sound in doctrine the gifts will flow out correctly. When we see people have an unbalanced obsession with healing, miracles and rigorously pursue experiences it is because they have not been taught sound doctrine. They have neglected to train themselves in godliness that sound doctrine produces.

“The Faithful word” are the true doctrines. This means that we are to hold this, in opposition to those who would wrest it away, and in opposition to all false teachers we would encounter.
Titus 1:10 “For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision” Paul calls them unruly- rebellious people, deceivers. These are those that do not receive the sound doctrine, and are not willing to submit to the authority of Scripture. They are ruled by their own opinions, not Christ.

We find that THOSE WHO OPPOSE SOUND DOCTRINE ARE: Proud 1Tim. 6:3-4; Ignorant 1 Tim. 6:4; Doting about questions; 1Tim. 6:4; abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work Titus 1:16; Not to be received 2 John 1:10; To be avoided Rom 16:17; Not to be endured by the saints 2 Tim. 4:3. Do you do this? Do you separate, withstand or expose those who contradict the truth and shipwreck people? Jesus said you are either for me or against me.
Consider what the apostles did when they found false teachers or teaching surfacing or influencing a church. They wrote about it, they named names if necessary, they were actively withstanding the influence.

Today we are more concerned with a false teachers feelings than we are with those being harmed by their falsehood. The truth and the power to bring correction are put aside and we argue over so and so's reputation and make excuses like “ he’s done so much good,” or “look at all the people that attend his meetings.”

This didn’t stop Paul from rebuking Peter when he compromised on the gospel when eating with the gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14). Because of his compromise he influenced others even Barnabas who traveled with Paul and knew better. Of course Peter could have been prideful and said to Paul I was following Jesus before you even believed, he appointed me to be the leader of the apostles, he personally instructed me. But Peter humbled himself and was willing to repent. All was fine between him and Paul afterwards, for he compliments Paul and says “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of evil (lawless) men and fall from your secure position” (2 Peter 3: 15-17). He calls those who persist in these teachings not from Scripture as EVIL men. That is a word we don’t use these days-evil. But that is what Peter calls those who twist the Scripture and do not want to be corrected.

The fundamentals doctrines are simple and plain. These are the ABC’s of Christianity; the 1-2-3’s of math. These are the things we use daily in our lives, and to witness to others. But there are some deep things that are for our personal spiritual growth (that would be like algebra), these we may never use in speaking to others. Notice that even Peter says of Paul’s writings that some things are hard to understand. Not everything is simple. Yet Peter cautions us to not be removed and deceived by wicked men who have become teachers that do not understand these things in Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 says, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions (heresies) exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be heresies among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.” We find those who stand in the truth by their resistance to the false. They test what is said, and it becomes evident who agrees with the word. This gives approval to those who correct in doctrine and helps us identify whom we are to separate from that are wrong in doctrine (Romans 16:17). But you can only do this if you are well trained. Those who argue against all sensibilities show their immaturity. They are unable to distinguish what is good and of God and what is evil that opposes God. Hebrews 5:13-14 gives us the reason for this: “For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” If someone cannot see a teacher is off on the fundamentals when they are shown the problem they are unable to receive from Scripture, they have not been trained by the word.
He admonishes us1 Tim 4:16: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” If you are not continuing in the apostles teaching found in Scripture then how can you save anyone else, you will also be shipwrecked.

The Church began “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Notice what came first, not food, not fellowship not prayer- TEACHING.

The transition of the Old Testament covenant to the new is through the teaching of the apostles- that’s our doctrine. John wrote “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you – The apostles made it known by the Scripture- we can share in the same revelation, knowledge and grace that they did. (2 John 1:9). The repeated emphasis on “sound” or “healthy doctrine” (1Tim 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim.1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1), “good doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:22) throughout the New Testament implies that a body of teaching has emerged by the appointed apostles. The faith has been delivered once to all the saints. This has become the body of truth (Jude 1:3). The apostles had a teaching/ equipping ministry to the church. The teaching ministry is about explaining Christ and answering people’s questions.

Many want to be a Christian without the confines of doctrine explicitly or implicitly stated in the New Testament. The theological implications of this separation is nothing short of disastrous, because it makes the church into a LIBERAL ORGANIZATION that has NO ROOTS IN THE ORIGINAL CHURCH STARTED BY THE APOSTLES.

The Pastoral and General Epistles are the revelation based on the new covenant of grace and are instructions on how to conduct ourselves until Jesus Christ comes again. They are to be continually taught to each succeeding generation.” The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”(2 Timothy 2:2).

John wrote, “Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God” – If someone is consistently going beyond the words of Scripture or abandons the doctrine which Christ taught, or what the apostles wrote respecting Him they are not in Christ.

Doctrine is like the lines on the road. People who do not stay in their lane or do not pay attention to the signs or stoplights are like those who make up their own doctrine. They can hurt, or destroy themselves and others.

The New Testament focuses on the teaching ministry more than any other facet. Because we learn by communication- by seeing and hearing. It must be done but someone who has proven to have studied and learned, not a novice. Too many times a church puts in anyone into ministry because they have a zeal and willing to do work. Its been said that less than 10% of the church does 100% of the work. This should not excuse their finding anyone to work, what pastors need to do is begin to train individuals who believe they are called for ministry, make it hard to see who has endurance, willingness and the fortitude to actually be in leadership as a servant to the people. They will know who is called by those who persevere in the hardships of the discipleship process. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ - In the true teachings of Christ they will grow spiritually.

More often people depart from the truth because they did not have sound doctrine as their basis, so their living become affected. We preach with our life but not our life only, words need to be spoken.

Paul wrote in Phil. 3:15-17 “Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule let us be of the same mind. Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.”
Mature in what? The teachings, in Christ and the spiritually minded all walk by the same rule. When you find someone who is not willing to hear about their being wrong or open to discussion, they are prideful. If they are in leadership, they are turning into a cult. Paul says to look the apostles as the model for ministry.

So how do we avoid this from happening to us? 1 Timothy 4:6 Paul writes for us to be “nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.” The Greek word for carefully is parakoloutheo- to follow one as to be always at his side; to accompany; to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it to understand, and to follow faithfully, that is, a standard or rule, to conform oneself to. How careful are we in doing what we hear. “You obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered” (Romans 6:17). Doctrine is our guideline that educates and trains us to obey God so we can do His will and have His blessings.

Gresham Machen wrote “The growth of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity. But whatever the causes for the growth of ignorance in the Church, the evil must be remedied…Christian education is the chief business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is” (Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism p. 176-177).

Doctrine teaches us how to live, practice a spiritual life, worship and serve our God. 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” what for--v.17: “So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready (furnished) for every good work.”

Doctrine may be a word that has repelled many people but without teaching we have no true knowledge of God or a relationship that will be sustained by the truth. Often times the Bible uses symbols or metaphors for people, one of them are plants-trees. A tree needs good soil, water, sun and nutrients to grow straight and strong so it can PRODUCE FRUIT. The Bible uses the word of God symbolically as water and bread for our spirit. If we are removed from this nourishment, we participate in self- starvation.
Paul continues to tell Titus “whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucere's sake” (Titus 1:10-11). Paul says they teach what no one should hear for the money and because of this they MUST (imperative) be stopped. If we say we love Jesus we should show it by separating from the false teachers, not embrace them [Paul said]. We should not be silent as we watch our friends being influenced in.
We show our love for the Lord by our obedience to His word and our willingness to help others. That is what sound doctrine will prompt you to do.


Be thou faithful unto death!
Even so, Come LORD Jesus.

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.

Was wondering if I could mention a few things about this previous:


We find that THOSE WHO OPPOSE SOUND DOCTRINE ARE: Proud 1Tim. 6:3-4; Ignorant 1 Tim. 6:4; Doting about questions; 1Tim. 6:4;


The context of this passage is of submission to authority(in this case servants to masters) and not about doctrine in general. The doctrine in view here has more to do with the life and work and character of Christ (vs 1,3) and whether our lives are conformed to the pattern that He gave us.


Christ said that He came to serve, not to be served, and that those who would be great among us, ought to be our servant. This is the doctrine in view here(Php 2:4-12).


We may still consider though, the manner and practice of those that Paul goes on to describe in that passage. As noted, he said they were proud and doting about questions.


Strong's greek dictionary defines the word rendered [i]doting[/i] as


G3552
νοσέω
noseō
nos-eh'-o
From G3554; to be sick, that is, (by implication of a diseased appetite) to hanker after (figuratively to harp upon): - dote.


And for questions it says,


G2214
ζήτησις
zētēsis
dzay'-tay-sis
From G2212; a searching (properly the act), that is, a dispute or its theme: - question.


And for [i]strife of words[/i],


G3055
λογομαχία
logomachia
log-om-akh-ee'-ah
From the same as G3054; disputation about trifles (“logomachy”): - strife of words.

I wouldn't mean to suggest here that this topic has been about trifles. I think the subject matter is important and that those who are concerned about false teachers and false doctrines are right to be concerned!


But it may be also that the doctrine of Christ is blasphemed in how we handle correction and accusation of others.


S
sermonindex


[b]To ccchhhrrriiisss from Walter:[/b]

[color=990000][b]Over the past 8 or 9 months I have posted quite often on specific positions on Bible Doctrine (Bible Truth). Each time that I have posted you have come against me like an enemy, not a friend with an opposing position that you can support with SCRIPTURE & History. No, you respond to my posts in an effort to shut all dialogue down! At first I thought you hated me, but that did not make sense, because you do not know me. However, recently I have come to realize that your motive is to try to get everyone together on the same page, with no DIVISIONS, with the intent that one Doctrine is as just as Divine and Inspired by the Holy Spirit as an opposing Doctrine that is at odds with, and opposes, the other Doctrine. Like I have said before, the Rodney King syndrome—“Why can’t we all just get along?”

Romans 16:17 talks about “Division” as follows:

17.\tNow I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

What it tells us is that we are to defend the doctrine that we have learned, and avoid false doctrine!

1 Cor 1:10 talks about divisions again, but it is referring to the same thing, that we should defend what the Bible teaches. The Church has always been full of sheep and goats. The goats are the liberals who are always looking for a wider path and broader gate, and are happy to find/create scripture that will weaken the sheeps walk,

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”. (Cor 1:10)

In fact whenever “division” in the New Testament is found, it is with the idea that false doctrine should be exposed and rejected by the sheep, the true believers.

In Jude, the true believer is told to “contend for the faith”

3.Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that[b] ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 1:3-4)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4:12-13_

Ccchhhrrriiisss, how can I respond to you????

Everytime I hold a position of Bible Doctrine that is provable, that I am trying to post, you immediately are on the attack against it, in an effort to shut dialogue down. YOU, SIR, ARE AGAINST BIBLE ABSOLUTES, BIBLE DOCTRINE, AND ARE ON A MISSION TO SHUT DOWN DIAGLOGUE FROM THOSE OF US THAT BELIEVE THERE IS TRUE DOCTRINE AND FALSE DOCTRINE!

ccchhhrrriiisss--As I look at all of the previous threads on Sermonindex in regards to Bible versions, I find the following statement of yours, similar to this one, that appears quite often:[/color][/b]


[b][color=000000]Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer.” Ccchhhrrriiisss[/color][/b]


[color=990000][b]So what you are saying above is two fold. You have a position that consists of:

#1 you prefer the King James Bible as the Word of God and also understand and acknowledge the arguments in favor of the supremacy of the King James Versions source material

#2 However, at the same time you say that you understand and support the arguments of Bible Scholars and manuscript "experts" who do not support the King James, but support the Newer Versions, and reject the King James.

What I notice on every one of the threads on Sermonindex in regards to BIBLE VERSIONS is that you are the leader of the attack against the King James by defending the newer versions. You do this by saying that you prefer the King James, blah- blah- blah, but then you attack it, all at the same time totally trying to shut down any dialogue whatsoever.


The Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation agrees 100% with your #1 position above. It totally accepts the King James Bible as the Received Text, received from the true believing Church, that consist of the very Spirit Breathed Word from God.

However, at the same time The History of the believing Church REJECTS your position #2 above--- vehemently, and is direct opposition to it.


So cccchhhrrriiisss, you have a dilemma, you have a problem. Your two positions are in opposition to each other, and only one position can be true. A good example of someone who holds a similar dilemma to you would a person who held the following “position”:

#1 I believe in the right to life, from conception to the natural end of life, from the womb to the tomb.

#2 However, I have also studied the other side of the issue, and I also believe in Abortion and Euthanasia, in late term abortion and assisted suicide, from the womb to the tomb.


This person is on the same quick sand that you are in. They think they hold one position. In reality they hold two opposite positions, yet try to make them one.

Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

The Protestant Body of Christ rejected the newer versions in 1881 as being corrupt and inferior to the King James. You have to choose, it is either one of the other. One road leads directly from the early Apostles and early Church, though the dead language of Koine Greek, and is 95% consistent. The other leads directly from the Gnostics, the first Textural Critics, who cut and pasted God’s Word to conform to their own beliefs, that came from Alexandria Egypt and ended up in Rome. One is the Word of God, that came from the true Church, the other is the word of men, that came from the Gnostics, and was accepted by Rome. Nothing good comes out of Rome.

YOU HAVE ALSO SAID THIS ON ONE OF YOUR MANY ATTACKS (WHAT ELSE CAN THEY BE CALLED?):[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]But Brother, this should be clear: This is NOT to be deemed an attack on the KJV or its translators. Truth is truth; fact is fact. We cannot blindly defend a version that was created by flawed men as "infallible" unless we first examine the version. Do we know the history of the version? Do we know the men who created it? It is never an "attack" to state the truth unless that "truth" is conveyed in a mean-spirited manner. This is not my intent. I believe that the KJV of the Word of God is a faithful rendition taken from the various sources chosen for its translation and through the methods used. That is why it is my translation of choice. However, I am keenly aware that the KJV is not a "perfect and preserved" translation down to the last "dot and tittle" as argued by man KJV-only advocates. Even the version that we have still contains mistakes.

Do you see the problem with the type of almost blind allegiance to the version that is apparent today? I know men and women who look for reasons to discredit other versions. When a flaw is discovered in their version, instead of admitting the obvious, they try to develop answers for the flaw. Yet the translators themselves (in their preface) admitted that their version was not perfect! While I don't think that it is "perfect," I do think that it was "faithful" (if that makes sense).

When all is said and done, I don't believe that there was a conspiracy in either the KJV or the NIV committees. There are some terrible versions and translations out there. But I think that the translators of the KJV did the best that they could given the sources that they accepted and the methods that they chose (even if there were some preconditioned handicaps placed upon them). However, I believe that the same is true with certain academic versions like the NIV. Those translators attempted to produce a faithful translation of Scripture from the sources that they deemed best using the varying methods that they deemed most adequate. Because of this, I view these versions for what they are: Translations of Scriptures from different sets of sources using different methods of translation.

As such, I think that the real discussion lay with the sources and translation methods. Ironically, this was the cause of much mistrust for the KJV in its first 100 years of existence -- and the NIV for the past 30 years. However, an examination and discussion of facts should never be construed as an “attack.”


“Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer”

Brother, that is a bold statement! Did you even read my post(s)? So, you think that I commenced an "ongoing assault” on the KJV -- a version that is my primary choice for the study of God's Word? What part makes you think that it is an attack? You are into "sources" -- so can you please guide me to what words of mine were used to "attack" this version? Otherwise, please change the wording of your post. [/color][/b]

[color=990000][b]Chris, what follows is more of your rhetoric, more of your defense/attack strategy against the King James, in order to stop all dialogue[/color][/b]

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b][color=000000]As for sources: While you claimed otherwise, I am not biased for either set of sources. However, I do understand the arguments for both sets of sources. I understand the arguments presented by the pro-Textus Receptus advocates (not to be confused with the wild claims of the more staunch KJV-only advocates). However, I also understand the position of the majority of scholars today who prefer a wider view of all scholarly available ancient text sources. Through my own research, I have not been able to arrive to a final conclusion as to the ultimate superiority of one source over the other.

I don't apologize at all for this opinion. However, I would urge anyone who truly researches this issue to not limit their research to sources that advocate a single side of the argument. If you want to know WHY the translators of the NIV used their sources and methods – contact them! Contact the majority of text and translation scholars and find out why they prefer the sources/methods used for an academic version like the NIV. Research the KJV and its sources (like the Textus Receptus) in its unbiased entirety. Read the preface to each translation and hear what the translators themselves said about their work. Research the life of Desiderius Erasmus (the Dutch Catholic humanist who was only guy who translated the Textus Receptus). If you feel the need to examine the rumors regarding the lives of the NIV committee, then perform similar research on the translators of the KJV and some of their pro-Catholic, “High Church” theological views.

As for translation methods: As a person who is moderately bilingual (and somewhat familiar with the Greek), I understand how some things can be lost in a literal word-for-word translation method. I also realize that there are often more possible phrases into which a foreign phrase can be translated. The greatest and most apparent example of a non-literal translation of the KJV goes with the manner in which they translated the “divine Name” (YHWH) into both “LORD” and “Lord GOD” throughout the Old Testament or through the use of traditional terms accepted by the Church of England (such as “Bishop” and “Church”). However, this has been discussed extensively in the past. There are quite a few variables that go into proper translation. Ironically, there was much trepidation and bias against the KJV when it was first translated because people did not believe that it was “literal” enough. Again, I would urge you to contact the translators of the NIV and ask them just why they used the translation methods that they did. However, don’t go to them in a confrontational manner – because they would probably ignore you or assume that you are yet another KJV-only zealot.

Walter, in your last post, you claim that I hold a "pre-existing bias" for the minority text -- which is simply untrue and a lie. If you would have read my posts for what was written, you would understand that I am not biased EITHER WAY. Rather, I just don’t see any evidence that would cause me to jump onto a final, ultimate stand for the supremacy of either set of source texts. However, I would urge you to more closely examine just which sources were used for the KJV. They didn’t simply use Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They used an eclectic set of sources – including many existing English bibles (and even some contemporary French, Spanish, German translations). The translation of the KJV was not an open work: The translators had predetermined instructions for translation that came from the Church of England and its King and Vicar.

Like I have said often in the past, I don’t believe that this is really a question of the supremacy of the KJV over the NIV (or vice versa). I completely discount the theory that the KJV is the only “perfect and preserved” Word of God. It had many (mostly superficial) mistakes that were corrected over 140 years. However, there are still mistakes within it today. However, I feel that it is a faithful rendering from its sources. A much more healthy debate, in my opinion, is one that discusses the sources and translation methods for which a work is taken. In my experience, I have found that a great many people who argue in favor of the “majority” texts over the “minority” texts (or on occasion, vice versa) have little understanding of the issues outside of the books and sermons that preach the view for which they adhere. I have spoken with people who assume that the KJV was taken from a single source called the “majority text.” That is incorrect. Like the translators of the NIV, the translators of the KJV used an eclectic set of texts (one of which was Erasmus’ Textus Receptus for the New Testament) by which they examined and derived their translation.

Yet I am amazed that the bulk of discussions regarding the KJV and all of the supposedly “flawed” versions seldom mention the roots of the issue. The roots, in my estimation, are both the sources and methods used for translation. While these are usually discussed in these sort of threads, it is usually as support for another argument (such as “the KJV is superior” or “all modern versions are inferior”). It would be healthy, I think, if we could have a real discussion that truly examines the roots of this issue – rather than continued debates over just how “perfect” the KJV might be. I have not arrived to a final conclusion on the matter of textual or methodic supremacy. Why? It is because I have researched both sides of this issue extensively that I cannot arrive to an ultimate conclusion. I understand both (and multiple) sides to this debate. However, I am far too fearful of pointing the finger of heresy at a single academic translation or set of sources – when, in fact, I might be wrong. Therefore, I choose to read these versions (the KJV and the NIV) knowing very well the manner, methods and sources by which they were created. I also read them with the understanding that they were produced by flawed men who admitted that their creation was not beyond flaw.

Walter, I asked you a long time ago a question regarding whether or not you believed that the KJV was the “perfect and preserved” Word of God. You never answered the question. However, I urge you to move beyond a question of “end product” perfection or supremacy and consider the issues that made up that version. Consider carefully and honestly the opposing views of the scholars and translators without viewing it as some sort of diabolic conspiracy (as some have insisted). Contact the translators of the NIV. Contact experts in the field of textual criticism and translation methods. Try to understand their perspective BEFORE accepting the conclusion that you might have been handed from a sermon or book. I did this a long time ago – gathering such information from both sides of the aisle. I presented some of this information to these men and asked for their responses. I researched the history of the versions, the sources and the men who were involved. Nothing was off limits to my investigation.

In the end, I did not arrive to an “easy” conclusion. I haven’t seen anything that makes me see one set of sources or translation methods as ultimately superior to the other. This may sound like the “easy way out” of such a discussion. However, I think that I have caught quite a bit of admonition from those on either side – since I have not cast my lot with either. In fact, my position is more of a “neutral” one than it may seem at times. However, I enter these discussions when I find people on either side throwing allegations that I find to be either over simplistic opinions or based upon rumor. This makes me appear to be a defender of “modern” translations like the NIV. In reality, I was only trying to defend fact from allegation. It is possible to reason together concerning these issues, but only if we are able to lay down our preconceived prejudices that may or may not have been placed there by men.[/color][/b]
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[color=990000][b]And you ccchhhrrriiisss do not call any of that an attack to discourage dialogue!?!?!?

The Catholic Church is the main Cult that believes the “Church” will bring in the Millennium, not Jesus Christ. They are the “church” that is concerned about “division”, and are right now inviting Protestants to “Come Back Home to Catholicism” in the MILLIONS. They are the cult that is paranoid about “division”. Right now there is a movement, called the Emergent Church, that is preparing to bring in the 1,000 year reign of Christ to this earth “on their own”, without Christ (according to one of your recent posts, you have no interest in the Emergent Church).

In conclusion, I am passionate about doctrine, and I will discuss it openly all day long. However, it is impossible to “discuss” anything with another who attacks everything that is said, without supporting their own position with Scripture and Church History. Sir, you have no opinion, because you are conveniently "neutral", and thus can go either way. However, God is not neutral, and He has commanded us to defend the Faith, and to defend His Word, His Doctrine.

What follows is part of my position that the King James Bible is the Spirit Breathed Word of God, handed down from the believing Church.

SINCERELY,

WALTER
[/color][/b]

[color=0033FF][b]When we open our Bibles today, we are opening up one of the two” types” of Bibles. Eventhough today we have many Bibles to choose from, we still only have two “types” of Bibles. One of the Bibles has been passed down from the Christian Church, from the very beginning, and is the Protestant Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, the King James Bible.

The other Bible that could be in our hands today has been passed down from Gnostic’s who revised God’s Word to conform to their own beliefs- it is the Catholic Bible The Catholic Bible , has relied on the minority text, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

In 1881 the Westcott & Hort used the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce their new Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is not the same as the one used for the King James Bible during the Reformation. All of the newer Bible Versions since 1881 have relied on the Greek New Testament created by Westcott & Hort, relying on the faulty Vaticanius and Sinaiticus text.

So, to clarify the issue, today, if you study the NIV, NASB, American Standard, or any of the other “newer” versions, you are actually studying the Catholic Bible.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6,7

The following can be found at: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjv_controversy.htm

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE BIBLE ISSUE:
I. A Biblical Starting Point.
"So then faith cometh by hearings and hearing by the word of God." —Rom. 10:17

A. The Starting point for this issue must be Scripture! "...let God be true, but every man a liar;" —Rom. 3:4

1. God's word is infallible, without error (John 17:17; Acts l:3). In His infallible word, God promises to keep His words (note: W-0-R-D-S, not messages).

Not one word was to be in error.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:6-7

For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." —Matt. 5:18

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." —Matt. 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —I Peter 1:23

2. Man was not to add to or take from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

3. Therefore, the keeping of God's word is God's job, not fallible man's.
"...Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." —Psalm 12:7

4. This was the view of the translators of the King James Bible (KJB).
Note how they concluded their preface to the A.V. 1611:
"...we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, that we may love it to the end." (See enclosed information, "Appendix 2")

If you start with Scripture, your finishing point is confidence in God's word.
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." —I Thess. 2:13[/color][/b]

[color=FF003300][b]B. The starting point of modern translations.

1. First the student must study Hebrew and Greek.

2. Second he must learn the major points of textual criticism.

3. Then he makes a translation of the Bible, presents it to a translational board for review and revision by scholars.

4. The outcome is a reliable translation, but not one free of error. Note how the preface to the New International Version (NIV) reads:
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals."

5. This view is also seen in the statement of Dr. William Shedd:
"Why did not God Inspire the copyists as well as the original authors? Why did He begin with ABSOLUTE inerrancy and end with RELATIVE inerrancy?"

Psalm 118:8— "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."[/color][/b]

[color=990000][b]II. The Question of Final Authority.
A. If you have two authorities and they differ, you need a third authority to tell you which one is correct. (Such as in the courtroom). The same is true of translations. If the KJB says one thing and the NASV (New American Standard Version) says something else, you need a third authority to tell you which one is right (such as a pastor, teacher, scholar, etc.). When you do, then they become your final authority, not the Bible (Psalm 118:8).

B. To say there is no difference between modern translations and the KJB is not correct. The modern translations are based on Roman Catholic manuscripts and differ from the Greek text of the KJB 5,788 times! Translations such as the NASV differ from the KJB 36,000 times in the N.T. alone! (See enclosed information, "A Brief History of Modern Translations:" and "A Brief Comparison of Bible Translations.")

C. Modern translations have no real authority other than the view of some scholars. Scholarship is not a deciding factor in relation to the preservation of God's word. Our Lord does not say kind things concerning scholars. Note what Malachi 2:12 says, "The Lord will cut off the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts."

D. We should take heed In how we judge God's word, for one day God's word will judge us.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." —Heb. 4:12-13 [/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Note the roots of corruption.

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also[b] embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels,[b] thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B.He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F.Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D.He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)
A. Like Eusebius, [b]Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B.Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

VII. Tischendorf (1869)
A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A.They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4[/color][/b]

[color=0033FF][b]NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11 [/color][/b]


[b][color=990000]A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:

I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)

A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)

A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.

VI. Luther (16th. century)

A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

VII. The King James Bible (1611)

A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.

1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).

2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.

3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.

5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."

7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."

8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.

NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"

C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed "A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible", V.)
D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).

E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.
Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."

1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?

2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?

3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.

4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???

5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God


A BRIEF COMPARISON OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS:

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.?" —1 Corinthians 5:6
(Leaven In the Bible is false teaching —Matt. 16:12)[/color][/b]

[color=990000][b]I. Comparing the KJB (King James Bible) with any modern translation of the Bible will show the following:

Colossians. 1:14 "Through his blood" is omitted.

Acts 17:26 "Blood!' is omitted.

1 John 5:7 The part of the verse proving the Trinity is omitted.

I Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" is changed to "He who was made manifest in the flesh," thus weakening the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

Luke 2:33 "Joseph" is changed to "Father" thus calling Joseph the father of Christ.

John 5:4 The whole verse is omitted.

Acts 8:37 The whole verse is omitted.

Mark 9:44,46 These verses are omitted in all modern versions.

Romans 16:24 The whole verse is omitted.

Matthew 18:11 The whole verse is omitted.

Matthew 12:47 The whole verse is omitted.

Mark 11:26 The whole verse is omitted.

Mark 15:28 The whole verse is omitted.

Mark 16:9-20 This passage is either omitted in the modern versions or placed in brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

John 8:l-11 This passage is either omitted or placed In brackets with a footnote stating that it should not be there.

Acts 15:34 The whole verse is omitted.

Acts 2417 The whole verse is omitted.

Acts 28:29 The whole verse is omitted.

Romans 811 Half of the verse is omitted.

Romans 1:16 The phrase "of Christ" is omitted.

Matthew 6:13 Half of the verse is omitted in the modern versions.

I Peter 2:2 The phrase "unto salvation" or "in regard to your salvation" is added to the text in modern versions to teach salvation by works.

Matthew 9:13 "To repentance" is omitted.

Mark 2:17 "To repentance" is omitted.

I John 4:3 "Christ is come in the flesh" is omitted

John 1:18 "Begotten Son" is changed to "Begotten God" in the NASV. This is also how it reads in the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These are only a few of the 36,000 changes made. In light of Scripture, one change is one too many (Deuteronomy 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

II. In reading the KJB, NIV and NASV, you can see that they do not teach the same thing:
2 Samuel 21:19
KJB: "...Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath..."
NIV: "...Elhanan killed Goliath..."
NASV: "...Elhanan killed Goliath..."
Daniel 3:25
KJB: "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
NIV: "He said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.
NASV: He answered and said, Look! I see four men loosed and walking about In the midst of the fire, without ham, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."
Genesis 6:4
KJB: "There were giants in the earth..."
NIV: "The Nephilim were on the earth..."
NASV: "The Nephilim were on the earth..."
Genesis 7:1
KJB: "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou ... into the ark;"
NIV: "The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark,..."
NASV: "Then the Lord said to Noah, Enter the ark,..."
NOTE: There is a difference between "Come" and "Go". The KJB shows that the Lord was in the ark with Noah and his family.
I Samuel 13:1

KJB: "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,"
NIV: "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years."
NASV: "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel."
NOTE: How old was Saul when he began to reign, 30 or 40? How long did he reign, 42 or 32 years? The RSV and the New Scofield Reference Bible read, "Saul was ______ years old...".
I Corinthians 7:36

KJB: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin,..."
NIV: "If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to,...."
NASV: "But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter,..."
NOTE: is it his virgin daughter or the virgin he is engaged to?

God bless you all

Sincerely,

Walter[/color][/b]


Brother waltern...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To ccchhhrrriiisss, ChrisJD, Nata4Jesus, and others opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brother, you need to learn how to stop with this sort of nonsense. In fact, you just bore false witness against at least three of us here. Why? Is it because you misunderstood us? Or is it because anyone who disagrees with what YOU say is dismissed as someone who is "opposed to sound doctrine?" Brother, you must repent of this!

Brother, in all humility, you must learn to discern between what is undeniable truth or opinions guided by your passions. If you were to make a list of EVERYTHING that you profess to be "truth" (from this belief about us and "sound doctrine" to your notions about rapture and the KJV), you are going to find many, many people who don't agree with EVERYTHING. To dismiss us as the type of people that Paul spoke of in II Timothy 4:3-5 is foolish. We simply have a difference of opinion.

Walter, there is a difference between an undeniable truth and a perception about truth. You are not the Holy Spirit. You are not above flaw. You, like the rest of us, still see "through a glass, darkly." Your perception about controversial issues is totally acceptable...as long as you remember the flawed humanity we all have on this side of eternity. However, when you begin to dismiss the faith of individuals who do not see things the same as you (and that is what you have done by saying that we are "opposed to sound doctrine" as in II Timothy and the verse you quoted about those who "have not God" from 2 John)...then you have fallen into a terrible pit of judgmental error.

Brother, you are responsible for repenting in public since you stated this thing in public.


[b][color=000000]The modern[/color][/b]

S
sermonindex

Hi all,

I haven't been following this thread, but see it's in full flight. I wanted to bring this old contribution to the emerging / emergent debate to the attention of those who may have missed in when it was fresh... ;-)
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7695&forum=36]'Confessions of an almost Emergent Christian' by Compton[/url]

Perhaps it will lighten some of the shadows.

S
sermonindex

If I have spoke harshly, rashly, without love, or respect,in this thread, I ask forgiveness from any and all brother or sister I have offended with my words. Jesus is Lord!

God bless you all, neil

S
sermonindex
W
wayneman


Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi all,

I haven't been following this thread, but see it's in full flight. I wanted to bring this old contribution to the emerging / emergent debate to the attention of those who may have missed in when it was fresh... ;-)
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7695&forum=36]'Confessions of an almost Emergent Christian' by Compton[/url]

Perhaps it will lighten some of the shadows.

Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise.

Having said that, Compton does make some good points. The term "emergent church" covers such a broad spectrum--from the inchoate speculations of Brian McLaren to the "let's-put-the-fun-back-in-fundamenalism" orthodoxy of Mark Driscoll--that it is hard to generalize.

On second thought, it is easy to generalize, so I'll do that: The Emergent Church is not a crass commercial racket like the Church Growth Movement (though the two overlap in places); it is an honest effort to find clarity in the post-evangelical wilderness. It recognizes that there is something very wrong with the American Gospel Enterprise, and that change is needed. But instead of seeking God for renewal like our friends at Barnsdall, they huddle up in conference halls and discuss strategies. I've never seen any good come out of that sort of thing. It is man-centered theology that got the evangelical church in trouble in the first place.

S
sermonindex

wayneman, thanks for your reply.

All else is compromise.
I don't like compromise either.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Dear Walter…

I don’t know where to begin. I’m even wondering whether or not ANY answer will be sufficient to your post. I have written many responses to some of your accusations in the past, but I typically store them in a file on my computer. I decide against posting them – not because I don’t fully believe what I have written – but because I am concerned that any response will be pointless and only continue a needless doctrinal debate on SermonIndex. I will, however, attempt to answer your latest post. This isn’t because I feel the need to defend myself from a warrantless finger of “heresy” pointed at me, but because we do need to stop this sort of nonsense. More importantly, this is neither the time nor place to discuss such silly issues in such an unhelpful manner. It is not the purpose for this website. However, you took the time to write, and I have read it thoroughly (and with some sadness). I hope that you can understand my perspective without mistakenly judging my thoughts or intent.

Over the past 8 or 9 months I have posted quite often on specific positions on Bible Doctrine (Bible Truth). Each time that I have posted you have come against me like an enemy, not a friend with an opposing position that you can support with SCRIPTURE & History. No, you respond to my posts in an effort to shut all dialogue down! At first I thought you hated me, but that did not make sense, because you do not know me.

First of all, Walter, you need to realize that your “specific positions on Bible Doctrine” might not always be the same as “Bible Truth.” Some of them are merely your own particular opinions…persuasions…views…or assumptions about a doctrinal peculiarity. You need to realize that people who disagree with you are not trying to (as you say) “[i]come against you like an enemy[/i].” There is no “hate” involved in it whatsoever…and I think that I have made this exceedingly clear. It is simply a matter of disagreement.
However, recently I have come to realize that your motive is to try to get everyone together on the same page, with no DIVISIONS, with the intent that one Doctrine is as just as Divine and Inspired by the Holy Spirit as an opposing Doctrine that is at odds with, and opposes, the other Doctrine. Like I have said before, the Rodney King syndrome—“Why can’t we all just get along, and stop the arguing?”
This is incorrect. You really don’t know my motives…and I would appreciate it if you stopped writing that you do. While I do believe that we can achieve Biblical unity in the Body of Christ, it will not come by everyone agreeing on every last “dot and tittle” about every last particular doctrinal ideology. However, I do think that it can come by avoiding vain and petty disputes, or by discussing controversial issues with the knowledge that they are far from settled and that we are far from perfect. This is not the “Rodney King” syndrome – but maybe the “Apostle Paul syndrome,” whereas Paul repeatedly encouraged us to avoid such things.
Romans 16:17 talks about “Division” as follows:

17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

What it tells us is that we are to defend the doctrine that we have learned, and avoid false doctrine!

Actually, this is what troubles me. I don’t think that you fully understand what the word “doctrine” means – or how to separate peculiarities of opinion regarding a certain matter as “doctrine.” A Biblical doctrine of the Church is not a mere persuasion about a peculiar issue. True Biblical doctrine should be indisputable…undeniable…amongst true believers. Yet that is not what happens most of the time. Most of the division revolves around differences of opinion amongst believers.

For instance, the thing that we have conflicted with the most in the forums is in regard to your ideas about the KJV. This is [u]not[/u] a “Biblical doctrine” or a “Biblical truth.” It is merely an opinion. Too often, I think that believers make “doctrines out of molehills” (so to speak). We take our ideas and present them as undeniable truths that must be embraced by everyone around us. While this is a good thing in regard to the fundamentals of the faith, it is not a good thing in regard to issues that aren’t agreed upon by the Body of Christ as a whole. Yet this is what creates denominational separations. One brother thinks that he is entirely right in terms of the issue – so much so that he will create a church, denomination or fellowship where “membership” or involvement in ministry is conditional and limited to those who would adhere to such a belief. I have known people who will break fellowship with a brother or sister based upon the pettiest issues that they feel to be “doctrinal.” This is not the Biblical unity that Paul called for.

1 Cor 1:10 talks about divisions again, but it is referring to the same thing, that we should defend what the Bible teaches. The Church has always been full of sheep and goats. The goats are the liberals who are always looking for a wider path and broader gate, and are happy to find/create scripture that will weaken the sheeps walk,

It is important to realize that the true Church consists of sheep…and not goats. When Christ separates the “sheep from the goats” (in Matthew 25), the passage refers to the entire world. Yes, there are imposters who consider themselves to be a part of the Body of Christ. There are “liberals” who would like to interpret the Scripture to suit their own lifestyles and choices. However, this is not the case with people who merely hold to a difference in interpretation of a passage or doctrine. In fact, it is downright dangerous to judge someone to be a “goat” simply because they do not embrace some list of doctrinal peculiarities that we might hold (especially if it is trivial or non-essential).
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”. (Cor 1:10)

In fact whenever “division” in the New Testament is found, it is with the idea that false doctrine should be exposed and rejected by the sheep, the true believers.

In Jude, the true believer is told to “contend for the faith”


Again, this is what I see to be the problem as a whole. Believers are certainly called to defend TRUTH. However, most of the time, believers are debating mere perceptions of what they feel to be “truth.” There is a difference. False doctrine should certainly be exposed. However, many people are labeling anything that they disagree with as “false doctrine.” There is a difference! You can contend for doctrinal peculiarities (or Bible translations) all you want – but it should not be equated with “contending for the faith.” It is merely a person who is contending for a doctrinal view…most often against believers who have a difference of opinion. It would be great, however, if we actually contended for the FAITH amongst the people of this fallen world. Too often, I think, certain people feel more veracity when they debate with other believers.
Ccchhhrrriiisss, how can I respond to you????

Everytime I hold a position of Bible Doctrine that is provable, that I am trying to post, you immediately are on the attack against it, in an effort to shut dialogue down. YOU, SIR, ARE AGAINST BIBLE ABSOLUTES, BIBLE DOCTRINE, AND ARE ON A MISSION TO SHUT DOWN DIAGLOGUE FROM THOSE OF US THAT BELIEVE THERE IS TRUE DOCTRINE AND FALSE DOCTRINE!


Do you hear yourself? I seldom even enter into a discussion with you, Walter. In fact, I purposely avoid many of these sorts of discussions that are controversial. In fact, I think that the only topic that I have entered into prolonged discussion with you is in regard to Bible translations. Brother, this is FAR from a “provable Bible Doctrine.” I am not against “absolutes” (this was a lie), “Bible Doctrine” (another lie) and I am not on “a mission to shut down dialogue from those who believe there is truth doctrine and false doctrine” (yet another lie). Do you hear the libelous accusations that you just levied against me?
ccchhhrrriiisss--As I look at all of the previous threads on Sermonindex in regards to Bible versions, I find the following statement of yours, similar to this one, that appears quite often:


Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer.” Ccchhhrrriiisss


So what you are saying above is two fold. You have a position that consists of:

#1 you prefer the King James Bible as the Word of God and also understand and acknowledge the arguments in favor of the supremacy of the King James Versions source material

#2 However, at the same time you say that you understand and support the arguments of Bible Scholars and manuscript "experts" who do not support the King James, but support the Newer Versions, and reject the King James.

What I notice on every one of the threads on Sermonindex in regards to BIBLE VERSIONS is that you are the leader of the attack against the King James by defending the newer versions. You do this by saying that you prefer the King James, blah- blah- blah, but then you attack it, all at the same time totally trying to shut down any dialogue whatsoever.


Again, you apparently misunderstand what I have written. I prefer the King James Version of the Bible, but not because I believe that it is infallible or the best available version or translation. I like it because of the immense amount of resources available. I am also aware that the vast majority of Bible experts support other versions of the Scripture. Yet, I did not limit my study of the issue to secondhand sources or books written by men who claimed to be experts. I studied this myself going so far as to read the writings of those who took part in the translation of the KJV and the NIV. I compared a first edition KJV with the modern KJV. My studies dispelled many of the rumors and accusations that float around.

Brother, you have now accused me of “leading the attack against the King James version.” What part of this do you not understand? I am not attacking the KJV. I do, on occasion, state what I have found through my studies to dispel some of the myths that you present in your attacks on anything outside of the KJV (I think that you might that this is a fair assessment). By the way, I never once wrote, “Blah-, blah-, blah.” I don’t “attack” the KJV. Nor am I trying to “shut down any dialogue whatsoever.” Rather, I want people to distinguish between truth and opinion. Your opinion about this matter is merely an opinion that you sincerely base upon whatever research you performed. My opinion is similarly based upon the research that I performed. We need to make such a distinction.

The Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation agrees 100% with your #1 position above. It totally accepts the King James Bible as the Received Text, received from the true believing Church, that consist of the very Spirit Breathed Word from God.

However, at the same time The History of the believing Church REJECTS your position #2 above--- vehemently, and is direct opposition to it.


Walter, this is simply erroneous. The “Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation” didn’t embrace the KJV. In fact, many countries in the Protestant Reformation don’t speak English (including Luther himself). In fact, the Protestant Reformation took place nearly 100 years before translation of the KJV of the Bible ever commenced. Martin Luther died 65 years before the translation of the KJV was completed. So to make such a statement is just plain ludicrous. Furthermore, to claim that “at the same time, the history of the believing Church REJECTS…” is also [u]ridiculous[/u]. I am a part of the “believing Church.” I know many, many believers who use versions other than the KJV. In fact, I noticed a NASB sitting on Leonard Ravenhill’s side table while I was speaking with him in his house. Last time I checked, he was a part of the “believing Church” too.

Walter, how did this discussion develop into yet another debate on Bible translations? Yet I am glad that you did this! I wanted to show you that your belief about the Bible is NOT an essential or indisputable doctrine of the Church! You have introduced the type of topic that I think should be discussed without speaking in absolutes or treated as if your opinion is a “Biblical doctrine” that needs to be defended. It is merely an opinion.

So cccchhhrrriiisss, you have a dilemma, you have a problem. Your two positions are in opposition to each other, and only one position can be true. A good example of someone who holds a similar dilemma to you would a person who held the following “position”:

#1 I believe in the right to life, from conception to the natural end of life, from the womb to the tomb.

#2 However, I have also studied the other side of the issue, and I also believe in Abortion and Euthanasia, in late term abortion and assisted suicide, from the womb to the tomb.


This person is on the same quick sand that you are in. They think they hold one position. In reality they hold two opposite positions, yet try to make them one.

I don’t know what to say with this. It doesn’t fit with the discussion…and since you don’t seem to understand my positions anyway (but act as if you do), then I cannot offer a proper defense for your accusation. It doesn’t represent my perspective whatsoever.
And you ccchhhrrriiisss do not call any of that an attack to discourage dialogue!?!?!?

No, I do not. If you see those words as an “attack” on the KJV, then you might be in danger of seeing only the things that you want to see. No one is attacking the KJV. On the other hand, I might ask you what gives you the “right” to ATTACK any other version of the Bible (or the people who created them…or the people who read them), but forbidding anyone to apply the same level of scrutiny toward a version that you embrace? Do you see the problem with this?

Brother, you have turned this into yet another discussion on Bible translations. I have read your many, many, many posts that call for a supremacy of the KJV (while literally attacking the other versions), and I still do not agree with your conclusion. Why is that? Do you think that I merely have a different opinion? Or do you really think that I am deceived? Do you think that I have a preeminent bias toward one version of the other? Do you think that I am a liberal, false believer? You know, Walter, it does appear that way sometimes. It seems like you “talk down” to me simply because I disagree with your conclusions. I hope (and pray) that this is not the case.


The Catholic Church is the main Cult that believes the “Church” will bring in the Millennium, not Jesus Christ. They are the “church” that is concerned about “division”, and are right now inviting Protestants to “Come Back Home to Catholicism” in the MILLIONS. They are the cult that is paranoid about “division”. Right now there is a movement, called the Emergent Church, that is preparing to bring in the 1,000 year reign of Christ to this earth “on their own” (according to one of your recent posts, you have no interest in the Emergent Church).

I am not consumed with studying the Catholic Church or the Emergent Church philosophies. I prefer to simply follow Christ…the one who saved me. I hope that you don’t think that I am part of “[i]the cult that is paranoid about division[/i].” In truth, I am not paranoid at all. Rather, I am concerned for those who would present their views as if they are “Biblical doctrine” and completely reject anyone who thinks otherwise. While the world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, many would-be apologists in the Body of Christ would prefer to squabble over superficial issues like the best Bible versions. Why can’t we defend the faith…the Truth…the Gospel…to a lost and dying world?
In conclusion, I am passionate about doctrine, and I will discuss it openly all day long. However, it is impossible to “discuss” anything with another who attacks everything that is said, without supporting their position with Scripture and Church History. Sir, you have no opinion, because you are conveniently "neutral", and thus can go either way. However, God is not neutral, and He has commanded us to defend the Faith, and to defend His Word, His Doctrine.

What follows is part of my position that the King James Bible is the Spirit Breathed Word of God, handed down from the believing Church.


It is a fine thing to be passionate about the Scriptures! However, there is a fine line between being passionate about knowing Jesus in truth…and just debating foolish and petty issues. Much of the division in the Body of Christ is not about the fundamentals of the faith (faith, the deity of Christ, salvation, eternity, etc…). Rather, much of the division comes from one group who introduces their doctrinal peculiarities as “Biblical truth” and rejects those who disagree with them.

You are wrong, Walter, when you said that I “have no opinion.” I do have opinions on all ranges of matters and subjects. Many of these are never discussed here on SermonIndex. I often avoid those that are. Regardless, Walter, on some things I am neutral. I don’t know the exact timing of the Lord’s return (whether he will gather His Bride before the wrath of God is dispersed…or if He will gather His Bride just before He steps foot upon the Earth). I lean in a certain direction, but I am far from being so convinced as to call my leaning an “indisputable truth” or a “Biblical doctrine.” Do you see the difference?

If you were to make a list of everything that you believe to be true, there will be many people, including many who you consider to be close brothers, who will disagree with you. How do you react to such individuals? Each of us hold our views only in sincerity…through study (otherwise, we wouldn’t likely come to an opinion in such matters). Are we to suggest that our opinions about such things are “Biblical truth” and that anyone who disagrees is, thus, opposed to “Biblical truth.” That is ridiculous. Most of the squabbles that take place here in SermonIndex are far from being in regard to the indisputable and fundamental doctrines of the Church. They are the petty issues of opinion (like views on Bible translations). How are we to present our views? Do we present them as undeniable truth? Do we present them like “indisputable doctrines of the Church?” Or do we present them for what they truly are: opinions?

Walter, I am gravely concerned that you feel the need to accuse those with whom you disagree. I do believe that you need to publicly repent of the lies that you told about ChrisJD, Natan and myself (especially the part in which you accused us of being “opposed to sound doctrine and the teaching of it within the body of Christ”). Even in this latest post, you uttered lies about me (that I pointed out earlier).

Brother (and I do consider you a brother), I do not mean for you to assume that I write to you out of disrespect or selfish vanity. Rather, I am saddened that you have chosen to present your views (sometimes confused with Biblical Truth or Biblical Doctrine) as if it is infallible and beyond dispute. This is the type of division that I believe separates the Body of Christ. Denominations are filled with men who create lists of what they perceive to be “Truth.” Ironically, the fundamentals are agreed upon by most true believers. It is the doctrinal and ideological peculiarities that are in dispute. It is these peculiarities that serve to divide rather than unite the Body in true love. It is these peculiarities that often act as a primer for determining fellowship between believers. It is these peculiarities – presented as “Truth” – that determine whether a believer might be permitted involvement or fellowship within a local body. Is this what God wants for the Body of Christ? Are we to break fellowship with those (and try to evangelize them) simply because of a difference of opinion on certain “non-essential” issues? Sadly, such “non-essential” issues are deemed “essential” in an ever-increasing capacity.

My underlying point is that such issues are not to be confused with “Biblical Truth.” Why? Because they are not certain yet. Some of them might not be entirely certain on this side of eternity…while we still see “through a glass, darkly.” A particular stance on such issues should not determine our fellowship or our love. We should not act as if we have a monopoly on all things considered truth. More importantly, we should hesitate (prayerfully and patiently) before we present such a thing as a “truth.”

It is easy to rhetorically stand up for the words “Doctrinal Truth” or “Biblical Truth.” However, we must realize that much of what some might consider “truth” would be strongly rejected by others who think that they are standing for “truth.” Therefore, it is imperative that we learn to make a distinction (to ourselves and rhetorically) between a mere persuasion or opinion and that which is undeniable from the Word of God. I hope that this makes sense.

S
sermonindex

Ccchhhrrriiisss, your very first entry to this thread on page two threw me for a loop as well, considering the gravity of what is called the Emergent/Emerging movement. Having done a Search on this topic with the SermonIndex Search engine, there are many threads on this E/E movement and I've never seen this topic replied to or reacted to as it has been on this thread.


From here down is your first post to this thread from page two.

_______________________________________________


ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:

""Hello all,

I would like to interject my concerns with the difficulty behind the underlying principle of “upholding the Truth.” Everyone who is a real believer assumes that they are upholding “high standards on Truth.” Every man of God (professional or layman) holds to a set of ideals that he believes to be “Truth.” Yet there will always be some man or woman, congregation, apologist or would-be “prophet” and “watchman” who will disagree.

Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the KJV is the only true Word of God. Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there will be no “gathering of the saints” before the period of God’s wrath. Some people think that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there WILL be a “rapture.” Some churches truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they set particular standards for modesty that they believe is clearly spelled out in Scripture (such as women wearing only dresses…or physical head coverings). Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that “once you’re saved, you will always be saved.” Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim an opposite viewpoint. Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim otherwise regarding tongues.

Do you see the difficulty behind a set definition of “upholding the Truth?” Taking a stand on one or all of these is not necessarily “upholding the Truth.” Rather, it is upholding doctrinal peculiarities. How do I know? Because, a very large percentage of true believers cannot agree on any number of such issues.

I certainly believe in prophets…and defenders of the faith…and watchmen. Yet, it is my experience that many would-be “prophets” and “watchmen” are merely proclaiming doctrinal peculiarities than “Truth.” Far too often, they are willing to point the finger of “heresy” at anyone who disagrees with their particular doctrinal views…with a smugness that comes as though they believe that they are doing their “duty” for Christ. For over five years on SermonIndex, I have noticed that most of the heated disputes occur when one believer proclaims something to be “Truth” in the face of other believers.

One thing that I love about Leonard Ravenhill is that I don’t necessarily know where he “stood” on many of the issues that divide much of the Body of Christ. I don’t know where he stood on “eternal security” or “head coverings.” I don’t know what he thought about music. I don’t know where he stood on many, many issues. Even on those issues that he did have some semblance of a “stand,” I don’t know that I ever saw him “proclaim” such things as “standards” by which he was “upholding the Truth.” This is even interesting in the fact that I met with him in his home when I was a young teenager shortly before he died.

During that meeting, Brother Ravenhill told me that he was going to tell me one of the most important things that he had learned during his life. He didn’t proclaim some supposed “truth” about the coming of the Lord, the extent to which salvation can be lost or not, or whether he felt one translation of the Bible was supreme to all others. He didn’t instruct me about music…or a personal definition about “worldliness.” Rather, Brother Ravenhill simply urged me to “test everything.” He literally told me to not believe anything that I had ever been taught or read…because this is largely the reason why the Church is in the condition that it is in. Believers are too quick to believe something. He explained that the Church is in the condition that it is in because the Church has been operating like it has for a long time. A true revival, he explained, is when each person is consumed with an unquenchable hunger to know and fellowship with Jesus…and where nothing else matters as much.

There are a lot of silly definitions being spread around the Body of Christ regarding what a “revival” will be. Many supposed “watchmen” seem to think that a “real” revival will occur when everyone will embrace and uphold their particular ideas about doctrinal “Truth.” How silly. I seriously doubt that a time will come on this side of Eternity in which all believers will agree upon every last doctrinal detail. Leonard Ravenhill could be considered a “watchman” by some – not because he upheld and proclaimed a particular set of doctrines, but because he stressed the need for mere men to take Christ (and eternity) seriously. Too often, I think, “truth” is lost in the details.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and simple. It is men who complicate it. It is men who create particular standards for “Truth” (which is often what they consider “doctrinal purity”) and then proclaim as much to their listeners. I think that this is what Brother ChrisJD was saying in his post (correct me if I am wrong, brother). I believe part of the reason that the Church needs to be revived is because the Church has left the simplicity of the Gospel and begun focusing upon doctrinal issues and persuasions that divide the Body of Christ. Yet it is possible to have true Biblical unity of the faith without agreeing on every last dot and tittle. Remember, if any person were to stand (even here in SermonIndex) and proclaim EVERYTHING that they believe to be “truth”…quite a few people will stand in opposition.

There are some things that are undeniable foundational truths. These things are spelled out clearly in the Word of God. The most important of these is a deep awareness of our need for the Lord and a longing to have a relationship with Him. I am troubled, however, by those who would choose to proclaim remote doctrinal peculiarities as “upholding the Truth.” Even many of those who would agree on a “need for particular doctrinal clarity” and “obedience” would be surprised to find that many people would agree with the notion but disagree on the definition of “Truth” in regard to such peculiarities.

Please do not make the mistake that I am trying to say that doctrine is not important. We need to uphold what is true. Yet the problem of division comes in the details…in which some men would become confrontational by insisting on a particular set of doctrines that are not largely agreed upon by those people who truly seek Jesus. Thank God that He does not make an exhaustive list of doctrinal “conditions” for becoming a child of God! Many would be prophets walk around with a “victim syndrome” as they complain that some people do not listen to them regarding a peculiarity – and then equate this to a rejection of “Truth.” There is something wrong with this picture…when we can’t distinguish between a peculiar set of doctrinal views and “undeniable truth.”

Anyway, please understand that I am not trying to be discordant about such things. This has been an issue on SermonIndex – and in the Body of Christ – for a long time. If anyone here (including those who believe that they are “watchmen”) were to stand up and proclaim [u]exactly[/u] what they considered to be “Truth” – there will be an dispute or debate (even from their closest brethren). Another very sincere believer (with a jealous love for our Lord) will point to what is being proclaimed and say that it is not “truth.” Will the original proclaimer of that supposed "truth" be so bold and audacious as to proclaim that those with whom they disagree to be in an error or delusion...or will they simply feel that they have a difference of opinion on a particular matter?""

_______________________________________________


[b]Ccchhhrrriiisss, Maybe I could recommend these from John MacArthur -

Excerpts -

The Effects of Pragmatism - What's Inside the Trojan Horse? by John MacArthur [/b]

Many of today's church leaders have bought into the subtlety of pragmatism without recognizing the dangers it poses. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head on, evangelical pragmatism gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it effectively denigrates the things that are precious to Him.

First, there is in vogue today a trend to make the basis of faith something other than God's Word. Experience, emotion, fashion, and popular opinion are often more authoritative than the Bible in determining what many Christians believe. From private, individual revelation to the blending of secular psychology with biblical "principles," Christians are listening to the voice of the serpent that once told Eve, "God's Word doesn't have all the answers."

[b]Raising the Error-Alert [/b]

John MacArthur

Why do so many evangelicals act as if false teachers in the church could never be a serious problem in this generation? Vast numbers seem convinced that they are "rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing--and do not know that [they] are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).

In reality, the church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation. If you doubt that, compare the typical sermon of today with a randomly chosen published sermon from any leading evangelical preacher prior to 1850. Also compare today's Christian literature with almost anything published by evangelical publishing houses a hundred years or more ago.

Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator-- and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.

Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.) Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and so on)--to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture. In other words, what most contemporary preachers do is virtually the opposite of what Paul was describing when he said he sought "to declare . . . the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

[b]Should We Fight for the Truth? - [/b]

John MacArthur


Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists. Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can't be sure what it is, so it can't really matter much. This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement's most popular authors and spokespersons. Some flatly refuse to stand for anything because they have decided that even Scripture isn't really clear enough to argue about.


[b]Does The Truth Matter Anymore?[/b]

Right now, truth is under attack, and it's going on within the boundaries of evangelicalism. There's a lot at stake and there's no middle ground—no safe zone for the uncommitted in this war.

[b]These and others by John MacCarthur are found under the Section entitled -

[u]"Society & Culture" - "Emerging Church"[/u][/b] here -

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/topic#

His Grace to you!

S
sermonindex

[color=006600]Well, ccchhhrrriiisss, you stated that you did not know where to begin. The place to begin is to read my entire post, and if you respond to it, do so with Church History, and Scripture.

There are two “streams” of Bible text. One is pure, and comes from the believing Church SINCE THE BEGINNING, and is one and the same, uninterrupted Text. In 1516 when Erasmus printed his first (of 5 New Testaments), he did not use the corrupt Catholic Bible, that was printed in Latin, and translate it into Greek. No, he compiled the Greek mss. of the BELIEVERS from Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. that the Reformers used, the same text that was used for the King James Bible. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press. The 1519 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy.

Now, check my previous post, and follow the corrupt text of the Gnostics, that the Catholics used to create their Bible.[/color]


[b][color=660000]I have often thought about what history has to say about this matter. What was the response of the Protestant body of Christ to the work of Westcott and Hort and their revision committee in their "revised New Testament" in February, 1881? Did they welcome it with open arms or did they reject it as a counterfeit?

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:[/color][/b]


[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=4&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor, New York Times, 1881[/url]


[b][color=660000]What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" (it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a PLAGARISM of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900's, but still had very little support. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line starts as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808!

Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James (just like many have done on Sermonindex). They actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical on verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html

[url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html]Belshans Unitarian Bible, 1808[/url]

The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).[/color][/b]

[color=990000][b]What none of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revised Version by Westcott and Hort was a PLAGARISM of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort HAD SWITCHED THE "AUTHORIZED VERSION TEXT" FROM THE BELIEVING CHRUCH, WITH THE CORRUPT VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS TEXT, CREATED BY THE GNOSTICS AND USED FOR THE CATHOLIC BIBLE. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the believing Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clenent of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebiusas & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnostocism!

To bring this into focus, this 1881 "Revised New Testament TEXT IS THE TEXT BEING USED FOR ALL OF THE NEWER BIBLE VERSIONS--The NIV, NASB, New King James. etc. etc. etc.
[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Dear Walter…

I don’t know where to begin.

DELETED


C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone.


Having done a Search on this topic with the SermonIndex Search engine, there are many threads on this E/E movement and I've never seen this topic replied to or reacted to as it has been on this thread.


Is it this topic that is being reacted to?


I have counted five seperate individuals that have responded to Waltern in this thread alone concerning his manner of conduct and discourse here, including myself. Two others have specifically responded to these things regarding Calvary Chapel.


And then the moderator has responded also to all of us.


In another thread about a year ago, Waltern listed four persons together with specific charges to each of them. One of them he said:


"(name ommitted by this poster) - Teaches that Anselm and Augustine were Christians - both were Roman Catholics - He also endorses the English Standard Version."


Immediately after this and the other three, he said


"These are just four examples of teachers who were once solid who have adopted false teaching while mixing just enough truth to sound credible."

After the thread continued for some time it was locked by the moderator of the forums with this in closing:


"We will allow you the benefit of having the last words seeing that you can hear no others."

The qoutations above were taken from [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=24055&forum=35&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0]here[/url]

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Jesus-is_God,

Ccchhhrrriiisss, your very first entry to this thread on page two threw me for a loop as well, considering the gravity of what is called the Emergent/Emerging movement. Having done a Search on this topic with the SermonIndex Search engine, there are many threads on this E/E movement and I've never seen this topic replied to or reacted to as it has been on this thread.
Perhaps this is because few people have called into question the application by which people are defining “truth” in those threads. You see, there was an accusation in the initial post levied against an entire fellowship (Calvary Chapel). Just read waltern’s initial statement.

Yet the “caution” that I feel goes deeper than a mere accusation by someone against a church, a man or a denomination. I feel that this is something that supersedes this one issue and permeates throughout many topics on SermonIndex. Pilate asked the right question of Jesus in John 18:38: “[i]What is truth[/i]?” While Jesus didn’t answer this question in this instance (at least, it isn’t recorded), we know that God’s Word is “truth” (John 17:17).

Let me make this clear. I believe that there is no dispute about God’s Word being “truth.” There is no dispute that “doctrinal truth” matters (as expressed by John Macarthur…but I hope that you don’t presume that I am being pragmatic) and is vital to the Body of Christ. The problem comes when mere men go about trying to define “truth” for everyone else and uses their own private measuring stick for what “truth” consists of.

If any one of us was to stand up and recite our views regarding every single last issue that might be a “doctrine of the Church,” there will be an immediate group of good and godly individuals who will disagree with us. I think that the problem comes when people start seeing mere doctrines and doctrinal peculiarities as a required set of canon. People run the risk of introducing their doctrinal opinions on such issues somewhat dogmatically when they present them in a manner that conveys a message of infallibility.

Without a doubt, there are doctrines that are foundational to the Body of Christ. I think that most believers will say as much! Unfortunately, this is the extent to which most believers will agree. We will all agree that there are fundamental doctrines to the faith…absolutes regarding truth…and doctrines that must be taught as indisputable. Yet, the division occurs when people start speaking about the statistics. Some people actually believe that peculiarities are one and the same as “Biblical truth” and they are willing to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.

Brother, if I asked you to make a complete list of “doctrinal truths” or “Biblical truths,” would you include something that might be disputed by other believers? Would you include your views about the end times? Would you include your opinion about predestination? Would you include your views on Bible translations? Would you include your view about music? Would you include your views about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Would you include a list of views about modesty? Or would you limit the extent of your knowledge about “Biblical truths” to those things that are undeniable?

More than likely, a list of things that we hold to be true would be dissected and debated by other believers. Some would agree with us and others would disagree with us. Would you appreciate for those who disagree with something that you believe to claim that you are not embracing “Biblical truth” or “Biblical doctrine?” Do you think that such people should be entitled to teach their peculiar doctrinal views in such highly disputed matters as if it is undeniable truth? This is what happens on a daily basis. I like what Brother Mike said some time ago: I don’t know is a legitimate answer (or something to that effect).

There is a fine line between an “anything goes” type of emergent philosophy and the idea that we can and should fellowship with believers even if we disagree about certain non-essential matters. Unfortunately, many churches will limit involvement within their congregation (and sometime, limit attendance itself) based upon adherence to an exact set of doctrinal views. This obligatory set of doctrines is not just limited to the fundamental doctrines that are generally agreed upon by the Body of Christ as a whole. Rather, many of these are merely opinions about the peculiarities. Fellowship is literally broken over such things. I can’t help but think that God isn’t pleased with such broken fellowship.

S
sermonindex

Bringing up what happened a year ago and another thesis on "what is truth" with loads of other doctrines within it, just shows the "personal" that entered this thread from it's onset.

This was the main article that went with the his initial post because this pastor Erre was the one to speak, as was mentioned in Walter's first post and it appears it wasn't read.



waltern wrote:

Below, you will find information about a new type of Pastor that has been a guest speaker twice in the past month at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, Ca.. His focus is the youth of Calvary Chapel, and any others that show up.

Would you feel safe if your children went to hear this wolf in sheeps clothing?

You be the judge of what is taking place at the main Sanctuary of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa:

The guest speaker (twice now) was Mike Erre, Pastor of Rock Harbor Church, Costa Mesa, who has written a book entitled[b] “Death By Church; Rescuing Jesus from His Followers, Recapturing God’s hope for His People”[/b] and states the following:

[b]Death by Church has a point to make--that God is saving "all of creation" (eg. p. 100) and that the "church" is not the substance of the kingdom of God (i.e., the whole of creation and all of humanity is). In fact, Erre says, the church is not the kingdom of God at all - it only points to the kingdom of God, which incorporates all of creation and, if the church does all the right things it can have the privilege of being part of that kingdom too. Erre seeks to prove his point but not just by turning to Scripture - he turns to prominent figures in the emerging/emergent church (those such as Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball), the contemplative mystical prayer movement (those such as Dallas Willard and panentheist Richard Rohr-a favorite of Erre's), and New Age sympathizers (those such as Marcus Borg, who believes Jesus did not see himself as the Son of God (see FMSN, p. 124), and Gregory Boyd, author of the not-yet published work, The Cosmic Dance). Couple Erre's frequent use of emerging/contemplative/New Age sympathizing authors with his kingdom-now theology wrapped in universalist/panentheistic overtones.

I surely would not want my son or daughters to hear what he has to say. What he has to say and teach has nothing to do with God’s plan of Salvation that is taught throughout the new Testament. God is not saving ALL OF CREATION! Jesus Christ told us the following about those that will see heaven- and few there are that find it:[/b]

Matthew 7:13-15
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


This is the link:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1491&more=1&c=1

And this is what the link has to say about what is going on. If this information is not of importance to you, then just ignore it.

“Death By Church”- Emergent New Paradigm Pastor to Speak at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.

Category: * Emerging (Merging) Church
Source: Editors at Lighthouse Trails

Emerging/emergent spirituality is making serious inroads into Christianity. Churches and Christian colleges, unaware of the subtle undermining of such spirituality, are embracing teachers and leaders of this movement and pointing others to them. Often they are unaware of what these teachers really believe and teach. In light of an event (Movement 2009) scheduled to take place on May 29th at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, the Calvary Chapel mother church, with Rock Harbor pastor, Mike Erre (and a similar event (Pure Worship) that took place earlier this month), Lighthouse Trails is posting this special report.

In the pages of Death by Church: Rescuing Jesus from His Followers, Recapturing God's Hope for His People (Harvest House, 2009), author Mike Erre (pastor of RockHarbor Church in Costa Mesa, California) acknowledges that Jesus is Lord. He also references a number of Scriptures and talks about several different Bible stories. But for the discerning Christian who knows his Bible, it doesn't take too long into Erre's book to realize something is amiss, and such a reader soon begins to have a sense that he is theologically being tossed to and fro between the pages of this book and soon feeling like he is in a battle zone for the truth. Sandwiched between the Scripture references and the mention of "Jesus" is a theology that does not at all represent the Gospel.

Death by Church has a point to make--that God is saving "all of creation" (eg. p. 100) and that the "church" is not the substance of the kingdom of God (i.e., the whole of creation and all of humanity is). In fact, Erre says, the church is not the kingdom of God at all - it only points to the kingdom of God, which incorporates all of creation and, if the church does all the right things it can have the privilege of being part of that kingdom too. [b]Erre seeks to prove his point but not just by turning to Scripture - he turns to prominent figures in the emerging/emergent church (those such as Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball), the contemplative mystical prayer movement (those such as Dallas Willard and panentheist Richard Rohr-a favorite of Erre's), and New Age sympathizers (those such as Marcus Borg, who believes Jesus did not see himself as the Son of God (see FMSN, p. 124), and Gregory Boyd, author of the not-yet published work, The Cosmic Dance). Couple Erre's frequent use of emerging/contemplative/New Age sympathizing authors with his kingdom-now theology wrapped in universalist/panentheistic overtones, and Death by Church actually takes on a pseudo-name, Death by Deception.[/b] But let's take a closer look:

Erre states in the beginning of the book that as Christians, "We have become famous for what we oppose, rather than who we are for" (p. 22). Relying heavily on statistics and studies in this first section of the book, Erre wants the reader to know that for the most part over the "majority of the last 2000 years" Christians have "been the sponsor and center of most of Western culture and civilization"(p. 20). But this has not been a good thing, according to Erre, who says that something has "gone very wrong," particularly with "American culture," which has been guilty of simplifying "complicated things." He gives an example: salvation. "We have reduced salvation into four steps that allow me entrance into heaven when I die. But in so doing, we have bypassed the gospel that Jesus preached--the gospel of the kingdom of God. This gospel deals much more with the 'here and now' that the 'then' ['then' meaning when Jesus died on the Cross] and there' [there meaning heaven, our eternal home]" (p. 26). And this is Erre's set up for the remainder of the book.

[b]The kingdom of God theology that Erre presents is broad--in fact, very broad. That is why he turns to Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, and a number of other broad-minded thinkers to make his case. Erre is not merely quoting these figures in a benign manner--he clearly resonates with them and admits many of them have been "highly influential" in his life.1 He fondly and favorably tells his readers what they think and what they believe. Quoting Alan Hirsch, Erre says that "the major threat to the viability of our faith is that of consumerism" (p. 31). He eventually defines "consumerism" as individualism, saying that there has been too much emphasis within Christianity on individual salvation and nothing on corporate salvation (ie., all of the world and creation being saved).

As with most emerging authors, Erre exalts uncertainty and doubt (always searching, never finding). He states: "Jesus brings mystery, paradox, and tension--rarely did someone get a straight answer out of Him" (p. 36), which is not true about Jesus at all. To help build Erre's case, he turns a number of times to two Fuller Seminary professors, Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger. Interestingly, in Faith Undone, Roger Oakland's expose of the emerging church, Oakland discusses Gibbs and Bolger. He states: "They found that emerging church leaders are not impressed with Christians who defend the faith by offering definitive answers to those who doubt the faith (p. 182)." Doubt and uncertainty are vital to the emerging church thinking--and to their mission--and without this foundation, the emerging church cannot reach its goal of an all-inclusive kingdom (that Erre seeks to present in Death by Church). This resonates with Thomas Merton who told people of other religious traditions that we are already in unity, but we just don't realize it yet. (see ATOD, p. 159). Again from Faith Undone, Oakland quotes Gibbs and Bolger:
Evangelism or mission for me is no longer persuading people to believe what I believe, no matter how edgy or creative I get. It is more about shared experiences and encounters. It is about walking the journey of life and faith together, each distinct to his or her own tradition and culture but with the possibility of encountering God and truth from one another.2
Oakland shows how Gibbs and Bolger are presenting an "inclusive gospel," certainly the overall message of Erre's book.

Ironically, Gibbs and Bolger look to emerging church figure, Spencer Burke (of The Ooze), who, according to Burke's publisher's website (Zondervan), has had significant connections to Erre's RockHarbor Church.3 Roger Oakland reveals some disturbing things about Burke's spirituality that sound very inline with Erre's. Quoting Gibbs and Bolger again:
Burke's community is prepared to learn from faith traditions outside the Christian fold. There is a Buddhist family in their church. As a community, the church visited a Buddhist temple. They participated in a guided meditation with this family. Burke celebrates the many ways God is revealed. He recognizes that the Spirit has been with these people all along. The community celebrates other traditions. They reach out to other traditions, and see them as beloved children of God. With a focus on kingdom rather than on church, people find that their relationship with other faiths changes.
Back to Death by Church. Erre says that "Central to the kingdom is God's desire to renew, restore, and reconcile all things" (p. 41). Calling this a "deep theology" (p. 42), Erre says he would like to "lay a theological groundwork" (p. 45). First, he explains that a gospel that focuses on "going to heaven after you die, and praying the prayer of salvation" is "only a narrow slice of what the Scriptures teach about salvation" (p. 46). Erre adds: "His great purpose is to restore His fallen creation and renew it beyond the original" (p. 48). Numerous times throughout the book, he says that the "central theme" of the Bible is "the kingdom of God" (p. 54). But as the discerning reader pours through the pages of Death by Church, a clear and disturbing picture of what Erre means by "kingdom of God" begins to take shape--when Erre talks about the kingdom of God, he means that "the church" is "not the kingdom." The kingdom is "something bigger." "If the kingdom is inclusive," Erre says, "the church should be also" (p. 78). [/b]

Erre sounds very much like New Age Episcopalian priest, Matthew Fox, who calls the "deep theology" that Erre talks about a "deep ecumenism" ("deep" meaning all-inclusive). Fox expresses this clearly:
I foresee a renaissance, "a rebirth based on a spiritual initiative" ... This new birth will cut through all cultures and all religions and indeed will draw forth the wisdom common to all vital mystical traditions in a global religious awakening I call "deep ecumenism."4
While Erre himself does not speak of the "mystical traditions" in Death by Church, many of those he incorporates into his book (Willard, McLaren, Rohr, Borg, Bell, Kimball, etc.) abundantly do in their own writings (see LTRP for documentation).

Erre is not shy about sharing his replacement theology views. Speaking of a "coming restoration" (p. 88) and a "new order," he says that the "people of God" are "the new and renewed Israel" (p. 96). Reading through the book, one realizes that Erre sees no prophetic value or plan (for the future) in Israel.
"Jesus ... creates a new order--a new community, a new Israel" (p. 104).

"Jesus of Nazareth reconstructs a true Israel by choosing 12 disciples (one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel)" (p. 110).

"Central to understanding this call of Jesus is the idea that it concerned itself less with the salvation of individual souls and more with the formation of a renewed Israel, a community of disciples that would collectively embody the kingdom" (p. 111).

"The early Christians saw themselves as continuing Israel's story ... as messianic Israel" (p. 116).
Echoing his fellow emergent leaders, Erre minimizes "the question of what happens to me after I die" and talks about a "cosmic" Jesus who "sends His "new community, the church" into the world (p. 98). He states: "The New Testament ... regularly insists that the major, central, framing question is that of God's purpose of rescue and re-creation for human beings and the whole world" (p. 98). He calls it the "here and now" theology (p. 99). ("Our worn-out theology of escaping from this world does not do justice to the here-and-now work" (p. 99).

Erre's theme, that all of creation is being restored and saved, is redundant through the book. On one page alone, he drives the point several times:

1. "God wants to redeem the whole person and all of creation."
2. "The good news ... is about the rule of God being applied to all of creation--every part of human beings and the world."
3. "Our traditional conceptions of salvation are blatantly more individualist, focusing on one's individual reconciliation with God through a personal relationship with Jesus ... It is more concerned with getting souls to heaven than with bringing heaven to earth. [This resonates with Marcus Borg, who calls this old paradigm Christianity.] This narrow gospel focuses only on the salvation of the human soul, but the gospel of the kingdom s includes salvation of human beings within the context of the larger story of God restoring all of creation.
4. "[T]he consummation of the kingdom includes an entirely new creation.
5. This new and cosmic salvation is spoken of as the renewal, restoration, or reconciliation of all things."
6. (p. 125): "One of the ways that the kingdom is larger than the church is that the focus on the kingdom is the redemption of all creation. The message of the kingdom of God is cosmic in its proportions ... it [the kingdom] is ultimately aimed at redeeming and restoring all that God has made" (more on pp. 128-129; 210-211; 217).

Please understand that the view Erre is expressing in these statements is classic universalism (which negates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ because faith in Christ is not a requirement for salvation, and regardless of one's acceptance or rejection of the Gospel, he or she is saved. This would mean, as Neale Donald Walsch teaches, that even Hitler would be saved).5

It is important to note here that when Erre talks about God restoring and renewing all things, he is not talking about the new heaven and the earth that will take place after the events that are foretold in the Book of Revelation. He is espousing a view about a renewal and restoration that will occur prior to these events (this is called kingdom-now theology).

Erre says that this newly defined "Kingdom citizenship" incorporates those of other kingdoms as well, not just our own kingdom of God, which helps us to see "our place in the cosmic [meaning universal] story" (p. 112). This new "Kingdom" "has decreed that independence has no place in His kingdom. Instead collective interdependence is demanded," Erre states. One term that Erre uses frequently is a term that resembles New Age leader Barbara Marx Hubbard who also speaks of a "new humanity." When Marx Hubbard uses this term, she means man has been enlightened to understand his own divinity and now realizes all of humanity is being saved, along with all of creation. The stipulation for this "new humanity" is not whether someone has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through being born-again and regeneration through Christ--no, it is about a new humanity that has joined together and understands her cosmic divinity (see Reinventing Jesus Christ).

Erre's kingdom-now theology is expressed throughout the book. For instance on page 132, he states that the gospel is "something bigger" than the "story of Jesus' dying for the private sins of individuals.... it is the story of God's kingdom being launched, on earth as in heaven, generating a new state of affairs. Atonement, redemption, and salvation are what happen on the way." This is typical emerging spirituality that does not see atonement, redemption, and salvation as a moment in history when Jesus Christ died on the Cross but rather an ongoing process that is continually growing, expanding, changing (see our review of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope). Erre states that "the end of the age does not result in the destruction of the earth but rather in its renewal." He says: "[R]ather that waiting for the last days, we have been living in them since the coming of Jesus. Rather than waiting for the end to come, we are already living in the end times that will be consummated when Jesus returns" (p. 198). And, "[T]he end of the age does not result in the destruction of the earth but rather in its renewal"(p. 212).

Erre believes that the church "neither initiates nor sustains [God's] work" on the earth but must seek out where the work of God is already taking place and participate in that work. He says when we take on this view, we can then understand that the "whole of creation is now included in the scope of redemption." "The church is not the primary location of God in the world; the world is," he says (p. 133).

Death by Church lays out a perfect example of what Lighthouse Trails calls "the new missiology." In essence, Erre tells believers that "we don't take Christ to a region or people group, but we instead show up and pay attention to the work that Jesus is already doing. We have to move away from the current mind-set about church, ministry, and mission." (p. 136). In other words, we don't have to tell people about Jesus because Jesus is already there among them (before they hear the Gospel and believe; i.e, they can keep their same religion and still be connected to God). This is what William Young, author of the #1 best-seller The Shack, echoes when The Shack's "Jesus" says he has no desire to make anyone Christian. Erre states: "We don't do God's work in the world; we simply participate in God's work in the world that is already underway. ... He's always at work everywhere" (p. 162).

As if the kingdom-now theology, replacement theology, universalistic message, and new missiology were not enough, Erre presents to the reader a case for panentheism (God in all things). Given the fact that he includes Richard Rohr in his list of those he resonates with, this is no surprise. Rohr is the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation. His spirituality would be in the same camp as someone like Matthew Fox (author of The Coming of the Cosmic Christ) who believes in pantheism (God is all) and panentheism (God in all). Rohr wrote the foreword to a 2007 book called How Big is Your God? by Jesuit priest (from India) Paul Coutinho. In Coutinho's book, he describes an interspiritual community where people of all religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity) worship the same God.

In Death by Church, in Erre's presentation of panentheism, Erre quotes Madeleine L'Engle: "There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the Incarnation" (p. 159). What she is saying here is that God (the sacred) can be found in everything (the secular). In that line of thinking, Erre himself says that his new kingdom "dismantles the sacred/secular distinction" and "all things are given over to God--including those things formerly thought to be secular or unspiritual" He adds: "Confessional worship ... seeks to see everything as having been made to reflect the glory of God. ... we reawaken to the possibilities of redemption in all areas of life" (pp. 158). This is the same theology as Sue Monk Kidd (see ATOD, p. 134). This concept reflects classic panentheism--God is in all things. Keep in mind, that there is a continuity of the theme that God is in everything with many of the figures that Erre turns to in his book. Richard Rohr, Marcus Borg, Brian McLaren, and John Dominic Crossan are four who hold to this view and are referenced in Death by Church. Borg is one of the leading champions of panentheisism of mainline Christianity, as is Brian McLaren through the emerging church. Rob Bell, who resonates with Marcus Borg, is also referenced in Death by Church. We want to reiterate here, Erre is not just referencing these figures--he has absorbed their theology!

In an emergent church setting, Erre's book would fit in well. But unfortunately, he is scheduled to speak at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa on May 29th at the Movement 2009 event as the featured speaker. From all that Calvary Chapel has stood for and represented over the last three plus decades, Erre's spirituality does not line up with Calvary Chapel. Even if Erre doesn't talk about these topics at the Movement 2009, to welcome him at a Calvary Chapel church (the mother church of Calvary Chapel, no less) is sending out a message far and wide that emerging spirituality is now acceptable and legitimate. Yet, Calvary Chapel founder Pastor Chuck Smith has made several strong statements over the past few years denouncing the spirituality of the emerging church. We hope and pray that he and other Calvary Chapel pastors will realize that many believers, from many different denominational backgrounds are watching and waiting and hoping that Calvary Chapel will stand firm in the faith and reject firmly, once and for all, these unbiblical teachings ... no matter the cost. No Bible-believing church should give a platform to those who espouse these views. Having Mike Erre speak at Calvary Chapel would be tantamount to having Marcus Borg or Richard Rohr speaking there.

We close with this. It's vital to understand that spiritual deception can sound very Christian. That is how deception works. Ray Yungen has given a solemn warning to this effect when he comments on occultist Alice Bailey's prediction of what her movement (the New Age) would do and how it would accomplish "world illumination":
In light of the many who will be coming in Christ's name, I believe the Alice Bailey prophecies can provide further insight into what the apostle Paul called in II Thessalonians the falling away. Bailey eagerly foretold of what she termed "the regeneration of the churches." Her rationale for this was obvious:
The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished.
In other words, instead of opposing Christianity, the occult would capture and blend itself with Christianity and then use it as its primary vehicle for spreading and instilling New Age consciousness! The various churches would still have their outer trappings of Christianity and still use much of the same lingo. If asked certain questions about traditional Christian doctrine, the same answers would be given. But it would all be on the outside; on the inside a contemplative [emerging] spirituality would be drawing in those open to it.6
Notes:
1. From Disclaimer in Death by Church at beginning of book.
2. Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic of Baker Publishing Group, 2005), p. 132. (This book cites Brian McLaren on back cover).
3. One source told us that Burke may no longer be on staff at RockHarbor.
4. Roger Oakland in Faith Undone (chapter 2), quoting Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, 1988, p. 5.
5. See "Enlightened Race" by Caryl Matrisiciana from Out of India.
6. Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing (Silverton, OR: Lighthouse Trails Publishing, LLC, 2nd ed., 2006), p. 123.


This article or excerpt was posted on May 25, 2009@ 5:02 pm

Sincerely,

Walter

If the charge is against the LightHouseTrailsResearch Website and Roger Oakland, etc. then why the presonal attacks?
The lack of charity is what caused me to ask, 'When do two wrongs make a right?'

And would you allow your youth to read any book that comes along or allow anyone to come in to entertain or preach in your church?

I'm totally baffled by the replies to this thread and feel that backing off from here is the wisest thing that I can do.

"Love without His Truth is not His Love.
Truth without His Love is not His Truth."

C
ChrisJD

Bringing up what happened a year ago and another thesis on "what is truth" with loads of other doctrines within it, just shows the "personal" that entered this thread from it's onset.

Waltern first began posting comments from Chris from past threads a few posts before this. Did you notice that?


One of the things he is disputing with Chris over is Bible translations.


I think that his charge against the man in the qoute that I posted from a year ago is relevant, as one of the things he says about him is that 'He also endorses the English Standard Version.'

You suggested that there is a reaction of this topic that you do not understand and I suggested to you that perhaps it is not the topic that has been recieved this way.


Again, 5 people have responded to Waltern in this thread about his conduct. I personally began my participation here by offering what I thought was a statement in support of expressing concern over how the Gospel is presented to others.


I only began to question some things after I saw a post from him where it appeared an accusation was being made upon a supposition [b]and[/b] a man, who as far as I know has nothing to do with this topic, was personally named and described as having departed from the faith. Since then I have asked on several occasions if this man has made any statement or defence for himself regarding that accusation and recieved no response.


I was however, along with two others posters, accused of being opposed to sound doctrine.


Love does not lie about others and cover it up.

C
crsschk

Bringing up what happened a year ago and another thesis on "what is truth" with loads of other doctrines within it, just shows the "personal" that entered this thread from it's onset.

True, but it is warranted ...

Patterns of conduct which put a moderator right smack into the quagmire, trying to be both unbiased and ambivalent - The attempts to settle things down, attempt some sort of reconciliation, look at a broader picture ...

Disposition and how that applies to hard-line positions.

Conduct and lack of it.

Antagonists and antagonizers.

Where to start? Again ...

Address everyone or each one individually?

The former attempt failed notoriously and [i]that[/i] I perceive is always the problem - Not my perspective necessarily but just the whole of it from observation. There is too much volume to address each and every instance, every point and I would say they are points being made from everyone ... so a few selections out of the general mass, not to dismiss or neglect others nor to pigeon hole anyone ...

[i]"We will allow you the benefit of having the last words seeing that you can hear no others."[/i]

My comment. I remember it. It is and continues to be the problem Waltern. You and we all to some extent tend to cherry pick our responses, what we will address, what we will ignore but it is clear that you have no intention of considering others [i]considerations[/i] or if you do you never vocalize them - What might you expect in return? The constant and I do mean over the years constant harping of the KJV matter is beating a dead horse into smithereens - We [i]get it[/i] Waltern, we get your premise but for the umpteenth time you are calling the kettle black while we all sit around looking at a black kettle. Most of us are [i]already[/i] fond/decided/convinced/ however you want to couch it ... 'users' of the KJV - Here Waltern, [i]here[/i] on SI where it is predominate already, preaching to the choir ... every cliché' that has ever been crafted.

I don't even think you would find much of an argument that the 'newer versions' have a [i]part[/i] in the problems and issues that are now rampant ... But, it is only a [i]part[/i]. To continue to brow beat this, to write volumes as you have is counter productive it also reflects back on to yourself - Your conduct. You will not back off nor back down or make any concessions - You are never at fault, never wrong, never out of line and I am not talking about your diction of scripture but your disposition towards others - As example;

Well, ccchhhrrriiisss, you stated that you did not know where to begin. The place to begin is to read my entire post, and if you respond to it, do so with Church History, and Scripture.

You are dictating here, not discussing - You set the parameters and everyone is supposed to follow along - That is a disposition issue and one whereby you have a ready supply of counter argument because you set the rules of engagement but the trouble is by doing so, you set up a battlefield - You are the antagonizer.

I reluctantly attempted to address this earlier in a general sense and included just about everyone for their part in it - The question that arises is ... If no one jumped into it, the likelyhood is that it would have died off quietly and fell into the general abyss of many other posts. But, shall the expectation be that no one contributes, no one has a thought, an opinion, another consideration? Then there is no point in having a forum for ....

[i]Discussion[/i]

Rather, what we end up with is a diatribe, a mandate, an agenda.

Waltern, you are obstinate and stubborn as a mule! That is stated without animosity or hatred or invective - It's a long observable trait. My attempt here is to change the [i]tone[/i] - not necessarily the content - There are points to be taken from what you put out here, without a doubt. I am not going to get into them all, but take notice of the character and disposition of this unfortunate situation has done and how he handled it, right from the bowels of this whole posting;

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Taken from those who spoke with him --


""Paul Smith came on board to Calvary Chapel about four years ago to help with what could possibly be a sinking ship. Paul believed that the only answer for the movement was to hold to the basic tenets of biblical Christianity. As he learned of the various emerging/contemplative/Purpose Driven influences pouring into Calvary Chapel, he often spoke up but was also often received with resistance--until last Tuesday, when an impromptu meeting in the middle of the day brought his efforts to a halt.

When we spoke with Paul Smith this week, he was packing his things, preparing to leave Calvary Chapel. At approximately 80 years old, his mind sharp and his focus straightforward, Paul isn't sure where he will go from here. He isn't sure of the future of Calvary Chapel anymore either. But he is sure of this - the One whom He seeks to serve is faithful and will in these last days draw a line in the sand and ask every true believer to step on the side of biblical truth. Paul sent us an email a few days after his dismissal. We asked him if we could post [u]part of [/u]it, and he agreed:

[i]I have enjoyed serving our Calvary Chapel pastors through Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship. Calvary Chapel is a wonderful and surprising work of God. It has been used by God to hold fast to simply teaching the Word of God, book-by-book and verse-by-verse, the whole counsel of God.... It is my prayer that we hold fast to the sufficiency of the Word of God and the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit to guide this blessed ministry of God. My heart's desire is to follow the way of my Lord Jesus Christ. I like what the prophet Isaiah and David have to say about the true Judge who would come and dwell among us and His method and His heart in righteous judgment.[/i]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note his conduct, his refrain, his [i]restraint[/i] ... despite all that had happened to him. There is a lesson in it, for everyone.

This is not at all helpful;

Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise.

Having said that, Compton does make some good points. The term "emergent church" covers such a broad spectrum--from the inchoate speculations of Brian McLaren to the "let's-put-the-fun-back-in-fundamenalism" orthodoxy of Mark Driscoll--that it is hard to generalize.

"You must"? "consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise."? And then go on to contradict what was just stated?

There are issues to be sure, but how it is gone about is either going to help or hinder.


Yes, it gets too personal and others get sucked into it, again what might be expected is understandable but I do not know if it is at all helpful, why the attempt to quarter this in an overall approach, for everyone to consider their part.

Is it at all possible to use some simple, cordial language? "[i]You know, you have a point there.[/i]" "[i]I didn't consider that ...[/i]" - "[i]I was wrong about that[/i]". "[i]I could have put that differently[/i]".

Consider my signature a bottom -

[i]Here I found the benefit of a principle which I invariably adopt, of never pressing upon any human being my sentiments or wishes, without an absolute necessity. If a friend be reduced to the necessity of refusing or complying, he will feel grieved: but if, though with pain to himself, he do anything without being importuned, he has a sweet feeling of love excited by that very act; or, it he refrain from doing what you wish, he feels a love to you for not pressing him against his will.[/i] ~ Charles Simeon

Consider this older post -

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=27923&forum=34]If ...[/url]

Just some consideration please from everyone - Note the posts on the recent conference - Note how that mindset can and ought to be spread through these discussions at all times - We are not each others enemies.

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone,


I think that examining the public manner and discourse of someone who is currently engaged in making accusations against others, both in person, and those who also can not be directly questioned, is reasonable in considering their accusations(Deut 19:16-17, John 18:23).

EDIT I did not mean to cross of Mike's post below. My appologies for that if this seems out of place.

W
wayneman



crsschk wrote

This is not at all helpful;

Quote:

Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise.

Having said that, Compton does make some good points. The term "emergent church" covers such a broad spectrum--from the inchoate speculations of Brian McLaren to the "let's-put-the-fun-back-in-fundamenalism" orthodoxy of Mark Driscoll--that it is hard to generalize.

"You must"? "consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise."? And then go on to contradict what was just stated?

It was an attempt at sanctified satire. I was making fun of Walter and his hero Roger Oakland, both of whom I have chastized for their narrowness and severity several times in this thread. Hence the contradiction: In the second paragraph I am stating my own views, in the first paragraph I am caricaturing Walter. Maybe I could have prevented confusion by inserting a smiley emoticon after the first paragraph. I assumed that ChrisJD and others would remember that I have criticized Oakland for his absurd dogmatism and understand that I was joking.

The tragedy is that people like Walter have so degraded the dialogue on this forum that I can say something this manifestly and deliberately absurd--

Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise.

--and have it taken seriously.

S
sermonindex


To everyone with an interest in finding a new Church:

Today we visited our 3rd Church- one new Church for each week. We are looking for a new Church, and the one we found today is not the one. As we entered the Church we noticed that we were the only ones with Bibles- a tell tale sign! I will not go into many details, just the following:
During his sermon, the Pastor informed us that Peter was the “Rock” upon which Christ would build His Church. He also said that when God gave the Jews the law in the book of Leviticus, that they kept the law, but after a long time it became boring, and they turned away from it.

This is a very large Church in my town, that for years was a conservative Christian Church, that relied on the King James Bible. Today it does not. The New Pastor came aboard 14 years ago and changed things around.

So, I came home with a mission—to find a conservative, Bible believing Church in my City. I used Google, and typed in: King James Bible, My City, Ca. and found our new Church. We will attend next Sunday. Why did I choose this Church? #1 We totally agreed with their Statement of Faith; #2--During the month of March, three Sunday Services were focused on one thing, and one thing alone--[b]warning the members of the Emerging Church, and exactly what it is, in relation to true Christianity.[/b] Is it a Kings James Bible Church? I don't know, but will find out next week:

[b]EMERGING TRUTH AND THE NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN
Session 1 – Foundations
WHAT IS THE EMERGING/EMERGENT CHURCH?[/b]

It is a movement within Christianity that is notoriously hard to define.

It is a new movement that dislikes labels and presents itself as a “conversation.”
This conversation features authors, pastors, professors, conferences, websites, blogs and
churches, all with their own interests and points of emphasis. When pressed for clarity, and
especially when criticized as drifting from or denying the Bible, many of these conversationalists argue that they have been misunderstood, that they were just talking, that they’re still in process and figuring things out, or that the critic is being unkind or unhelpful. For all of these reasons, it’s
hard to define the conversation!

The goals of this series:
1. We will attempt to understand how we came to this point in American Christianity, beginning with the idea of postmodernism.
2. We will read and listen to some of the actual words and teachings of a few major figures in the
conversation. These clips will be necessarily short, but always fair. Their sources will be cited.
3. We will identify a few of the major challenges that the emergent movement makes to Biblical teaching and the Christian faith.
4. We will learn what the Bible clearly says about these topics and ask God to help us believe it.

[b]I will gladly acknowledge:[/b]
1. I have not read everything that has been published in the conversation. I doubt anyone has, or that it’s even humanly possible. I have, however, read a variety of both EC authors and their critics.
2. That this survey is too short and some of its points are too briefly made to cover all of the
important topics to anyone’s satisfaction. This includes both proponents and opponents of
emerging Christianity.
3. That the goals of this study are offensive to some postmodern, emergent Christians. They
would likely argue that their positions are not yet firmly established, that my statements about
doctrine are too narrow, and that it is arrogant for any individual to believe he knows what the Bible “clearly says.” I acknowledge those rebukes, but maintain that they are simply not true because of what God has graciously done through His Son, His Spirit and His Word.

[b]BASICS ABOUT THE EMERGENT CHURCH[/b]
1. The Emergent church (EC) movement began as an effort to reach the new generation
using innovative methods that addressed a culture which everyone agrees is changing
rapidly. “Seeker” churches such as Saddleback and Willow Creek reached Boomers, but
Emerging leaders were alarmed that younger generations were rapidly leaving the church.
2. The EC is a protest and a pendulum swing.
A. Against traditional evangelicalism and fundamentalism
B. Against the “seeker church”
C. Against institutions and their authority in general
3. The EC comes from the cultural soil of postmodernism.
4. The EC’s core issue is truth. The academic word for this area of knowledge is epistemology -
how we know things, or think we know them.

[b]TRUTH[/b]
Does it exist? How do we know? Can we know anything for certain?
Discussion Question: Can you name something that is true for all people, regardless of culture,
whether anyone accepts it or not? (Try to do so without appealing to the authority of the Bible.)
Torturing babies for fun
This is what we call “objective truth” – something that is true for everyone, always.

The Biblical explanation of why some truths are obvious to everyone:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a
law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the
law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God
judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not
tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1)

People everywhere have a conscience! - “That’s just wrong!”

[b]THE SOIL THE EMERGENT CHURCH GROWS FROM IS POSTMODERNISM[/b]
The EC began because its belief that we are living in a whole new way of thinking about the world.

We are moving from Modernism to Postmodernism.
Modernism (1550 – 1945)
1. Starting point: the individual.
2. Believes that truth can be found through reason alone.
3. Believes that truth is found only through what we can see, hear, touch, taste and
smell. - “Science has the answers.”
This idea makes it impossible to discuss God in a “rational” way.
“You can’t talk about God making the universe. That’s a religious thing.
We’re talking about science.”
4. Science alone can deliver facts. Religion can only give us values. Everything
outside of science is a matter of personal preference. Once we abandon the realm of science, the reply we hear is: “That’s true for you, but not for me.”
5. Believes progress is inevitable. THEN came two World Wars, the knowledge that government could not be trusted, the disintegration of the family, and a new connection with the world’s
cultures through travel and technology.
Belief in man’s ability to understand the truth (there are so many!) and do what’s right (power is used to oppress!) was fatally wounded.

[b]Postmodernism (1945 – present)[/b]
1. People are fallible and very limited: they can only see things from their
perspective.
2. Truth is relative.
There is no “true way” - just different ways of seeing and doing things.
Believing that some things are true for everybody is arrogant and oppressive.
3. Language itself limits our ability to know truth and express it.
This is especially true when talking about spirituality or God, because the concepts are so
big that we cannot really describe them adequately.
4. Truth is found in communities, which “make” their own truth as they talk, share
their perspectives, and live out their values.
5. Since we cannot be certain of anything, it is best to be authentic.

Since my own perspective is so limited and “truth” is used so selfishly, it is
best to be a “citizen of the world.” I should care about the environment. It makes sense to be skeptical of patriotism, institutions and authority figures. The world is a village, after all.Postmodernism’s bottom line: the truth is unknowable. Truth is personal and provisional at
best. How do we evaluate these two different ways of seeing the world and truth? They’re both wrong!

[b]Modernism is fatally flawed because it begins with man, and leaves no room for God. Human
reason and motives are selfish and will be turned to evil.[/b]

5Thus says the LORD:" Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and makes flesh his strength,
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
8 He is like a tree planted by water that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear
when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it
does not cease to bear fruit."

9The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick; who can understand it?
10 "I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds."
Postmodernism is fatally flawed because its reaction to the errors of modernism is to diminish or deny truth altogether, leaving us in a world with no objective morality, no certainty, and no destination.

“The one thing about trains: It doesn’t matter where you are going. What matters is deciding to get on.” From the conclusion of the movie “The Polar Express.”

BUT NO ONE lives a single day of their lives as if the truth does not exist and cannot be known.
People know who they are. They know that the destination does matter. They know when they
are being wronged, and are very quick to say so. (And sue!)

[b]HOW POSTMODERNISM HAS SHAPED THE EMERGING CHURCH[/b]
Emerging Christians tend to be diminish, deny, or be uncertain about:
The clarity and authority of the Bible
“The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—‘discovering the Bible
as a human product,’ as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. ‘The Bible is still in the center for us,’ Rob says, ‘but it's a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.’
‘I grew up thinking that we've figured out the Bible,’ Kristen says, ‘that we knew what it
means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again—like life
used to be black and white, and now it's in color.’”

Source:

[url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html?start=2]How Postmodernish Has Shaped the Emerging Church[/url]


[b]The Bible says:
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. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but
that You keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the
world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth. (John 17:14-17)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, 40 yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.”
(John 5:39-40)[/b]

The trustworthiness of doctrinal statements

[b]“WHAT DOES EMERGENT VILLAGE BELIEVE?[/b]
“We believe in God, beauty, future, and hope – but you won’t find a traditional statement of faith here. We don’t have a problem with faith, but with statements (read more here). Whereas statements of faith and doctrine have a tendency to stifle friendships, we hope to further conversation and action around the things of God.”
Source:

[url=http://emergentvillage.com/about-information/faqs] What the Emergent Church Believes[/url]

[b]Catch this: They have a statement saying they have a problem with statements![/b]

[b]The Bible says:
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it
necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to
the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this
condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our
only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 3-4)
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some
who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from
heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel
contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)[/b]

[b]The Emergent Church conversation questions and recasts basic Biblical teachings like the purpose of the death of Jesus, the existence of hell and the nature of God Himself. Generally, if the doctrine is controversial, it is being questioned and revisited. We’ll address these important topics later in this survey.
Their position on controversial issues, like homosexuality “Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've
heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems
good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and
lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are
drawn.

“Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully,disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they'll be admmittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.”
Brian McLaren[/b]

Source:

[url=http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html]What Does the Emergent Village Believe[/url]


“I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as
much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.” Tony Jones

[url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-blogalogue-h.html]Tony Jones[/url]

[b]The Bible says:[/b]
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice
homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

The legitimacy of preaching
"Why do I get to speak for 30 minutes and you don't?
"A sermon is often a violent act," says Pagitt, a key figure among emerging leaders.
"It's a violence toward the will of the people who have to sit there and take it."[/b]
Source:

[url=http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2462&Itemid=11]The Legitimacy of Preaching[/url]

[b]The Bible says:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the
dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the Word; be ready in season and out
of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time
is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will
accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from
listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4)[/b]

YOUTUBE VIDEO FROM PBS SPECIAL HERE:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGSQjtWTpa]Youtube Link[/url]

[b]WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW:
The truth is – there IS TRUTH.[/b]

God has spoken and acted so that we can know the truth. His gracious work to communicate the truth overcomes our limitations to understand and love the truth. You don’t have to know all the truth to have a genuine relationship with God. You can be absolutely sure who God is and what He has said without being arrogant.
Uncertainty is not humility.All of Scripture and all truth points to Jesus, who IS the Truth in the flesh. (John 14:6)

The Bible says that the truth can be known, and known so well that its counterfeits can be
detected and should be rejected. The most readable of the books describing and countering the Emergent movement is Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck
(Moody Publishers, 2008)

[b]EMERGING TRUTH AND THE NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN[/b]
Session 2 – Thinking about doctrine – Reason and Scripture

The core issue with the emergent movement is not couches, candles, or style. The issue is
doctrine – what the Bible is and what it teaches. As we survey emergent theology, we’ll
encounter many arguments against historic Christian doctrine. PLAY ROB BELL’S “VELVET ELVIS” UNTIL 3:44 MARK Common mistakes in the postmodern/emergent conversation:

1. Self-contradicting arguments
This is probably the single greatest flaw in postmodern reasoning when it comes to truth claims. The EC says it distrusts statements. But it ultimately has to make statements saying that the statements it doesn’tlike are false!

“There are no absolute truths.”
“Really? Do you believe that absolutely?
An example from emergentvillage.com -
“WHAT DOES EMERGENT VILLAGE BELIEVE?
“We believe in God, beauty, future, and hope – but you won’t find a traditional statement of faith here. We don’t have a problem with faith, but with statements (read more here). Whereas statements of faith and doctrine have a tendency to stifle friendships, we hope to further conversation and action around the things of God.”

Source:

[url=http://emergentvillage.com/about-information/faqs] More beliefs of the Emergent Church[/url]

[b]Response:
They have a statement saying they have a problem with statements![/b]

They also “hope to further conversation and action around the things of God” but to do that someone is going to have to say WHAT “the things of God” are! Caring for the environment? Feeding the hungry? Blessing gay marriage? Learning things from other religions? Telling people that only Jesus can save them from sin?
2. False dilemmas
“As an American citizen, would you rather have freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial?”
“The Bill of Rights guarantees me both!”
An example from Tony Jones:
“As I gained a little prominence as an author in the youth ministry world, people began asking me my opinion on homosexuality. I often quoted one of my seminary professors, Bill Pannell, who was
involved in the civil rights movement. I had lunch with him during my last semester at seminary and as we drove back to campus he said to me, "Civil rights and abortion will be nothing compared to how the church has to deal with homosexuality. I'm glad it's your generation and not mine who'll have to figure that out."

With that in mind, I always responded, "I'm holding that issue in abeyance. I haven't made up
my mind yet, and I'm in no hurry to. Homosexuality," I would say, "I (sic) one issue that I don't want to get wrong."
And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am.
("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

“In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

“Well, I suppose this blogalogue will be a test of whether I have good theological and philosophical reasons for supporting the rights of GLBTQ persons to marry, or whether I've simply caved to the mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness. In either case, Rod, I'm looking forward to this conversation, and I'm praying that it is ultimately glorifying of God.”
Tony Jones

[url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-blogalogue-h.html] Tony Jones[/url]

[b]Response:
This implies that anyone who believes gay marriage is wrong must believe that gay persons are less than “fully human.”

The Bible says:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
3. Choosing beliefs that accommodate today’s sensibilities rather than affirming what
God has clearly said in His Word.

DOUG PAGGIT “CHRISTIANITY WORTH BELIEVING 5” video found here:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf2gDprVpDI]Doug Paggit[/url]

4. The need for absolute knowledge before anything can be known for sure.The EC correctly points out that people, including Christians, have done evil things because they were
certain it was the right thing to do. So they say, “Let’s not be so sure of ourselves.”
But the problem is not with certainty itself, much less with Scripture. Those who did evil in the name of Jesus were simply wrong. The EC has the right diagnosis, but the wrong medicine.
“When we 'do theology,' we are clay pots pondering the potter, kids pondering their father, ants discussing the elephant. At some level of profundity and accuracy we are bound to be inadequate or incomplete all the time, in almost anything we say or think, considering our human limitations, including language, and God's infinite greatness. “Our words will seek to be servants of mystery, not removers of it as they were in the old world. They will convey a message that is clear yet mysterious, simple yet mysterious, substantial yet mysterious.
My faith developed in the old world of many words, in a naïve confidence in the power of many words, as if the mysteries of faith could be captured like fine-print conditions in a legal document and be reduced to safe equations. Mysteries, however, cannot be captured so precisely. Freeze-dried coffee, butterflies on pins, and frogs in formaldehyde all lose something in out attempts at capturing,
defining, preserving, and rendering them less jumpy, flighty or fluid. In the new world, we
understand this a little better.” (Brian McLaren, The Church on the Other Side. Cited in D.A. Carson,

[b]Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 129.
Response:[/b]

Brian McLaren uses many words to tell us that we can’t really capture the truth in words!
We are told that clarity and certainty tend to kill living things. In this analogy, the faith is never static. It’s always moving, changing, and fluid. We are told that the distance between God and us is simply too great for us to be too sure about anything. By this standard, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could be sure about much of anything. In EC terms, this is “mystery.”
Four words to remember about the Bible:
Clarity – The Bible is clear.
Content – The Bible delivers a definite message: truth from God.

Authority – God’s truth has the right and the power to change our lives.
Life – God did all this that we may have life.

CLARITY
The Bible speaks clearly
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether." (Psalm 19:7-9) ESV Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Psalm 119:105 ESV The unfolding of your Words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.
(Psalm 119:130) ESV God made His Word clear so that it would give life and change life.

CONTENT
God’s message has been delivered once for all to all believers. Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary
to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 3-4) ESV
So the ta sk i s not “ repa int ing t he C hri stia n f ait h” but fa ithful ly pas sing it on to ot he r s!
You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard
from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2) ESV
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the Gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the Word I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) ESV
Gospel means “Good News.” There is a definite, clear, life giving truth to announce, and it’s personal.

AUTHORITY
For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

LIFE
The Bible tells us about Jesus – The written Word testifies to the incarnate Word
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, 40 yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.”
(John 5:39-40) ESV

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that youhave eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13) ESV
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know
Him Who is true; and we are in Him Who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and
eternal life. (1 John 5:20) ESV

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:14-17) ESV

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW
God has personally spoken in His Word and by His Son. He has spoken clearly so that we may
know Him, and be sure that it is Him!
While our understanding of God will always be incomplete and growing, that does not mean it is
uncertain.

God’s power graciously overcomes our sinful limitations so that we may really know Him.
This points to His goodness, not our wisdom.
Yes, we are “kids pondering the Father.” He has created us, spoken to us and forgiven us so that
we may know Him!

Understanding this will make us truly humble.
Issues we will consider next week:
Jesus – His message and the purpose of His death.
The existence of heaven and hell

EMERGING TRUTH AND THE NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN
Session 3 – Jesus, the Cross, and Hell
One of the chief characteristics in postmodern thought is that little, if anything, can be known forcertain. Certainty is considered arrogant and intolerant. It is said that certainty leads to the abuse of power.
This lack of confidence in certainty has shaped the Emergent view of Scripture, so that they do not believe it is clear. Without clarity, confidence in the Bible’s content also disappears. (“Who knows what it really means?”) Finally, Scripture’s authority is also lost.
With all of this lost, it is no wonder that the message and death of Jesus are being reevaluated by leading emergent thinkers.
In Emergent teaching, especially in the prolific work of Brian McLaren, the central message and work of Jesus does not deal primarily with saving people from hell by paying for their sins on the cross. From a 2005 PBS interview with Brian McLaren:

(Emphasis added)
“I think it would be safe to say that everything we're doing with the emerging conversation is summed up in saying, "What is the message of Jesus, and what is the message of the kingdom of God? What does that mean?" In many ways, what we feel has happened is the church has tended too often to be about institutional survival, which results in horrible things, from fund-raising scandals to covering up pedophilia scandals. When institutional survival is the purpose of the church -- Jesus said it: "If you save your life you lose it. You can gain the world and lose your soul." So the church starts to lose its soul. The church has been preoccupied with the question, "What happens to your soul after you die?" And that has resulted in, all too often, an abandonment of the ethics of the kingdom of God, the ethics of Jesus
for this life and our history here and now.”
________________
“The way I've tried to describe what I'm trying to do is this way: let's say you're going down a road and you come to a T in the road. And there's a sign, and it says if you turn left you get to Boston, and if you turn right you get to New York City. And I get to that T and I think, "You know what, I actually want to go to Los Angeles." At that moment, my answer isn't to turn left or to turn right, my answer is to turn around and rethink how I got to where I am now.
“I think we're in a similar situation in not just evangelical Christianity, but really in Western Christianity -- that for a very long time we have been very preoccupied with the question, as if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in ‘Jesus is trying to help get more souls into heaven, as opposed to hell, after they die.’ I just think a fair reading of the gospels blows that out of the water. I don't think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line.”
The entire interview is here:
[url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week846/interview.html] Entire Interview Here[/url]

The message of Jesus, as presented by Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo and others in the Emergent
“conversation” has to do with their understanding of the Kingdom of God – which they say is a primary concern for earthly injustices and tragedies, like poverty, slavery, and disease.

From the PBS interview:
“In GENEROUS ORTHODOXY you're pretty critical especially of the evangelical focus on personal
salvation. Why does that trouble you? That is one of the basic concepts in many people's theology in the evangelical church.”
“Well, first of all, I'm not at all against the idea of a personal relationship with God. I think that's where it all begins. I think this is part of the beauty of the message of Jesus. Every individual is invited into a personal
relationship with God. But personal is not private, so personal doesn't just mean it's me and God, or me and Jesus, but personal means that my connection to God also connects me to other people and connects me to what God is doing, the mission of God in our world.”
________________
“You know, you could look at it like this: if becoming a Christian makes a person withdraw and isolate so that their focus is on what will happen to [them] after death, and makes them less involved in the problems and needs of this world here, today, every person who becomes a Christian in some ways is taken out of the
game. But if being a Christian means converting from being part of the problem to being part of the solution, then every person who is a dynamic, growing Christian is engaged in the world as an activist on the cause of
justice and peace.”

Response:
Once again we are confronted with a false dilemma. In this one, a personal concern for your eternal salvation makes you withdrawn, isolated (and consequently very selfish) so that you have no concern for earthly problems
like poverty and disease. This is an amazingly unfair reading of Christian history because God’s people have always been concerned with
both issues. Genuine Christians are the greatest force for good on earth, counting among their good works hospitals, orphanages, and relief work of all kinds. The Gospel has invariably produced what missiologists call “redemption and lift.” Cultures with a large number of genuine Christians always become more peaceful, just,
compassionate and productive. But Christians have correctly put the ultimate and urgent focus on what happens to a person after death,
just as Jesus did!

The Emergent understanding (which echoes the “Social Gospel” of the early 1900’s) necessarily changes the reason Jesus died and questions or denies the existence of hell.
A 2006 podcast interview with Brian McLaren makes this clear. (Portion of Brian McLaren interview)
You can hear the entire interview here:
Part 1:
[url=http://bleedingpurplepodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/brian-mclaren-interview-part-i.html] The Emergent Understanding. Part 1[/url]

Part 2:

[url=http://bleedingpurplepodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/interview-with-brian-mclaren-part-ii.html]The Emergent Understanding Part 2[/url]

What does the Bible say about Jesus’ message and the purpose of His death?

Jesus announced that the Kingdom of God was at hand. People should respond by repenting and believing the Good News!
14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the Gospel.”(Mark 1:14-15)

After feeding the hungry 5,000, Jesus framed people’s earthly and eternal needs in
clear terms. And they rejected Him for it!
22 On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except that one which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone— 23 however, other boats came from Tiberias,
near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks— 24 when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?” 26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the
signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” 28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” 30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from
heaven to eat.’” 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven,but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of
the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:22-39)Jesus predicted His death on the cross for the salvation of those who believe: 13 “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in
heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”(John 3:13-19)

John the Baptist explained the message and purpose of Jesus in stark terms: 25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they
came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have
testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’ 29 He
who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I
must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The
Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:25-35)

Jesus said belief in Him was the difference between life and death: 21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”

22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”
23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”
And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”
27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. 28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 And He who sent Me is with Me.
The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” 30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.
Jesus said that He alone grants people eternal life and a home with God: 1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.(John 14:6)

John explains that He wrote His Gospel so we would believe and have eternal life: 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Jesus warned of the reality of hell in the most graphic, horrible language:
43 “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched — 44 where ‘ Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched — 46 where ‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one
eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where ‘ Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ “
(Mark 9:43-47)

God is the One who has authority over life, death and hell:
4 “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! 6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the
very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 8 “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. 9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

(Luke 12:4-8)
Hell is justified because of the horrendous offense of defying God: 1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For
if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
(Hebrews 2:1-3)

28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And
again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.(Hebrews 10:28-31)

The hardest question regarding hell: How can never-ending punishment for finite sins be
justified?
Answer: The degree of punishment is not determined by the length of time it takes to commit the crime, but by the dignity, worth, and honor of the One we offend.
The greater our obligation to love, honor and obey a person, the greater the offense when we
refuse to do so. But Isaiah explained that God would make Jesus absorb the punishment for our sins:
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,6 All we like sheep have gone astray;We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they made His grave with the wicked But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. God did this because of His great love, to save us from His righteous wrath: 6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received the reconciliation.

(Romans 5:6-11)
God accomplished this through the death of His Son on the cross: 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
(Colossians 1:9-14)

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW:
1. Major leaders in the EC are denying basic Biblical teachings and recasting them in the image of contemporary sensibilities. The crises facing humanity are enormous, so they affirm this is Jesus’ main concern. The thought of a God who punishes sin is unthinkable, so they deny His existence.
2. Our concern over people’s earthly troubles will be of no comfort to them if they die without finding eternal life in Jesus Christ.
3. The horror of sin, the dread of God’s wrath, and the depth of His love is most clearly and gloriously
seen in the Cross of His Son, Jesus.

EMERGING TRUTH AND THE NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN

Session 4 – Trends and Effects

Continued from week 3: Hell is justified because of the horrendous offense of defying an infinitely holy, good, loving and just God.
But Isaiah explained that God would make Jesus absorb the punishment for our sins:4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they made His grave with the wicked But with the rich at His death,Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.

God did this because of His great love, to save us from His righteous wrath:
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
(Romans 5:6-11)

God accomplished this through the death of His Son on the cross: 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
(Colossians 1:9-14)

Doug Paggit radio interview.
The Doug Pagitt interview is found here:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0isqLRhClo] Doug Paggit Radio Interview[/url]

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW:
1. Major leaders in the EC are denying basic Biblical teachings and recasting them in the image of contemporary sensibilities. The crises facing humanity are enormous, so they affirm this is Jesus’ mainconcern. The thought of a God who punishes sin is unthinkable, so they deny His existence.
2. Our concern over people’s earthly troubles will be of no comfort to them if they die without finding eternal life in Jesus Christ.
3. The horror of sin, the dread of God’s wrath, and the depth of His love is most clearly and gloriously seen in the Cross of His Son, Jesus.
The Doug Pagitt interview is found here:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0isqLRhClo]What we Need to Know[/url]

TRENDS AND EFFECTS OF THE EMERGENT MOVEMENT
1. The Emergent Church is increasingly promoting theological liberalism.

The EC describes this as either the shift from modernism to postmodernism or the return to a more “ancient” or “authentic” Christianity, but at its core it is teaching that denies the “faith which was once for all delivered to
the saints.” (Jude 3).

The EC is doing this with fresh personalities that have mostly emerged from conservative evangelical churches. They have used new media very effectively to tell a whole new generation that the faith of their fathers is isguided, outdated, and in many ways, the cause for many of the world’s ills.
This message is presented as a protest against what is slick, fake, and hypocritical in contemporary American Christianity. It resonates because there is a lot of slickness, fakery and hypocrisy! This protest, combined with the assurance that Emergent Christianity is actually a return to an older, more authentic, more Biblical Christianity has made many people believe its claims. (“What a relief that authentic Christianity does not have exclusive, intolerant truth claims and actually cares so much about the stuff I think is important!”)
2. The Emergent Church is increasingly encouraging interfaith spirituality.
A. The EC is willing to learn from non-Christian beliefs and religions.

“Western Christianity has (for the last few centuries anyway) said relatively little about mindfulness and meditative practices, about which Zen Buddhism has said much. To talk about different things is not to contradict one another; it is, rather, to have much to offer one another, on occasion at least.

“If, as a Christian, I am to love my neighbor, and treat my neighbor as I would be treated, then without question one of my duties in regard to my neighbor of another religion is to value everything that is good that he offers me in neighborliness – including the opportunity to learn all I can from his religion. Another duty is to offer everything I have that could be of value to him – including the opportunity to learn from my religion if he can. This is not a compromise of my faith or his: this is a required practice of it.” Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 287-288 B. Mystical practices are important to the EC’s concept of Christian spiritual growth.

There are many such disciplines recommended, often alongside Biblical practices like the study of Scripture, worship, prayer, and fasting. This makes discernment especially difficult. For sake of space and time, I will only focus here on examples of breathing exercises and centering prayer as examples of the mysticism recommended by EC leaders.

Leonard Sweet is a professor and a major influence in postmodern Christian thought. He coauthored a book with Brian McLaren entitled, “A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church.” In his book Quantum Spirituality, he recommends these breathing exercises, among others: (All errors in the original.)

“5. Take a deep breath of life holding someone’s hand. Nothing is more personal and private than breathing. Yet nothing connects us more to one another and the earth than breathing. Each breath we take contains approximately a quadrillion (1015) atoms breathed by the rest of humanity within the past few weeks.
“6. Take another deep breath while holding a pet or plant. The connectedness of our breathing encompasses not simply the human order but all creatures that breathe, including persons, plants, and animals.“7. Stand in front of a picture of a family member who has died. Recall joyful memories of them and laugh. With the breath you took for that laugh, your loved one literally became a part of you. In every breath there are more than a million atoms breathed personally at one time or another by every breathing earthling that has ever lived.
“8. Hold your Bible and breathe meditatively. The breathtaking, nay, breathgiving truth of
liveness is more than Methuselean in its span: Part of your body right now was once actually, literally part of the body of Abraham, Sarah, Noah, Esther, David, Abigail, Moses, Ruth, Matthew, Mary, Li ke, Martha, John, Priscilla, Paul... and Jesus.

“9. Keep breathing quietly while holding your Bible. You have within you not just the
powers of goodness resident in the great spiritual leaders like Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Lao Tzu. You also have within you the forces of evil and destruction. The youthful comrade and confidant of Joan of Arc was Gilles de Rais, a marshall of France and one of the wealthiest men in Europe, who was condemned to the stake in 1440 for the crimes of witchcraft, heresy, sodomy, and the sexual abuse and murder of over 140 children. Resident in each breath you take is the body of angels like Joan of Arc and devils like Gilles de Rais, Genghis Khan, Judas Iscariot, Herod, Hitler, Stalin and all the other destructive spirits throughout history.“10. Gather a group together for a Navajo breathing ceremony. Stand in a circle, everyone facing the center of the circle. If there are any present in special need of prayer, ask them to “center” the circle. Place your hands in the center of the backs of those standing on either side of you and observe silence. Get in touch with one anothers’ breathing patterns. Now breathe together as a circle, bending the knees slightly as you
inhale, straightening up as you exhale.
“Keep doing this until the circle becomes one breath.”

Sweet is not alone in writing about Christian mysticism. Tony Jones wrote The Sacred Way, Doug Pagitt authored BodyPrayer: The Posture of Intimacy with God and Brian McLaren gave us Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices. Even more explicitly, Rob Bell recommends that his readers take three months to study a book by Ken Wilber, one of the most esoteric New Age teachers alive today.

[b]Important notes regarding mysticism:[/b]
1. This mystical trend is pronounced in the Emergent Church, but it is also growing in the broader, more conservative evangelical Christian movement, particularly through contemplative or “centering” prayer. Scriptural meditation is not the point of these exercises. Neither is any other “form” of prayer.

A major proponent of these practices, Richard Foster, explains:

“At the outset I need to give a word of warning, a little like the warning labels on a medicine bottles. Contemplative prayer is not for the novice. I do not say this about any other form of prayer. All are welcome, regardless of proficiency or expertise, to enter freely into adoration and meditation and
intercession and a host of other approaches to prayer. “But contemplation is different.”
Richard Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, p. 156)
2. The instructions given for contemplative prayer are very similar to those for mantra meditation found in Buddhism and other Eastern religions, including a wide range of New Age practices. Books from evangelicals promoting and defending these practices are peppered with disclaimers and clarifications to separate this kind of prayer from Eastern and New Age practices. Even as Christian authors offer their disclaimers, New Age authors point to “Christian mysticism” as a connection to their own beliefs and those of Eastern religions.
The case of Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk whose writings are enormously influential offers a sad case of just how far this connection can go.
“Near the end of his life, the American Christian monk, poet, social critic and mystic, Thomas Merton said that he wanted ‘to become as good a Buddhist as I can.’ (Steindl-Rast, 1969).”

Source:
[url=http://www.thomasmertonsociety.org/altany2.html]Thomas Merton[/url]

Catholic priest and mystic Henri Nouwen showed the same appreciation for the world’s religions in writing the foreword for another priest’s book:
“While deeply anchored in his own Christian tradition, the author shows a wonderful openness to the gifts of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Moslem [sic] religion. He discovers their great wisdom for the spiritual life of the Christian and does not hesitate to bring that wisdom home”
(Thomas Ryan, Disciplines for Christian Living: Interfaith Perspectives, p. 2).
In the journal he kept during the last year of his life, Nouwen wrote:

“Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God's house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God.”
(Sabbatical Journey, p. 51)

Spiritual leaders should be chosen by their faithfulness to the Word of God:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
(Hebrews 13:7)

The Bible’s instructions for prayer are clearly different from these practices:
5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father Who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:
Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread.12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors. 13 And do not lead us into temptation,But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. (Matthew 6:5-13)
6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:6-7)

The Biblical instructions and examples regarding prayer are full of worship, confession, praise, praise and petition, but not the constant repetition of a word or phrase to “center” the person at prayer. This is why these ancient/new prayer practices are rooted in and defended from church history, and rarely, briefly and poorly from Scripture.

You will also find no Biblical basis to learn from religions that deny God and His Son, Jesus.
3. Not everyone who has encountered these practices uses them in the same way or ends up suffering the same harm. God’s grace can preserve us from the damage of believing lies and half-truths. But this gives us no reason to wander from Biblically faithful instructions and examples for our spiritual development. That is presumption, not faith!

4. These practices are often defended by pointing out the “genetic fallacy” – which is the error of rejecting something because of its source. But in evaluating instructions we are given to grow in Christ, this argument only goes so far.

[b]Why?
Scripture is the supreme, sufficient and final authority for everything we do to grow in Christ.[/b]

People who do not believe in salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone cannot be guides to growth in Christ! They are still dead in their own sins, and blind guides.Only a fool would take the medical advice of a doctor whose own protocol killed him!3. The Emergent Church increasingly denies the saving work of Jesus on the cross, replacing it with their social, earthly understanding of the Kingdom of God.
A. “Living the right way” matters more than “believing the right things.”
(“Who knows what right beliefs are, anyway?”)

B. Personal, saving faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation. God will someday accomplish the “salvation” of every person. Jesus said that the Scriptures promised His death and resurrection. They should now be proclaimed to the world for the forgiveness of sins in His Name: Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24:44-47) Paul faced the multi-religious, pagan crowd in Athens and preached Jesus, risen from
the dead, as the basis for God’s judgment:
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31
because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

If our witness and work stop short of the cross and the resurrection, we have not proclaimed the Gospel!

4. Emergent Christianity

B
BenBrockway

Waltern -

So, you take a stab at Ccchhhrrriiisss and say, "Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words."

And then YOU write a post that is at least 3 times, if not 4 times longer than his. I believe a retraction of your insensitive words are in due order, sir!

:-(

S
sermonindex

To BenBrockway:

Verrrrry funny. The difference between Ccchhhrrriiisss and myself is that the first sentence of the post, and three short paragraphs are my words, consisting of about 246 words are mine, and the remaining 100,000 words or more are those of another. They are a copy of the Pastors teaching in regards to the Emergent (Emerging) Church that took place over 3 separate Sundays in the month of March, that was posted on his Website, that I wanted to share with others. It is a very good teaching on exactly what the Emergent Church is all about.

[We certainly don't want to end up at another Church as members, only to have it go Emergent. The Emergent Church is sweeping the globe.]

Sincerely,

Walter

P.S. No retractions are warranted.


BenBrockway wrote:
Waltern -

So, you take a stab at Ccchhhrrriiisss and say, "Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words."

And then YOU write a post that is at least 3 times, if not 4 times longer than his. I believe a retraction of your insensitive words are in due order, sir!

:-(

M
Miccah


waltern wrote:



and the remaining 100,000 words or more are those of another. They are a copy of the Pastors teaching in regards to the Emergent (Emerging) Church that took place over 3 separate Sundays in the month of March, that was posted on his Website...


And just think... The Pastor could have spent those three weeks teaching about Jesus, instead of "ambulance chasing". :-) :-P


Seriously though, I pray that this new church fits what the Lord wants for you and your family. :-)

G
ginnyrose

And just think... The Pastor could have spent those three weeks teaching about Jesus, instead of "ambulance chasing".:-) :-P

LOL

Love it!

ginnyrose

C
crsschk

Hey Wayneman,


It was an attempt at sanctified satire. I was making fun of Walter and his hero Roger Oakland, both of whom I have chastized for their narrowness and severity several times in this thread. Hence the contradiction: In the second paragraph I am stating my own views, in the first paragraph I am caricaturing Walter. Maybe I could have prevented confusion by inserting a smiley emoticon after the first paragraph. I assumed that ChrisJD and others would remember that I have criticized Oakland for his absurd dogmatism and understand that I was joking.

My apologies ... Minutes after putting up that ramble it dawned on me, meant to come back and correct it - Appreciate the humor actually, the tendencies to take ourselves far too seriously ... ah, never mind.

S
sermonindex

Waynesman wrote:



Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise."



crsschk wrote:
Hey Wayneman,


It was an attempt at sanctified satire. I was making fun of Walter and his hero Roger Oakland, both of whom I have chastized for their narrowness and severity several times in this thread. Hence the contradiction: In the second paragraph I am stating my own views, in the first paragraph I am caricaturing Walter. Maybe I could have prevented confusion by inserting a smiley emoticon after the first paragraph. I assumed that ChrisJD and others would remember that I have criticized Oakland for his absurd dogmatism and understand that I was joking.

My apologies ... Minutes after putting up that ramble it dawned on me, meant to come back and correct it - Appreciate the humor actually, the tendencies to take ourselves far too seriously ... ah, never mind.

What I'm gathering is, it's alright to mock Roger Oakland http://www.understandthetimes.org/ and laugh at a Pastor who spent three weeks so far, teaching his flock about this emergent/emerging movement.

I'm sorry but I am seeing that the scales are not weighing on the side of justice and few are seeing the true danger of this movement, despite that it is the merging one world religion that will be chopping the True Saint's heads off.


Laugh now because these men are moving very quickly and writing more about how the rest of us are in the way.


Partial Quote from another Article from last year, on this News Section -

""Regarding religion today, Brian McLaren is the leader of the Emergent Church. He’s a product of Bob Buford’s Leadership Network, and Buford was mentored by management guru Peter Drucker. In Discernment Ministry’s HERESCOPE blog (January 24, 2006), Drucker’s model for societal “transformation” is identified as Communitarianism, which emphasizes the common good.

Relevant to the common (public) good, transformation and feudalism (to which the power elite wants to return), Drucker in “The Age of Social Transformation” (THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, November 1994), wrote: “What do institutions have to do to advance the public good? This, though nobody seems to realize it, is a demand to return to the old pluralism, the pluralism of feudalism.” Drucker is a product of the Frankfurt School (receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Frankfurt before coming to the U.S. in 1937), which has played a critical role in reshaping attitudes, values and beliefs here. Concerning this, in his article Drucker refers to “knowledge workers” as the “newly emerging dominant group” and he said displaced industrial workers “at the very least have to change their basic attitudes, values and beliefs.” He further explained “that knowledge has become the key resource means that there is a world economy, and that the world economy, rather than the national economy, is in control” (another goal of the power elite).

Relevant to Brian McLaren and the Emergent Church movement, Drucker also wrote: “The organizations that have shown the capacity to grow are radically new. They are the ‘pastoral’ churches, which… put the spiritual energies of their members (especially educated knowledge workers) to work on the social challenges and social problems of the community…. The ‘product’ of a church is a churchgoer whose life is being changed. The task of social-sector organizations (including pastoral churches) is to create human health and well being.”

In Brian McLaren’s 2007 book EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE: JESUS, GLOBAL CRISES AND A REVOLUTION OF HOPE (note the words “change” and “crises”), he also emphasizes the “common good” and refers to “radical rethinking.” Robert Schuller on January 17-19, 2008 hosted a “Rethink Conference” attended by President H.W. Bush and Kay Warren, wife of church-growth leader Rick Warren. According to the conference executive director Bill Dallas, they “confronted outdated and preconceived ideas.”

In McLaren’s book, he states that for millions of young adults, “the Christian religion appears to be a failed religion” because it has “specialized in dealing with ‘spiritual’ needs,” failing to address systemic injustice, poverty, ecological crisis and other societal and global dysfunctions. This sounds like the leftist Catholics’ old “Liberation Theology” claim. It also sounds similar to what co-founder of Global Education Associates Patricia Mische said at a November 9-11, 1984 symposium “Toward A Global Society,” where she spoke on “The Spiral of Spiritual/Social Transformation.” She pronounced: “Traditional religion is failing to speak to problems in our society. The need for a New World Order is our greatest challenge and opportunity…. We see resistance to change—resistance to the New Age processes.”

McLaren in his book continued to explain that this failed Christian religion’s threats of hell “lose their effect when those making the threats seem a little defensive, deranged, out of touch, manic…..” Note that he’s saying they are mentally ill! This is similar to New Ager Marilyn Ferguson in THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY: PERSONAL AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION IN THE 1980s (1980) saying that if people will get rid of “crippling belief systems,” they can have a “transformation of consciousness” and find “sanity within.” More recently, it sounds like Eckhart Tolle’s A NEW EARTH: AWAKENING TO YOUR LIFE’S PURPOSE (2005) promoted by Oprah’s Book Club. He asserts that all of those expressing the certainty that “I am right and you are wrong” are a “dangerous thing in religions.” It reflects a “collective mental illness.” Tolle characterizes “sin” as simply “missing the point” of human existence and suggests that “Eastern wisdom teachings” allow us to “let go of dogmas” and “rigid belief systems.” He also relates that in THE HOLY BIBLE “a new heaven” actually refers to “the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness.” Note again the terms “mental illness” and “transformed.”

Relevant to “wisdom teachings” and “transformation,” New Age workers Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson (who has worked for LUCIS TRUST, formerly Lucifer Publishing) have taught “Transformational Politics” at American University and authored SPIRITUAL POLITICS (1994). In their book, they wrote that “The new transformational paradigm is based on certain key ideas which have long been part of the Ageless Wisdom tradition… including creating a synthesis out of adversarial positions, synthesizing the best of hierarchy and democracy for real empowerment, and searching for common ground and the good of the whole…. Transformational politics requires a shift in contemporary consciousness.” In their book, there are sections titled “Synthesis as a Way of Life” and “A Synthesis of Liberalism and Conservatism.” The authors also refer positively to the Communitarian movement and explain that “The Ageless Wisdom teaches that the synthesis of hierarchy and democracy is the next evolutionary step for humanity.”

Both Brian McLaren and Rick Warren (mentioned earlier) recently attended the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, where members of the power elite also usually are in attendance. Warren is a CFR member who was also mentored by Peter Drucker, and who leads the Purpose-Driven movement (note the word “purpose” is also in Tolle’s book title). Like McLaren, Warren promotes a “new spirituality” that emphasizes a concern about global poverty, etc. I believe that to the extent this shift in emphasis occurs in churches, they will be “transformed” more and more into simply social service agencies. Relevant to this, in his November 14, 2007 MINISTRY TOOLBOX, Warren tells his trained pastors: “You’ve got to protect the unity of your church. If that means getting rid of troublemakers, do it.” By “troublemakers” he’s referring to the fundamentalist or traditionalist “old pillars who only hold things up.”

In Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily column of November 30, 2007 he asks, “Why does Rick Warren eagerly seek to find common ground with Muslim leaders while, at the same time, so ruthlessly advocating the disfellowship of Christian believers?” Warren has even complimented Syria, although that nation’s leaders have facilitated radical Muslim (Hezbollah and Hamas) attacks against Israel.

The power elite considers Warren, McLaren, Tolle and others like them useful for their purposes, which includes ostracizing orthodox religious believers whether Christian or Jewish. In the Middle East, for example, using the Delphi Technique, orthodox Jews are portrayed as recalcitrants, unwilling to compromise in order to obtain peace. Simultaneously, a dialectical process is used similar to Communism being used as an antithesis to Capitalism in order to achieve the synthesis (compromise) of a World Socialist Government.""


I gave several links earlier that document the things said in this quote above. I don't find any of this funny at all nor an irrelevant topic for any Christian.

W
wayneman

Jesus-is-God wrote:



Lighten some shadows? I rebuke you in the name of Roger Oakland. What is needed here is not measured analysis. You must denounce the Emerging Church as satanic and consign its ministers to the abyss. All else is compromise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


crsschk wrote:
Hey Wayneman,


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was an attempt at sanctified satire. I was making fun of Walter and his hero Roger Oakland, both of whom I have chastized for their narrowness and severity several times in this thread. Hence the contradiction: In the second paragraph I am stating my own views, in the first paragraph I am caricaturing Walter. Maybe I could have prevented confusion by inserting a smiley emoticon after the first paragraph. I assumed that ChrisJD and others would remember that I have criticized Oakland for his absurd dogmatism and understand that I was joking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My apologies ... Minutes after putting up that ramble it dawned on me, meant to come back and correct it - Appreciate the humor actually, the tendencies to take ourselves far too seriously ... ah, never mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What I'm gathering is, it's alright to mock Roger Oakland http://www.understandthetimes.org/ and laugh at a Pastor who spent three weeks so far, teaching his flock about this emergent/emerging movement.

Yes, I think its OK to laugh at a pastor who neglects preaching the Gospel for 3 weeks so he can preach against people who neglect to preach the gospel. The irony is dizzying.

It just occured to me that maybe nobody laughed at my Roger Oakland joke because it wasn't funny. It was more sarcastic irony than humor. Miccah's quip about the heresy-hunting pastor was better. But humor can be an effective means of refuting error, because there is no better way of disaffecting people to something than getting them to laugh at it. No one who has seen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UV_v1mdniQ]Pastor Gas[/url] could ever take Robert Tilton seriously again.

I completely agree with you that the Emerging Church is way off-base, but not that it is something we should take seriously. The Emerging Church is on the rise in the same way that the stern of a sinking ship is on the rise a few moments prior to submergence. The sinking ship in this case is the American Gospel Enterprise. Let it sink. The Emergent Village is a last-ditch effort on the part of the professional clergy to conserve that which is fit for destruction, but they're only hastening its demise. Man-centered theology is what got the evangelical church into this condition in the first place. McLaren and the gang think that more man-centered theology is the solution - as if knocking more holes in the hull is the way to save a sinking ship.

As far as Calvary Chapel going emergent - I just don't buy it. Even I have more wisdom than to run after this silly theological fad, and Chuck Smith has a lot more wisdom than I do.

After reading testimonies from those who went to the Barnsdall Conference, I felt convicted (and embarassed) over some of the posts I have made on this thread. Here my Brothers in Christ are up in the spiritual stratosphere, storming the gates of heaven in prayer, and I'm down here engaging in a Three Stooges pie fight with Walter and Roger Oakland. It is scary how the slightest provocation can move me so far away from the Spirit of Jesus.

I talked to Roger Oakland on the phone once 10 or 12 years ago and was impressed with his clarity of thought and cool radio voice. But when I watched one of his recent sermons I got a knot in my stomach. He's flipped. He has obsessed over the errors of others for years and become so paranoid that he sees hobgoblins everywhere. Even his old friend Chuck Smith is a boogie man now. Well, J-i-G, you've got me thinking now that, no, it's not all right to make fun of Roger, because what has happened to him is not funny. I'm going to write him an e-mail; a prayerfully condidered e-mail, not the kind of buffoonery I've been posting here.

S
sermonindex

Hi wayneman,

[b]I completely agree with you that the Emerging Church is way off-base, but not that it is something we should take seriously.[/b] The Emerging Church is on the rise in the same way that the stern of a sinking ship is on the rise a few moments prior to submergence. The sinking ship in this case is the American Gospel Enterprise. Let it sink. The Emergent Village is a last-ditch effort on the part of the professional clergy to conserve that which is fit for destruction, but they're only hastening its demise. Man-centered theology is what got the evangelical church into this condition in the first place. McLaren and the gang think that more man-centered theology is the solution - as if knocking more holes in the hull is the way to save a sinking ship.
It depends what you mean by 'but not that it is something we should take seriously'. We can't kid ourselves that the movement is not drawing non-Christians away from Christ, possibly conclusively, because the time is short. Having said that, people who are seeking God do come out of false religion when they don't find Him there.

Nevertheless, the idea that the only people who are going to go down in your 'sinking ship' analogy, are those who [u]knowingingly[/u] - let me create a fresh oxymoron - [b][i]chose deception[/i][/b] - is, I believe, what Jesus-is-God is trying to flag up to you, as [i]fallacious[/i].

Famous churchmen have been drawn into this plan, to provide credibility for the involvement of the religious sector in the forthcoming one world order, and many sheep are being led astray, because they are being encouraged to [i]follow like sheep[/i], even though they cannot hear the voice of their true Shepherd. Surely, they should be warned?

There is a Finnish brother online who writes papers under the name of PetriFB, in a spirit of pure love, doing just this - warning the true Church to identify, reject, and flee from the multitude of deceptions being offered them in the name of Christ. He names the false brethren and describes their pitch, warning that they are promoting the agenda of the [u]antichrist[/u] and his counterfeit revivial, which will come in his hour of magnification.

If you read below, (part of a post from an old thread, where this information was requested), you'll see how old the plans for the new world order actually are, and that the 'Emerging' 'church' - by which our generation is surprised - is simply the unfolding of an ancient design, which God Himself is allowing to develop until it is ripe for the sickle.

Basliea Schlink saw this coming in the 1970s, and wrote about it, warning Christians that they would find themselves at variance with it, and to prepare to die for Christ.

Note also, the worldwide media is and has been owned by men who were happy to provide a public information black-out for forty years, ending only recently.

I think 'the emerging/emergent church' is one manifestation of the religio-philosophical cul-de-sac analysed for us by Francis Schaeffer in his lecture [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=17298] Intellectual Climate and New Theology [/url], which I posted recently, and his retrospective analysis (with ongoing exhortation): [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=17300&commentView=itemComments]Watershed of the Evangelical Church[/url], which looks at the systematic attack by academia, on the written word of God, starting back in the 1930s.


Quotes:

[i]"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, who was active in the United World Federalists for a World Government, stated before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950.

David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR, founder of the Trilateralist Commission.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
-David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 1994.

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, who was active in the United World Federalists for a World Government, stated before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950.

"Humanity needs world order. The fully sovereign nation is incapable of dealing with the poisoning of the environment... The management of the planet...requires a world government." Norman Cousins (CRF), long-time president of the United World Federalists (not the World Federalist Association), on Earth Day, April 22, 70.

"By the end of this decade [by the year 2000] we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations ... a government with the absolute authority to decide the basic issues of human survival. One world government is inevitable." Pope John Paul II as quoted by Malachi Martin, a Roman Catholic priest in his book, The Keys To This Blood.

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crises and the nation will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller.

From a Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution, 1950, authored by CFR globalists Robert M. Hutchins, Rexford G. Tugwell, and others. This world constitution, introduced in Congress by Senator Glen Taylor, declared that "iniquity and war inseparably spring from the competitive anarchy of the national states; that therefore the age of nations must end." It was also held that the nations must "surrender their arms" to the proposed "Federal Republic of the World."

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department's postwar planning." Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." Harpers, July l958

"The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow." Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

"The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world." M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands." Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)

"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual." Excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'" Excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in The New York Times (October 1940)

"If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order." The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

"New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor"
Title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis." Text of article in The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 194

"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God." American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in The New York Times (December 1942)

"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper." Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny? (1944)

"He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order." Excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in The Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

"Alchemy for a New World Order" Article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962)

"The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order." Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order.'" Excerpt from an article in The New York Times (February 1972)

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species." Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order." Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975)

"At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order." Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)

"A New World Order" Title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order." Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms." Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

"We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace for the post-war period." Richard Gephardt, in The Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long." President George Bush (January 1991)

"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council." Excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in The New York Times (January 1991)

"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a 'new world order' based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court." George McGovern, in The New York Times (February 199

"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier." William Safire, in The New York Times (February 1991)

"How I Learned to Love the New World Order" Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

"How to Achieve The New World Order" Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund." Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)

"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State" Title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in The Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

"The new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all." Nelson Mandela, in The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

"The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important "for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order." President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in The New York Times (April 1995)
In 1960, Rhodes Scholar Walt Whitman Rostow (CFR) declared that urgent imperatives "argue strongly for movement in the direction of federalized world organization under effective international law" and for "effective international control of military power." The real world problem , said Rostow, is "national sovereignty," and "it is therefore an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined." Rostow held a top spot in the Kennedy State Department.

"Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity.... Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed...." Jeremiah 51:6, 8.

"The overt and covert organs of the Vatican and British Empires are locked in mortal combat for control of the world." The Project, A-Albionic Research.

"The Rothschild-Rockefeller conflict is over who will be boss in the New World Order, not what the parameters of that Order will be. The New World Order cannot be realized until their relative positions in the hierarchy are decided. Conspiracy Digest, Summer 76, p. 8.

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship." Former Congressman John Rarick 1971
'In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.... The task we set before ourselves is a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children into a little community and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the home, in the shop, and on the farm....'" "The Project," Jan-Feb 85, p. 1, quoting from Dr. Emanuel Josephson's Rockefeller Internationalist.

"The State of the World Forum is the launching of a multi-year global initiative to focus on the fundamental challenges and opportunities confronting humanity as we enter the next phase of human development. It is being held in the belief that at this momentous juncture in history -- between the ending of the Cold War and the dawn of the new century -- we are experiencing the birth of the first global civilization." Gorbachev Conference Mission Statement (p. 3), September, 1995.

"Human interdependence must now become our watchword, as we move into the global civilization which lies ahead; interdependence with each other, interdependence with the Earth, interdependence with the Spirit which perennially guides the affairs of humankind." Gorbachev Foundation President Jim Garrison. September, 1995.

"What Boutros-Ghali proposes is closer than anyone on the planet should ever want to get to a transnational military force that could override and eventually abolish national sovereignty altogether and in the process set up the United Nations itself as the power apparatus of an unelected global elite." Samuel Francis, Human Events, August 22, 1992.

In 1961, the Kennedy State Department brought forth an official policy entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Department of State Publication 7277). This dismal document proposed a plan of "progressive controlled disarmament" in which all national armaments, including those of the United States, would be transferred to the United Nations. This disarmament "would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force."

"..The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move towards larger, more stable, more cooperative units." Zbigniew Brzezinski, speaking at the Gorbachev Conference, September, 1995.

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." Henry Kissinger.

"We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism." Gorbachev, from his book Perestroika.

"We are for a Lenin who is alive... In building our future, we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism... We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual richness contained in Marxism.

"Through restructuring (perestroika), we want to give Socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plentitude the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.... Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin.... We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Lenin, the style of Lenin's thinking, and the method of dialectic cognition." Gorbachev, from a November 15, 1989 speech to Soviet students.

"When Gorbachev talked at the Forum about the 'synthesis' of Eastern and Western culture and ideology, he was following traditional Communist doctrine. He said that the ongoing conflict between the two contradictory systems -- capitalism and socialism (i.e., thesis and antithesis) -- will result in 'synthesis.' The 'synthesis' which the true Marxist believes will eventuate is world-wide Communism,, which will solve all man's problems and produce a new, changed man. In a private discussion during the conference, Gorbachev confirmed that he has not repudiated any of his Marxist beliefs or positions, as set forth in Perestrioka or his other writings or speeches." John Stormer, "Understanding the Times," a newsletter.

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things: One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with the Strategic Defense Initiative." Michail Gorbachev, November 87 Statement to Politburo

On United Nations Day, October 24, 1975, the World Affairs Council unveiled "A Declaration of Interdependence," which in part states, "Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order."

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

The..."New World Order" is also called "The Plan" and is being pushed by the world's most powerful socialists, marxists, internationalists, and occult and New Age leaders. They plan the following:

1. A world court

2. A world army

3. A world central bank and world currency

4. A world welfare state

5. Centralized economic planning

6. A global taxation system

7. Abolition of private firearms

8. Forced population control

9. Stringent environmental regulations

10. Centralized control of all education

11. Loss of freedom of speech and freedom of the press

12. Abolition of all religions except New Age worship - including Gaia or Mother Earth worship

13. Abolition of national identity and sovereignty, division of the world into ten political/economic governments.

"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all history. Its purpose is to destroy the United States." John E. Rankin, U.S. Congressman.

"My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." George Bush, New York, 1991.

And another quote from former president Bush: "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance." UN Building, February 1, 1992.

United Nations' World Constitution: "...The age of nations must end...The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they surrender their arms."

The UN Security Council has fifteen members. Five of them, The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, are permanent members.

"Since the UN was created in 1945, there have been twelve Undersecretaries for Political and Security Council Affairs. In every case, these men have been Communists; and in all but one case they have been Soviet Communists. They are:

1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)

1949-1953 Konstantin Zinchenko (USSR)

1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev (USSR)

1954-1957 Dragoslav Protitch (Yugoslavia)

1958-1960 Anatoly Dobrynin (USSR)

1960-1962 Georgy Arkadev (USSR)

1962-1963 E.D. Kiselev (USSR)

1963-1965 V.P. Suslov (USSR)

1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko (USSR)

1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)

1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)

1978-1981 Mikhail D. Sytenko—USSR

1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov—USSR

1987-1992 Uasiliy S. Safronchuk—USSR

1992- Vladimir Petrovsky—Russia , "former USSR

"Is there a number of mark planned for the hand or forehead in a new cashless society? Yes, and I have seen the machines that are now ready to put it into operation." Ralph Nader.

Alexis De Togueville upon visiting America in the early 19th century, this French historian observed: "America is great because America is good. If American ever ceases to be good it will cease to be great."

"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God remembered her iniquities." Revelation 18:4-5

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations [/i]

In an old thread called 'Preparation for the end times', this report was given: [i]'I had a dream a few months back and in it, deception covered the world in a matter of hours. Not years, hours!! In the dream there was no time to get prayed upor read up. If you were not rooted and grounded; you were deceived. Take it for what it's worth.'[/i]


Indeed. This is not a perspective most people would believe, while at the same time the same people are not noting the subtle changes which turn into 'culture' without anyone noticing, and then, while many Christians don't read their Bibles and think themselves knowledgeable, nobody notices when the new cultural norms appear in 'the church' - because we think [i][b]we[/b][/i] will 'know' when such and such a sign appears...

Only if we're awake.


C
crsschk

More than one way to be deceived ...

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=28202&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Procterandgambleites[/url]

S
sermonindex

To crsschk:

So what are you saying, exactly? How is the link that you just posted in regards to[b] Urban Legends/Procter and Gamble[/b] have anything to do with[b] [u]the reality and the truth[/u] of the Emergent/Emerging Church that is taking place, right now, throughout the world?[/b]

Just wondering?

Sincerely,

Walter


crsschk wrote:
More than one way to be deceived ...

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=28202&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Procterandgambleites[/url]

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Alive-to-God,

I was wondering where you gathered your quotes in your previous post. Were these first-hand or second-hand sources? Do you have a citation?

I have seen them listed and quoted similarly in the past and would like to determine their validity. I would like to find the original statements (if they actually exist) and see them in their original context. Thus far, unfortunately, I can only seem to find most of them listed in a similar manner on conspiracy websites.

Thanks.

S
sermonindex

Hi Chris,

Hi Alive-to-God,

I was wondering where you gathered your quotes in your previous post. Were these first-hand or second-hand sources? Do you have a citation?

I have seen them listed and quoted similarly in the past and would like to determine their validity. I would like to find the original statements (if they actually exist) and see them in their original context. Thus far, unfortunately, I can only seem to find most of them listed in a similar manner on conspiracy websites.

Thanks.

Hi Chris, I'll see if I can put this request in the hands of someone who can help, but I have no idea how long it might take to receive any possible verifications. Will that be all right?

As a matter of interest... do you accept that there is a longstanding plan to introduce a 'New World Order'?

S
sermonindex

Various informational links on the Emerging/Emergent Church:


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church]Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church[/url]


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/291-emerging-church-teachings]Emerging Church,-Distinctive Teaching and Goals[/url]


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/292-emerging-church-methods]Emerging Church Methods[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/293-emerging-church-communication-strategies]Emerging Church Standard Communicating Methods
[/url]


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/294-role-of-the-church] Emerging Church - The Church’s Proper Role in Postmodern Culture – Light of the World[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/295-emergent-church-leading-figures]Some of the Leading Figures in the Emerging Church Movement[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/296-emerging-church-opponents]Some Leading Voices of those Opposing the Emerging Church[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/297-emerging-church-glossar]Glossary of “Emergent Terms” for those new to the conversation[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/298-emergin-church-conversation-versus-bible]Emerging Church - Conversation versus the Bible And Non-“Emerging” Christians: Truth[/url]

Emerging Church- Conversation versus Scripture
[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture]Emerging Church- Conversation vs SCRIPTURE[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/302-emerging-church-versus-faith] Emerging Church- Conversation vs Faith[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/303-emerging-church-versus-doctrine] emerging Church-] Conversation vs. Doctrine[/url]

[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/304-emerging-church-versus-lifestyle] Emerging Church- Conversation vs. Lifestyle[/url


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/305-emerging-church-versus-ministry] Emerging Church-Conversation...... Ministry[/url]


[url=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/307-emerging-church-books]Emerging Church Recommended Books[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter

S
sermonindex

waltern to crsschk

So what are you saying, exactly? How is the link that you just posted in regards to Urban Legends/Procter and Gamble have anything to do with the reality and the truth of the Emergent/Emerging Church that is taking place, right now, throughout the world?

Just wondering?

I also wondered. I'm aware I haven't got back to that thread, because challenging some of the assumptions in the articles will be quite a big task, however, briefly I looked at the deceptions which were perpetrated against Jesus, and there is much more in the Old Testament to illuminate the existence of very real works of darkness - John 3:19.

S
sermonindex

First, let me just say this in the Love of Jesus Christ, I absolutely beg forgiveness, if any of my words don't reflect the Glory and Love of the Resurrected Christ...I stand in humble contrition.

and even re-entering this thread, make no mistake, I intend on not engendering any argument or dispute, which would not serve the Glory of God.

(oh! I'm praying over what my heart leads me to say, bear easy with me beloveds)

If any of you KNEW me, in the flesh and in the Spirit, I dont hold with the wild and wacky "foam and froth" that has come from some of these "formations".

But I entreat you all my brothers and sisters, let us consider two terms that are, as I read it, wildly divurgent, which are :

[b]Emergent Church (Emergent)[/b]

and

[b]"emerging"[/b]

one, "Emergent" or "Emergent Church" is a creation of several men, I'm not going to list them, we know them...and personally anybody or anything that denies the TRUTH that Jesus is the Risen Messiah come to save the world, anything that denies that the Word of God is THE Word of God, I stay away from.

I testify to you all, I was born and raised in the synagogue, and I love God, Yahweh, and mercifically, His Son spoke to me in lonely house trailer in the depths of my grief, lifted me up, and brought to His Church, where I was gloriously saved, united with my Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

No human voice spoke to me about the Truth that Jesus is Lord, only when I came into His House, knelt at the Altar, did I make that same confession that Peter did, "You are the Son of God, that is the ROCK that His Church is built upon, a simple confession from a yielded heart, a hungry heart, a desperate and broken heart.

I say that, because I dont want any of you to think I'm some whacky apostate, heretic breathing out strange things.

I do have a leading towards the very loose grouping of what may be called "emerging", and not in any kind of backslidden, Christ-denying way....not at all. NO!

My personal vision is that when any believers get together, corporately, and we are gifted with a building, that our first consideration, instead of the sanctuary, is towards where the "tarrying room" is, where the "prayer room" is, a humble, plain room, with a few seats, benches, where WE together engage in the travail of His Sufferings thru prayer. Holy Travail, groaning.

My leading is that, in a geographic area, brothers and sisters in Christ be just that, TRUE brothers and sisters IN Him, "communitas", to the point, where when I lay dying in a hospital last year, which one of you, would bless me and comfort by sitting at my bedside, no matter the hour?

a "communitas" where not only do we prayer and worship together, no pulpits, no platforms, no lifting up one man above another, just all of us in "one accord", but we also break bread together, that is enjoy meals together.

You see, being among the artists, younger than me, I see a great hunger, a great void in their lives, a longing for God, and being in God's community, but they don't know how to express it, because they've been confused by the din and the hue of this modern and post modern society, there is much brokeness there, but when they look at the "institutionalized" modern church in America, they are not stupid, they see the rank hypocrisy, they see the hard heartedness, and superficiality of "looking holy", the arrogance, and it just turns them off.......not of Christ, but of what has become of us.

Please, I don't mean to insult any of you, but go among the youth of today, and they will not gravitate to institutional church. I'm not talking "seeker-friendly", or "seeker-sensitive", I'm talking about ENVY...yes, "envy"...to where they become "envious" of this concept, "look how they love each other", a heartspace that only God the Holy Ghost can stamp on our gatherings TOGETHER.

These young ones are hungry for Church, His Body, where the people of God display "look how they love each other"....we must make them envious, and then everything else, repentance, aborhence of sin, walking as Jesus did, it all falls into line.

So I implore everyone on this thread to investigate and consider that there might be a vast gulf between "Emergent" and "emerging".

I pray my words engender Godly discussion. In the name of Jesus, I pray this. lets try and talk softly.

Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling for you and for me; see, on the portals he's waiting and watching,

Come home, come home;
\tye who are weary come home;
\tearnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
\tcalling, O sinner, come home!

W
White_Stone

These young ones are hungry for Church, His Body, where the people of God display "look how they love each other"....we must make them envious, and then everything else, repentance, aborhence of sin, walking as Jesus did, it all falls into line.

Amen - that should be our focus.

white stone

S
sermonindex

Without rancor, I went to one of the URLS and I saw this:

While Emerging Church leaders sometimes claim the Church should not be linked to any political agenda, most of them are quite tied to a liberal political agenda.

again I say I ask not in rancor, but is it not the duty of the Church, Body of Christ to say, tend to the needs of the least of the least, the poor, the homeless, the hungry, those in prison?

If it is so, is that "liberal"?

Many make a distinction bewteen a "salvation" Gospel and a "social" Gospel. As my reading of the Bible I see no dividing line bewteen the twain.

Isaiah 58:6-17

"6"Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up speedily;
your righteousness shall go before you;
the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
9Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
you shall cry, and he will say, 'Here I am.'
If you take away the yoke from your midst,
the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
10 if you pour yourself out for the hungry
and satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
(S) then shall your light rise in the darkness
and your gloom be as the noonday.
11And the LORD will guide you continually
and satisfy your desire in scorched places
and make your bones strong;
and you shall be like a watered garden,
like a spring of water,
whose waters do not fail.
12 And your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
you shall be called the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to dwell in."

I read the ESV, I dont mean to anger you, but I would be inauthentic if I quoted KJV, which I read also.

the question begs is this Word from the Lord, liberal?(am I NOT baiting you, just curious)

What about Matthew 25:31-46 ?

I just need to know why we take what are worldy political terms (conservative/liberal)and wed them to the Body of Christ?

I think "God honouring" and "backsliden" are more appropriate.

neil

S
sermonindex

Y'all, you needn't look any further than Mat 25:31-46 to see what seperates the sheep from the goats - do all those "good works" - no one would disagree with that and should be actively participating in what Jesus spoke of in those verses, Unquestionably!

What makes True Christianity different than the "Do Good Cults" is "TRUTH".

I was a teen in the "Flower Power" days of "peace & love" and a lot of what I'm hearing from some Christians is beginning to give me deja vu of that "spirit" that came through this country and destroyed us with "free love".

Jesus said - "I AM THE TRUTH" - and he uses the word "truth" along with "love" as being equally HIM and equally what would be Required of us.

I've lost friends to non-Christian cults by the "but look how they love one another."

What makes us different is Truth. "The Spirit of Truth" is the Spirit of Jesus. He didn't call His Spirit - "the Spirit of love" for a reason - He called His Spirit - The Spirit of Truth, because without Truth being the plum-line, our "love" is counterfeit and just based upon "EMOTION" - bottomline.

I believe there are those who call themselves Christians, that have only had an "emotional relationship" with "Jesus".
It's easy to peg them. They run on positive or negative emotions on full drive and the Spirit of 'Truth' is lacking.

I believe there are those who call themselves Christians, that have only had an intellectual or mental assent relationship to Jesus.
These have little of that intimate, compassionate, empathetic type relationship - just head knowledge.


2Thess2 tells us about the antiChrist and goes on to say that those who do not "agape love the Truth" will be given over to believe the lie.
That's the "false Love and Peace Movement" that precedes the coming of the counterfeit "man of peace and goodwill".

It's the cloud of spiritual opium that we discussed elsewhere and again, is the deja vu of the spirit of the 60's.

What differientiates us from this counterfeit spirit of goodwill is TRUTH.

Type in "TRUTH" in a Bible Search and please read.

Love without His Truth is not His Love.
Truth without His Love is not His Truth.

Those are HIS TWO requirements for us to remain safe in HIM.

Yes, it can be proved that sound foundational doctrine is a requirement, as much as Love for all. One without the other is not from The Spirit of Truth.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Jesus_is_God,

I understand that we need to take a stand for "truth." In fact, I don't think that anyone here would disagree with such a notion. The problem, as I tried to articulate earlier, is with individual measuring rods for "truth."

There might be some Independent Baptists here who might point at Southern Baptists as misinformed. Some Southern Baptists might point out Pentecostals as cultists. Pentecostals might point at strict Holiness congregations as having "a spirit of religion" (as I have actually heard). And some men might actually point at fellowships like Calvary Chapel and count them among the deceived.

Do you see the problem with this sort of thinking? Everyone thinks that they are standing for "the truth." Everyone thinks that they are on the side of "Biblical truth." If each one of us were to make a list of what we thought was "Biblical truth," do you think that any two of us would agree on [u]everything[/u]? How do we act toward those who have a different opinion? Do we count them as heretics? Do we count them as being given to "easy believism?" Do we simply think that they just don't know what we know? Or do we err on the side of grace?

I hope that this sort of clarifies what I have been trying to say all along. Yes, our Lord will separate the sheep from the goats...when he comes in all of His glory (Matthew 25:31-32). I just can't help but wonder if we are "gnat-picking" in some of our proclamations of Biblical truth?

I am so thankful that the Lord did a mighty work at the Revival Conference. I was unable to attend this year. However, I am greatly encouraged by the unity that was present there...as was present in each of the conferences so far. I am sure that this is partially due to the prayers of the saints and speakers (and Greg). I also wonder if it had something to do with the fact that the people who gathered together didn't discuss doctrinal issues like are discussed in the forums. I'm glad that the Revival Conferences aren't divided by sectarian dogma or meaningless nonsense wrongly called "truth." The people at the conferences have gone to seek the Lord. They go to sit at the feet of the Lord and encourage others to do the same. Isn't this so much better than trying to sweep up the Church (Luke 10:42)?

Of course, none of us would argue that "Biblical truth" needs to be taught and proclaimed. The debate begins with someone points out a issue that is merely an opinion...a peculiarity...and then presents it as an undeniable and fundamental doctrine of the Church. Like someone else pointed out, wouldn't it be better to proclaim the Gospel than to chase and expose those who we think to be heretics? Maybe that is what many apologists have become. Instead of defending the faith to a lost and skeptical world, they merely debate other believers about things they disagree with. May God help us get our eyes back upon the One who saved us!

C
ChrisJD

Hi everyone,


Jesus said - "I AM THE TRUTH"


A reason why those who spend the most time talking about it have the most to live up to.

C
ChrisJD

Hey Neil,

I think that we are given every encouragement and exhortation in the scripture to do good to all!!


EDIT

And to be blessed and happy doing it!

W
wayneman

Jesus-is-God wrote:

What makes us different is Truth. "The Spirit of Truth" is the Spirit of Jesus. He didn't call His Spirit - "the Spirit of love" for a reason - He called His Spirit - The Spirit of Truth, because without Truth being the plum-line, our "love" is counterfeit and just based upon "EMOTION" - bottomline.

I believe there are those who call themselves Christians, that have only had an "emotional relationship" with "Jesus".
It's easy to peg them. They run on positive or negative emotions on full drive and the Spirit of 'Truth' is lacking.

Amen. Gospel Truth is the sine qua non ("without which not")of the Christian life.

"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." 2 John 9

In the pastoral epistles Paul mentions doctrine sixteen times. So sound doctrine was important to Paul, and it should be important to the emergent church, but it's not. In fact, at that Emergent Village website they take pride in the fact that they do not even have a statement of faith. Thus it is easy to see them joining some flabby One World Unireligion. Religionists who believe nothing distinctly will find nothing to distinctly disagree about.

But I am skeptical when heresy hunters tell us that the emergent church is a grave threat to the livelihood of the church and a possible basis for a one-world antichrist church, because we have heard this sort of thing before. They said the same thing about the World Council of Churches. Today the WCC is, as Malcolm Muggeridge put it, "not even an impediment to true Christian belief, but just a joke." Then they wanted us to be worried about the Jesus Seminar, an annual non-event that watchdog ministries insisted on giving Super Bowl coverage, but which today is forgotten. Before that it was the Church Growth movement that was going to destroy the church and usher in the Antichrist. It is not that they are wrong in their assessment of these unbiblical movements; it is the way they magnify every threat to apocalyptic proportions.

Since 9-11 we have been bombarded by neo-con fearmongering: they want us to be afraid of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, al Qaida in Iraq, the terrorist next door, etc. Neo-cons need people to be fearful to gain support for their agenda. Heresy hunters are the neo-cons of the religious world. They have a vested interest in making us fearful. What they think the church stands to gain by this is anyone's guess.

In a previous post I quoted Aristotle's maxim, "The golden mean of virtue rests between two opposing errors." That's often true. The "watchmen" are right about the insipid emotionalism of the emergent church, but their iron-clad dogma is not a corrective; it is merely the opposite error. Sound doctrine is a means to an end: the end is being conformed to His image. And Gospel truth is the ONLY means to that end. But dogmatism sees doctrinal purity as an end in itself, as if Jesus saved us from our sins so that we could hold correct doctrinal opinions. As if "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to hold correct opinions and denounce heretics." Jam 1:27

You may be right: maybe I am underestimating the importance of the emergent church. But I am more concerned about what Tozer called "textualism" than I am about the emergent fad. The emergent church appeals mainly to worldly religionists and cannot undermine the true gospel. Textualism can, and does.

S
sermonindex

To Wayneman:


What on earth is Texturalism?

Found this online:

English Dictionary, online edition

Definitions
textualism
noun
1. strict adherence to some text, especially to the Bible
2. textual criticism, especially that of the Bible \t

I found this additiojnal definition online, tying the definition of Legalism, Literalism, & Texturism, together:

Legalism, Literalism, Textualism /
________________________________________
________________________________________

legalism
1. Strict, literal adherence to the law or to a particular code, as of religion or morality.

American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed.
________________________________________

I consider myself a rationalist, a philosophical materialist, and a strong proponent of the Scientific Method.

Two of the tenets of supernaturalist religion I find most baffling are textual literalism and belief in the efficacy of prayer.

Again, everybody believes that some holy books are true and other holy books are false (Even unto some parts of some holy books). But how are we to decide between one and another??

It pretty much boils down to "guessing" (or accepting the guess of someone else at face value), and then defending our guess in the face of contrary evidence!!

If we have some reason other than guessing to decide if a text is true or false, then we're using some evidence external to the text to decide -- the text itself is superfluous!!

It seems to me what's happening is that literalists, like the rest of us, crave meaning and certainty in their lives. Rather than live in a world where the certainty of a given proposition is always less than 100% (and where some of the issues that humans find the most important are the least certain), literalists prefer to choose, accept unconditionally, and defend passionately, a given text or set of texts (with accompanying interpretation).

•\tSome Dangers Of Legalism by Don Fortner
•\tFreedom's Ring

\tThe isms of Legalism by J. James Albert

"Although this material was written with members of "Churches of Christ" in mind, the lessons are beneficial to all who are seeking God's grace and unity." (from the site's homepage)
\tChapter 1 of Free to Change by Cecil Hook
"God's basic requirement is for us to love him and one another. That is simple enough, but we have complicated it into a tedious system of religion."

•\tA LETTER TO A FRIEND REGARDING THE AGE OF REASON
by Thomas Paine
"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled.

It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. ...

You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. ...

For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner.

... the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness. The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. ...

As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]I have been a Christian believer for over 50 years, and this is what sets us apart from the rest of the World. We have the very Word of God in our hands, the Spirit breathed Word, Unchanging Word of God, The Bible. Other's do not.

Without the Word of God, we are full of error and lost!

"Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things..." 2 Timothy 4:2-5

Sincerely,

Walter[/b]


wayneman wrote:
Jesus-is-God wrote:

What makes us different is Truth. "The Spirit of Truth" is the Spirit of Jesus. He didn't call His Spirit - "the Spirit of love" for a reason - He called His Spirit - The Spirit of Truth, because without Truth being the plum-line, our "love" is counterfeit and just based upon "EMOTION" - bottomline.

I believe there are those who call themselves Christians, that have only had an "emotional relationship" with "Jesus".
It's easy to peg them. They run on positive or negative emotions on full drive and the Spirit of 'Truth' is lacking.

Amen. Gospel Truth is the sine qua non ("without which not")of the Christian life.

"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." 2 John 9

In the pastoral epistles Paul mentions doctrine sixteen times. So sound doctrine was important to Paul, and it should be important to the emergent church, but it's not. In fact, at that Emergent Village website they take pride in the fact that they do not even have a statement of faith. Thus it is easy to see them joining some flabby One World Unireligion. Religionists who believe nothing distinctly will find nothing to distinctly disagree about.

But I am skeptical when heresy hunters tell us that the emergent church is a grave threat to the livelihood of the church and a possible basis for a one-world antichrist church, because we have heard this sort of thing before. They said the same thing about the World Council of Churches. Today the WCC is, as Malcolm Muggeridge put it, "not even an impediment to true Christian belief, but just a joke." Then they wanted us to be worried about the Jesus Seminar, an annual non-event that watchdog ministries insisted on giving Super Bowl coverage, but which today is forgotten. Before that it was the Church Growth movement that was going to destroy the church and usher in the Antichrist. It is not that they are wrong in their assessment of these unbiblical movements; it is the way they magnify every threat to apocalyptic proportions.

Since 9-11 we have been bombarded by neo-con fearmongering: they want us to be afraid of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, al Qaida in Iraq, the terrorist next door, etc. Neo-cons need people to be fearful to gain support for their agenda. Heresy hunters are the neo-cons of the religious world. They have a vested interest in making us fearful. What they think the church stands to gain by this is anyone's guess.

In a previous post I quoted Aristotle's maxim, "The golden mean of virtue rests between two opposing errors." That's often true. The "watchmen" are right about the insipid emotionalism of the emergent church, but their iron-clad dogma is not a corrective; it is merely the opposite error. Sound doctrine is a means to an end: the end is being conformed to His image. And Gospel truth is the ONLY means to that end. But dogmatism sees doctrinal purity as an end in itself, as if Jesus saved us from our sins so that we could hold correct doctrinal opinions. As if "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to hold correct opinions and denounce heretics." Jam 1:27

You may be right: maybe I am underestimating the importance of the emergent church. But I am more concerned about what Tozer called "textualism" than I am about the emergent fad. The emergent church appeals mainly to worldly religionists and cannot undermine the true gospel. Textualism can, and does.

W
wayneman

To Wayneman:


What on earth is Texturalism?

It is taken from an article in Tozer's "Man, the Dwelling Place of God," which I posted on your "A.W. TOZER SAID..." thread to show that your doctrine is Tozerologically unsound. I can't find the thread, but here is the excerpt:

What is generally overlooked is that Fundamentalism, as it spread throughout the various denominations and nondenominational groups, fell victim to its own virtues. The Word died in the hands of its friends. ... An unofficial hierarchy decided what Christians were to believe. Not the Scriptures, but what the scribe thought the Scriptures meant became the Christian creed. Christian colleges, seminaries, Bible institutes, Bible conferences, popular Bible expositors all joined to promote the cult of textualism. The system of extreme dispensationalism which was devised, relieved the Christian of repentance, obedience and cross-carrying in any other than the most formal sense. Whole sections of the New Testament were taken from the church and disposed of after a rigid system of “dividing the Word of truth.”

All this resulted in a religious mentality inimical to the true faith of Christ. ... The basic doctrines of the Bible were there, but the climate was just not favorable to the sweet fruits of the Spirit.

The whole mood was different from that of the Early Church and of the great souls who suffered and sang and worshiped in the centuries past. The doctrines were sound but something vital was missing. The tree of correct doctrine was never allowed to blossom. The voice of the turtle [dove] was rarely heard in the land.... Faith, a mighty, vitalizing doctrine in the mouths of the apostles, became in the mouth of the scribe another thing altogether and power went from it. As the letter triumphed, the Spirit withdrew and textualism ruled supreme....

The error of textualism is not doctrinal. It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly. Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions.

It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us. If we have the doctrine, we have the experience. If something was true of Paul it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul's epistles as divinely inspired. The Bible tells us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to make it tell us that we are saved, something which in the very nature of things it cannot do. Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental.

S
sermonindex

My response to you, Wayneman, would be the same to Tozer, if he was still alive, God rest his soul:

"Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things..." 2 Timothy 4:2-5

The Doctrine in the Bible started getting stripped from the Word of God in my lifetime with all of the newer "versions" of the Bible that started flooding the scene about 1979. Of course, the original departure from the Spirit Breathed Word of God occurred in 1881, with the publication of the The "Revised New Testament.

The problem is, people do not realize they are NOT reading the Word of God when they read and study the newer versions since 1881, since Westcott & Hort. All of the newer versions cast doubt about God in the mind of the believer. Take a single example--- the Lord's Prayer, given by Jesus in Matthew 6:9-13. If I use the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, the very Word of God, I find this in my Bible:
9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.11. Give us this day our daily bread.12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

However, if I have one of the newer perversions--the NIV, I find the following:
This then is how you should pray: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forvien our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

If I go to the very bottom of the page, in very small, very light print, I find the rest of Christ's sample prayer that says "c13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, /for your is the kindgdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen"

This places doubt in the mind of the believer and makes them uncertain about what Christ really said.

Hence today, no one will listen to sound doctrine, because they have been reading the wrong bible, that brings into question THE VERY WORD OF GOD- not once, not twice, not 10 times, but over and over and over throughout the entire perverson they are reading and studying.

Just like Satan in the Garden, the newer versions hiss to those who read them " 1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. AND HE SAID TO THE WOMAN, YEA, HATH GOD SAID, YE SHALL NOT EAT OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN?????????And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. AND THE SERPENT SAID, YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE:
5. FOR GOD DOTH KNOW THAT IN THE DAY YE EAT THEROF, YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED, AND YE SHALL BE AS GODS, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL.

Today, no one wants to listen to sound doctrine, because they have no idea what "sound doctrine" really is. They all have the false assumption that the Holy Ghost who lives inside them will reveal all truth to them. The problem is that Satan still has access to each of us, and the only sure Word, the only sure Doctine, is found in the King James Bible, that has the ability to:
"12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 4:12-16


Sincerely,

Walter

S
sermonindex

Hi waltern,

You are 'baffled' by 'the efficacy of prayer'?

WOW! So, how do you treat the many prayers in scripture? Are you saying you find [i]them[/i] baffling?

wayneman, thanks for the snippet from Tozer. He and Sparks have a way of articulating spiritual truth that makes one realise how normal it is to 'be' spiritual.

S
sermonindex


Natan4Jesus said

to the point, where when I lay dying in a hospital last year, which one of you, would bless me and comfort by sitting at my bedside, no matter the hour?
I realise I could PM these questions, but I wouldn't be asking if you had not posted your comment publicly.

What happened? And how are you now?

S
sermonindex

In july of 08, at night, after my 12 year old and I had concluded a wide ranging three hour discussion.

(sidebar-this is my precious son, who not only confessed Jesus as Saviour and was water baptized the day I was, when he was 7 at his own heart leading, but this is the boy, who at 13 will be attending one of the west coast's elite military academies at HIS request, because he wants to work towards his goal, attending Annapolis to be commissioned as a US Navy officer, and train as a naval aviator. Quite a man, this lad. I'm very proud of him)

so we had just finished talking about China (the prc) and the roots of a future conflict, ie, competing economies for petroluem, etc.....he went into play some games, and I sat at my desk reading; within 10 minutes I was at 105 degrees fever and couldnt breathe.

It came out of nowhere. I called my doctor immediately, who knew that I had an emergency store of antibiotic's (among many "emergency stores"...lol) and suggested I take two. I did, but within the hour, I felt worse. I was literally burning up, and getting delirious, but knew enough, that it was time to go to the emergency room.

Since I'm of the "macho" school of thought, I was not going to call an ambulance, but geared up and we got in my SUV, to make the 2 mile drive to the hospital. It was bad, I was bad, I was so twiggy, that I was getting mad at my boy for not reading my mind, when I needed some assistance in getting dressed. (which of course, I later told him was daddy's brain burning up) He was a champ, patient and very adult. I hunched over the wheel and told him if daddy falls out, just take the wheel, hit the brakes and use my cell to call 911....not that wise.)

in retrospect, I realize I should have called an ambulance, but macho is as macho does. I made it, and they pulled blood immediately, it was not flu, it was a Strep Broup b blood infection in my lower left ankle , kind of like staph, but worse. The doctors doped me up and told me the truth, that I was 50/50, and had I waited at all, I was going to be 20/80.

Truth be told, I had no fear, I was talking to Jesus, and said "Lord, if You want home, I'm Yours, If You want to me to stay here. I'm Yours." Even though I was in pain, altho very doped up, it was a wonderful moment, where death held no sway over me, which is eternal assurance.

Of course, my son was whisked away by his uncle, because I didnt want him frightened, they put me in a ICU unit, segregated, and went to work, I had two beautiful doctor, an Ethiopian man and a kind of waspy doctor, love them both. They commenced bombarding my body with three anti-biotics. When I talked to my son's mother and told her, "its life threantening", she thought I was being dramatic, until I handed the phone to the doctor after she requested as such. After a five minute talk with them, they gave me back the phone, and her tenor had changed, very gentle, almost in tears, she loves Jesus, and knew God's Will be done.

and for a week, what a battle, you could see the pathogen making its way up my leg, towards it first destination of destruction, my lymph nodes. That's what Strep does, it hits the organs, and shuts them down, but praise God, it never went past my knee, and the whole while I was smiling and calm. The nurse and the doctors saw me smiling, reading my Bible, a sweet patient, not difficult, and that was a witness. My mentor and older brother, Pastor Ted had the whole Church back in Cali praying. He was getting ready to fly out to Chicago to be at my bedside, but I told him, we were holding this scourge at bay, and only if I took a turn for the worse would I call him. California to Chicago is a long ride,and I wanted him to minister to my brothers and sisters.

I always asked for the "chaplain", but I think A. he was from one of the cold mainline denom's, because I think I frightened him, as I wanted to talk about Bible verses, he must of thought (correctly) that i was "holy roller", so he stayed away.

anyway, after a week and a half, the tide had turned, and they wanted to just keep me longer, but I begged and pleaded with the doctors to let me out after two weeks, because my son only had 5 more days of visit, so they released me and for 5 wonderful days, my son was my nurse, what a Godly young man, waited on me with patience and love and we had a marvelous time, just laying on the couch, watching movies. Fortuntately, we always keep a well stocked larder, and didnt have to leave the apt.

and no, to this day, I am not in good health, many more things cropped up in the wake of this dread illness....but I have faith in the Lord, and I look forward to the Heavenly Jerusalem, if He wants me now, or in the near future. His Will!

Many of the cast members of my show made short visits, some of them I cant really remember, as I was pretty doped up, but I think they saw my Bible, and were .......I dont know...scared? They saw that I was at peace, and had to confront their own mortatlity and this frightened them, as i was their lead guy."nothing could happen to neil?!?" Oh yes it could, I told them, but I await the call of Jesus to His Bosom, Praise God!

my show is closed now, after 400 performances, and I am fileing for total disability, and praise be to God, I am going back to my home Church, live in the pastorate, get my ministers degree, and my ministry will be one of helps, and to reconfigure IN Christ my private ministry of intercessory prayer, as well as write a novel that God has given me. I'm an artist, that is one of the gifts He has given me, and God willing, I shall write it....a good, God honoring story.

bad health, but I rest content in the Lord, and He in me.

Thats why I grieve, when I rumble on threads like this. Men are entitled to their own "opinions", but I have very little time to waste.

There are many saints here, who I love dearly in the Lord. Mind you, I love ALL here, and that love is not "emotional" "sentimental" humbug, its the Jesus IN me, that gives me the Spirit of the Risen Messiah to love. I just pray that we could be of one accord, thats all.

Life in the natural is fleeting and short, and just personally speaking, I wish to make more profitable and God honoring use of the time we have left.

humbly, In Christ, neil

C
crsschk

by Alive-to-God on 2009/6/9 9:34:44

waltern to crsschk

So what are you saying, exactly? How is the link that you just posted in regards to Urban Legends/Procter and Gamble have anything to do with the reality and the truth of the Emergent/Emerging Church that is taking place, right now, throughout the world?

Just wondering?


I also wondered. I'm aware I haven't got back to that thread, because challenging some of the assumptions in the articles will be quite a big task, however, briefly I looked at the deceptions which were perpetrated against Jesus, and there is much more in the Old Testament to illuminate the existence of very real works of darkness - John 3:19.

It was in response to the reply previous of it and many of the quotes referenced. The link and various articles have a collective theme woven through it ...

S
sermonindex

Dear Neil,

Thank you for sharing, and glad you had peace through it all. Sorry to hear you are not completely whole, yet, but God can work wonders.

S
sermonindex

To Alive to God

You misunderstand what I was saying. I will post the part about the Lord's prayer on this thread, and explain to you what I meant.


[b]The Doctrine in the Bible started getting stripped from the Word of God in my lifetime with all of the newer "versions" of the Bible that started flooding the scene about 1979. Of course, the original departure from the Spirit Breathed Word of God occurred in 1881, with the publication of the The "Revised New Testament.

The problem is, people do not realize they are NOT reading the Word of God when they read and study the newer versions since 1881, since Westcott & Hort. All of the newer versions cast doubt about God in the mind of the believer. Take a single example--- the Lord's Prayer, given by Jesus in Matthew 6:9-13.

If I use the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, the very Word of God, I find this in my Bible:

9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.11. Give us this day our daily bread.12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

However, if I have one of the newer perversions--the NIV, I find the following:

This then is how you should pray: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forvien our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."

If I go to the very bottom of the page, in very small, very light print, I find the rest of Christ's sample prayer that says "c13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, /for your is the kindgdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen"

This places doubt in the mind of the believer and makes them uncertain about what Christ really said.[/b]

What I clearly said is the newer Bible Versions create uncertainty because of what you see above. Instead of the actual Lord's Prayer, found in its entirety in the King James Version, we find the sliced and diced version of it by the gnostics in the newer versions. What they have done, is to dissect the prayer, and at the same time cast doubt in the mind of the believer.

This is the actual Lord's Prayer, found in the Received Text, found in the King James:

[b][color=663300]Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.11. Give us this day our daily bread.12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.[/color][/b]

This is what you find in the newer NIV perversion:

[b][color=000000]"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forvien our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."[/color][/b]

[b][color=0033CC]Then, if I go to the very bottom of the page, in very small, very light print, I find the rest of Christ's sample prayer that says "c13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, /for your is the kindgdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen"

This places doubt in the mind of the believer and makes them uncertain about what Christ really said.[/color][/b]

The example above happens over and over and over throughout the entire newer version bible (NIV, NASB, American Standard, Revised Standard, Living Bible, New King James Bible, The Message Bible, New American Standard, New American Standard with Apocrypha, New Revised Standard with Apocrypha- All of these newer versions-90 of them now, created since 1881. What is the fruit of the Douey-Rheims Bible, The Jerusalem Bible? The same fruit that exists in all of the newer versions of Protestant Bibles published since 1881. What fruit, you ask? The anwer, there is NONE.


The "late" manuscripts that they refer to (above example of the Lord's prayer, found in the NIV)are not "late" at all. They are the "Received Text, used by the believing Church since the beginning. These texts were read and studied, night and day by the [b][color=663300]PEOPLE OF THE BOOK.[/color][/b] They were worn out, and recopied, exactly like the Jews copied the tora, with not one jot on one tittle missing, and the original was then destroyed. 95% of the Received Text is consistent.

All of the "oldest" manuscripts that they refer to were found in the trash in Alexandria Egypt. They were created by the Gnostics, and later accepted by the Catholics when they created their Bible.

That is the problem. I ask you- What good has come from Roman Catholocism? Are people told in the Catholic Church that babies must be baptized to be saved? Are people told that they are saved by Grace or by Works?-BY WORKS, THEY SAY! Arethey told that they can pray for the dead? Are they told what the Bible teaches? Are they told that the believer has access to the Throne Room of Heaven when he/she prays? NO, they are told that they have to confess to a celibate? "Priest", who will then absolve them. They are told that they can pray to their dead prophets. They are told that Mary is sinless, and that they can pray to her directly. It is all, 100% error. In fact the Pope recently stated that the Creation account, found in the Bible is a myth, and that Evolution is a fact.

That is what comes out of the vaticanius & Sinaiticus text that was used to create the Catholic Bible-ERROR. It is also the same text that HAS BEEN USED TO CREATE ALL OF THE NEWER BIBLE VERSIONS.

[b][color=000000]Only those who study from the "newer versions" become confused about the efficacy of prayer and the power of God to transform their lives, and are being drawn into the Emergent Church.[/color][/b]

This is something that Krispy posted on Sermonindex some time ago:

John Burgon’s research into the text of the scripture through church history has, in some ways, never been equaled. This is particularly true of his research into the quotations from the scriptures of the church leaders of antiquity.To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D.(The Early Church Fathers) By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

This testimony of Burgon is not to be taken lightly. He knew as much about the Bible of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries as any man who has lived in the last 200 years. When he says that the Received Text is attested by Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible versions, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.The vast majority of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the writings of church “fathers” support the Received Text. This was a fact known by the Reformation editors. Whereas the textual critics of our day see this as a mere accident ofhistory, the Bible-believing Reformation editors of old saw the hand of God in it. So do we, and so do I.

And so do I!

Sincerely,

Walter


Alive-to-God wrote:
Hi waltern,

You are 'baffled' by 'the efficacy of prayer'?

WOW! So, how do you treat the many prayers in scripture? Are you saying you find [i]them[/i] baffling?

wayneman, thanks for the snippet from Tozer. He and Sparks have a way of articulating spiritual truth that makes one realise how normal it is to 'be' spiritual.


Only those[/color][/b]

S
sermonindex

I have seen many annointed, well saved, followers, workers, worms of Christ, fully sold out in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who carry and read and study the NIV version of the Holy Bible, and you deign to call it a "perversion", or to imply, [b]assume[/b] that they, or I have had "uncertainity" inculcated into our hearts regarding the Ministry of Messiah?

when will this end? You have your "opinion", May God bless you, at the same time, it feels to me that you are casting other God-honoring, God fearing, Jesus loving saints into a status of "less-thans", because they dont read the KJV of the Holy Bible.

I have recieved much blessing, many rhema words, much learning from reading the NIV study Bible. Now I read the ESV, as well as going back to the NIV study Bible, as well as reading my fully servicable 1824 copy of the KJV Bible, as well as refering to my NKJV Bible...am I a "less than"? or as you say,

at the same time cast doubt in the mind of the believer

I have no doubts that Messiah has come and He lives in me, that His Blood is entirely sufficient to cleanse all sin.

why must we do this? How does this diviseness bring Glory to God? and where do you get this statement/opinion from?

The problem is, people do not realize they are NOT reading the Word of God when they read and study the newer versions since 1881, since Westcott & Hort

or this:

Only those who study from the "newer version" become confused about the efficacy of prayer and the power of God to transform their lives, and are being drawn into the Emergent Church.

this is [b]NOT [/b] Truth, this is your opinion, which you bludgeon fellow saints over and over again, and to what profit? what edification? What lifting up of the Body?

you might say, "I'm contending for Truth". Walter, you are not, you are acting out your opinion to the detriment of your brothers and sisters in Christ, you are making divisions between those who YOU adjudge to "more-thans" or "less-thans" in the world according to Walter, this is wrong, this is sin, can't you see it?

There are persecuted saints all over the world, who would die for just one Bible to have in their possession, and we silly Americans, have these frivoulous endless arguments over Bible versions. Bless God! that you receive holy succor from the KJV, but what fruit is there in this endless needless controversy?

None! only division, and that is sin.

I just give up, there is no discussion possible with you sir. I'm sorry to say that.

neil

W
White_Stone

Dear Walter,

When you make your claim that any translation, other than the original KJV, plants doubt, I feel you are severely slighting the power of the Holy Spirit.

If a person were stranded on a desert isle and all that was available was a NIV translation and they read it, searching for God - I have no doubt that they would find Him. It is His power that comes through and no translation can hinder that.

I was saved through a translation called "The Amplified Bible." I still read from it on occasion an come away enriched.

In this thread you seem to have backed yourself against a wall and there is no way to approach you unless one does it on your terms. This seems to be a very lonely and painful position and I wish I could touch you and let the love of Jesus flow between us. Must you be so standoffish? Are the things you are fighting with 'soul saving' issues? Please, let us be able to share with you, do not lock yourself away for no good reason.

Neil said

There are persecuted saints all over the world, who would die for just one Bible to have in their possession, and we silly Americans, have these frivoulous endless arguments over Bible versions. Bless God! that you receive holy succor from the KJV, but what fruit is there in this endless needless controversy?
Please consider this.

Kind regards,
white stone

L
Lkid

Just have to say here that this thread seems to have originated with gossip and accusations/assumptions that are not backed up by 2 or 3 witnesses. Walter, with regard to Costa Mesa, if you are truly concerned than you should go to YOUR PASTORS AND ELDERS not to a chat board on the internet! Especially since your information is based on a media source. Just because Lighthouse Trails is christian doesn't mean that their reporting is unbiased and accurate. You, who proclaim to understand truth so well must understand that.

I have heard Mr Brodersen speak this year several messages that denounce the emergent church movement as well i understand he is teaching through its false doctrine in a Calvary magazine (haven't read it though).

Carry on your fruitless argument that the KJV is the only version, but drop any talk about your church.

Sincerely,

Lloyd

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Neil…

You make a valid point about the “truth” – which is what I have been trying to convey (but might have lacked the clarity).

Some people think that they are “contending for the truth” but are actually “contending for their opinion about truth.” Sadly, it is difficult for some of us to make such a distinction.

I imagine that Walter faithfully believes his opinion about the KJV (and every other version) is “truth.” To perhaps a somewhat lesser degree, many of us are just as diligent with our “truthful” opinions. I constantly read and reread my own posts now in order to make a distinction between what is from me…and what is undeniably from the Lord.

I don’t mind teachers and churches that present diversity of doctrinal views…even in the peculiarities. However, I am concerned when people or churches present them as binding, legalistic stands on such issues. I do have an issue with those who use no mental or verbal disclaimer that remembers our own flawed humanity or the fact that we all still see “through a glass, darkly.” Come to think of it, there are many views that I once held that changed over time. I wonder if I am the only one.

No one is asking Walter to go against his conscience. If he doesn’t trust the NIV (or any other version other than the KJV), then he shouldn’t read it. My concern, however, is that Walter wishes to affect the conscience of everyone else.

If I were to ask a question about predestination, Calvinism, or something else like that, I will get answers from many people that disagree with one another. To many, they assume that this is a “fundamental” doctrine of the Church (and some have said as much). But is it a fundamental doctrine of the Church? Is it an essential doctrine? Is it vital? What about the rest of the things that we discuss and debate tirelessly amongst one another? Are they that important…to be stated in a manner as if our very salvation depended upon it?

When I was a child and needed to go to school, I simply hopped on the school bus. I didn’t worry about the mechanics of the bus…whether it was a Ford, Chevy or International…what kind of oil it should or should not use…the ability of the bus driver (as long as he seemed to drive well)…whether or not the roads were designed and/or engineered properly…whether or not the bus driver was taking the best possible route to school….etc… I simply went to school because I knew that was what was needed and I enjoyed learning.

Too often, I think that many believers are too consumed with the inner mechanical peculiarities than with the purpose, the destination (or even the ride with Christ, so to speak). Also, we frequently fail to remember that “second opinions” exist. We may think that we know something…and that it is from the Lord. Yet, how important is it that we know it? Some people pretend that people will be led to Hell due to a belief (or lack of information) about the End Times, a particular Bible version, or whether or not someone believes that a person can lose or walk away from salvation. Ultimately, it is a relationship with Christ that matters.

I am discouraged by Walter’s insistence upon a particular translation of the Bible (and rejection of every other version). He is certainly entitled to his opinion (right or wrong), but I find the way that he handles his views to be disturbing. This issue goes beyond the translation itself…into the roots of the documents used for translation. The discussion has been convoluted by the multitudes of books, websites and audio teachings that present a somewhat limited perspective on the issue (often basing arguments upon fellow second-hand evidence rather than going to the sources themselves). I totally respect Waltern’s right to believe what he feels is the verdict of his research. Yet, this often goes to a deeper issue in which people (and even their faith) are dismissed based upon a variance of opinion about such a thing.

I have traveled to the indigenous Tarahumara tribes in the high Sierra Madre Occidental of western Mexico. The Tarahumara are considered one of the last “unreached” people groups by National Geographic and many anthropologists. They live in relative obscurity (mostly in caves and small huts) and are known for their tireless running ability. There, I met a group of believers there who have to Bible in their language. Yet they know the Lord. The pastor came to the Lord when he was dying of tuberculosis. One night when he was near death, he sat outside of his cave and looked at the stars. He was an animist and believed in multiple spirits (in the river, trees, each star, etc…). Yet, as he looked at the position of the stars in the night sky, it dawned on him that there might be a single, all-powerful God. Suddenly, he felt the Lord speak to him. The Lord said, “[i]I am the Lord God who created all there is. If I heal you, will you serve Me[/i]?” This young, dying Tarahumara man said yes.

For months, he talked to this God who spoke to him. He was rejected by his family and friends. He didn’t speak Spanish (let alone English), so he couldn’t read a Bible even if he had one. Yet he was completely healed of his infirmity. One day, the Lord impressed upon him to go to the Spanish speaking town (a seven day journey through the mountains) so that he could learn the language of the people. He didn’t understand why…but he went anyway. Somehow, miraculously in a short period of time, this young man learned fluent Spanish…even how to read it. This Tarahumara traveled back to his village located higher in the mountains.

The missionary that I often traveled with had been given an extra offering before leaving the United States. He wondered what the purpose of the money was…because they had the money to complete the church building that they were constructing in a nearby Spanish-speaking village. While he was at the small town buying the supplies for the construction, he saw this young Tarahumara. This missionary had learned the Tarahumara phrase “Chú miriwé?“ (pronounced “chim ear ee way” – which means “What is your name?”). The Tarahumara man replied with his name Spanish. The missionary asked him, “Do you speak Spanish.” The Tarahumara replied, “Yes, the Living God taught me.” The missionary asked him what he was doing in the town. The Tarahumara replied that God had told him to go because he was going to bless him. The Tarahumara explained that he wanted to build a building for the people to meet together in. To make a long story short, the extra offering that was given to the missionary was able to supply the materials needed to build it. The pastor was also provided a Bible (in Spanish…and not a KJV) that confirmed much of what God had already spoken to him.

I don’t think that I have ever enjoyed meeting with believers as much as I enjoyed going to the Tarahumara several times while a teenager. They used to meet together beneath a tree. Now, they meet in a log cabin church building. Over the years, I saw the congregation grow – not just in number, but in faith. Yet most of them still cannot read. They meet and listen to the Pastor recite the Word of God to them. They sing to the Lord in worship. They pray for one another. They encourage one another.

I’ve always thought that it was interesting that they don’t seem to worry about doctrinal peculiarities. They know God for themselves. They are blessed to have a few copies of the Scriptures of which are read to them. Yet they don’t worry about whether or not they will live through a period of tribulation. They don’t argue over whether or not their version of the Scriptures is the most accurate. They don’t argue over whether or not they should wear head coverings. They simply come as they are…and encourage one another in the faith. They have never seen Christian television shows, Christian books or heard of the internet. Most of them have never used electricity (and many have never ever heard of it). Yet they are coming to Christ…by the hundreds (maybe thousands). They don’t spend their time together arguing about what the fourth toe of the beast is supposed to represent. They simply use their time to seek Jesus in order to know Him and His heart. I have watched this soft spoken people lift up their hands in worship…with tears running down their faces…because of their love for Jesus.

It is often disappointing to return to “civilization.” Here, we spend more time debating about what might be heresy…and who might be a heretic…than sitting back and focusing our time and effort on simply knowing Jesus. We attend congregations where we submit to the dogma required for involvement or membership. We question and scrutinize every last dot and tittle of everyone else’s beliefs (including the things that really don’t matter). We fail to remember that the early church didn’t carry a pocket Bible with them. The early Church didn’t even have multiple copies of Paul’s letters…or the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Most of them didn’t even have copies of the Old Testament scrolls.

Today, we are given so much for which we show so little. We who reside in “civilization” live in a time when we are scarcely persecuted for our faith. We have multiple copies of the Scriptures. Some of us even have audio versions of the Scriptures so it can be read to us. We are not hungry. We are not thirsty. We have shelter. Some of us are actually PAID to preach the Gospel (via a salary or by offerings…imagine that). We have concordances, dictionaries and commentaries (some of us even have multiple copies of each). We even can meet together using this technology known as the “internet” to read the Word of God, download sermons and meet with other believers. Indeed, we have been given many, many talents.

I just can’t help but wonder if we are burying our talents under needless doctrinal debates and differences. Instead of using these talents in the world to reproduce a new crop of believers, we stand around with one another…discussing Scripture like the thinkers of Athens. We talk to one another with trepidation or suspicion. Even many of those who would try to do the work of an evangelist spend their time yelling at unbelievers for their worldly habits and dress…and spend very little time simply explaining that this world simply does not know God…but can know God. Instead of seeking converts to Christ, we seek clones. We want to clone ourselves in the world (and Church) around us.

Yes, these tireless debates grow tiresome. Sometimes, I just wish to remain a “child” in a sense that I want to depend upon the Lord to take care of me. The more that I think that I know, the more that I come to realize that there are so many things that I don’t really know. Is there anything wrong with just not knowing the certainty of some petty issues…when we truly want to know Christ and spend time with Him? Is this not better? Yes, some issues that we hold to be so important…so vital…are truly petty in the scope of Eternity. If an issue will deeply divide people who truly are part of the Body of Christ, chances are, it is petty.

At the Revival Conference, people walk away very blessed. Why? Well, we know what can happen when people who truly want more of Christ show up in one place. Yet I am struck with the fact that people didn’t go there to debate doctrine or reach an ultimate consensus on certain issues. Instead, they reach a consensus that the modern Church and this fallen world are in need of a move of God. We can agree that the Church and this dying world need to take the things of God seriously. We need to realize that God is not confined to our earthly doctrinal views…but is the ultimate definition of Truth. And since we can all agree upon this, the people are gathered in unity…and not division. It is easy to love someone when we don’t let our doctrinal differences cloud our eyesight.

I suppose that I am just ranting now. Believe me: I understand that there is a place for Biblical Truth. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with that. There are some things that are undeniable…fundamental…and inarguable doctrines of the faith. In fact, we need such truth to be proclaimed from the pulpits across this nation…inside of the homes…on the streets…and lived everywhere we go. However, I am deeply concerned that so many believers have come to a conclusion that their personal doctrinal ideas are the same as “Biblical Truth.” The preeminence of the KJV is not a Biblical Truth. It is an opinion. This can also be said about many of our oft-debated issues. There is something wrong when we present them as if they are undeniable…and that God might not change our opinion in the future. There is something wrong when we use our opinions about doctrine as a measuring stick by which we measure the faith or spiritual condition of those believers who are around us.

Maybe we need to be like that child on the school bus who worries more about the destination and where he is going (and why he is going…and who is going for) than the particular mechanics of the bus, the chemical composition of the roads or debating whether or not the lowered windows create drag and might hurt the gas mileage. Maybe our focus is just slightly off…and we need to look much deeper into the picture? Maybe we need to be a little more like Mary than Martha (Luke 10:42)? Don’t we all just want to know Him…and to sit at His feet?

Brother Neil, I will be praying for your health…and for your family. Be encouraged in the Lord.

S
sermonindex

Wow! that was one of the most lovely annointed, powerful writings I have ever read on this forum, bare none.

You lit me up in the Holy Spirit like a road flare, a bonfire, lightened my heart, you said everything I want to say, but one million times better! Praise God, and may He bless you, He blessed me thru your word.


what a story about the Tarahumara, and you were there! you know what's interesting? the phrase "what's your name? Chú miriwé?“ (pronounced “chim ear ee way”) "miriwe", sounds and is pronounced very very similar in Kinyarwanda, the language of Rwanda, and that excites me, because both areas are very far apart....what a story!

you see, I mostly buy missionary bio's and testimonies to read, all the way from the early 1800's to early 1900's, these stories just make my heart leap...
[b]I[/b]want to worship under that tree!...or in a barn with folding chairs, after all our Lord was born in a manger, amen? .....underneath that tree. Nothing against big church buildings, etc, because if even one soul is brought to a saving knowledge of Messiah in big fancy bldg, I exalt that! But I long for a simple humble building, tree, or a tent to gather with the congregation of believers.

is that "emerging"? (lil bitta irony there..sorry)

you made my day with wonderful word, and I adjudge it to have been wrote under the influence of the Holy Ghost, no matter what anybody says.

If you ever get the leading, why not write a pamphelt of your remineseces of your time among the Tarahumara, 20, 30 pages, wrap it in pdf, I'd love to print it up.

Brother Neil, I will be praying for your health…and for your family. Be encouraged in the Lord.

oh, thank you my brother, I sure do need it..I surely do, as the Heavenly Jerusalem doesnt sound like a bad spot to be, and I dont mean that weird-like, I'm just hurting and weary, but you sure did brighten my day, God bless you beloved, in Jesus' love, your bud neil

S
sermonindex

To Neil:

Wait, please wait Neiil.[b] What is the subject of this thread? The Emergent Church that is “emerging” all over this country, as well as the rest of the world.[/b]

Why is this happening? It surely has nothing to do with Sound Doctrine being taught in the Churches in America or the rest of the world. Over the past 25 years Bible Doctrine has been replaced with man made doctrine. Some examples: 1) Name it and claim it, blab it and grab it. In these "Churches” the congregation is told by the Pastor that our own words have the power to create wealth & health 2) How about the Joel Osteen and the gospel that he preaches- [b]as believers, we are to have the “right vision”, because He lives, we live also- live an abundant life because of the price He paid we have the right to live in total victory- for finances, pain in your body, etc. etc. etc.[/b]

What about the United Methodist Church that I attended as a child. I learned sound Bible Doctrine there (with the exception of replacement theology). Of course, that was in the 1940’s and 1950’s. I also attended a Presbyterian Church, off and on during that time. Sound Doctrine was taught there (again,with the exception of replacement theology, they were right on as well). I was married in the Episcopal Church, in 1965. Again, sound doctrine was taught at that time as well, with the exception of replacement theology (i.e. the Church has replaced Israel). Today, all of these mainline Churches are falling away. The Episcopal Church has embraced the homosexual clergy. The United Methodist Church is trying to fight it (support of homosexuality) off. However the Presbyterian Church USA caved in last year, and now totally support a gay clergy: Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 -- a date that may well mark a final blow against[b] biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.[/b]

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s the teaching of sound doctrine started slowing down. With all of the newer versions, it was difficult to be a Pastor. Usually, the service started with a reading from the Bible at the beginning of the service. The Pastor would start it off in the odd number verses, the body would respond by reading the even number verses, of whatever Book we were reading from. It was great in the 1960’s because we all read from the same Bible. When the newer versions came on the scene, it sounded like Babel. When the Pastor read from the odd number verse, it was fine, but then when the Church read from 15 different versions, it was ridiculous. So, over time, Pastors quit with the Bible reading part of the Church service.

Today, anything goes because no one has been taught sound Doctrine.

[b]So, if anyone is to blame, it is not those that support sound doctrine, but those that oppose it, and instead look for signs and wonders and physical experiences with God. These, as well as their children, are the same people that are leaving the error of their lifeless, Sound Doctrinally deprived churches, and embracing the Emergent Church--that will walk into the Tribulation with the False Prophet and Antichrist at the helm. [/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


Natan4Jesus wrote:
I have seen many annointed, well saved, followers, workers, worms of Christ, fully sold out in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who carry and read and study the NIV version of the Holy Bible, and you deign to call it a "perversion", or to imply, [b]assume[/b] that they, or I have had "uncertainity" inculcated into our hearts regarding the Ministry of Messiah?

when will this end? You have your "opinion", May God bless you, at the same time, it feels to me that you are casting other God-honoring, God fearing, Jesus loving saints into a status of "less-thans", because they dont read the KJV of the Holy Bible.

I have recieved much blessing, many rhema words, much learning from reading the NIV study Bible. Now I read the ESV, as well as going back to the NIV study Bible, as well as reading my fully servicable 1824 copy of the KJV Bible, as well as refering to my NKJV Bible...am I a "less than"? or as you say,

at the same time cast doubt in the mind of the believer

I have no doubts that Messiah has come and He lives in me, that His Blood is entirely sufficient to cleanse all sin.

why must we do this? How does this diviseness bring Glory to God? and where do you get this statement/opinion from?

The problem is, people do not realize they are NOT reading the Word of God when they read and study the newer versions since 1881, since Westcott & Hort

or this:

Only those who study from the "newer version" become confused about the efficacy of prayer and the power of God to transform their lives, and are being drawn into the Emergent Church.

this is [b]NOT [/b] Truth, this is your opinion, which you bludgeon fellow saints over and over again, and to what profit? what edification? What lifting up of the Body?

you might say, "I'm contending for Truth". Walter, you are not, you are acting out your opinion to the detriment of your brothers and sisters in Christ, you are making divisions between those who YOU adjudge to "more-thans" or "less-thans" in the world according to Walter, this is wrong, this is sin, can't you see it?

There are persecuted saints all over the world, who would die for just one Bible to have in their possession, and we silly Americans, have these frivoulous endless arguments over Bible versions. Bless God! that you receive holy succor from the KJV, but what fruit is there in this endless needless controversy?

None! only division, and that is sin.

I just give up, there is no discussion possible with you sir. I'm sorry to say that.

neil

S
sermonindex

I know you and i don't know each other well at all. How could we? This is an internet discussion forum, we can't hear inflections in voice, we can't look into another person's eyes, etc. You know what i mean.

Please allow me to tell you, to testify of where my heartbeat goes, of how i love Jesus, and His Word. Because you [i]might[/i] have the wrong impression of me, as i am in Messiah's Embrace, I find the Deep Things of God, most precious. I marvel everyday at Jesus' mercy, and God's Hand on my life. I am His, and He lives in me, the "mystery" that Paul writes of in Colossian's 1.

anyway, I'm a Jew who follows Jesus, and one awful, terrible, yet glorious day, Jesus saved me. I didnt "know" it that second, but He grabbed me, oh yes He did...in a lonely house trailer on a horse farm, no human being was around, no human preaching, just me and Him, and I was so desperate, that I kept saying a small prayer that Trish told me to cling to, "God please be with me"...over and over again, as the enemy nipped at my heels.

so within days, supernaturally, I KNEW I had to BE in a Church, and I asked Trish if she knew of such a Church, she said, let me think about this, and she led me to Hope Christian Church...right when I entered that door, I knew I HAD to confess Christ as the Risen Messiah, and God gave me a mentor, Ted, who is solidly sound in doctrine, there is no wild and wacky "stuff" that my mentor in Christ noises about. Take my word for this, I testify that THIS is the Truth in Christ. Ted, pastor Ted, I call him "Ted" in private, as we have not only become brothers, but best friends, we shake our heads in bewilderment at some of things you mentioned in your post. Walt, we're on the same "page". to wit:

1) Name it and claim it, blab it and grab it. In these "Churches” the congregation is told by the Pastor that our own words have the power to create wealth & health

yeeech! You will never ever hear that preached at Hope, nor do I regard this as anything but selfish fleshly mumbo jumbo. "Straw" destined to be BURNED!

2) How about the Joel Osteen and the gospel that he preaches- as believers, we are to have the “right vision”, because He lives, we live also- live an abundant life because of the price He paid we have the right to live in total victory- for finances, pain in your body, etc. etc. etc.

same thing........yeech! May God bless this man, I wish no one ill, but our calling is TO DIE, thats right, DIE, death to self, death to the flesh, and become alive in Christ!! That is Glory! Not these "temples of herod" you see erected today, what a blot and blemish they are, they embarrass me. I was flicking thru the TV (when I still had a sat connection, I tore that out, the only channel I really enjoyed was RFD-TV,. the rural farm network, and the folks at dish tv, wouldnt let me just get that station) anyway, I watched ole Joel for about ten minutes, just see if he was that....shallow in the Lord, and he was.

what you have to realize about a Jew, and this one, me, who follows Christ is this; that when we find something NOT of the Lord, we just disregard it. I pay it no mind, for I only wish to fix my thoughts on Jesus and Him Crucified. Osteen and such...this is "straw" Walter, and the Fire is coming, God will attend to such, not me. I only wish to reflect Him, Who lives in me, Jesus Messiah. One of my templates of Faith, (human vessels who's ministries I admire) Duncan Campbell spoke of the Mid-Argydl revival of the 1920's in Scotland, said, that he and an Irish brother went to hill and croft, "just talking about Jesus, the One we love". Thats all they did, and God swept many many into His Kingdom, thru those two simple youth with a Godly Fire burning in their hearts.

before I came to Messiah, as a Jew, I must confess, I was so unknowlegable, I actually thought that there was no real difference between Protestants and Catholics. I just thought they were two "different kinds" of Gentiles. I didnt even know "denominations".

Now I do, and I HAVE seen these mainline denom's, Pres, (PCUSA) Epis (ECUSA) United Meth (UMV) and now the Evan Luth's ALL ordaining homosexual clergy. This is not right. How do I know, the Bible tells me, and the Scripture is the truth, the Logos. ....and quite frankly, I know these organizations [b]think[/b] they are doing the "right" thing, but they are under a powerful delusion, and they will find the Holy Ghost [b]FLEEING[/b]from their gatherings.

and finally let me testify to this, as the Lord has led me, you wrote:

So, if anyone is to blame, it is not those that support sound doctrine, but those that oppose it, and instead look for signs and wonders and physical experiences with God.

Here is reality in the Light of God, if anyone lifts up the Holy Spirit above Jesus, OR, lifts up the gifts and manifestations, et al above Jesus, such a "movement" is destined to go aground upon the rocks of error and fanaticism. I believe that with all my heart, and I do guard my heart against all error, against all fleshliness of man and his perversion's of this Most Holy Faith.

I know what the "Emergent Church" is, and I've never felt a leading to cleve to it, its "rock and roll", its "I used to be high on drug, now I'm high on Jesus". [b]banish the thought![/b]

I know all about MacLaren, Sweet, and God love 'em, but thats not what the Lord has me reading. I read the Bible, I very much enjoy reading antique missionary bio's and accounts, and the men who I look up to are david Brainerd, John Sung, Frank bartleman, Evan Roberts, and yes...Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as I dearly love his book, "Life Together".

I communicate off forum with a few saints on this forum, and they know where my heart is. I feel no leading at all to speak out against the confused ones, the ones who are headed thru a strange "gate"...why? because all I want to know when I am among you, is "Christ and Him Crucified". If I go the other way, bashing "hereticks", I'm missing my calling.

Walter, I want tent meetings, just like in the old days, whether it be the Sinai, or in the American heartland. I want tent meetings where the elect, and the lost kneel together in travailing prayer, weeping their way to the Cross, O the Blessed Cross! Thats my calling.

I want a church, that is so plain, so humble, unadorned, and in this church, this congregation, two things I pray, that one, we humbly ask Jesus to pastor the meetings, and two, that our first consideration is for a "tarrying room", which now is an antique, neglected concept, the room where saints get on their knees or on their faces to meet with the Risen Messiah, they can be silent, they can be weeping, groaning. But we today give so little attention to the "tarrying room", and no, I am not wild about amped guitars, loud drums, etc, in the sanctuary. How far we've fallen, the sanctuary, the tarrying room are holy places. If folks acted as they do today in the Temple in Jerusalem, as they do in some of these churches, they would be put to death.

I can safely say this to you dear Walter, I fear God, I revere God, I am in awe of God.

I didnt write this post to "prove" anything to you, I just want to communicate in love and truth to you where my heart and my soul is in Christ Jesus, so there are no misassumptions.

there is a demon who bears the name "misassumption", and I say "the Lord rebuke him!" Thats why I wrote this to you in the Love of Christ.

okay? Praise God that you've been married since 1965, and may God bless that union and your wife.

Your brother in Jesus, neil

G
ginnyrose

Walter,

You are taking issue with how the LORD'S Prayer is printed in newer versions against the KJV.

The Lord's Prayer as quoted in Matthew 6:9-13 differs from the one quoted in Luke 11:2-4. So, then according to your reasoning one should disregard the the book of Luke?

ginnyrose

W
White_Stone

Dear Ginnyrose,

The Lord's Prayer as quoted in Matthew 6:9-13 differs from the one quoted in Luke 11:2-4. So, then according to your reasoning one should disregard the the book of Luke?

It amazes me, I had that piece of scripture ready to post today. It is nice to be of the same mind with you. It makes me feel close to you. Praise Jesus.

white stone

S
sermonindex


Below, you will find a question from today’s "modern" Christian, asking the following:

Why Doesn’t God Reveal Himself To Me?


[b]Question: I would like to know God, and I have asked Him to reveal Himself to me, but nothing happens. No lights have gone on, no messages in the sky, no sudden revelation. It seems to me that if God really existed He would want us to believe in Him and He would therefore do something tangible to let us knew He exists. Is it wrong to ask for some unmistakable evidence of God’s existence?[/b]


[b]The answer is provided by Dave Hunt, from the Berean Call:[/b]


[b][color=990000]Response:

No, and the evidence is all around you-more than you need. The kind of evidence you seem to be hoping for, however, wouldn’t help at all. Suppose some message with your name in it suddenly appeared in the sky. How would you know that God put it there? Suppose right now you heard an audible voice saying loudly, “I am God! Worship me!” What would that tell you about God---and how would you know that he had actually spoken?

In fact, God has spoken to you. The design of the universe is a message from God, telling you of His existence as creator and of his infinite wisdom and power. Those things that you value most highly and that you know in your heart make life worthwhile—Love, joy, peace, Moral Purity, Goodness, Truthfulness, justice, kindness---tell you of God’s character. Your conscience tells you that your are morally accountable to God, that you have violated His laws and have fallen short of His perfect standard. Your conscience also tells you that there is no way you can make up for having broken God’s laws. You can’t buy Him off with sacrifices, prayers, good deeds, or ritual.

Suppose you got a speeding ticket. Would you waste your time telling the judge that you’ve driven that stretch of highway within the speed limit more often than above it? Would he let you off under the theory that your “good deeds outweigh the bad”? You know that won’t work with an earthly judge, and it certainly won’t work with God.

Would you tell him that if he lets you off this time you will never break the laws again? You know what the judge would say: “If you never break the law again, you’re only doing what the law requires. You get no extra credit for that. It doesn’t make up for having broken the law in the past. The penalty will have to be paid as the law prescribes it.” You know it’s the same way with God.

Your conscience tells you that the only way you could possibly escape the severe penalty that God’s infinite justice must demand for having broken His laws would be if He forgives you. And you know he can’t just wipe the slate clean for no reason. For one thing, that would hardly encourage you to improve your behavior. Furthermore, it would violate His own law. He must have some way of paying the penalty Himself-a penalty you can’t pay—so that you can be forgiven by His grace.

You don’t know what that method may be, but you know that a God of perfect love and perfect justice would somehow provide it. If there is an explanation of this good news, it would surely be in the Bible. In fact, God has explained it all in those pages. Have you seriously studied the Bible and checked out the evidence that shows it is God’s infallible Word?

There is more than sufficient historic, archaeological, and scientific evidence to prove that the Bible is God’s Infallible Word. If you just read the Bible with an open heart and mind, you will know that God is speaking to your heart as only He can speak.

I recommend you begin with the Gospel of John, and continue through Acts and Romans, then read those three books again. God has promised in His Word: “Ye shall seek me and find me when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). That is a promise you can count on! Seek God with all your heart and put Him to the test by looking in the Bible for the revelation of Himself! [/color][/b]


Sincerely,

Walter

B
Blunt

Amen.

S
sermonindex

Sir, was that post intended for me, or for a larger audience?

I beg your indulgence, and I'm ALWAYS open to a word from a fellow follower of Jesus, but I have and hold to all that you have written, or copy and pasted, and that post reads and feels very very patronizing. If I am mistaken, again I beg your forgiveness, all I was attempting was discussion, and a fruitful one at that, because I unveiled my heart to you, yet it feels you don't just want to open up, and that's okay.

I bear no ill will, nor contention, I only desire God and him more fully, and I love to talk, write, discuss with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, in authenticity and love.

So, my prayer is that Jesus just love and bless you in the most wonderful Way, neil

S
sermonindex

[b]To Neil:

Based upon your last post to me, as well as your agreement with me in the sentiments of my last post (Why Doesn’t God Reveal Himself To Me?), it is not addressd to you specifically, since we seem to agree on the issue of the Emergent Church, and what is wrong with the ailing "body of Christ" today.

It was intended for a very wide audience- for those with ears to hear and with eyes to see.[/b]

[color=990000][b]It was directed to those that oppose Sound Bible Doctrine and Biblical Absolutes, to show them where their position has led Christianity to, today- to the Apostate Church, that is ready and willing to join the emergent Church.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter[/b]

S
sermonindex

Please forgive my assumption dear brother. As I said before this medium of communication can be lacking. I feel bad that I misconstrued the onus and the thrust of your post, but my hope and prayer is that you know my deep love for you in Christ, and in my heart as well, as well as every other precious saint on this forum.

That is not mere emotionalism, or fluff sentimentality, but a gift from God, and a truly precious Gift indeed. I ponder over this great wealth that God has given us, which is "Christ IN us", what joy it is to have such a Saviour living in us.

to be caught up in High Places with God.

Just know that I love you, sight unseen, and my prayer is that we all praise His Holy Name, that we are all fearfully and wonderfully knit together in Christ Jesus.

I will soon be back in Southern california, and I pray that we will see a real revival in this land.

neil

S
sermonindex


[color=990000]"Mysticism on the the march again- Mantra-based book offered to Calvary Chapel Pastors"[/color]


[b]Seems like the powers that be at Calvary are bound and determined to infect their senior pastors with the emergent mantra by giving away a free book written by David Timms, a professor at Hope International University who puts an emphasis on spiritual formation and teaches a course in lectio divina.1 Timms' book, titled Living the Lord's Prayer, is one that strongly promotes contemplative spirituality and includes favorable mention of the use of mantras as well as reference to panentheistic mystic Thomas Merton.[/b]


Category: * Contemplative
Source: Editors at Lighthouse Trails

At the recent Calvary Chapel Senior Pastors Conference in Murrieta, California, attending pastors were each given gift bags that contained an assortment of books, teaching CDs, and other items. At least some of the bags contained a copy of a book written by David Timms, a professor at Hope International University who puts an emphasis on spiritual formation and teaches a course in lectio divina.1 Timms' book, titled Living the Lord's Prayer, is one that strongly promotes contemplative spirituality and includes favorable mention of the use of mantras as well as reference to panentheistic mystic Thomas Merton.

The publisher of the book, Bethany House Publishers, says Living the Lord's Prayer "examines the Lord's prayer as a simple but profound framework for the journey toward Christian maturity" (copyright page). This "maturity" is described in the introduction of the book (titled "The Lord's Prayer and Spiritual Formation") as spiritual formation. Rick Warren recognized this connection between "maturity" and "spiritual formation" in his own book, The Purpose Driven Church, when he stated that the "Spiritual Formation Movement" (ala Richard Foster and Dallas Willard) would develop "believers to full maturity" through "spiritual disciplines" (p. 126).

When contemplative teachers say "maturity," they mean that Christians who want to go deeper with God or develop more intimacy must implement the practice of contemplative prayer (i.e., they must go into the silence where all distractions are removed and where they can hear the voice of God). Thus, the prerequisite for "maturity" is not merely being born-again and having Christ in us (Colossians 1:27) as our Lord and Savior but is more so putting aside doctrines, as Thomas Merton encouraged (see note below) and entering the mystical realm through contemplative prayer practices. Ray Yungen offers some interesting insights:

In a booklet put out by Saddleback Church on spiritual maturity, the following quote by Henri Nouwen is listed:

Solitude begins with a time and place for God, and Him alone. If we really believe not only that God exists, but that He is actively present in our lives--healing, teaching, and guiding--we need to set aside a time and space to give Him our undivided attention.

2. When we understand what Nouwen really means by "time and space" given to God we can also see the emptiness and deception of his spirituality. In his recent biography of Nouwen, God's Beloved, Michael O' Laughlin says:

Some new elements began to emerge in Nouwen's thinking when he discovered Thomas Merton. Merton opened up for Henri an enticing vista of the world of contemplation and a way of seeing not only God but also the world through new eyes.... If ever there was a time when Henri Nouwen wished to enter the realm of the spiritual masters or dedicate himself to a higher spiritual path, it was when he fell under the spell of Cistercian monasticism and the writings of Thomas Merton.3 (from A Time of Departing, pp. 192-193)

[b][color=990000]In the book by David Timms that was passed out to Calvary Chapel pastors, Timms is not shy about showing his unsurpassing admiration for such mystics and their spirituality. Of Thomas Merton, he fondly identifies Merton as "one of the most influential Roman Catholic authors of the twentieth century" and "an acclaimed spiritual author" (p. 225). Timms uses Merton and Henri Nouwen as examples of those who helped others develop "intimacy" with God through their writings (p. 18). "If we summarize these saints of the past [Merton and Nouwen], we develop quite a catalog of pathways [to intimacy with God]," Timms states. "We draw nearer to God through: ... Spiritual disciplines of silence ... Meditative prayer" (p. 18). In a section Timms titles "A Mantra," he encourages the use of a "repeated word or phrase." He footnotes this section, saying:

Many people associate the term with Hinduism or New Age practices. However, the idea of a repeated word or phrase has a long and meaningful history in the church. For a helpful discussion, see John Main (Word into Silence). (p. 226)
John Main (a Catholic mystic) is most known for the "way of the mantra." Richard Foster recognized the eastern influence of Main's spirituality when he said: "Dom John Main understood well the value of both silence and solitude ... Main rediscovered meditation while living in the Far East." (Spiritual Classics, p. 155). India-raised Caryl Matrisciana, in her compelling book Out of India, says this of John Main:

Main "rediscovered meditation" from his Hindu guru, Swami Satyananda from whom he "recognized the practice of the mantra" and came to use it in prayer sessions three times a day. Main died in 1982, but he left a "legacy" known as the way of the mantra, and many have been influenced by his beliefs (OIA, p. 177)

For David Timms to recommend readers to turn to John Main can leave no doubt as to Timms' conviction that mantra-style meditation is a legitimate form of prayer for the Christian. Even emerging church leader Tony Jones, on page 215 of his book The Sacred Way makes the unmistakably clear statement that "Benedictine monk John Main combined Christian teaching with Hindu meditation to form a mantra-type meditation."

Timm's book is filled with many other references to those who promote this type of spirituality: St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila (see Castles in the Sand for information on Teresa of Avila), Madame Jeanne Guyon, Bernard of Clairvaux, Julian of Norwich, Catherine of Sienna, David Benner (author of Sacred Companions), Parker Palmer, and Dallas Willard.

There may be some reading this article who do not understand the true nature of mantra meditation and why it isn't compatible with biblical Christianity. The following quotes will clarify the dynamics behind mantra usage:
"When one enters the deeper layers of contemplative prayer one sooner or later experiences the void, the emptiness, the nothingness ... the profound mystical silence ... an absence of thought."--William Johnson (Letters to Contemplatives, p. 7)

"[S]ilence, appropriate body posture and, above all, emptying the mind through repetition of prayer--have been the practices of mystics in all the great world religions. And they form the basis on which most modern spiritual directors guide those who want to draw closer to God."--Newsweek ("Talking to God" 1/6/92)

"A form of Christian meditation [contemplative], its practitioners are trained to focus on an inner symbol that quiets the mind.... When practitioners become skilled at this method of meditation, they undergo a deep trance state similar to auto-hypnosis."--Jacquelyn Small (Awakening in Time, p. 261)

"[T]he first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer..... [C]ontemplative spirituality tends to emphasize the need for a change in consciousness ... we must come to see reality differently.... Choose a single, sacred word ... repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly, and often."--Brennan Manning (Signature of Jesus, pp. 212, 216, 218) (quotes from A Time of Departing)
This is the spirituality of which David Timms resonates with. For Calvary Chapel to hand Living the Lord's Prayer out in pastors' gift bags is an indication that the Calvary Chapel organization is being impacted by proponents of contemplative spirituality, as are most other evangelical denominations and organizations today. Calvary Chapel Distribution (the resource arm of Calvary Chapel) added Living the Lord's Prayer to their store website in March of 2009 and is currently selling the book to Calvary Chapel pastors and leaders. 1

What will happen to the Christian of the future if this move toward the mystical continues? Will Karl Rahner be right when he says the Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will be nothing at all? Ray Yungen expresses his concern for the Christian of the future:

Evangelical Christianity is now being invited, perhaps even catapulted into seeing God with these new eyes of contemplative prayer. And so the question must be asked, is Thomas Merton's silence, Henri Nouwen's space, and Richard Foster's contemplative prayer the way in which we can know and be close to God? Or is this actually a spiritual belief system that is contrary to the true message that the Bible so absolutely defines--that there is only one way to God and that is through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice on the Cross obtained our full salvation?[/color][/b]

If indeed my concerns for the future actually come to fruition, then we will truly enter a time of departing....

[However] there is hope for the Christian of the future. In Christ, we do have a sure hope, and we have His promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not prevail against us. Yes, there will be a time of departing as the Bible predicts, and we can be sure an apostate church will help usher in the "man of sin" at the appointed time, but there will also be the Bride who makes herself ready for the Lord's return.(ATOD, p. 193)
While many pastors, like Calvary Chapel's Chuck and Paul Smith, have tried to stand against the new mystical spirituality, a new generation of pastors are having a major influence and taking many Christians right into the contemplative camp. These younger pastors have often been trained at contemplative/emerging-promoting colleges (ones like Biola University and Wheaton College) and have come to believe that their ancient/future way of spirituality is the right path to follow. And often, because many of the evangelical churches' more established pastors have not maintained a steady habit of learning about, warning against, and standing against spiritual deception, they don't even recognize what the newer trained pastors are presenting to the body of Christ.

The Bible tells us not to be ignorant of the devices of the devil (II Corinthians 2:11). While no believer wants to have to think about such devices, we are instructed to understand them, identify them, and warn about them. A case in point, the fact that Rick Warren is rarely criticized or challenged by mainstream Christian leaders, and yet is one of the biggest and most influential advocates of contemplative emerging spirituality, speaks volumes to the condition of most Christian leaders and pastors today. Thomas Merton would be rejoicing today to know that David Timms book is being offered to Calvary Chapel pastors. But remember what that same Thomas Merton said about contemplative experiences: "Isn't it a pity that people are going into LSD to have spiritual experiences, when we have a tradition in the Church [contemplative prayer] which no one knows anything about?"4 Merton was likening the contemplative experience to a drug trip. He further indicates the culmination of practicing this altered state of consciousness (which makes one feel one with the universe, one with God, in short a part of God Himself) when he states:
It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race ... now I realize what we all are.... If only they [people] could all see themselves as they really are ... I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other.... At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth.... This little point ... is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody.5
Is this really the message that Christian pastors want to convey to their congregations?

Notes:
2. Henri Nouwen, cited in Saddleback training book, Soul Construction: SolitudeTool (Lake Forest, CA: Saddleback Church, 2003), p. 12.
3. Michael O' Laughlin, God's Beloved (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), p. 178.
4. Click here for source to Merton quote.
5. Taken from chapter 3 A Time of Departing, quoting Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Publishers, 1989), pp. 157-158.

[b]Note on Merton and doctrine: Ray Yungen documents correspondence Merton had with a Sufi master. The two were discussing fana (eastern mysticism). Merton asked the Sufi leader what the Muslim view of salvation was. The Sufi answered that Islam "does not subscribe to the doctrine of atonement or the theory of redemption." Merton replied:

"Personally, in matters where dogmatic beliefs [doctrines] differ, I think that controversy is of little value because it takes us away from the spiritual realities into the realm of words and ideas ... in words there are apt to be infinite complexities and subtleties which are beyond resolution.... But much more important is the sharing of the experience of divine light, ... It is here that the area of fruitful dialogue exists between Christianity and Islam." (Rob Baker and Gray Henry, Editors, Merton and Sufism (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 1999), p. 110.

Those who study contemplative spirituality from a critical point of view come to understand this is pure contemplative spirituality - doctrine stands in the way of unity and oneness; mysticism eradicates that problem. (from A Time of Departing, 2nd ed. pp. 59-60.)[/b]

[url=http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/]Lighthouse Trails Research[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 131 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate