Friday, July 27, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
What Really Unites Southern Baptists
I haven't been able to post recently because of the issues that go with the selling of a house and because of a recent death in the family.
I have been hearing more and more from the liberals in the convention that what unites us is simply a belief in Jesus Christ and all other issues should be looked over as unimportant and irrelevant. Wade Burleson suggests that the gospel message is being lost in all the debate between conservatives and liberals. And of course it is the conservatives fault for standing against them.
According to liberals somehow focusing on important details such as the inerrancy of scripture, whether or not Jesus is the only way, and if we can determine the authors intent behind scripture is just not all that important. And if we all use the same terminology with regards to the gospel then we should all just get along. What liberals like Wade fail to understand is that the gospel is the whole Bible. And the Bible as a whole represents who God is. They also fail to acknowledge that our cooperation effects more than just the great commission. The battle that occurred in the 70's through the 90"s was a result of Seminaries that were being lead by men who gave doubt and credibility to the authority of scripture. Our cooperation effects much more than telling people about Jesus it also effects every organization that is tied to and supported by the SBC.
It is untrue that the churches that make up the convention are a loose nit group and it is also untrue that so little is effected by the doctrines we hold to. Any suggestion that we are becoming a hierarchy because of doctrinal accountability is based on the notion that one must be part of the conventional leadership. After all this is where the accountability is being asserted. Every church is autonomous and should be. But when men of the convention become leaders at the associational, state, and national levels doctrinal accountability is voted on and required. Liberals do not like accountability not on our public schools, our government, our Seminaries, or in our conventional leadership.
What really unites the SBC is the mission, doctrines, and accountability that is voted on by the majority. That is our system. I am much like Wade Burleson in that I do not understand some things. One of them is, why would anyone be apart of a system that they do not want to adhere to? Just what is behind the refusal to acknowledge that these decisions the liberals do not like come from the majority vote? If they want a broad definition of terms and doctrines then maybe they should associate with the CBF. I am Sure they will not have a problem with their concerns.
In the end the claims of any transitioning to a hierarchy are baseless. What unites us is what we agree on. And if you do not like the accountability then maybe you should stay out of the conventional leadership. Diversity is not a biblical precept. When we look at John 17 we see that Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one. In acts we see that the Holy Ghost moved as the saints were all in one accord. Diversity and doctrinal differences divide and create schisms. The liberals may not like that the convention stands on the inerrancy of scripture and that we can know the authors intent but anything less is to allow every wind of doctrine. What unites is what we agree on not what we divide over.
I have been hearing more and more from the liberals in the convention that what unites us is simply a belief in Jesus Christ and all other issues should be looked over as unimportant and irrelevant. Wade Burleson suggests that the gospel message is being lost in all the debate between conservatives and liberals. And of course it is the conservatives fault for standing against them.
According to liberals somehow focusing on important details such as the inerrancy of scripture, whether or not Jesus is the only way, and if we can determine the authors intent behind scripture is just not all that important. And if we all use the same terminology with regards to the gospel then we should all just get along. What liberals like Wade fail to understand is that the gospel is the whole Bible. And the Bible as a whole represents who God is. They also fail to acknowledge that our cooperation effects more than just the great commission. The battle that occurred in the 70's through the 90"s was a result of Seminaries that were being lead by men who gave doubt and credibility to the authority of scripture. Our cooperation effects much more than telling people about Jesus it also effects every organization that is tied to and supported by the SBC.
It is untrue that the churches that make up the convention are a loose nit group and it is also untrue that so little is effected by the doctrines we hold to. Any suggestion that we are becoming a hierarchy because of doctrinal accountability is based on the notion that one must be part of the conventional leadership. After all this is where the accountability is being asserted. Every church is autonomous and should be. But when men of the convention become leaders at the associational, state, and national levels doctrinal accountability is voted on and required. Liberals do not like accountability not on our public schools, our government, our Seminaries, or in our conventional leadership.
What really unites the SBC is the mission, doctrines, and accountability that is voted on by the majority. That is our system. I am much like Wade Burleson in that I do not understand some things. One of them is, why would anyone be apart of a system that they do not want to adhere to? Just what is behind the refusal to acknowledge that these decisions the liberals do not like come from the majority vote? If they want a broad definition of terms and doctrines then maybe they should associate with the CBF. I am Sure they will not have a problem with their concerns.
In the end the claims of any transitioning to a hierarchy are baseless. What unites us is what we agree on. And if you do not like the accountability then maybe you should stay out of the conventional leadership. Diversity is not a biblical precept. When we look at John 17 we see that Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one. In acts we see that the Holy Ghost moved as the saints were all in one accord. Diversity and doctrinal differences divide and create schisms. The liberals may not like that the convention stands on the inerrancy of scripture and that we can know the authors intent but anything less is to allow every wind of doctrine. What unites is what we agree on not what we divide over.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Are we really heading for a battle in the convention?
"And you know what? It's working - because this Emergent leaven is everywhere in Southern Baptist life today and almost no one in SBC leadership and authority that I know of is resisting it - at least not publicly.
In fact, by and large, today's church welcomes it and celebrates it because it puts butts in the seats and makes participants feel culturally relevant, spiritually savvy and tingly all over - today's measure of success." Paul Proctor
Why does the SBC so readily accept a movement that is so clearly unbiblical? The Emerging Church Movement is being accepted by many and ignored by many others. What I see happening in many churches today is while they may not accept the movement as a whole they certainly accept the heart of it. Why do we fail to be watchful over the purity of the church? The truth is we quit being concerned with the purity of the church many moons ago. We have found a measure for what is a living church that has allowed leaven in our doors. The measure is warm bottoms in cold pews. Thats it!
However, what we end up with is warm bottoms filling cold pews attached to cold hearts. This "whatever it takes to get them in the door" mentality has driven the church to ungodly compromise. We will lure the world into the church with worldly measures and then expect them to want to stay because of biblical principles. The EC takes it one step farther and lures them in the "church" (I use that word loosely with them) and intends to keep them by worldly measures. The average church, though it may not accept the EC as a whole, has taken on some aspects of the movement.
They set aside any amount of modest and reverent dress standards to make people feel at home. I have news for them. We are not at home at church. We come to church to give God our sacrifice of worship. We come to church to focus on God not on how comfortable we are. Worship of God is not an experience for us. It is about giving ourselves to God without expectation of receiving anything in return. When we expect to get then worship has turned away from God and now turned toward ourselves. We cannot truly worship and expect to receive something for ourselves. Worship isn't about getting, its' about giving.
Much of the logic behind such ideas are based on the notion that if we get them in the doors they can now be convicted and receive Jesus. This idea is flawed. I am not saying it is always wrong but it fails to consider a couple of things. First, when we look at the rich young ruler what we see is that he believed in God and wanted salvation. The element missing in his heart was that he was unwilling to submit to God. In stark contrast to him was Zacheus. I find it interesting that he immediately had a heart for reconciliation and benevolence. He didn't need to sit through a training class, he just had a heart for it. Because he was willing to submit to God.
Many men believe in Christ, many men want salvation, but the same men refuse to submit to God. And while belief and desire is in their heart they will spend eternity separated form God because they refuse to submit. Many preachers have the idea that those in hell will be tortured by sorrow and regret in eternal flames. But Scripture doesn't bear this out. The word of God says their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The gnashing doesn't indicate pain and suffering from flames, but it indicates anger. Fist in your face anger. It indicates a rebellious man shaking his fist at God saying "Who are you to put me here! Just who do you think you are to punish me!". What is worse than sorrow and regret is to be turned over to your own sinful nature separated from God. That is a most dreadful hell.
Many people in this world want salvation, and believe in God but want to come to God on their own terms. And this is the heart of the EC movement. Coming to God on mans own terms. And the average church is saying to a lost world who wants that very thing "Come on in, we will facilitate your rebellion!". Zacheus was willing to come to God on God's terms. The rich young ruler wasn't.
This accepted rebellion in the church is based on a false measure of a living church. In the SBC we count baptisms. When baptisms are nill we are willing to question the viability of the church. But so long as the numbers are up then it must be reaching people for Christ. It mus be being blessed by God. God must be moving. To quote Dr. David Allen "Heaven help us to know the difference between a crowd and a church!". The average church today is building up crowds but failing to make any attempt to build the church. We fill our churches with many rich young rulers. Along the way we pick up a few Zacheus' but in the process we have corrupted the church. We discuss issues within the church such as the divorce rate which matches that of the world. The truth is we have let the world into the church and thedivorce rate figure belongs to the crowd we have let in and not the actual God fearing church members. Just because someone says they are a "Christian" doesn't make it so.
We have so much infighting over control of the church, carpet, paint, and many things not related directly to the worship of God. We laugh and joke about such incidents and claim it is just human nature. Well it isn't funny. And it isn't godly. And it isn't happening among true church members. It is only happening among the crowd in the church walls. The convention calls for one million to be saved and does well to count numbers. But where is the call for the purity of the church? Where is the call for God honoring and reverent worship? There is absolutely none. And the SBC should hang its head in shame.
So, just where is the EC taking the convention? It is taking it towards a crowd collecting mentality and away from a pure, reverent, God worshiping church. And so long as there are a remnant of preachers willing to say "This is wrong and does not honor God" there will be a battle. Which side will you be on? The crowds or the church?
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Word, the Spirit, and Regeneration
John 1:12,13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I have finally gotten around to reading "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. I am enjoying the book thoroughly. It is a very good read. As I have begun to read it I remembered that so many Christians often suggest this book to skeptics of Christianity. I have also heard from many folks that they need to check out the facts before they can believe. We as Christians work hard to provide evidence to skeptics. We work hard to "convince" others of who Christ is. We have scripture that tells us of the influence of the believing wife on the unbelieving husband. We know we are to be the light of the world.
In all of this I think we leave out a very important factor. Jesus told Peter that is was the Father who had revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact Jesus negated that "flesh and Blood" had anything to do with it. Peter understood that Jesus was the Messiah because God had revealed it to him.
All that Jesus did in His earthly ministry fulfilled scripture. There was nothing that he did that cannot be found in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Even when he cried out "E-li, E-li, La-ma Sa-bach-tha-ni! He fulfilled Psalm 22:1. When John the Baptist began to question Christ as being the Messiah, Jesus refered John to his miracles which were not as testament of themselves but that they fulfilled scripture which spoke of Him.
We can add up all the evidence we want to. But in the end the heart is not changed but by scripture and the Holy Ghost. Even then man has often set Jesus aside for their own purposes. The rich ruler believed in God and wanted salvation but we see it was not enough. For he was not willing to submit to God. And he walked away sorrowful. He walked away unsaved and un-regenerated for eternity. I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist. Some men claim such but everyone has the Holy Ghost pricking at their heart for some amount of time in their life. No one will be able to stand before God and say "I did not know about you". No one will have an excuse.
In this so called Postmodern era many who call themselves Christians have decided that it is necessary to set aside godly preaching in our churches so that the world may be won to Christ. They have decided that in order to reach the lost we need to wear jeans that are haggard and full of holes. In order to reach the lost we must dress like the lost and to hold to very loose standards of dress so that we do not deter them from coming to Christ. In Jesus day they would have said that Jesus was wrong to make the rich ruler give up his money. The real issue isn't the money or the immodest dress of the Genxers. The real issue is that we come to God on his terms and not set our own terms. The Emerging Church movement would have you to believe that we must relate to the lost via the subculture or they will not understand. It is not that they will not understand it is that they will not submit.
We need to be careful not to mix up terms here. Subculture is significantly different than culture. And not being able to understand is significantly different than not willing to submit. Culture and not being able to understand go hand in hand. As do subculture and not willing to submit. The church has no business adjusting to subcultures. And the notion that Genxers will not understand unless you do is a lie straight from the pit of hell.
People do not respond to God because of clothes or jewelry or subculture. They respond to God because the Holy Ghost has affirmed the Word of God in their hearts and they are willing to submit to Him. Whether conservative or liberal, traditional or Emerging, programs do not lead people to God.
And by the way, The church emerged 2000 years ago, it cannot emerge again.
Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
Jesus Christ the Messiah
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I have finally gotten around to reading "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. I am enjoying the book thoroughly. It is a very good read. As I have begun to read it I remembered that so many Christians often suggest this book to skeptics of Christianity. I have also heard from many folks that they need to check out the facts before they can believe. We as Christians work hard to provide evidence to skeptics. We work hard to "convince" others of who Christ is. We have scripture that tells us of the influence of the believing wife on the unbelieving husband. We know we are to be the light of the world.
In all of this I think we leave out a very important factor. Jesus told Peter that is was the Father who had revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact Jesus negated that "flesh and Blood" had anything to do with it. Peter understood that Jesus was the Messiah because God had revealed it to him.
All that Jesus did in His earthly ministry fulfilled scripture. There was nothing that he did that cannot be found in the prophecies of the Old Testament. Even when he cried out "E-li, E-li, La-ma Sa-bach-tha-ni! He fulfilled Psalm 22:1. When John the Baptist began to question Christ as being the Messiah, Jesus refered John to his miracles which were not as testament of themselves but that they fulfilled scripture which spoke of Him.
We can add up all the evidence we want to. But in the end the heart is not changed but by scripture and the Holy Ghost. Even then man has often set Jesus aside for their own purposes. The rich ruler believed in God and wanted salvation but we see it was not enough. For he was not willing to submit to God. And he walked away sorrowful. He walked away unsaved and un-regenerated for eternity. I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist. Some men claim such but everyone has the Holy Ghost pricking at their heart for some amount of time in their life. No one will be able to stand before God and say "I did not know about you". No one will have an excuse.
In this so called Postmodern era many who call themselves Christians have decided that it is necessary to set aside godly preaching in our churches so that the world may be won to Christ. They have decided that in order to reach the lost we need to wear jeans that are haggard and full of holes. In order to reach the lost we must dress like the lost and to hold to very loose standards of dress so that we do not deter them from coming to Christ. In Jesus day they would have said that Jesus was wrong to make the rich ruler give up his money. The real issue isn't the money or the immodest dress of the Genxers. The real issue is that we come to God on his terms and not set our own terms. The Emerging Church movement would have you to believe that we must relate to the lost via the subculture or they will not understand. It is not that they will not understand it is that they will not submit.
We need to be careful not to mix up terms here. Subculture is significantly different than culture. And not being able to understand is significantly different than not willing to submit. Culture and not being able to understand go hand in hand. As do subculture and not willing to submit. The church has no business adjusting to subcultures. And the notion that Genxers will not understand unless you do is a lie straight from the pit of hell.
People do not respond to God because of clothes or jewelry or subculture. They respond to God because the Holy Ghost has affirmed the Word of God in their hearts and they are willing to submit to Him. Whether conservative or liberal, traditional or Emerging, programs do not lead people to God.
And by the way, The church emerged 2000 years ago, it cannot emerge again.
Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
Jesus Christ the Messiah
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Are We A Denomination Or Are We A Convention?
Are We A Denomination Or Are We A Convention?
In his recent post Wade Burleson posed this very question. Let's take a look at the definitions he gave:
Webster's defines 'denomination' as "A religious organization uniting local congregations into a single body." Webster's defines 'convention' as "An assembly of delegates or messengers convened for some purpose."If you will look at these definitions carefully enough what you will find is that the SBC meets both definitions. The Convention is an assembly of delegates or messengers convened for some purpose. Since the SBC is a religious organization uniting local congregations into a single body it is also a definition. The characteristics that makes the convention fall into the definition of a denomination is essentially the Baptist Faith and Message and its mission. It does not matter if it is one point or 20. If we agree to fall under the same standard then we are a denomination. Of course this only gets called into questioned when the BF&M gets revised and there are some who disagree with the revisions. Most recently the liberals within the convention like Wade Burleson who disagree with a stance against the un-scriptual prayer language that is practiced under the guise of the Holy Ghost. And the current debate over womens roles in the colleges.
Is it the history of the convention that the only reason we have come together is to combine our efforts in missions? Has the convention always refused a standard other than supporting missions? It becomes difficult to defend such an idea since we have had a long standing BF&M which has been revised on several occasions. And if we were to actually take up such a notion it would present a serious problem. It would allow anyone to join the group or convention regardless of the doctrinal position they held. Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Church of God, Church of Christ, etc. We would then find ourselves supporting heresy and serious doctrinal mistakes. And we would find ourselves supporting many missions possibly with no biblical mandate. The harder part is making an attempt to support a limited BF&M. Because once you have supported the smallest of doctrinal accountability then you have just become a denomination.
Since we have all agreed to become a denomination then the question is just how much accountability should we have. And since avoiding the definition of a denomination is no longer in question then we can move away from frivolous debates over what is a denomination v. what is a convention. Since we fall under both definitions. We are a single body once we all hold to the same accountabilities. Should we all in the convention be held to the virgin birth? Should we all in the convention be held to the redemption of man only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ? It is apparent that we should. On both of these issues and many others.
The truth is it all comes to this one issue. What conservatives and liberals are willing to support. What we do find is that liberal Christians are more willing to support, indirectly, doctrines they may not hold to. Conservatives are not as likely to support those in activities that are contrary to any doctrines they hold to whether big or small. Liberals do not want to be held accountable to abstaining from misplaced roles of women, and unscriptual use of tongues. Conservatives struggle to come together and support those who participate in such activities. We will not work together with those who do such nonsense. It is apparent to me that many in the convention would be more comfortable following after the CBF.
More importantly the bigger issues that need to be resolved are again the issue of the inerrency of scripture, author intent, Pastoral authority, and absolute truth. These issues seem to be perpetuated right from the Emerging Church culture. I was very disappointed with Dr. Pages support of such nonsense.These are serious issues and we should not allow them, support them, nor should we stand silent when they are being presented as truth. And I most certainly would hate to see one dollar go toward the support of any missionary who would teach, practice, and defend such false teachings. We can be certain that Dr. Pages leadership toward such a liberal direction will fail to unite anyone but will create many more debates. Conservatives will never accept the Emerging Churches worship of subculture.
So to answer the question are we a denomination or a convention the answer is both.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
"There have appeared men in these later days who feel persecuted if they are not allowed to enter pulpits established to uphold a given set of principles, and there to overthrow the very doctrines the church is set to defend. Men who do not preach the accepted doctrines of the Baptists, have no right in Baptist pulpits, and it is no abridgement of their rights nor any persecution to keep them out. We are under no sort of obligations to furnish heretics with means to subvert the truth." (Ten Years in Texas, p 129)
J.B. Gambrell, the President of Mercer University from 1893 - 1896
I wanted to address the liberal agenda to change solid Baptist doctrine on issues such as women Pastors, speaking in tongues, inerrancy of scripture, and the Emerging Church culture. When I ran across this quote I found myself with a lack of words. I just could not have said it any better and in so few words. I would, however, add this:
2 Timothy 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry
Enough said.
J.B. Gambrell, the President of Mercer University from 1893 - 1896
I wanted to address the liberal agenda to change solid Baptist doctrine on issues such as women Pastors, speaking in tongues, inerrancy of scripture, and the Emerging Church culture. When I ran across this quote I found myself with a lack of words. I just could not have said it any better and in so few words. I would, however, add this:
2 Timothy 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry
Enough said.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
What direction is the new leadership taking the SBC ?
Quote from Dr. Frank Page
"I see many valuable contributions to the SBC coming from the Emergent Leaders Movement. I believe it is a positive thing to see a broader number of participants in our convention’s direction. I personally applaud this movement."
Dr. Frank Page was a bit of a surprise. Recently voted as the new President of the SBC he snuck up behind others who were to be nominated such as Dr. Johnny Hunt. There has been great concern that there has been a hold on the position by a select few. Dr. Page is a result of a rejection of this concern. While I think that the latter is most likely true I wonder what have we gotten ourselves into.
Regardless of Dr. Pages' history or background, conservative or liberal I have to say it has been made irrelevant by the latest quote in response to questions asked directly from Pastor Tad Thomas of Taylors first Baptist Church in Siloam Springs Arkansas.
Dr. Pages' unequivocal support for the Emerging Church Movement reveals an open acceptance to complete doctrinal heresy. Dr. Page is either knowingly in complete support of heresies in the EC or he is ignorant and has spoken out of this ignorance. Let's take a look at just what the EC is founded on.
Brian McLaren is the primary founder of the EC movement. And just as a note, "EC" refers to Emerging Church. The EC cannot be defined except to say it refuses definition as it claims to be ever growing. It has a need to pull away from Historic Christianity. The one main virtue of the EC is that it very definitive on not being definitive. Sounds like the phrase "Military Intelligence", kind of an oxymoron. While those in the EC will not be narrowed down to what they do hold to doctrinally, they will tell you what they do not hold to doctrinally.
In an interview with Brian Mclaren he denies a literal hell or that God pronounces "infinite judgment on finite beings because of finite sins". There is a trend today not to question the salvation of other people. However scripture teaches that we should always be aware of those who would teach heretical ideologies and that we can know them Matthew 7:20. The problem is when we deny the literal judgment of God we:
1. Distort His character
2. Call Him a liar
3. Deny the historical and Biblical teaching
4. Distort His Holiness
5. Refuse His standard
6. Down play mans' sin as an offense to God
7. Are arrogant in our sin
And here is the most important one of the list: 8. We make the cross and the foundation of our faith of no value! If there is no judgment, if there is no need for our propitiation, then we have no faith and Jesus is a liar. We cannot deny a need for repentance, confessing of sin, kneeling at the cross, the holy and righteous judgment of God and still be part of the true Christian community. Many of our statement of faiths do not reflect such doctrine as it is never discussed as an essential to the faith. But a literal judgment is a primary essential to the faith. Without it there is no need for the cross. Without it the suffering and shed blood of our Lord and Savior means absolutely nothing. I think we try to be to narrow on these essentials of the faith and fail to preach the need for a literal judgment and a literal hell. There is no room for disagreement on this issue. If you do not believe in a literal judgment of God you are looking out of your window at the kingdom of God not able to participate. The Kingdom of God is moving on and passing by and you can only watch as it does.
You will find yourself continuing your observation, even after your passing from this old world, much in the same way the rich man observed Lazarus in the midst of his torment crying out for but a drop of water to cool his tongue wishing he had thought otherwise and wanting his family to be warned of the pending and literal judgment. The road to eternal life is stained with the blood of Jesus Christ and you will receive more and more relief from the heat as you walk away from the flames of hell and toward the cross. And your journey to the cross must always be completed on your knees as you deliver your sin to the foot of it. It is there at the cross that we must walk away from that sin leaving it placed on our savior as he is willing to bear the blame and the separation for you. And as you kneel at the foot of the cross it is imperative that you allow the blood of Christ to wash you clean from all of your sin.
Brian McLaren wishes to diminish the true nature and offense our sin is to God. But sin is such an offense that it requires the shedding of blood, it requires the sufferings of our Savior, it requires eternal damnation in the flames of hell. We must not be afraid to speak of it nor should we allow anyone to to trivialize the nature of sin or the Holiness of God. When great men of God of the past preached the unadulterated gospel from churches and tents from Monday night to Sunday night, were they lying to us? I say they were not and it is time we had more preachers who will preach the impartial, and glorious gospel to sinners who desperately need to walk away from their sin and unbelief and escape the literal judgment of God.
When the President of our Convention Dr. Frank Page says that this movement is acceptable then he is also saying that what they teach is acceptable. And what they teach is that it is acceptable to deny a literal judgment then we are headed in the wrong and unscriptual direction and it is contrary to the essentials of the faith of Jesus Christ. When we allow for this kind of teaching in our convention then something must be done and a direction must be chosen.
When we accept the professional model of church rather than a Biblical model of church then we deny that Christ is the head of the church. All of the writings of McLaren that I have seen pronounce criticism and provide solutions none of which have any scriptural foundation and McLaren doesn't even try. Very seldom does he mention scripture as a way to move forward with his so called "post-modern' era. He doesn't even mention scripture to criticize essential doctrines of the faith. All his complaints and all his resolutions are tied up in a secular, humanistic attempt to minister to people void of any inclusion of scripture.
This professional model of church has been coming on for quite some time. Pastors are more worried about their salaries than what the call of God is. Churches are more able to accurately stand up and quote the constitution and by laws in the midst of controversy than they are able to quote the scriptures. The church in America has grown over all to be an apostate church following this professional business model of church polity. As was mentioned in another forum George Muller was a man that had true Biblical faith that has not been seen often enough since his time.
It is time the church in America denounces the EC, it is time the church in America stands against the heretical teaching of a denial of a literal judgment, and it is time the church in America puts down the professional model of church polity. Pastors we must give up our predetermined salaries and retirement packages as a means to determine God's call. We must stop giving into being run off from churches and follow Paul's model of staying in Ephesus. Churches we need to leave the constitution and by laws in the drawer and bring our Bibles to the business meetings. Churches we need to quit polling the congregation to determine the next pastor and get on our knees in prayer and fasting knowing that the Holy Ghost can determine that and make it abundantly clear to us. Churches we must be willing to say that what ever man God has chosen for us is the only standard that we accept even if it means he has one child instead of three. Even if it means he has only three teeth left in his head and is half bald. So long as he will stand at the sacred desk, open the Holy book and boldly pronounce the Word of God as God intended it, we should recognize him and call him as God guides us through the Holy Ghost. We have no business basing God's call on personal views of age, education, experience, or any other non-Biblical standard.
We need to give up this professional business model of church that says there is a "perfect fit" between a Pastor and a church. Nothing in scripture describes such a position. We need to give up this professional model of church that says the church needs to "heal" under an interim before calling the next permanent Pastor. Somebody please enlighten me where in scripture does it even elude to this? We need to forsake the notion that it is the church that runs the church and return to the Biblical standard that Christ runs the church and speaks to it through his messenger the Pastor. This professional model of church that has slipped into the Church of Christ has unashamedly kicked out the Holy Ghost from our sanctuaries and God has removed his candlestick from more churches in America than still rely on God.
Maybe there was a "good Ole Boy" mentality in the leadership of the convention. But with godly preaching such as this we are completely better off than accepting the heretical ideologies of the EC. And as Dr. Hunt has said we need more preachers to stand flat footed and proclaim the truth of the cross. We need more churches who will sing "Amazing grace How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me" instead of seven theologically inept words sung 11 times to invoke emotion rather than a higher view of God. The EC teaches that we deserve Gods' grace. The Bible shows us other wise. The EC is heretical and I wouldn't spit on it if it was on fire.
"If " this is where the SBC is going to continue to head then no thank you. I do not want it.
"I see many valuable contributions to the SBC coming from the Emergent Leaders Movement. I believe it is a positive thing to see a broader number of participants in our convention’s direction. I personally applaud this movement."
Dr. Frank Page was a bit of a surprise. Recently voted as the new President of the SBC he snuck up behind others who were to be nominated such as Dr. Johnny Hunt. There has been great concern that there has been a hold on the position by a select few. Dr. Page is a result of a rejection of this concern. While I think that the latter is most likely true I wonder what have we gotten ourselves into.
Regardless of Dr. Pages' history or background, conservative or liberal I have to say it has been made irrelevant by the latest quote in response to questions asked directly from Pastor Tad Thomas of Taylors first Baptist Church in Siloam Springs Arkansas.
Dr. Pages' unequivocal support for the Emerging Church Movement reveals an open acceptance to complete doctrinal heresy. Dr. Page is either knowingly in complete support of heresies in the EC or he is ignorant and has spoken out of this ignorance. Let's take a look at just what the EC is founded on.
The EC Denies A Literal Judgment of God
Brian McLaren is the primary founder of the EC movement. And just as a note, "EC" refers to Emerging Church. The EC cannot be defined except to say it refuses definition as it claims to be ever growing. It has a need to pull away from Historic Christianity. The one main virtue of the EC is that it very definitive on not being definitive. Sounds like the phrase "Military Intelligence", kind of an oxymoron. While those in the EC will not be narrowed down to what they do hold to doctrinally, they will tell you what they do not hold to doctrinally.
In an interview with Brian Mclaren he denies a literal hell or that God pronounces "infinite judgment on finite beings because of finite sins". There is a trend today not to question the salvation of other people. However scripture teaches that we should always be aware of those who would teach heretical ideologies and that we can know them Matthew 7:20. The problem is when we deny the literal judgment of God we:
1. Distort His character
2. Call Him a liar
3. Deny the historical and Biblical teaching
4. Distort His Holiness
5. Refuse His standard
6. Down play mans' sin as an offense to God
7. Are arrogant in our sin
And here is the most important one of the list: 8. We make the cross and the foundation of our faith of no value! If there is no judgment, if there is no need for our propitiation, then we have no faith and Jesus is a liar. We cannot deny a need for repentance, confessing of sin, kneeling at the cross, the holy and righteous judgment of God and still be part of the true Christian community. Many of our statement of faiths do not reflect such doctrine as it is never discussed as an essential to the faith. But a literal judgment is a primary essential to the faith. Without it there is no need for the cross. Without it the suffering and shed blood of our Lord and Savior means absolutely nothing. I think we try to be to narrow on these essentials of the faith and fail to preach the need for a literal judgment and a literal hell. There is no room for disagreement on this issue. If you do not believe in a literal judgment of God you are looking out of your window at the kingdom of God not able to participate. The Kingdom of God is moving on and passing by and you can only watch as it does.
You will find yourself continuing your observation, even after your passing from this old world, much in the same way the rich man observed Lazarus in the midst of his torment crying out for but a drop of water to cool his tongue wishing he had thought otherwise and wanting his family to be warned of the pending and literal judgment. The road to eternal life is stained with the blood of Jesus Christ and you will receive more and more relief from the heat as you walk away from the flames of hell and toward the cross. And your journey to the cross must always be completed on your knees as you deliver your sin to the foot of it. It is there at the cross that we must walk away from that sin leaving it placed on our savior as he is willing to bear the blame and the separation for you. And as you kneel at the foot of the cross it is imperative that you allow the blood of Christ to wash you clean from all of your sin.
Brian McLaren wishes to diminish the true nature and offense our sin is to God. But sin is such an offense that it requires the shedding of blood, it requires the sufferings of our Savior, it requires eternal damnation in the flames of hell. We must not be afraid to speak of it nor should we allow anyone to to trivialize the nature of sin or the Holiness of God. When great men of God of the past preached the unadulterated gospel from churches and tents from Monday night to Sunday night, were they lying to us? I say they were not and it is time we had more preachers who will preach the impartial, and glorious gospel to sinners who desperately need to walk away from their sin and unbelief and escape the literal judgment of God.
When the President of our Convention Dr. Frank Page says that this movement is acceptable then he is also saying that what they teach is acceptable. And what they teach is that it is acceptable to deny a literal judgment then we are headed in the wrong and unscriptual direction and it is contrary to the essentials of the faith of Jesus Christ. When we allow for this kind of teaching in our convention then something must be done and a direction must be chosen.
The EC Teaches A Professional Model of Church Polity
When we accept the professional model of church rather than a Biblical model of church then we deny that Christ is the head of the church. All of the writings of McLaren that I have seen pronounce criticism and provide solutions none of which have any scriptural foundation and McLaren doesn't even try. Very seldom does he mention scripture as a way to move forward with his so called "post-modern' era. He doesn't even mention scripture to criticize essential doctrines of the faith. All his complaints and all his resolutions are tied up in a secular, humanistic attempt to minister to people void of any inclusion of scripture.
This professional model of church has been coming on for quite some time. Pastors are more worried about their salaries than what the call of God is. Churches are more able to accurately stand up and quote the constitution and by laws in the midst of controversy than they are able to quote the scriptures. The church in America has grown over all to be an apostate church following this professional business model of church polity. As was mentioned in another forum George Muller was a man that had true Biblical faith that has not been seen often enough since his time.
It is time the church in America denounces the EC, it is time the church in America stands against the heretical teaching of a denial of a literal judgment, and it is time the church in America puts down the professional model of church polity. Pastors we must give up our predetermined salaries and retirement packages as a means to determine God's call. We must stop giving into being run off from churches and follow Paul's model of staying in Ephesus. Churches we need to leave the constitution and by laws in the drawer and bring our Bibles to the business meetings. Churches we need to quit polling the congregation to determine the next pastor and get on our knees in prayer and fasting knowing that the Holy Ghost can determine that and make it abundantly clear to us. Churches we must be willing to say that what ever man God has chosen for us is the only standard that we accept even if it means he has one child instead of three. Even if it means he has only three teeth left in his head and is half bald. So long as he will stand at the sacred desk, open the Holy book and boldly pronounce the Word of God as God intended it, we should recognize him and call him as God guides us through the Holy Ghost. We have no business basing God's call on personal views of age, education, experience, or any other non-Biblical standard.
We need to give up this professional business model of church that says there is a "perfect fit" between a Pastor and a church. Nothing in scripture describes such a position. We need to give up this professional model of church that says the church needs to "heal" under an interim before calling the next permanent Pastor. Somebody please enlighten me where in scripture does it even elude to this? We need to forsake the notion that it is the church that runs the church and return to the Biblical standard that Christ runs the church and speaks to it through his messenger the Pastor. This professional model of church that has slipped into the Church of Christ has unashamedly kicked out the Holy Ghost from our sanctuaries and God has removed his candlestick from more churches in America than still rely on God.
Maybe there was a "good Ole Boy" mentality in the leadership of the convention. But with godly preaching such as this we are completely better off than accepting the heretical ideologies of the EC. And as Dr. Hunt has said we need more preachers to stand flat footed and proclaim the truth of the cross. We need more churches who will sing "Amazing grace How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me" instead of seven theologically inept words sung 11 times to invoke emotion rather than a higher view of God. The EC teaches that we deserve Gods' grace. The Bible shows us other wise. The EC is heretical and I wouldn't spit on it if it was on fire.
"If " this is where the SBC is going to continue to head then no thank you. I do not want it.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Episcopal Leader Suggests Jesus Isn't Only Way to God
1 Timothy 4: 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
I. The Separation
The word depart in this verse means to "desist" or to "desert". It gives the idea of a soldier who has deserted from the military. Many people today who claim to be of the Christian faith are in fact departing from the very thing in which they claim to be a part of. Katherine Schori a pseudo-Bishop with the Episcopal church has told the people of the same that Jesus is the only way for Christians but not for others. This is a clear departure from the faith taught in the Word of God by everyone including Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by Me."
The assault on Christ is ever increasing and the departure from the faith is more clear. When you install a pseudo, female, homosexual supporting, apostate like Katherine Schori we should expect nothing more.
II. The Source
1 Timothy 4: 6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
If you are asking where does such teaching come from, Paul can help us out. He gave clear command not to be willing to set aside what we have been taught but to keep them in our remembrance. And he goes on to say that we are to avoid human sentiment as a source for defining doctrine. Pseudo-Bishop Katerhine Schori states " "to assume that God may not act in other ways is to put God in a very small box." This is the new buzz phrase in the liberal arena. I hear it most often used in the Emerging Church heresy. When we have "taken God out of the box" then what they are really saying is, that this view is to narrow and limits mans options. The "box" they are referring to is the clear and dogmatic lines of biblical doctrine that are not open for negotiation.
III. The Subjection
1 Timothy4: 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Those of us who will stand flat footed and unequivocally say that the way to God is narrow, precise and has clear and definite boundaries are under fire and have become a reproach in the eyes of those who are within the four walls of the Christian Evangelical church. Jesus told us that we would be hated for preaching in His name. We are called hateful, narrow, bigoted, and a plethora of other pejoratives. I consider it an honor to receive such condemnation for those who are condemned by God.
IV. The Solution
1 Timothy 4: 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. F6 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
We must be willing to be students of the Word of God. We must be willing to meditate on clear lines of Doctrine. We must be willing to stay in the doctrines of scripture and apply them to out lives. We must be willing to give our whole lives to scripture. We must be willing to be lead by biblical Holy Ghost preaching (Hebrews 13:17). We must be willing to "take heed unto ourselves" to give careful consideration of what we are hearing and learning and to not be lead by ungodly humans sentiment.
A. W. Tozer once wrote:
We have gotten accustomed to the blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine in churches and expect nothing better. From some previously unimpeachable sources are now coming vague statements consisting of a milky admixture of scripture, science, and human sentiment that is true to none of its ingredients because each works to cancel the others out.
Little by little Christians these days are being brainwashed. One evidence is that increasing numbers of them are becoming ashamed to be found unequivocally on the side of truth. They say they believe, but their beliefs have been so diluted as to be impossible of clear definition. Moral power has always accompanied definite beliefs. Great saints have always been dogmatic. We need a return to a gentle dogmatism that smiles while it stands stubborn and firm on the Word of God that lives and abides forever.
I. The Separation
The word depart in this verse means to "desist" or to "desert". It gives the idea of a soldier who has deserted from the military. Many people today who claim to be of the Christian faith are in fact departing from the very thing in which they claim to be a part of. Katherine Schori a pseudo-Bishop with the Episcopal church has told the people of the same that Jesus is the only way for Christians but not for others. This is a clear departure from the faith taught in the Word of God by everyone including Jesus Himself. In John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by Me."
The assault on Christ is ever increasing and the departure from the faith is more clear. When you install a pseudo, female, homosexual supporting, apostate like Katherine Schori we should expect nothing more.
II. The Source
1 Timothy 4: 6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
If you are asking where does such teaching come from, Paul can help us out. He gave clear command not to be willing to set aside what we have been taught but to keep them in our remembrance. And he goes on to say that we are to avoid human sentiment as a source for defining doctrine. Pseudo-Bishop Katerhine Schori states " "to assume that God may not act in other ways is to put God in a very small box." This is the new buzz phrase in the liberal arena. I hear it most often used in the Emerging Church heresy. When we have "taken God out of the box" then what they are really saying is, that this view is to narrow and limits mans options. The "box" they are referring to is the clear and dogmatic lines of biblical doctrine that are not open for negotiation.
III. The Subjection
1 Timothy4: 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Those of us who will stand flat footed and unequivocally say that the way to God is narrow, precise and has clear and definite boundaries are under fire and have become a reproach in the eyes of those who are within the four walls of the Christian Evangelical church. Jesus told us that we would be hated for preaching in His name. We are called hateful, narrow, bigoted, and a plethora of other pejoratives. I consider it an honor to receive such condemnation for those who are condemned by God.
IV. The Solution
1 Timothy 4: 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. F6 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
We must be willing to be students of the Word of God. We must be willing to meditate on clear lines of Doctrine. We must be willing to stay in the doctrines of scripture and apply them to out lives. We must be willing to give our whole lives to scripture. We must be willing to be lead by biblical Holy Ghost preaching (Hebrews 13:17). We must be willing to "take heed unto ourselves" to give careful consideration of what we are hearing and learning and to not be lead by ungodly humans sentiment.
A. W. Tozer once wrote:
We have gotten accustomed to the blurred puffs of gray fog that pass for doctrine in churches and expect nothing better. From some previously unimpeachable sources are now coming vague statements consisting of a milky admixture of scripture, science, and human sentiment that is true to none of its ingredients because each works to cancel the others out.
Little by little Christians these days are being brainwashed. One evidence is that increasing numbers of them are becoming ashamed to be found unequivocally on the side of truth. They say they believe, but their beliefs have been so diluted as to be impossible of clear definition. Moral power has always accompanied definite beliefs. Great saints have always been dogmatic. We need a return to a gentle dogmatism that smiles while it stands stubborn and firm on the Word of God that lives and abides forever.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
The Apostate Church
- 2Th 2:3
- Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
While the Emerging and Emergent church culture displays this rebellion against God in more blatant ways it also exists in conservative circles in more subtle ways. The attribution to this apostasy goes to the methodology of evangelism to include and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention. We train our laymen to deliver a gospel message in minutes, coerce the "new convert " to be at church Sunday morning, coerce them to walk the "sawdust trail", make a public confession and drive them to the baptistery only to admit them into the membership roles
of our churches without any concern to evidence of the Holy Ghost on their lives.
When the number of baptisms becomes the measure of a living church we have departed from sound doctrine, godly worship, and common sense. Mt 7:13 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: Large numbers both on the membership roles and in baptisms are not evidence of a living church. Many are called but few are chosen and when we look and see large numbers it can be a sign of an apostate church. For not may receive Jesus Christ. Many are more inclined to go through the broad way but attend church to feel good about their sin.
- Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Few people will come to God in Spirit and truth. When we cram the gospel into 10 minute presentations we fail to preach and acknowledge the true meaning of what life in the kingdom of God is. For it is a life that has a heart to serve Him day and night. The sinners prayer is not the agent of conversion, but the true agent of conversion is the Holy Ghost. We have been convinced that if we can get them to their knees then they must really want to be saved. I do not disagree with that. They must want to be saved. But the error comes in the lack of understanding by well intentioned Christians that wanting to be saved is not enough.
We have blamed the lack of conversion on the failures of the church. It is not true. For one who truly has a heart for God will respond to the call regardless of offenses and culture. And it is this very point that the EC fails to recognize. The agent for change and conversion is not the culture and lack of offenses but the agent of change is the call of God in heaven. Those who are going to respond to God in Spirit and in truth will do so even in the midst of adversity.
The good news is I have seen and am convinced that God continues to raise up godly, Holy Ghost filled preachers to preach the gospel as God intended it and to be the messenger and the warrior of God who will sound the clarion call and preach the Word just in the same way Paul charged Timothy to do, in season and out of season reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine. Let us pray for more warriors and Holy ghost preachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
