Non-examples of "Humility"

The emergent/emerging pupating church fancies itself as offering a "new kind" of "Christianity" that is more humble and charitable than the version of Christianity foisted on the unsuspecting world by those nasty fundamentalists and others who are actually so naive as to insist on minor things like sola scriptura. Watch this, and see for yourself who is being humble, and who is the epitome of hubris. (The comments at the post are especially eye-opening in this regard.)

The emergent/emerging pupating church likes to pretend that they're "engaging in conversation" (boy, what a hackneyed phrase that has become), but apparently that applies only if you're one of their sycophants. Otherwise, they're more interested in shouting you down, because (of course), you're hopelessly backwards and you don't really understand them anyways - after all, if you truly understood them, you'd agree with them, too. But, then, since you have negative things to say about them, you're just so mean and uncharitable (not merely "inaccurate," mind you, but downright "uncharitable" - which, as the moderator of the panel points out, is a value judgment - Exhibit #1 in the illustration of emergent/emerging pupating "tolerance" for differing views) and have therefore forfeited your right to speak up.

If the emergent/emerging pupating church is hosting a smørgåsbord where (hackneyed phrase alert) "nuanced views" are the norm and any religious belief is welcome (as long as it doesn't come from one of those hidebound Bible-thumpers), then, the emergent/emerging pupating church, like any good host, is making sure that they provide plenty of whine for their anything-goes-except-Scriptural-doctrine lovefest.

Emergent/emerging Pupating humility, anyone?

A Blast from CCM's Past

Not a popular message these days, especially amongst those who consider themselves "progressive" or "emerg***".

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. XXII - XXIV

XXII. Ques. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?

Ans. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.

XXIII. Ques. What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?

Ans. Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.


XXIV. Ques. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?

Ans. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us, by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. XIX - XXI

XIX. Ques. What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?

Ans. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for ever.

XX. Ques. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?

Ans. God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

XXI. Ques. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?

Ans. The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person for ever.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. XVI - XVIII

XVI. Ques. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?

Ans. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

XVII. Ques. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?

Ans. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

XVIII. Ques. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

Ans. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin, together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. XIII - XV

XII. Ques. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?

Ans. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

XIV. Ques. What is sin?

Ans. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

XV. Ques. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?

Ans. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created, was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. X - XII

X. Ques. How did God create man?

Ans. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

XI. Ques. What are God's works of providence?

Ans. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

XII. Ques. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?

Ans. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Ques. VII - IX

VII. Ques. What are the decrees of God?

Ans. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.

VIII. Ques. How doth God execute his decrees?

Ans. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

IX. Ques. What is the work of creation?

Ans. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q IV - VI

IV. Ques. What is God?

Ans. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

V. Ques. Are there more Gods than one?

Ans. There is but one only, the living and true God.

VI. Ques. How many persons are there in the Godhead?

Ans. There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q I - III

Something that I've thought about for some time and finally started doing was learning the Shorter Catechism. I've been taking them at the steady pace of three questions per week, and figured it was a good idea to review them here on the blog as well.

I. Ques. What is the chief end of man?

Ans. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

II. Ques. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

Ans. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

III. Ques. What do the Scriptures principally teach?

Ans. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Contentious and Angry Woman

Better to dwell in the wilderness,
Than with a contentious and angry woman.

Prov 21:19 (NKJV)

(Which no doubt provides insight as to Bill's preference for separate quarters....)

Well, That's Just So.....Unloving!

For the complete reference, check out the first video at Phil Johnson's blog. I'm glad that Doug Pagitt has not decided that being a fireman is his calling. Unfortunately, he considers himself a pastor, and that's a far greater tragedy than a fireman who is in dereliction of duty.

Same Old, Same Old

In reading various articles/books by and about the "emerging church," one thought in particular has struck me time and again; namely, ECers have a penchant for dividing up Scripture according to what is “red letter” and what is not. They’ll talk about the Word of God and profess to love it, but if you use the term “Scripture” instead of “Word of God,” they turn into stone and mumble something about Jesus being the Living Word of God – which is true, mind you, but then they use that as an excuse to denigrate all Scripture outside of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In their simplified form of higher criticism, they have forgotten (or ignored) that Jesus Himself stated quite emphatically, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:23-24)

This is precisely the MO of the "emerging church": posit a false dichotomy between Scripture and Jesus, then claim the moral high ground by presenting yourself as a "follower of Jesus" - the implication being that those who hold to sola scriptura are bible-olaters, followers of a dead letter, love Paul more than Jesus, etc., etc.

In reality, the "emerging church" crowd is nothing more than the heirs of the theological liberals of Spurgeon's and Machen's days - they even recycle the same old canards that were in circulation a hundred years ago. The "emerging church" thinks that they've arrived at a new methodology for reaching the "postmodern" generation, but all they're doing is feeding the age-old hatred that unregenerate man has for God's Word, the Scriptures.

Those Who Call Black White

Is this guy for real? How can he spout off such nonsense with a straight face and still call himself "Christian"?

Isa 5:20-22 (NKJV)

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!

I really don't know if his confusion is deliberate or incidental. Someone send him a dictionary, please. A decent book on church history and decent systematic theology wouldn't hurt, either - provided, of course, that he'd be humble (have enough humility - there's a word emergents like!) enough to actually listen and learn from someone outside his comfort zone.

Once again I reiterate my plea: I wish these guys would stop calling themselves Christian, and quit redefining terms to suit their own agenda.

Riddle Me This

Why is it that the secularists/humanists/liberals (take your pick) get their panties in a wad over the supposed intolerance of Christians, yet willingly turn a blind eye to the fanaticism of Islam?

Here's something to chew on, if you think that Christianity is so "dangerous" to society:

If the Muslim fanatics ever get their way and impose Sharia law where you live, you'll be wishing that it was the Christians who had the power instead.

Signs of the Times

I am in the midst of reading John MacArthur’s “The Truth War.” After having listened to two lectures from Dr. Riddlebarger’s series on eschatology and the Antichrist, the thought struck me: It appears that dispensationalists, in their haste to update their newspaper eschatologies to include the latest conjectures, have missed perhaps one of the most prominent signs of the end times: the widespread apostasy that threatens to engulf the church. If modernism is a disease, postmodernism is a cure that is worse than the disease itself, acting as a catalyst or accelerant to spread this apostasy to all corners of Christendom. No wonder Jesus remarked, “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?”

I just wish that McLaren and his lapdogs would have the guts to quit calling themselves “Christians” or “followers of Christ.” The “Christ” they follow is one of their own imaginations, which is idolatry, a violation of the first and second commandments:

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

But then again, the EMC’ers would no doubt argue that these are social constructs, and hence mere suggestions at best. I’m surprised McLaren hasn’t declared a five-year moratorium so he can figure out if the ten “suggestions” are really something that apply to the church as a whole, anyhow.

Speaking of suggestions, here’s mine:

Mr. McLaren, how about a five-year moratorium on your pretending to speak for Christianity? How about a five-year moratorium on opening your mouth and obfuscating what God has said in Scripture? (Honestly, you’d think that someone with degrees in English could express himself more lucidly than the tripe I read in Generous Orthodoxy and A New Kind of Christian.) How about a five-year moratorium on calling yourself “Christian/Christ-follower”?

You go cloister yourself somewhere and think about it. In the meanwhile, don’t call us – we’ll call you.

He, Being Dead, Yet Speaks

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

by Charles Haddon Spurgeon

1834-1892


An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him.

Then again, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers .., for the work of the ministry" (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? Ye are the salt" (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy---something the world will spit out not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22) He was in awful earnestness.

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear him say, "Run after these people Peter and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick Peter, we must get the people somehow." Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.

In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting but they did not pray, "Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are." If they ceased not from preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

The Ineffectiveness of Broken Record Persuasion

It never ceases to amaze me how continuationists seem to think that if they repeat their worn-out arguments often enough, or loud enough, they will somehow succeed in convincing others of the validity of their position. Maybe that will have an effect on some, but I dare say for the rest of us, particularly those who are ex-charismatics/Pentecostals, the Chinese water torture argumentation of “wear ’em down by endless repetition” just doesn’t fly.

Listen: We have been there, done that, got the t-shirt. We have been to the “miracle healing revivals,” seen the “Holy Ghost crusades,” and watched TBN. We have sent back our anointed prayer cloths, believing that we would receive. We have “prayed in tongues,” believing that we thereby had a devil-proof hotline to God that enabled us to touch the throne of God. We have assiduously avoided anything that would even remotely resemble a negative confession. We have spoken our dreams and refused to accept any fact that would be contrary to the fulfillment of our visions. We have done it all.

And it all failed.

It doesn’t work.

Why? Because it’s not Scriptural.

It’s bankrupt theology.

It’s the imaginations of man, and not the doctrine of Christ as revealed in Scripture.

Don’t start quoting Brother So-and-So, who had a revelation about this stuff. Don’t inform us how we just don’t understand because we’re quenching the Spirit, or are full of head knowledge rather than heart knowledge. Don’t tell us we’re “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” by insisting that what passes for modern-day “miracles” is fraudulent (at worst) or explainable by the workings of Divine providence (at best). For every anecdote that continuationists come up with about a friend’s cousin’s girlfriend whose aunt’s coworker received a miracle at some healing crusade, we can come up with ten real-life instances of people who weren’t healed or didn’t see their dream come true.

Stick to Scripture, if you really want to try and convince us. The thing is, Scripture doesn’t substantiate the claims of continuationists, hence the need to rely on anecdotes and other experiences to support their thesis.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith so succinctly states:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

The doctrine of continuing charismata is not “expressly set down in Scripture,” nor can it “by good and necessary consequence” be deduced from Scripture. Try as they might, continuationists are simply unable to meet these most basic of Scriptural standards.

Keeping the Sabbath

There was an interesting piece in the Opinion Journal (WSJ online) last Friday, discussing this very thing. The title of the piece is "The Decline of the Sabbath." The article is partly a review of A Day Apart by Christopher Ringwald.

A telling quote from the article: "Of all the gifts Jews gave the world, that of a weekly day of rest is certainly one to be cherished. And yet the Sabbath is now marked more by its neglect than its keeping." (emphasis mine).

Something to think about.

The Seed of the Church

Other bloggers have been bringing this up recently. In case you've not heard about it yet, it's quite an eye-opener. (Warning: graphic description.)

We know that God is sovereign, and trust that this atrocious event will somehow bring glory to His holy Name. Thank God we have His promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church!