The Evangelical Debate Society

2007-01-06T12:14:00.000-08:00

How Calvinism Relates to Evangelism and Apologetics

by Ed Enochs

The Evangelical Debate Society

"He who wins souls is wise."

~ Proverbs 11:30

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:16-25).

"The conversion of a sinner being not owing to a man's self determination, but to God's determination, and eternal election, which is absolute, and depending on the sovereign Will of God, and not on the free will of man; as is evident from what has been said : and it being very evident from the Scriptures, that the eternal election of saints to the faith and holiness, is also an election of them to eternal salvation; hence their appointment to salvation must also be absolute, and not depending on their contingent, self-determining will."

Jonathan Edwards

For the last 21 years I have been on an enthusiastic and insatiable quest, a rigorous quest for truth and the establishment of why Christianity is true and all other religious and ideological options are false in order to effectively and Biblical reach this lost and dying World with the Saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since repenting of my sins and receiving Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior on the University of Michigan Campus in Ann Arbor during the spring of 1986, I have had an all consuming desire to establish the best apologetical defense of Christianity to an unbelieving World.

For over two decades I have spent thousands of hours and a seemingly equal amount of dollars in taking classes in theology and apologetics at some of American Evangelicalism’s most prominent colleges and seminaries, with one goal in mind: Establishing why Christianity is true and other ideological and religious options are false.

As a teenager living in an East Coast college town, by God’s sovereign and unfathomable grace and gracious providential care, I had the unique privilege of being able to dialog with intellectual students from all over the world and having the million volume undergraduate library of the University of Michigan at my disposal to pour over innumerable books on philosophy, theology and history in an attempt to squelch my voracious appetite to know what is true and what is false.

Later, by God's mercy, as a student at the Moody Bible Institute, Biola University and the Master’s Seminary, I continued this pattern of rigorous study and have come to some conclusions about Apologetics that has taken two decades to develop and fine tune.

As many of you know, I am a committed Calvinist and have been for some time. Now, I am not a Calvinist for some parochial reason as though I want to be part of a fraternity of conservative Evangelicals who have decided that they alone are right and condescendingly look down their noses at anyone with less than a Calvinistic understanding of Christianity. I am a Calvinist simply because, after years of study, I believe the Calvinistic understanding of soteriology (doctrines of salvation) is consistent with the data we find in Holy Scripture.

In recent years, I have begun to see that there is a direct correlation between Soteriology and Epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and apologetics. In other words, I believe one cannot detach his or her understanding of salvation with their understanding of why Christianity is true. That is, if they want to remain faithful to the inspired details of Holy Scripture.

When we look at the Bible, Almighty God’s, exclusively infallible, inerrant, inspired and uniquely authoritative Word, we find that the Holy Scriptures teach that men and women, due to Original Sin, via the Fall of Adam, are born dead in trespasses and sin, spiritually blinded, enslaved to sin, under the power and sway of Satan and in this totally depraved state, we humans, according to the Bible, are rendered absolutely incapable of saving ourselves or cooperating with God’s sovereign grace in the obtainment of salvation.

Romans 3:10-12 says," As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

1 Cor 2:14 says, " The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 6:44, 64, 65, Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Yet there are some of you who do not believe...." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Ephesians 2:1-5 says, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins...Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath....But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.

The Bible teaches that Almighty God chooses an elect people unto Himself for the praise of His glory;

Thessalonians 1:4-5 says, " For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter says, "An apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect (chosen ones), strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

1 Pet 2:9 says," But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Ephesians 1:3-5 says, " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

The Bible teaches that it is Almighty God and God alone that opens a person's heart to believe the Gospel as the following verses richly illustrate:

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-20) is an illustration of God changing a man's free will. Saul had no choice in the matter of his salvation or his ministry. He was forcibly converted by God and made into God's apostle to the Gentiles.

Proverbs 21:1, The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Acts 13:48, When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Phil 2:12-13 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

The Bible explicitly teaches that it is God who calls a person to salvation and it is God who preserves a person in his or her faith unto the end.

John 10:27-29, My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

John 6:37-39, All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Matthew 18:12-14 What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.

Phil 1:6 , "Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

The Bible clearly teaches that men and women are born totally spiritually blind, dead in trespasses and sin, depraved and without the capability to apprehend the truth of the Gospel and come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ on their own accord. According to the Bible, humanity needs the sovereign grace of God to open dead men's eyes and to be drawn to the redeeming cross of Jesus Christ. Any Evangelistic and Apologetics approach or methodology that does not take into account the Biblical record of humanities ruined and totally depraved sinful state before God is less than adequate and more than unbiblical.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of good news, how abjectly sinful men, women, boys and girls can be freed from the abhorrent state of wretched depravity they find themselves by turning from their sins and responding to the grace of God that the Almighty bestows upon those He elects and calls to salvation.

The sovereignty of God and Biblical Evangelism and Apologetics go hand in hand. In order to do evangelism and defend the historic Christian faith Biblically, we must witness for Christ and defend the faith God's way and on God's terms as found in the Bible.

The diligent and honest student of Scripture will soon see that the Bible places a tremendous emphasis on God's sovereignty and election, these "Doctrines of Grace" must be fully appropriated into ones evangelistic and apologetical outreach.

The Scriptures clearly teach that Almighty God is calling an elect people unto Himself, let us go out into the harvest Field of this lost and dying postmodern world, enslaved to self worship and depravity with the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation.

If it so happens that you are a non Christian who has read this theological treatise, I would like to invite you to repent of your sins and come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, God of very God, Light of very Light, whom God the Father sent to die upon the cross and rise again from the dead. Repent (turn from your sins) today and believe in Jesus Christ and then you will be saved and escape from the wrath of God which is coming nearer than you think.

"For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Romans 10:13

2006-12-18T09:29:00.000-08:00

Crisis in the Episcopal Church

American Episcopalians Being Torn Apart Over Homosexual Issue

Episcopal parishes in Va. break away

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

FAIRFAX, Va. - Two of the most prominent and largest Episcopal parishes in Virginia voted overwhelmingly Sunday to leave The Episcopal Church and join fellow Anglican conservatives forming a rival denomination in the U.S.
;
Truro Church in Fairfax and The Falls Church in Falls Church plan to place themselves under the leadership of Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who has called the growing acceptance of gay relationships a "satanic attack" on the church.

Truro rector Martyn Minns was consecrated a bishop by the Church of Nigeria earlier this year to lead Akinola's Convocation of Anglicans in North America.
"This has been our spiritual home, so separating is very hard," Minns said at a news conference announcing the parishes' decision. "There's also the promise of a new day. A burden is being lifted. There are new possibilities breaking through."
Virginia Bishop Peter Lee, a centrist, had won praise even from his critics for his extensive outreach to all sides in the conflict. He said Sunday that the votes "had compromised these discussions and have created Nigerian congregations occupying Episcopal churches."

Four other small Virginia parishes have also left, six more voted to break away Sunday and two more will decide soon whether to follow suit, according to parish leaders.

None is as eminent as Truro and Falls Church, however. The parishes together claim more than 4,000 members, with roots they trace back to Colonial times.
A lengthy and expensive legal fight could erupt over the Truro and Falls Church properties, which are worth millions of dollars.

"We fully intend to assert the church's canonical and legal rights over these properties," Lee said in a news release, calling it a "sad day for the church." Losing all the conservative churches could cost the Virginia diocese around 10 percent of its 90,000 members.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. wing of the global Anglican Communion, has been under pressure from traditionalists at home and abroad since the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Under Anglican tradition, Akinola's move into Episcopal territory amounts to an invasion, since archbishops agree not to start churches outside the borders of their own region. Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will consult with her advisers on how the denomination should respond, said Bob Williams, the national Episcopal spokesman.

While theological conservatives are a minority within the 2.2 million-member U.S. denomination, their protests have had an impact.

Ninety percent of Falls Church parishioners and 92 percent of Truro members who cast ballots in the last week supported cutting ties with The Episcopal Church, parish leaders said.

"It was a very, very emotional time," said Jim Oakes, Truro's top lay leader, who supported the split. "In some ways it's like a death in the family."
Nationally, Episcopal researchers estimate that at least one-third of the nearly 115,000 people who left the denomination from 2003 to 2005 did so because of parish conflicts over Robinson.

Seven of the 100 U.S. Episcopal dioceses have threatened to break from the denomination, but have so far stayed put. The closest any have come to leaving was a vote earlier this month in the Diocese of San Joaquin, in Fresno, Calif., endorsing a first step toward seceding. But that diocese must take a second vote next year before they can formalize a split.

The feud has been far more damaging to the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

Most overseas Anglicans believe gay relationships violate Scripture and contend liberal interpretations of the Bible are far outside the bounds of mainstream Christian belief.

Struggling to hold the communion together, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, has said that the communion may have to create a two-tier system of membership, with branches that ordain partnered gays given a lesser status.

Akinola is among the conservatives who aren't waiting for a negotiated solution.
In a statement Friday, Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, said that the archbishop of Canterbury has not "indicated any support" for the mission.
___

The 2003 consecration of the openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire increased the concerns. At the request of the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Commission, ECUSA released To Set Our Hope on Christ on June 21, 2005, which explains "how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ."
The recent election of a woman as Presiding Bishop has been controversial within the church and the wider Anglican Communion. The ordination of women and of non-celibate homosexuals and the practice of blessing same-sex Holy Unions within many dioceses has caused criticism by conservatives within ECUSA and in the greater Anglican Communion. The American Anglican Council formed in 1996, and the Anglican Communion Network, formed in 2004, both resulted from concerns of conservative dioceses and parishes within the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Jefferts Schori voted to confirm Bishop Robinson and has allowed same-sex Holy Unions in her diocese of Nevada. Eight US bishops have rejected Jefferts Schori's authority and have requested alternative pastoral oversight; in one case, the convention of the diocese supports the bishop; the other seven have not yet considered it.

On December 2 2006 the Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin, one of the most conservative dioceses in the church, passed a series of resolutions which, if confirmed at the convention in 2007, set into motion withdrawal from the Episcopal Church and affiliation with another Anglican Church, "“The diocese shall be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury.” This was combined with a resolution which removed the present boundaries of the diocese, theoretically allowing it to absorb other dissident congregations in the United States. The small diocese has 48 parishes and 7,000 members but includes an active caucus which opposes secession

2006-12-15T11:10:00.000-08:00

The Dangers of the Emergent Church Movement

“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come.”

(2 Timothy 3:1)

Introduction: The Reality of False Teaching in the Last Days

Near the end of his earthly life and ministry, the Apostle Paul told his protégé Timothy that in the last days, before Jesus Christ’s return, “perilous times” would come. The Apostle Paul subsequently imparted to young Timothy what the characteristics of the end times would be. Paul said that in the last days,

“Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:3-5).

According to the New Testament, which is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative and self-authenticating Word of Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:18-21), another conclusive sign of the end times would be the increase and rampant proliferation of false doctrine in and outside of the Christian Church.

The Apostle Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.”

In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul wrote, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.”

In Acts 20, the Apostle Paul warned the Church at Ephesus ,

“That I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”

The Apostle Peter also warned of the rise of false teachers and false doctrine in the last days when he wrote,

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Our Lord Jesus Christ also warned us and gave us definitive signs of the end times and said that in the last days,

“Take heed that no one deceives you For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” (Matthew 24:34-5).

The false teaching that is so characteristic of the end times is the Apostle John warned us in 1 John 4:1,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Thus, we are commanded by God in the Holy Scriptures to be like the nobe Bereans of Acts 17:11, “to search the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so”

We are again, exhorted by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to “test all things and to hold fast to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

The Rise of the Emergent Church Movement

In our own day and age, at the advent of a New Millennium and the beginning of the 21st Century, false teaching and false teachers are abounding throughout the Christian Church. One such false teaching that is threatening to destroy the American Evangelical Church today, is what many are calling “The Emergent Church Movement” a pernicious and destructive heretical movement that is attempting to redefine historic New Testament Christianity.

The Emergent Church Movement and its leaders are attempting to create a new version of Christianity that is free of doctrinal and moral absolutes and
In our fast paced, technological and entertainment driven superficial Western culture where stylistic sound- bites and digitally enhanced imagery takes precedent over substance and clearly delineated thought, American Evangelicals often do not have time or conscience desire to soberly and critically analyze the secular and ecclesiastical framework in which we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).

Yet, make no mistake about it, there are currently ominously powerful sociological and ideological forces at work throughout Western Civilization that are working overtime to shape both the secular culture and Christian Church along postmodern lines and disseminate a secularist worldview that is bent on eviscerating the validity of the Church and is diametrically opposed to the historic Evangelical Christian faith and societal mission of world evangelization.

While most American Evangelicals are busy being lulled to sleep and unwittingly conformed into submission to secularist and Anti-Christian forces by ever improving technology and round the clock entertainment choices that communicate evil and abominable messages that are entirely antithetical to the teachings and Lordship of Jesus Christ, the devil is actively energizing the postmodern and secularist ideological forces to completely subjugate American civilization and suppress the mission of the Evangelical Church.

Bible believing Christians across America are now indulging themselves with the creature comforts of the world and are being lulled asleep by the call of the abjectly materialistic “American Dream” in pursuit of perpetual comfort and domestic ease through the quest for bigger and better material possessions.

The American Church has largely bought into the insidious lie that the essence of human existence is materialism and image and the most important goal in life is to acquire bigger and better things, be it, houses, cars, boats, vacation homes and a litany of other materialistic and entertainment driven venues.

We are told by secular forces that what matters most in life is to look good, to feel good and to live in optimum comfort for the indulgence of the self. American Evangelicals do not know they have actually bought into the philosophy of narcissism, an excessive preoccupation with self indulgence and one’s own personal importance, or with achieving one’s own chosen goals rather than bonding with others, or with associating only with others whom one chooses.

Like the fictious technological parasites known as the Borg, who incessantly and unquestionably assimilate all life-forms into their ominous robotic collective, made famous in the Star Trek: the Next Generation television series, American Evangelicals are being lulled asleep by postmodern relativism, narcissist and entertainment driven self- indulgence and are being unwittingly culturally assimilated and rendered absolutely irrelevant and ineffective agents of Gospel Change by the seductive sirens of secularism.

Contemporarily, many American Evangelicals have currently rejected the traditional Reformation emphasis on the centrality of the Bible, forensic justification and the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ and his Cross and in turn, have adopted grotesquely unbiblical patterns of belief and worship, as the mass Evangelical rush towards the Emergent and Liturgical Church movements conclusively demonstrate.

The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement according to a great article on the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia: within the American Christian Church that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture. While practices and even core doctrine vary, most emergents can be recognized by the following values:
· Missional living - Christians go out into the world to serve God rather than isolate themselves within communities of like-minded individuals.

· Narrative theology - Teaching focuses on narrative presentations of faith and the Bible rather than systematic theology or biblical reductionism

· Christ-likeness - While not neglecting the study of scripture or the love of the church, Christians focus their lives on the worship and emulation of the person of Jesus Christ

· Authenticity - People in the postmodern culture seek real and authentic experiences in preference over scripted or superficial experiences. Emerging churches strive to be relevant to today's culture and daily life, whether it be through worship or service opportunities. The core Christian message is unchanged but emerging churches attempt, as the church has throughout the centuries, to find ways to reach God's people where they are to hear God's message of unconditional love.

Emergent Christians are predominantly found in Western Europe, North America and the South Pacific. Some attend local independent churches that specifically identify themselves as being "emergent", while many others contribute to the conversation from within existing mainline denominations.

Another definition of the Emergent Church Movement is as follows,

Emerging Church groups have typically contained some or all of the following elements:
· Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films to liturgy, as well as more ancient customs. The goal in this area is generally to make the church more attractive to the unchurched.
· A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure.
· A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
· A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach.
· A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation
· A continual re-examination of theology.
· A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.
· A belief in the journey of faith, both as individual and community. Membership is often viewed as participation in the community of faith.

The Emergent Church movement has unwisely and unbiblically adopted the existential and ideological cultural hermeneutic of Postmodernism, the relativistic world-view that postulates that there are no ethical and propositional absolutes and seeks to deconstruct and overthrow traditional Western Christian doctrines and morals.

In the Emergent Church movement the doctrines of Historic Evangelical Christianity are unhealthy and unnecessary relics of a semi-modernist and medieval ethos that has been obliterated by postmodernist and postmodern influenced Biblical Scholarship such as the New Perspective and anti-traditional Evangelical theology proponents such as New Testament scholars as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn and NT Wright.

We are told by proponents of the Emergent Church movement that traditional Evangelical doctrine divides and that the contemporary Evangelical Christian Church movement within Western Civilization must immediately discard and instantaneously jettison the undue perceived dogmas of the Protestant Reformation and embrace traditionally divergent and diametrically opposed ecclesiastical movements such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy under the banner of one big relativistic conglomerate/ synthesis and smorgasbord of “Christian spirituality.”

We are told by the postmodern driven Emergent Church proponents that traditional Evangelical doctrine is divisive and dogmatic and hence must be avoided at all costs, to be replaced by a more tolerant and inclusive “Christian spirituality” that embraces all ecclesiastical traditions that have functioned historically under the umbrella of historic Christendom.

Essentially, the Emergent Church movement leaders and ethos are arguing that the Reformation was unnecessary and the quintessential doctrines of the Protestant Reformation such as the doctrine of the authority of the Bible alone and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is wrong, irrelevant and unnecessarily obstructionist towards the Emerging Church goal of uniting all professing Christians into one united church irrespective of heresy and unbiblical teaching and practices.

The Emergent Church movement is forcefully and openly proclaiming that the traditional doctrinal differences that have historically divided Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy are ill-founded and unnecessary. This is why many Evangelicals are now openly incorporating aspects of Roman Catholic spirituality and teaching into the spiritual disciplines and doctrinal instruction within their respective local churches. Since doctrine no longer matters to most contemporary Evangelicals and historic Reformation teaching is always anathema to many Evangelical Pastors, we are told we should openly embrace the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice into our fellowships.

We are also informed by many Emergent Church leaders that the traditional Evangelical opposition towards female pastors, elders and leadership in the local church are equally archaic and fallacious and that we must openly embrace the overt femmization of Christianity and allow women to lead men in the local Church despite the fact the Bible teaches that women are never to lead men in the context of the local church (1 Timothy 2).

Likewise, many within the Emergent Church movement are calling the Church to embrace homosexuality as viable lifestyle and similarly adopt pluralism, the acceptance of all religions and life-styles as being equally valid as being true.
However, despite this Postmodern and Emergent Church call to discard traditional and conservative Evangelical Doctrine and Practice, I believe this call towards complete assimilation into the postmodern ethos and the embracing of all varieties of spirituality and lifestyle expression is unwarranted and self-defeating since the Postmodern world-view is so easily demonstrated to be illogical and self-refuting.

Just as relativism can be demonstrated to be false and self-defeating based on the fact that this view in denying there are concrete and real absolutes at once, borrows from the traditional Christian absolutist world-view and deems the traditional Evangelical view to be wrong, all the while proclaiming there are no propositional truths, thus operating in a vicious and self-defeating circle of nonsensical language.

Despite the Postmodernist Emergent Church call to disregard and discard the traditional and conservative Evangelical-Protestant doctrinal positions that clearly divided Evangelicalism from divergent forms of Ecclesiastical spirituality, doctrine, practice and engagement with secular culture, Postmodernity and the Emerging Church is self-defeating and offers the Christian Church in Western Civilization absolutely no concrete reason why we should not abandon Christianity altogether.

In counter distinction to this ill-advised and destructive pathway charted out by many Postmodern and Emerging Evangelicals, there is a better and wiser course of action: embracing the doctrines of the Historic Evangelical Church for these teachings are founded on the authority of infallible Scripture and will never fade away.

American Evangelicals must stand for the authority of the Bible alone, and the essential teachings of the Christian faith that has made Conservative Evangelicalism what it is, the most powerful force of Biblical change on the face of the Earth.

American Evangelicals should not abandon the traditions of our Biblical Christianity, to do so would be to go against the clear authority of Holy Scripture and to effect mutiny against Almighty God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to be both Savior and Lord of the earth.

Every Evangelical believer and Pastor in America should be careful to avoid the teachings of the Emergent Church movement and stand fast to the Word of God and the essential teachings of the Evangelical Christian Faith

“The grass withers, the flower fades away, but the Word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 43:10).

References on the Emergent Church Movement
Burke, Spencer, et. al. "Our Response to Critics of Emergent" Emergent-US: The Blog, June 2, 2005; Gibbs, Eddie & Ryan Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Manuscript). Grand Rapids : Baker Books, 2005. Grenz, Stanley. A Primer On Postmodernism. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. Heaton, Terry. "10 Questions for Brian McLaren." [1] last accessed July 5, 2003. Ward, Peter. Liquid Church . Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. Jones, Andrew. "New Media Fluency." TallSkinnyKiwi.com: The Blog, April 15, 2005. O'Keefe, John. "The Postmodern Narrator" Eddie & Ryan Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Manuscript). Jones, Andrew. "Are We a Movement?" TallSkinnyKiwi.com: The Blog, June 8, 2005, quoting an email to Ryan Bolger, Ph.D. from Dr. Paul Pierson on behalf of Jones. Bainbridge, William S. The Sociology of Religious Movements. New York , NY : Routledge, 1997, 3. Jones, Andrew. "What is Emergent?" TallSkinnyKiwi.com: The Blog, January 4, 2005. Hunsberger, George R., and Craig Van Gelder. The Church between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America . Grand Rapids : Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996, 1. Guder, Missional Church , 89, quoting Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York : Harper & Row, 1967, 54. Clapp, Rodney. A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society. Downers Grove , Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1996, 75-83. Seay, Chris. "Is Pomo Nomo?" Christianity Today, February 20, 2003. Guder, Missional Church, 77-83. O'Keefe, John. "Quantum Servanthood: knowing how to lead in chaos" Kimball, Dan Emerging Worship (emergentYS: 2004). Tomlinson, Dave The Post-evangelical

2006-12-11T17:08:00.000-08:00

Learning to Avoid the Metrosexual Evangelical

When Being a Nice Guy in Women's Jeans is Not Enough

"...Earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints."

Jude 3

by Ed Enochs

Since becoming a Christian over twenty years ago, I have seen a lot of things come and go in the Evangelical Church here in Southern California. As a very young man, the thing we had to deal with in the late 1980's and early 1990's was the backlash against Evangelicalism due to the Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals that rocked America during that era. Almost every conversation I had with non Christians during that time period was directed back to the scandals of one too many big time electronic media pastors who gut busted fleecing their flocks or with one illicit affair or another.

Yet, as I recall that era of American Evangelicalism, things were much different back then, truth was truth and most conservative Evangelicals had a conception of what was true and what was unbiblical. We knew that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics were unbiblical and many of us attempted to demonstrate from the Bible that these things were so.

But we have reached darker times in American Evangelicalism...

In our postmodern day and age, things have changed big time. Very few Evangelicals know the essential truths of the Christian faith and almost no Christian will take a stand for the truth if it will make him or her unpopular.

In our pragmatic times, most Christians avoid controversy and confrontation as though it were worst than the AIDS virus. Most Christians I know these days have no convictions and tolerate the most wretched heresies and lifestyles to occur right under their noses. Most Christians I meet these days have very little doctrinal conviction and even less ability to defend their faith if they should encounter a false teaching.

As I survey the current milieu and culture of American Evangelicalism here in Southern California, I have seen many Evangelical Christians fall away into Eastern Orthodoxy and other false teachings because they were not grounded in the essential truths of the Christian faith and very few Christians around them would take a stand against these false teachings when it mattered.

Evangelical Churches and colleges are now moving away from Biblical verse by verse preaching to being proponents and Representatives of seeker sensitive, pragmatic and Emergent Church religion filled with sentimental falsehood. Formerly staunch Evangelical Churches and educational institutions have become bastions of Postmodern relativism where very few Christians know the truth let alone stand for the truth.

In Southern California Christianity today, the type of man that is admired is the nice likable guy, the metro-sexual Evangelical, the good guy with the frosted hair, tight black t shirt and the tight faded jeans who is whimsical conversationalist and attempts to tolerate every-ones beliefs and lifestyle irrespective of how contrary to the Bible those beliefs and practices are.

Today's Church is filled with what I would like to christen the "Metro-Sexual" Evangelical. This is the type of Evangelical male who places more emphasis on his personal grooming and appearance than what the Bible teaches. The Metro-Sexual Evangelical is the rock star wannabe, the smooth operator with all the lady friends who tolerates everything and anything in the Christian Church because he does not the know the first thing about what Biblical Christianity is.

The Metro-Sexual Evangelical has risen to popularity and prominence in most Evangelical churches and colleges in Southern California because a generation of American Evangelicals have become pragmatic compromisers and distanced themselves from any semblance of authentic Biblical Christianity.

The real man and woman of God who cares about what is happening with American Christianity will learn what the Bible teaches and what is authentic and historic Evangelicalism is and will avoid the "Metro-Sexual Evangelical" who is destroying the Church with his compromised lifestyle and lack of Biblical knowledge and discernment.

The question is, are there any Biblical men left in American Christianity?

The time has come to leave the women's jeans and Metro-Sexual Evangelical behind and return to the historic Evangelical Christian faith based on the authority of the Bible alone, that teaches that there is still truth and falsehood in the world today, that teaches that Evangelical doctrine matters, that teaches that Jesus Christ is still God the Son, that teaches that the Trinity is still true, that teaches that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of Almighty God, that teaches that men and women are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Evangelical man and woman of God, let's leave the Metro-Sexual Evangelical behind and take a stand for Jesus Christ in our generation. Let's know our God and know our Bibles and stand for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints even if its not the popular thing to do.

2006-12-05T14:22:00.000-08:00

What Is Calvinism?

by Benjamin B. Warfield

It is very odd how difficult it seems for some persons to understand just what Calvinism is. And yet the matter itself presents no difficulty whatever. It is capable of being put into a single sentence; and that, on level to every religious man's comprehension. For Calvinism is just religion in its purity. We have only, therefore, to conceive of religion in its purity, and that is Calvinism.

In what attitude of mind and heart does religion come most fully to its rights? Is it not in the attitude of prayer? When we kneel before God, not with the body merely, but with the mind and heart, we have assumed the attitude which above all others deserves the name of religious. And this religious attitude by way of eminence is obviously just the attitude of utter dependence and humble trust. He who comes to God in prayer, comes not in a spirit of self-assertion, but in a spirit of trustful dependence. No one ever addressed God in prayer thus: "0 God, thou knowest that I am the architect of my own fortunes and the determiner of my own destiny. Thou mayest indeed do something to help me in the securing of my purposes after I have determined upon them. But my heart is my own, and thou canst not intrude into it; my will is my own, and thou canst not bend it. When I wish thy aid, I will call on thee for it. Meanwhile, thou must await my pleasure." Men may reason somewhat like this; but that is not the way they pray. There did, indeed, once two men go up into the temple to pray. And one stood and prayed thus to himself (can it be that this "to himself" has a deeper significance than appears on the surface?), "God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest of men." While the other smote his breast, and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Even the former acknowledged a certain dependence on God; for he thanked God for his virtues. But we are not left in doubt in which one the religious mood was most purely exhibited. There is One who has told us that with clearness and emphasis.

All men assume the religious attitude, then, when they pray. But many men box up, as it were, this attitude in their prayer, and shutting it off from their lives with the Amen, rise from their knees to assume a totally different attitude, if not of heart, then at least of mind. They pray as if they were dependent on God's mercy alone; they reason -- perhaps they even live -- as if God, in some of his activities at least, were dependent on them. The Calvinist is the man who is determined to preserve the attitude he takes in prayer in all his thinking, in all his feeling, in all his doing. That is to say, he is the man who is determined that religion in its purity shall come to its full rights in his thinking, and feeling, and living. This is the ground of his special mode of thought, by reason of which he is called a Calvinist; and as well of his special mode of acting in the world, by reason of which he has become the greatest regenerating force in the world. Other men are Calvinists on their knees; the Calvinist is the man who is determined that his intellect, and heart, and will shall remain on their knees continually, and only from this attitude think, and feel, and act. Calvinism is, therefore, that type of thought in which there comes to its rights the truly religious attitude of utter dependence on God and humble trust in his mercy alone for salvation.

There are at bottom but two types of religious thought in the world -- if we may improperly use the term "religious" for both of them. There is the religion of faith; there is the "religion" of works. Calvinism is the pure embodiment of the former of these; what is known in Church History as Pelagianism is the pure embodiment of the latter of them. All other forms of "religious" teaching which have been known in Christendom are but unstable attempts at compromise between the two. At the opening of the fifth century, the two fundamental types came into direct conflict in remarkably pure form as embodied in the two persons of Augustine and Pelagius. Both were expending themselves in seeking to better the lives of men. But Pelagius in his exhortations threw men back on themselves; they were able, he declared, to do all that God demanded of them -- otherwise God would not have demanded it. Augustine on the contrary pointed them in their weakness to God; "He himself," he said, in his pregnant speech, "He himself is our power." The one is the "religion" of proud self-dependence; the other is the religion of dependence on God. The one is the "religion" of works; the other is the religion of faith. The one is not "religion" at all -- it is mere moralism; the other is all that is in the world that deserves to be called religion. Just in proportion as this attitude of faith is present in our thought, feeling, life, are we religious. When it becomes regnant in our thought, feeling, life, then are we truly religious. Calvinism is that type of thinking in which it has become regnant.

"There is a state of mind," says Professor William James in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience," known to religious men, but to no others, in which the will to assert ourselves and hold our own has been displaced by a willingness to close our mouths and be as nothing in the floods and waterspouts of God." He is describing what he looks upon as the truly religious mood as over against what he calls "mere moralism." "The moralist," he tells us, "must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense"; and things go well with him only when he can do so. The religious man, on the contrary, finds his consolation in his very powerlessness; his trust is not in himself, but in his God; and "the hour of his moral death turns into his spiritual birthday." The psychological analyst has caught the exact distinction between moralism and religion. It is the distinction between trust in ourselves and trust in God. And when trust in ourselves is driven entirely out, and trust in God comes in, in its purity, we have Calvinism. Under the name of religion at its height, what Professor James has really described is therefore just Calvinism.

We may take Professor James' testimony, therefore, as testimonty that religion at its height is just Calvinism. There are many forms of religious teaching in the world which are not Calvinism. Because, teaching even in religion often (ordinarily even) offers us only "broken lights." There is no true religion in the world, however, which is not Calvinistic, Calvinistic in its essence, Calvinistic in its implications. When these implications are soundly drawn out and stated, and the essence thus comes to its rights, we obtain just Calvinism. In proportion as we are religious, in that proportion, then, are we Calvinistic; and when religion comes fully to its rights in our thinking, and feeling, and doing, then shall we be truly Calvinistic. This is why those who have caught a glimpse of these things, love with passion what men call "Calvinism," sometimes with an air of contempt; and why they cling to it with enthusiasm. It is not merely the hope of true religion in the world: it is true religion in the world -- as far as true religion is in the world at all.

From Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970. originally from The Presbyterian, Mar. 2, 1904, pp. 6-7.

2006-12-04T15:39:00.000-08:00

Michigan Football, the BCS' Big Mistake and the Sovereignty of God

"...God works all things after the counsel of His will."

(Ephesians 1:11)

Yes, I am greatly disappointed that Michigan was left out of the BCS NCAA Football championship game. Yes, I believe that there should be a complete overhaul of the way the college game chooses its champions. I think there should be playoff format that allows the championship each year to be decided on the Field. I am disappointed that Michigan got left out of this years championship and the Florida got in instead. But in the end, Michigan ended up in this position because they did not take care of business on the Field. If Michigan beat Ohio State in its final game, it would not be left crying about being left out of the BCS game in Glendale Arizona. Ultimately God is sovereign and did not allow Michigan to be in the game for His own sovereign purposes. I'll let God be God and save my tears for something more important. I wish Michigan would have one, but they didn't, and I am OK with that within the overall scheme of God's sovereign control of the universe. Soon we will be either in heaven or hell for eternity, so we have more important things to be concerned about in the eternal perspective.

2006-12-04T13:13:00.000-08:00

Is Eastern Orthodoxy the One True Church?

A Letter to the Greek Orthodox Converts

by Ed Enochs

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."

(Romans 16:17).

I was recently forwarded an e-mail and subsequent attachment of an article on the subject of how the Eastern Orthodox are to view professing Christians outside of the Church by Peter Barnes entitled, "The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church."

I am well aware that my Eastern Orthodox opponents view me as a Fundamentalist extremist, filled with hatred and with little knowledge of what Eastern Orthodoxy really is. I have heard these criticisms over the years and regret some of the violent reaction I have had over the Eastern Orthodox issue at Biola and at my former church Calvary Chapel Saving Grace.

I personally want to apologize to my Eastern Orthodox opponents for my conduct at times. Like Martin Luther, my hero, I can often display obnoxious behavior and I readily admit this and ask your forgiveness. If I had to do it all over again, I would have taken more of a serious approach to this matter, instead of a tongue in cheek, Rush Limbaugh style. Having said this, I do not apologize or repent of the fact that I still believe with every fabric of my being that the Eastern Orthodox Church is unbiblical and is to be rejected as a viable ecclesiastical entity.

I actually want to thank my Eastern Orthodox opponents for helping me return to the Reformed Faith and for helping me leave the Calvary Chapel movement. I recently had a startling theological Epiphany, that has brought me to the conclusion that I have no business rebuffing the advance of Eastern Orthodoxy in Southern California if I attend and align myself with a Church that is semi Pelagian like the Calvary Chapel Movement.

I have known for a long time that I probably should not attend a Calvary Chapel and defend the Augustinian and Reformation- Calvinist soteriological position against Eastern Orthodoxy. I have attended a Calvary Chapel out of comfort and familiarity and not because of fidelity to the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.

I love the Calvary Chapel Movement with all of my heart, but I am a Calvinist and there is no room right now in the Calvary movement for Calvinism, so I have returned to the Reformed Faith.

So, I want to thank you Eastern Orthodox Converts from Biola and Calvary Chapel for forcing my hand, and compelling my conscience for me to align myself with the historic Reformed Faith.

But, for the present time, my beef is not with Calvary Chapel, but with this subject of the advancement and proliferation of Eastern Orthodoxy in certain segments of Evangelicalism here in Southern California.

While it is not a huge problem through the Evangelical Church here in the Southland, it has made enough converts from Calvary Chapel , the Vineyard, and Biola for some Evangelicals to take notice.

I am well aware that many of the Eastern Orthodox members in this area, regard us Evangelicals of incapable of understanding the true nature of what Eastern Orthodoxy is. I have often heard these types of slogans made to Evangelicals by the Eastern Orthodox, "You are from the West, you just don't understand the Eastern mindset" and, "The Eastern Orthodox Church has existed for 4,000 years, so we are the true Church."

In reviewing these criticisms leveled against Evangelicals made by Eastern Orthodox converts in the Southern California area, I want to remind these converts that Eastern Orthodoxy that they do find themselves in the West, yet Eastern Orthodoxy itself does not claim to be a Gnostic religion whose teachings are unobtainable to the non-initiated and enlightened. The issues that Eastern Orthodoxy brings to the table are pretty straight forward and clearly understandable.

Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the one true apostolic Church that Christ instituted. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims that it has existed unbroken for 4,000 years. Eastern Orthodoxy makes the claim that it is the Church that Christ vested His authority in. As I told an Eastern Orthodox friend recently,'

Time after time over the years in dealing with this Old World, Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition, I have heard adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy say without any shred of Biblical and exegetical evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “true church” since it was the original church founded by the Apostles. Earnest adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy often get worked up in making this point that since in their own minds, Eastern Orthodoxy has existed the longest and has directly descended from Christ and His Apostles

Ultimately this is a Chronological Fallacy in that you postulate that since your church has existed the longest (a point that I would argue against) this, then necessarily makes it the true church. This is reverse chronological snobbery in that you are arguing that any ecclesiastical entity of a more recent vintage is somehow inherently inferior to your romanticized understanding of the pristine origins of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholics and Mormons, it must be noted, make this same appeal to historical authenticity and succession in that Roman Catholicism and Mormonism both argue that they are the true church since they descend from Apostolic times (Romans Catholics say there has been unbroken apostolic authority vested in Papal succession and Mormons say they are the restored Church of Christ that fell away, but whose divinely mandated practices were those practiced by Christ and His Apostles). The point being, innumerable groups, sects and cults have made this same claim to apostolic succession and being the original church of Christ with dubious Biblical authenticity.

Mormons, Catholics and many other religious groups argue that they are the true and original church of Christ, adhering to the traditions of the Apostles. Yet mere antiquity of an organization and mere assertion does not necessitate the Biblical legitimacy and authenticity of ones religious truth claims.

The claims of Apostolic authority and unbroken succession made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox breaks down for example, in the case of Honorius I (died October 12, 638) was pope from 625 to 638.

Honorius in his lifetime favored the formula on the nature of Christ proposed by the emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Catholics, which bore that Christ had accomplished His work of redemption by one manifestation of his will as the God-man. For this he was, more than forty years after his death, anathematized by name along with the Monothelite heretics by the Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”. This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Baronius and Bellarmine, but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”

Pope Honorious’ Apostasy demonstrates that there was not an unbroken succession of truth in the Catholic Church of which the Eastern Orthodox existed in until 1054. How can I trust a church that had an apostate leader? Did apostolic succession stop with Honorious?

What matters is if ones claims to apostolic succession and overall ecclesiastical veracity can be proven from an infallible and unchanging authoritative source, namely the Bible which is the inspired and inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Following the line of argumentation made by Calvin, Luther and the other magisterial Reformers, the ultimate authority of a believer in Christ is not vested in the often contradictory teachings of ecclesiastical tradition and the writings of the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Patristic Fathers, but rather in the self authenticating nature and perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Ultimately a Christian’s authority comes from the Bible and the illuminating light of the Holy Spirit in understanding Scripture accurately and not in the fallible counsel of contradictory ecclesiastical tradition, irrespective of antiquity of these traditions.

I am well aware that the Eastern Orthodox Church argues for the seven ecumenical counsels and some canons of Church tradition as being on the same authoritative level as the Bible, yet it can be conclusively demonstrated that Church tradition and the Patristic Fathers often contradict each other and are by no means a sure source of legitimate apostolic authority and Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim of historical antiquity and apostolic succession does not preclude the possibility that the Orthodoxy has absorbed over the passage of time, unbiblical teachings and traditions that are in diametrical opposition to Biblical teaching.

Ultimately it comes down to this, Eastern Orthodoxy argues for the authoritative nature of extra Biblical Church tradition and Protestants believe that God has vested His authority in the Bible alone and has given us the ability to understand the Scriptures in the way He intended with the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26 and 1 Corinthians 2).

While it is true that there are many different Protestant Churches with differing theological perspectives, this does not preclude them from agreeing on the essentials of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity and Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Eastern Orthodoxy is old, this is a given, but I want to go back to an even older and sure guide of Biblical authority, namely the Bible itself, therein rests the Authority of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

The arguments made by the Greek Orthodox that is the true Church that has existed for thousands of years is unconvincing. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5-6), Eastern Orthodoxy denies this, thus, irrespective of its antiquity, it does not possess the Gospel of Christ and thus cannot be considered a true Church at all. Church tradition and longevity does not constitute Scriptural authenticity. Thus, for me, I will side with the Evangelicals and the Bible alone. Church tradition often contradicts itself and I need a more sure foundation to base my faith.

Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Lee Edward Enochs

2006-11-30T14:08:00.000-08:00

Pope Prays with Muslim Leader in Turkey

Sign of the end times and rise of a one world government? The Pope met and prayed with a top Muslim cleric in Turkey today. For the whole story please click on to:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/pope_turkey

2006-11-30T12:48:00.000-08:00

Rick Warren of SaddleBack Allows Pro-Abortion Democratic Senator to Speak at Church

WASHINGTON - Famed pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren on Wednesday defended his invitation to Sen. Barack Obama to speak at his church despite objections from some evangelicals who oppose the Democrat's support for abortion rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061130/ap_on_go_co/democrats_obama

2006-11-29T17:49:00.000-08:00

Evolution, a Bag of Doritos and the Existence of God

"On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God."

John Calvin Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 1.

"Without the God of the Bible, the God of authority,the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all."

Dr. Cornelius Van Til"Why I Believe in God"

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."(Romans 1:20)

I grew up in a university town where the the theory of evolution was the religion of the land and where Charles Darwin was the patron Saint of science and human progress. I was always taught that all biological life forms were on a journey and a process in which everything that lives gradually changes into a more complex and better form. I was taught that a change in the genetic composition of a biological species produces a higher and more complex life form though an infinite succession of generations via evolutionary natural selection. I always believed that until I went on this journey.

On the road to Utah, I inevitably had to pass through Vegas. Despite my certain predilection for losing money via the one armed bandit, I was in search for pristine shrimp tails and superior prime rib from Sin Cities multiplicity of all night buffets.

However, to my eternal chagrin, my car conked out square dab in the desert, several miles outside of Barstow near the base of the Soda Mountains.

Then, wiping some frenzied gnats from my face, out of the corner of my left eye I saw a rather decrepit and haggard looking coyote scurrying about and I kicked the dirt in disgruntled disdain as I contemplated making the heat drenched trek to the next semblance of civilization.

However, while standing around languishing in the arid desert, I had a momentary insight on the nature of reality and the existence of Almighty God.

A crumpled and empty bag of Doritos blew past my feet in the swirling desert wind, and beads of perspiration dotted my forehead as I introspectively looked past the cactus laden horizon, towards the formulation of the cosmos.

As I stood in the desert for once, without the creature comforts of the technological media and consumer orientated American digital empire to drown out my cognitive thinking processes, my rationale for believing in the existence of God followed this line of thinking:I believe that the existence of God is self evident to all and not illusions, since the Almighty has affixed via creation the nature of humanity and the Word of God, tangible and objectively verifiable evidences to substantiate the viability of faith in God in counter distinction to other epistemological and ideological options.

"For in him we live and move and have our being."(Acts 17:28)

Take the crumpled bag of Doritos, (a product of the multi- nationalist Frito-Lay corporation by the way) I believe that discarded item of trash can demonstrate the existence of the God of historic Christianity.

If a man finds himself alone in the desert with only the hollowing wilderness to his left and to his right and a crumpled bag of Doritos at his feet, the question must be asked; "How did that bag get here?"

One may postulate the existence of the bag of Doritos on exclusively naturalistic grounds, that the discarded bag of chips (if you call Doritos real food) was once petroleum that was extracted in liquid form the bowels of the earth, then manufactured into a disposable bag, in turn was filled with Doritos, then sealed, gathered and shipped off to a sore by a massive network of machinery.

Then the Doritos were purchased by a person who ate the chips and tossed the bag to the ground.The bag of Doritos in turn, blew in the wind, tumbled on the desert ground and ultimately arrived at his feet.

All these basic facts are true enough, but they do not answer the essential epistemological and metaphysical questions surrounding the ultimate origin of the earth and it's reality that gave birth to the petroleum that was extracted to form the bag of Doritos. that blew in the wind and ultimately landed at his feet. Some Observations Regarding the Bag of Doritos:

"It is the function of the wise man to know order."-Aristotle The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates as well, the existence of an objective reality guided by the universal and transcendent laws of logic.

The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates that reality has a definite form and order since one can identify that there is an actual bag of Doritos at his feet and not something else.The logical law of identity demonstrates Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.The fact that we can identify that there is a bag of Doritos at his feet and not something else demonstrates self evidently that:

We find ourselves in a physical world with an objective reality.The fact that the bag of Doritos exists demonstrates that human beings exist and can differentiate its form from other objects.

The bag of Doritos in turn demonstrates humanities existence, the existence of an external world and the existence of an objective reality that is guided by transcendent laws of logic.There is a causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship or correspondence between the bag of Doritos and the existence of a external and objective world and reality it finds itself in.

1) The bag of Doritos exists.

2) I can recognize the Doritos.

3) Therefore I and the objective world exist.

4) I can distinguish the Doritos from other things.

5) Therefore laws of logic exist.

The existence of the bag of Doritos demonstrates the epistemological certitude of:

1) My existence

2) The existence of an objective world that is real and not illusions and:

3) The existence of tangible and objective laws of logic from which I can differentiate the bag of Doritos from other things.A skeptic may posit that that the bag of Doritos, the objective world and the laws of logic are illusions but will instantaneously contradict himself when he acknowledges the existence of the Doritos and in turn acknowledges his or her own existence and the existence of the external world wherein the Doritos finds it's existence in. When the person distinguishes the Doritos from other things he will acknowledge a transcendent logical law demonstrating that such a body of laws exists as well.Thus skepticism of the existence of objective reality and logic will only lead to self contradiction.

For one cannot deny his or her own existence and the ability to distinguish themselves from it without at once acknowledging his existence thus leading to an contradictory infinite regress or absurd denials. (Ad Infinitum)The crumpled bag of Doritos leads to the existence of God and the truthfulness of the historic Christian faith in the following manner. The bag of Doritos conclusively demonstrates The existence of the objective world and objective reality governed by three objective laws of logic:

1. The Law of Identity : If any statement is true, then it is true.

2. The Law of Contradiction : No statement can be both true and false.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle : Every statement is either true or false.However, the mere acknowledgment of objective reality and logic does not answer the question of how these things got here.Mere observation of the workings of the universe does not answer the question of origins and why all things grow old and die.

It is obvious to all that everything that lives shall eventually die.The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows us that all things in nature will deteriorate and a natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe.Yet nothing within nature tells us "why" things grow old and die. The question of "why" is a metaphysical philosophical question that I believe can only be really answered by turning our attention to the teachings of the only authority on the matter; the Bible, the Word of Almighty God, the creator of all things.

I will postulate here that without the existence and sustaining power of the God of historic Christianity then we are led to an infinite regress of questioning of our origins. The existence of Almighty God is of an epistemological necessity and can be argued for transcendentally.The transcendental argument for the existence of God , takes the position that it is impossible for any authoritative rationality (including an atheist's) to emerge from matter.

Thus, the existence of God must be assumed in order to deny God's existence, which means that the atheist's position is self-contradictory.The transcendental argument argument for God's existence shows the necessary preconditions for the possibility of rational thought or meaningful discourse, for God is the author of all rational intelligibility. For God is the one who created the world and the reality that governs it.For without the God of historic Christianity humanity would be trapped in an infinite regress of questions regarding the origin and meaning of our existence. But God has spoken from the whirlwind of contradictory opinions and has demonstrated His existence due to the impossibility of the contrary.

For without God we cannot know how we got here, what our purpose is and where we are going. Fortunately God has revealed the knowledge of Himself and the meaning of human existence in His absolutely inerrant, inspired, authoritative, self-attesting and self authenticating Word, the Holy Bible.

God has revealed the knowledge of himself in His Word and differentiated Himself from all the false gods and ideas about truth held by unbelievers by giving evidences of the Bible's truthfulness such as the miracle of fulfilled prophecy and the glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe in the existence of Almighty God because God's inspired and perfect Word declares so.

It is impossible for anything to be contrary to the truth of God's existence and He has differentiated Himself from all other religious and ideological options by raising His Son from the dead, declaring to the world that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Two thousand years ago, a unique man named Jesus Christ of Nazareth emerged from the chaos of human existence with a profound message of hope and human redemption. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, lived a perfect life, performed incredible miracles, proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God and ultimately died on the Cross for the sins of humanity and rose again from the dead to give anyone who would admit that they have transgressed the moral law of God as revealed in the Ten Commandments, sincerely turn from their sins and place their faith in Him eternal life.That is how a crumpled old bag of Doritos declares to me the glory and grandeur of Almighty God."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 20:31)

2006-11-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

Jesus Christ: The Anomaly of God

"for in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)

Anomaly: Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God and all things that came into being through Him and without Him nothing has come into being that has came into being" (John 1:1-3)."

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:15-18)."

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" (Hebrews 1:1-4).

In the howling, swirling wasteland of spiritually bankrupt Postmodern Americana, Almighty God has spoken with final authority in His inerrant, infallible, inspired, self- authenticating and perfect Word and in the Logos of God: Jesus Christ, who was send by God the Father to die on the cross and rise again from the dead in order to give us eternal life.

From the moment of our conception until the point of our final expiration, we are being incessantly bombarded by secular society with two seemingly idiosyncratic contradictory ideologies or world -views. These beliefs or structural or behavioral characteristics peculiar to an individual or group, the German Philosophers classified by the lexical moniker, Weltanschauung, or the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world and the collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

The twin simultaneously contradictory weltanschauungs or world-views that both govern and permeate secular Western Civilization are Modernity with it's overt reliance on scientific progress and human ingenuity and Postmodernity, which postulates absolute ethical and propositional relativism have one thing in common: They both reject the Historic Christian conception of the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus Christ over all other ideological reference points and socio-religious options.Modernity, with its reliance on the scientific method, postulates the secularist / naturalist view that we live in a closed system of cause and effect and that nothing happens outside of the natural laws of physics. Thus, the miraculous and supernatural Jesus as found in Holy Scripture has no place in the modern mind, since miracles are an impossibility.

In the Postmodern framework, Jesus has been reduced to just another irrelevant teacher amongst many religious leaders, gurus and shaman and His special role as the Son of God who was sent by God the Father to die for the sins of humanity has been rendered obsolete...However, the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture is truly an Anomaly, who transcends the fallen and darkened schema of sinful and depraved men and has been send via the will of God the Father, into actual time-space history to accomplish the divine plan of salvation. Jesus Christ truly transcends and breaks into all our worldly systems, revealing to us the glory of God, culminating the grand divine historical-redemptive event: the Cross of Jesus Christ.The Cross of Jesus Christ is what brings us to God..."But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

"For God made Him, who knew no sin to become sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

Chalcedonian Creed Circa 451 A.D.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

2006-11-29T15:45:00.000-08:00

The Church Needs Reformation Today

The Protestant Reformation was a movement which emerged in the 16th century as a series of attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. The main front of the reformation was started by Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. The reformation ended in division and the establishment of new institutions, most importantly Lutheranism, Reformed churches, and Anabaptists. It also led to the Counter-Reformation within the Roman Catholic Church.

2006-11-29T11:59:00.000-08:00

My Journey Back to the Reformed Faith

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Romans 8:29-30

" Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever." (Westminster Confession)

For many years I have been a Calvinist, but have felt out of place in most Reformed Churches. Maybe it is because most Reformed Churches are liturgical and play ancient hymns accompanied by an organ. Maybe it is because I love rock and roll music and love Christian music played with drums and guitars, a music style that you do not see in most Reformed Churches on Sunday Mornings. While I have for many years, believed in the "five points of Calvinism" I have attended a non-Reformed Church. Yet, recently I have had a crisis of conscience about my Church attendance and participation. I am a Reformed Christian believing in the absolute sovereignty of Almighty God over all things, yet I attended a non-Reformed Church because of music preference. I have sold my soul and theological convictions for Rock and Roll. I have not attended a Calvinist and Reformed Church because I am a compromiser and hypocrite at heart. The depravity and wretchedness of my sinful heart has kept me from standing with the Reformed Faith, all the while secretly in the depths of my heart I am a Calvinist and I believe in the Sovereignty of God in salvation and reject out right and in total anything to do with Arminianism, semi-Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

I believe that God is absolutely sovereign. I believe that all men and women are born totally depraved, dead in tresspasses and sin. I believe that our election by God is unconditional and is dependant upon the Sovereign grace of Almighty God alone. I believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ is particular in scope and purpose and that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect and not for the non-elect who are perishing. I believe in the doctrine of double predestination, in that I believe that God elects some to heaven and hell before the foundation of the world.

I believe that God calls an elect people to salvation and that this election and call to salvation in absolutely irresistible. I believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in that I believe that those who are truly called by God before the foundations of the world will endure without exception until the end and cannot lose their eternal salvation. I am absolutely Augustinian and Calvinistic in my view of the sovereign grace of God in salvation. I believe like the Protestant Reformers that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and His glorious cross alone for the glory of God alone based on the authority of the Bible alone Amen.

Today I am coming out as a Reformed Christian. I am a Calvinist without compromise and without fear. I believe the Bible teaches that men and women, boys and girls cannot be saved unless they are chosen by God. I believe that salvation is by God, for God's glory alone and that is not within man to save himself. So here it is folks, I am returning back to the Reformed Faith. As of this week, I am transferring my membership to a Reformed Church. I plan on writing books, conducting Bible studies, debating, living and dying all by the Reformed soteriological perspective. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, I am a Calvinist. Here I stand, God help me. Amen.

Here are some ministry links that I support and affirm.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

http://www.opc.org/lc.html

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/synod_of_dort.html

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm

http://www.ligonier.org/

http://www.desiringgod.org/

http://www.monergism.com/

Salvation is not about us, it's about God's glory.

American Evangelicalism is being destroyed by man centered theology and practice.

American Evangelicals must return to a Christ and Bible centered focus that recovers and rediscovers the central theme of true Christianity: That it is not about us folks. It is about Almighty God.

We need a Reformation in this country and in the American Evangelical Church and it starts with me.

I repent of a man centered focus that takes glory from God.

I stand with the Calvinist and Reformed Faith that says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for God's glory alone based on the Bible alone.

2006-11-29T11:53:00.000-08:00

A Faith to Live and Grow By

2006-11-29T11:40:00.001-08:00

2006-11-29T11:36:00.000-08:00

Defenders of the Free World Unite!

2006-11-29T11:34:00.001-08:00

2006-11-29T11:31:00.000-08:00

2006-11-29T11:23:00.000-08:00

If God is Sovereign Over All Things, is He Then, the Author of Sin?

2006-11-27T09:56:00.000-08:00

Should Mark McGwire Make the Hall of Fame?

Today former Oakland A's and St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire appeared on the Hall of Fame Ballot along with retired superstars Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. There is no question that McGwire has the stats to be considered, but his use of steriods has caused many to question his credentials. It is a fact that McGwire used legal steriods, yet should this preclude him from being elected into the Hall of Fame? I say yes. If players like Rafael Palmeiro should be considered "tainted", so should McGwire, who hit many of his home runs after using andro (androstenedione), a performance enhancing steriod...

For the whole store please log on to:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6212422?FSO1&ATT=HCP&GT1=8807

2006-11-22T20:04:00.001-08:00

The Doctrine of Total Depravity Demonstrates that We are God's Enemy and Our Own Worst Nightmare

2006-11-21T17:01:00.000-08:00

Show Times Glorification of a Serial Killer

"Examine Everything Carefully, hold on to the good"

(1 Thessalonians 5:21)

In recent years, the motion picture and television industry has been emboden in wickedness and has really pushed the envelope and broadcast movies and television shows that have broken the moral glass window on public decency. Every conceivable subject previously considered morally taboo and beyond the ethical bounds is now commonly depicted. But a new television show called "Dexter" has broken the mold and is broadcasting a weekly disturbing show whose central figure is a serial killer.

Michael C. Hall one of the stars of the cult hit "Six Feet Under" now stars as "Dexter", forensic expert by day and twisted serial killer by night.

Dexter in his normal life is a "blood splat" expert who is good at his job, has lots of friends, a girlfriend and a loving sister.

What the world does not know is that Dexter is also a serial killer who grotesquely murders other serial killers who some how beat the legal system to continue their heinous crimes against humanity.

The show frequently depicts "flashback" sequences that show Dexter as an adopted child learning how to systematically channel his serial killer rage undetected by his police officer Father, who realizes early on that Dexter demonstrates psychopathic and homicidal tendencies. Instead of getting the help Dexter needs or institutionalizing the youth, his father uses his knowledge of the law and forensic evidence to cultivate Dexter into an efficient and clever serial killer who channels his rage and propensity to perpetuate twisted murders, to kill only serial killers who fly under the radar of justice.

Many critics of the show Dexter call the show "Disturbing" and so it is, since the show borders on glorifying heinous crimes and blurs the lines of objective morality.

As morally bankrupt Hollywood descents further and further down the black hole of unthinkable immorality and abominable vice, Evangelicals and social conservatives must take their stand and publicly decry such unnecessary smut. The only thing that conscience free Hollywood cares about is money, and to hold it fiscally accountable, we must vote and speak out as a unified bloc, lest more and more decrepit shows that eviscerate the ethical fabric of society, like Dexter further contaminate our national airwaves further hastening our collective plummet into a darkened pit of no return. God have mercy upon America for not at once rejecting shows like "Dexter" which we must reject and speak out against like many of us did the recent O.J. Simpson book and show that almost aired. May this country turn from its grave wickedness towards Jesus Christ and His cross of redemption before it is too too late, and Almighty God arises to judge the earth.

2006-11-18T11:07:00.000-08:00

Salvation is Found in Jesus Christ and His Cross Alone

Galatians 2:16

Despite being in the thralls of medieval serfdom and Roman Catholic superstition and repression, the general populace of Western Civilization during the Middle Ages believed in the conception of a "theistic worldview" wherein men and women actually believed in the reality of God, demons, angels, heaven and hell and the basic cosmology detailed in sacred Scripture.Imperial Roman Catholicism which demanded unquestioned fidelity to its doctrines and policies, greatly clouded the truth of Scripture however, and this Catholic suppression of the truth gave impetus for the German theologian Martin Luther to launch the Protestant Reformation.

Two of the most important theological concepts that Martin Luther recovered during his prolonged study of theology that ultimately gave Birth to his stand against the false teachings of the Catholic Church were known in Latin as Theologia Crucis and Extra Nos.

According to William J. Cork, Martin Luther's first referred to a "theology of the cross" (theologia crucis) at the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, in a series of theses on the nature of revelation: Thesis #19: "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened." Thesis #20: "He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."Revelation is necessary for Luther because speculation on the basis of what is visible will not lead one to a knowledge of God. Yet what God reveals of himself is, at the same time, concealed. God shows only his "back side." This revelation of the posteriora Dei takes place in suffering and the cross, not in common human morality or in the design and order of creation. And it demands faith--for only faith recognizes that the One on the cross is, in fact, God.Luther's emphasis on the cross as the primary locus of God's self-disclosure is not unique to him, but goes back at least as far as the renewal of devotion to the humanity of Christ at the time of Francis (about which Ewert Cousins has written much).

What is unique to Luther is his sharp distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory, which he sees as mutually exclusive. As he says in of the Will (1525).Faith has to do with things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that everything which is believed should be hidden. It cannot, however, be more deeply hidden than under an object, perception, or experience which is contrary to it.Thus, on this point, at least, the early Luther and the later Luther are in perfect harmony: "God can be found only in suffering and the cross." And the converse is also true: where there is not pain and the cross, but pride, wealth, and ostentatious display, one must doubt whether God is, in fact, present. Luther's theology of the cross was the basis for his critique of the triumphalism of the medieval Church and the papacy. He "was convinced," says Eric Gritsch, "that the church may have to suffer the loss of its status in order to become a better instrument of the Gospel." Luther called the Church to embrace Christ's humility--he called it to the cross. There the Church sees its true vocation to be that of suffering servant. It is to be called by the world "Afflicted one, as well as storm-tossed, and not comforted, 'Miss Hopeless.''

Luther's theology of the cross demanded that the Church, like its Lord, be hidden under suffering. By this he did not mean the self-chosen discomfort of pious deprivation, but that genuine suffering which inevitably follows the faithful proclamation of the Word of God.The Church, then, like the individual, is justified by faith alone. And, Luther argues, one can be reduced to such a faithful clinging to Christ only through humiliation. It is through a direct, intense encounter with the wrath of God, experienced as suffering and Anfechtungen, that the sinner comes to know "that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, devices, endeavors, will, and works, and depends entirely on the choice, will, and work of another, namely, of God alone."This point receives its greatest elaboration in of the Will (1525), just cited, and Luther's 1521 Commentary on the Magnificat. Humility is said in the latter to be a necessity for justification--not in the sense of a "work," but in the sense of an utter repudiation of trust in works. Thus Luther distinguishes between "true" and "artificial humility." The latter he regards as an affectation which seeks reward through outward appearance. True humility seeks no reward. It is "nothing else than a disregarded, despised, and lowly estate, such as that of men who are poor, sick, hungry, thirsty, in prison, suffering, and dying."Those in such a state know they have nothing.

Therefore they cling in faith to the promise of the Crucified One. The participation of the believer in Christ extra nos (Latin for "outside ourselves")we place ourselves in the hands of God who is outside us.This Reformational conception, which is a recovery and rediscovery of the Pauline New Testament doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer apart from the works of the law, utilizes the extra nos idea in that God demands absolute moral perfection from us, an impossibility due to our inherent sinfulness from the Fall of Adam (lapsus) but can be appropriated through the perfect alien righteousness of Christ, which is not intrinsic to fallen, sinful humanity but is aquired through faith.

2006-11-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

Biblical Unitarian Patrick Navas Responds to My Comments on the Holy Spirit

Ed,

Even if the passages you mention unequivocally establish the "personhood" of the Spirit (which they do not), how do they establish, first in reference to Matthew 28:18-19, that the Spirit, Son and Father are all three persons that make up the one God? At what point did Jesus or the apostles teach this?

Although supporters of classical, trinitarian orthodoxy, respected Protestant Bible scholars, McClintock and Strong, acknowledged that this text (Matthew 28:18, 19), “taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” —Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume X, p. 552.

Without necessarily abandonding your overall position, should you not be able to acknowledge the same?

You wrote:

"John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other."

This is, of course, an obvious point and one we would accept. The three subjects are clearly delineated and differentiated from one another. But where is it taught that the three collectively constitute the one God? That is the real issue.

The other point you make about Matthew 28 is confusing. Anthony suggests that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (a point you yourslef make) yet it almost seems like you are mistaking his point to mean that the Spirit is the Father, because you argue:

"What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again..."

Anthony is not saying that, in any sense. The Spirit to him is not the Father himself but the Spirit of the Father (and Son), that which proceeds from the Father, and that which serves to santctify, empower and unify the Father's children. I'm not sure that any Bible scholar or student would ever deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Father. And I fail to see how the argument you advance above has any application or relevance to Anthony's point.

Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.

It is entirely appropriate for the writers and participants in the Bible to refer to the Spirit with the personal pronoun "he" whenever the Spirit is spoken of as the "helper" or "advocate." The Greek term, parakletos, is masculine and so the pronoun must agree with the gender of the subject it has reference to. But in reference to John 14:26 specifically, the verse can and has been translated as follows:

But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.”

In this case "which" (ho) agrees with pneuma (spirit) which is neuter.

While most Trinitarian apologists have pointed to the use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) in connection with the Spirit as evidence of “personhood,” Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, although a defender of Trinitarianism, observed: “contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneuma to ekeinos in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneuma is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun…The fact that pneuma and not parakletos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.” Wallace also notes: “The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment.” —“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit”, Bulletin for Biblical Research (Wallace-HS), 2003, pp 108, 125.

Best wishes,

Patrick Navas

2006-11-17T11:23:00.000-08:00

To Anthony Buzzard, Dan Mages and the Biblical Unitarians

" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:19-20

19πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος
20διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος.
KΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 28:19-20 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"

ο δε παρακλητος το πνευμα το αγιον ο πεμψει ο πατηρ εν τω ονοματι μου εκεινος υμας διδαξει παντα και υπομνησει υμας παντα α ειπον υμιν εγω

John 14:26, NKJV and Westcott and Hort

Dear Sirs,

It was great to see you folks and debate with you on Mondays these important matters.

I believe my good brother Emilio Ramos was right when he said to you that these matters are of eternal significance, for if we worship the wrong God, we do not possess true salvation in Jesus Christ and will face eternity in hell ( Galatians 1:6-9 and Revelation 20:15).

I want you to know that I have nothing personal against you folks. Everything I am attempting to do in communicating with you has to do with theology and my attempt to defend what I believe in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

One of the glaring problems that I see with your non-Trinitarian thesis pertains to the person and identity of the Holy Spirit, whom you said on Monday night was the "Spirit of the Father" not a distinct and unique person.

This is definitely false. I believe it is clear from passages like Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:26, that there are three distinct persons being mentioned, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To argue from these texts that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from the Father and the Son, appears illogical and to reflect a definite and determined unwarranted theological bias on your part.

In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said, "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

If your non-person-hood of the Holy Spirit thesis is correct and all the Holy Spirit is is the "Spirit of the Father" as you said on Monday night it seems like the height of redundancy for Jesus to mention the Father twice.

What you are saying in a sense, is that Jesus, in the Baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to the Father twice, "Father, the Son and Father again"

This does not make sense since in your theology the spirit of the Father pertains to His essence and attributes and not a distinct person from the Father.

Why would Jesus mention two distinct persons, the Father and the Son, then resort to mentioning an attribute (spirit) and essence (ontological essence) of the Father.

In it's normal reading, without theological bias being introduced, it makes more sense that Jesus Christ is mentioning three distinct persons and not referring to the essence and spirit of God the Father.

Also John 14:26 is clear as well, that three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are being clearly delineated and differentiated from each other. Jesus says, The Helper, The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of Chris, He will teach you all things.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"

Why would Christ refer to the Holy Spirit in the personal pronoun "He" and not "it" if the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and unique person from the Father.

Please, please do not resort to the very bad and spurious interpretation that it should be rendered "it" in the English translations.

Gentlemen, I believe your theological presupposition and biases against the concept of the Holy Spirit being God and a distinct person from the Father and the Son is unjustifiably compelling you to force a foreign interpretation unto these texts.

Clear exegesis of these texts will establish that there are three distinct persons being mentioned here and that the Holy Spirit is not just the spiritual ontological essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit is not just an impersonal "it" but a unique and distinct person from the Father and the Son.

Please do not let your bias against the doctrine of the Trinity which seems to be taken from the Arian, Socinian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphian-Unitarian tradition blind you from engaging in clear historical-grammatical interpretation of these relevant texts bearing in on the true identity of the Holy Spirit whom Acts 13 says can speak and call people into the Ministry Himself and gives gifts individually as He wills.

Acts 13:2-4 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 says,

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus

"But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills"

These passages and Matthew 28:19-20 and John 14:26 clearly establish that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son and is not merely referring to the ontological essence of God the Father as you have postulated.

Please pray about these things, Sincerely in Christ,

Your Friend,

Ed Enochs

2006-11-16T11:24:00.000-08:00

C. H. Spurgeon on Calvinism

"We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic; but we do not regard these five points as being barbed shafts which we are to thrust between the ribs of our fellow Christians. We look upon them as being five great lamps which help to irradiate the cross; or, rather, five bright emanations springing from the glorious covenant of our

I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God. Triune God, and illustrating the great doctrine of Jesus crucified."

2006-11-16T11:09:00.000-08:00

Patrick Navas Asks, "Why Call Yourself a Calvinist?"

Dear Ed,

I am curious, why are many “Evangelicals” so proud of the label “Calvinist”? Regardless of whether or not “Calvinism” authentically reflects true Christian religion, is not the practice of proudly wearing the badge “Calvinist”---in and of itself---a serious and obvious departure from the original Christian spirit? Is it Christ’s will that we tell the world, in effect, “I am a certified 5 point Calvinist and proud of it!.”??? Why not just be a Christian?

“ St. Paul , in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have.” ¾Martin Luther (16th Century)

“The high and mighty of this world have begun to persecute and hate Christ’s teaching under the presence of the name of Luther. They call all of Christ’s teaching ‘Lutheran,’ no matter who on earth proclaims it…This is now my fate. I began to preach the Gospel of Christ in 1516, long before anyone in our region had ever heard of Luther…At any rate, Luther did not teach me anything…The papists none of the less burden me and others maliciously with such names and say, ‘You be a Lutheran, for you preach the way Luther writes.’ I answer them, ‘I preach the way Paul writes. Why do you not also call me a follower of Paul? Indeed, I proclaim the word of Christ. Why do you not call me a Christian?’” ¾Huldrych Zwingli, quoted in De Lamar Jensen, Reformation Europe, Age of Reform and Revolution, p. 102.

“Since you would know by what name I would be distinguished from others, I tell you I would be, and hope I am, a Christian; and choose, if God should count me worthy, to be called a Christian, a believer, or other such name which is approved by the Holy Ghost. And as for those factious (or sect) titles of Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Independent, and the like, I conclude that they came neither from Antioch nor from Jerusalem , but from Hell and Babylon , for they tend to divisions; you may know them by their fruits.” ¾John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress

“Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model¾for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy!...Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice.” ¾J. W. McGarvey’s Commentary on Acts

Sincerely,

Patrick Navas

“If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” —1 Peter 4:15, 16, New International Version

2006-11-15T19:41:00.000-08:00

A Review of

The Dark Side of Calvinism: A Biblically-Based Examination, Evaluation, and Refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemption and Reprobation (Paperback)

by George Bryson

I wrote this response to Bryson's book upon hearing that a very large church in Southern California made its entire staff read Bryson's book as a definitive answer to Calvinism.

George Bryson should have not written this book. It is filled with many factual inaccuracies against Calvinism that leaves one with the distinct perception that Mr. Bryson, along with Dave Hunt, his compadre in his illogical crusade against Calvinism, already has an emotional and irrational presuppostional bias against Reformed theology. After Reformed Baptist James White's very thorough public thrashing of Mr. Bryson in a debate at the Vineyard a few years ago, you would have thought that Mr. Bryson would leave the Calvinism issue alone. It is clear, after reading the "Dark Side of Calvinism", that George Bryson is not a scholar and offers poor arguments laden with Ad Hominem attacks against Calvinists, and not serious academic refutation of the Calvinistic soteriological theological system. James White has the following to say about Bryson's book,

The Dark Side of Calvinism Well, it finally arrived. George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism is finally sitting on my desk. Despite only having "seen it from afar," so to speak, I finally had a chance to look over the work today. The sub-titles are great: "A Biblically-based examination, evaluation, and refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemption and Reprobation" appears at the top of the cover, and under the title we have, "The Calvinist Caste System." Very briefly: it is not a well made book. It is an 8.5 x 11 photocopied "Kinkos" style binding, hence, not overly easy to handle. It has no Scripture index, so, to find out what the book says about any single passage can be very difficult to determine. I likewise noted a number of sections repeated material found earlier in the book (something demonstrating the need of those wonderful folks called "editors"). Of course, the big question everyone is waiting for an answer for: when George Bryson told me to "read the book" to find the answers to Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10, and Acts 4:27-28, was it because we just didn't have time for him to go over his in-depth exegesis of these key passages, or was something else involved? Now, WallyBalt, the Australian/Hawaiian Astrophysicist Guy, had already scanned the book and informed me that there was not a single reference to Genesis 50 or Acts 4 in the book. I certainly trusted someone of Balt's scholarly abilities, but I also wanted to see it for myself, and I wanted to look for Isaiah 10 as well (though, obviously, if someone skips the others, they aren't going to tackle that one!). Having now scanned the entirety of the book, I can say without hesitation that Mr. Bryson showed not the first inkling of interest in exegeting, let alone mentioning, the three passages that I presented on the BAM debate. They were never mentioned, cited, quoted, or allowed to wave from the bleachers in the far left field. I will be playing relevant cuts from the BAM debate regarding this on next Tuesday's Dividing Line. Now, I saw a lot of really bad argumentation going by as I was checking each page for citations of those three passages. It is clear that since our debate in 2002 Mr. Bryson has determined it would be best to create some kind of defense regarding John 6. Numerous pages in different sections are devoted to a very passionate, yet utterly muddled and incomprehensibly vain attempt to get around the teaching of the Lord in the synagogue in Capernaum. And though he directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims (p. 126):

Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.

Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.

Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.

I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact). Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the "him" who is drawn in 6:44 is the "him" who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)? One thing is for certain: the words of the Lord Jesus recorded for us in this passage continue to refute every vain effort made by men to mute their testimony to God's utter sovereignty in the matter of salvation. I should, however, note one positive thing: there are so many citations of good, solid Reformed sources in this book that I truly believe Mr. Bryson has unwittingly lent us a hand in "getting the word out." Evidently he feels his replies are compelling, but in fact, most of the time, he simply does not provide a comprehensible, let alone a compelling, reply. Therefore, I truly believe we will see more folks coming to see the importance of rightly handling God's truth in the matter of His sovereignty as a result of this book.

(From the Alpha and Omega Website: ttp://www.aomin.org/BlogArchives0104.html

I would have to agree with James White's assement of this book, it is really not worth commenting on...

2006-11-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

Update!

Coming Wednesday Night: The First Instalment of My Critique on George Bryson's the Dark Side of Calvinism.

2006-11-15T13:34:00.000-08:00

Steve Scianni on:

Is George Bush the Worst President Ever?

The Answer is undeniably, Yes...hands down, there is no question. Over 650,000 Iraqi's dead, Trillions of dollars in debt, the ineptness during Katrina, the 9/11 attacks, war and 'chase' of Osama Bin Laden, Oil prices, the Patriot Act, the lies of WMD's, the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and the effects on their families, the outrage and disapproval of the rest of the civilized world, Depleted Uranium and it's effects, the criminal profiteering of corporations on the wars, the energy crisis in California, an impediment to Stem cell research, the buffonery with Iran and North Korea...on and on and on and on...and not to mention all of this with the Republicans in Control! This unquestionably makes him the worst president in our history. The real question should be: Is George Bush, Jr. the worst human being that ever lived?

But Ed, I did enjoy the post, nice job...I would however change at least one thing immediately and it is this: Clinton's (indescretions) in the white house does not by any stretch of the imagination take precedence over the evils of George W....Alright, well again, nice blog and glad to see you not allow your evangelical slant to turn a blind eye to the obvious...George Bush is a lying, manipulating, murdering, theiving and very rich, megolomaniac without one clue as to how to serve the people of this country or in fact, how to serve anybody other than his own pocketbooks and those of his cohorts.

Steve Scianni is a friend of Dan Mages, a Frequent Attende of HungerTruth's Meeting and is a Vocal Atheist

2006-11-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

The Conscience of a Conservative

I am getting e-mails both for and against my recent post "Is George W. Bush the Worst President Ever?" Some have said I am absolutely right to question a President that led America into a war in Iraq that appears to be unjustifiable. Others say, as a Republican, I have no right to question the President.

For the record, I want to be clear that I am a conservative to the core. I am a lifer. I hate liberalism and will fight against political and theological liberalism for the rest of my life. I have been a conservative my entire life and those who know me, know that I am a hard core Conservative Evangelical and Republican.

With this current President, I am just calling into the question the legitimacy of this War in Iraq that is costing America billions of dollars every day and is making this administration one of biggest spending governments in America since FDR.

Part of my constitutional right as American is to be able to exercise my free speech, and today I am coming out publicly and saying that I believe the War in Iraq is indefensible. There were no WMD's and now American service men and women are dying in a War that makes no sense. Bush now needs a exit plan to get out of there.

Whether or not I support the War in Iraq does not determine if I am a true conservative, no less eminent conservative figure than William F. Buckley has said in the National Review that the War in Iraq is a mistake.

I am a conservative against the war, that's right, I am against this Iraq War and I say let's get out of there now! Yet, let's do it without bringing shame to America. Let's exit Iraq with dignity and honor, but, let's get the heck out of there.

Sincerely in Christ,

Ed Enochs

A Conservative with a Conscience

2006-11-13T17:54:00.000-08:00

What the World Needs is More Calvinism

2006-11-13T17:52:00.001-08:00

2006-11-13T17:35:00.000-08:00

What New Heresy is this?

2006-11-13T09:30:00.000-08:00

Answering Dan Mages

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made. "

"And the Word became flesh and dwealt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 1:1-3, 14

Dan, as look over your comments and present activities I see that you place a tremendous emphasis on what you call "Intellectual Honesty" Yet, when I evaluate your theology and endeavors I can't escape the feeling that somehow, your bad experience at the Master's College and unfortunate treatment at some Evangelical churches has not pushed you over the edge towards a postmodern and Arian/Unitarian understanding of Christianity.

You went from being a Conservative Evangelical Bible major at the Master's College to being a person who denies the Trinity, attends a church that supports homosexuality and "gay unions"

Your church website says the following: First Congregational Church, we offer a variety of wedding ceremonies- both for heterosexual couples and same-gender partnerships. There are no membership restrictions for these services. Marriage is more than a celebration of social customs. The guests gather not only to witness the ceremony, but also to provide support to the couple and to give thanks to God and ask Gods blessing upon their covenant relationship. First Congregational Church is eager to make your marriage a beautiful and memorable occasion. The following information will help you plan and enjoy this important event. http://www.fccriverside.org/weddings/brochure.php

So, in a space of just a few years you now adopt Unitarianism, Open Theism, a Emergent Church perspective and now minister at a church with a woman pastor and a church that supports homosexuality?

It appears to me that you are overreacting to some ill treatment at a Fundamentalist institution and have adopted many beliefs and practices that are in direct opposition to the Master's College and Conservative Evangelicalism.

Dan, the reason why I have debated you with kindness and did not use a "shock and awe" type of debate tactic in our last debate, is because this is what you expected. You expected me to come across as an "Angry Fundamentalist" but I did not, because you have already got that treatment and that's not what this is about.

I can't but feel that you are now believing and teaching these doctrines you know are detested in Conservative Evangelicalism because you know they will generate condemnation in the circles you are angry with.

I caution you against absorbing the doctrines of the Emergent Church (EC) just to spite us conservative Evangelicals.

I have witnessed within EC an almost disdain of Luther the Reformers and conservative Evangelical theology in general and this troubles me, since Luther, Calvin and etc, are the foundational theologians of Evangelicalism in general and to not acknowledge their contributions makes me wonder if we should deem EC as a viable expression of true Evangelicalism at all or if we should label EC as a totally different movement from Evangelical Christianity.

The fundamental thesis I am attempting to postulate is that Martin Luther, John Calvin and the Protestant Reformation is what gave birth and impetus to Evangelical Protestantism in the first place, thus to refuse to acknowledge the positive contributions of the founding fathers of our faith is like saying that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the US Constitution has no relevance in socio-political discussions on the future of American Democracy today.

I am afraid what is really at the heart of the Emergent Church controversy within American Evangelical Protestantism today concerns the validity of Post-modernity as a viable ideological foundation for Evangelical theology and polity today.The EC movement is ultimately an attempt to synthesize what is perceived to be the best of both worlds: Evangelicalism and Post-modernity.

However, there is a growing consensus within Conservative American Evangelicalism that the two movements are irreconcilable and are an unwise attempt at ecclesiastical and doctrinal syncreticism: an attempt at mixing two mutually exclusive world-views into a homogeneous spiritual movement.The world renown German Philosopher Hegel saw this approach in terms of "Dialectical synthesis" wherein a thesis and its antithesis is merged forming a synthesis.Post-modernity and traditional Protestantism founded by Luther and Calvin cannot be successfully synthesized since they are at once two mutually exclusive world views that have two radically irreconcilable ideological starting points: foundationalism and propositional and ethical relativism.

EC attempts two have the best of both worlds by maintaining a facade and external shell of adherence to Evangelical tradition and theology while attempting to utilize the entirely antithetical postmodern cultural hermeneutic, that seeks to obliterate doctrinal and ethical absolutes.

EC cannot have the best of both worlds, either its proponents will lapse into non-Christian unbelief like the rest our Postmodern culture that is militantly opposed to traditional Bible based Evangelicalism or EC will return back to the Theo-centric, Christocentric and Bibliocentric centrality focus that differentiates Evangelicalism from all the other ideological and religious options.Historic Evangelical Protestantism is centered around propositional absolutes, that Almighty God exists and has spoken absolutely, objectively and coherently in the Bible which it deems to be the exclusively authoritative, infallible, inerrant and inspired Word of Almighty God and that God has communicated in a final salvific sense in the historical-redemptive forensic soteriological act of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

Evangelicalism teaches that there are non-negotiable and unchanging theological and ethical norms based on the authority of Scripture that cannot be broken irrespective of the passing fancy of contemporary culture.In diametrical counter distinction to the objectivist and absolutist theological and ethical standard of historic Biblical Evangelicalism, the advent and cultural ascendancy of Post-modernity seeks to obliterate traditional ideological and ethical norms within Western Civilization and postulates that there is not such thing as absolute truth and morality.EC attempts to synthesize post-modernity and Evangelicalism, but like attempting to mix oil and water, it will fail to make the engine that is the historic Church run, but will rather spun out on the road of bankrupt ideology like every other non-Bible based world view that has attempted to replace Evangelicalism as the truth.EC and Evangelicalism cannot be successfully synthesized because EC seeks to utilize post-modernity as an ideology and post-modernity is inherently relativistic, the diametrical ideological nemesis of historic Christianity that says God has spoken in an absolute and final matter.

Regarding your views of the Trinity and other doctrines important to the Evangelical Church, to compare believing in the Trinity with believing in the Rapture or Calvinism/Arminianism is like comparing apples with oranges: They are not in the same category.

Belief in the Rapture and belief in the historic Doctrine of the Trinity are two infinitely different things. The Rapture is a debatable doctrine at best, but the nature of God is the essence of what true Christianity is.

If one has a different concept of God than what the Bible teaches, he or she does not have true faith in God, but a false idol of one's own imagination. The Unitarian and Socinian understanding of Jesus and the nature of God cannot be found in the pages of proper Biblical interpretation but is the result of terrible exegesis and preheld and presuppostional bias against the doctrine of the Trinity.

Throughout my two- decade long sojourn in this most precious Christian faith, I have always believed staunchly and unequivocally in the historic Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity simply and finally because the Holy Scriptures teach this and for no other reason.

The Bible clearly teaches that there in one true and living God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Kings 8:60 and John 17:3)

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Matthew 28:19-20, John 6:27 and Romans 1:7).The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God (Matthew 1:23, John 1:1-14, 8:58, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5 and Col. 1:16-17).

The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 5:1-5 and 2 Corinthians 13:14)

Thus, I come to the conclusion that the Historic Christian Faith is correct and that there in God exists the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this is the one true God mentioned in the Bible.

Historic and Biblical Christianity has always believed and taught that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead who is co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit of whom Jesus Christ shares the same essence. To believe anything different is to be guilty of the forced exegesis I see you, Anthony Buzzard and all Unitarians are guilty of. I believe your theological views are not the result of sound Biblical interpretation, but are the result of your angry vendetta against Conservative Evangelicalism.

In my debates with you I am greatly perplexed as to what methodology of hermeneutics you were using and seen some major inherent incongruousness in your interpretive grid from which you exegete Scripture. I myself was left scratching my head and wondering from what criterion do you objectively interpret Scripture. Is your hermeneutic taken from the subjectivistic postmodern standard of the Emergent Church Movement, philosophical rationalism, Historical-Grammaticalism or some other interpretive method of understanding Holy Scripture.

Your views appear to reflect anger and bias against Conservative Evangelicalism, thus you force the Scriptures to reflect your Unitarian understanding of Scripture, the careful exegete of Scripture will find that the Bible clearly teaches that within the one true God exists three distinct and co-eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirt.

Dan, the Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches that Jesus Christ is God and that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the truth (Please read: Isaiah 9:6-7, Matthew 1:23, 28:19-20, John 1:1-14, 1:18, 5:23, 8:58, 14:1-10, 20:28, Acts 5:1-8, 20:28, Romans 9:5, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1-11,Colossians 1:15-17, 2:8-9, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:1-8, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Revelation 1:8, 17-18 and 22:13).The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is both God and is a person despite the false teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on this matter (Please Read: Matthew 28:19-20, John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, Acts 5:1-4, Acts 13:2-4, 20:23, 20:28. 1 Corinthians 12:11 and Hebrews 9:14).

"But these have been written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing, you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).

2006-11-12T10:37:00.000-08:00

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, Romans 9:14-23

2006-11-12T10:06:00.000-08:00

Dreaming of John Calvin

2006-11-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

" What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32).

2006-11-09T14:44:00.000-08:00

Note to our readers: Blog Smack 2007 is a Conservative Evangelical theological and political blog site dedicated to the promotion and defense of conservative Evangelicalism. Yet, Blog Smack 2007 is also an open forum for people of all views to be able to express themselves without fear of repression. Let the great debates of our postmodern times begin!

2006-11-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

The Inconsistency of Evangelicals Regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity and Sola Scriptura:

by Patrick Navas

(A Friend of Dan Mages)

“…sola scriptura means that all those truths that are binding on the believer are found in Scripture, and that no belief can be binding on the believer if it is not clearly presented in Scripture.” (Eric Svedson, Evangelical Answers, A Critique of Roman Catholic Apologists, p. 97)

“[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom [that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p. 11)

“The doctrine of the Trinity (or triunity of God) refers to the one being of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit…The concept as such is nowhere explicitly expressed in the scriptures…” (a Handbook of Christian theology, Definition Essays on Concepts and Movements of Thought in Contemporary Protestantism,p. 366)

“Can it really be so intrinsically connected with the gospel of salvation that denying it (not merely failing fully to understand it) results in loss of salvation or at least loss of status as a Christian? It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture…How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture?” (The Trinity, Guides to Theology, Olson & Hall p. 1)

"The question, however is this. It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness, as over against unitarian monotheism on the one hand, and polytheism on the other hand, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, ‘It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or on which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.’ This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion.” (Erickson, God in Three Persons, pp. 11, 211

"Sola scriptura means the Bible alone is all we need for our spiritual authority. All things we need to know, believe and practice are clearly stated in the Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God." (Fritz Ridenour, So What's the Difference? A Look at 20 Worldviews, Faiths, and Religions and How They Compare to Christianity, p. 35, emphasis added)

2006-11-09T14:07:00.000-08:00

Open Letter to Dan Mages and Hunger Truth

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

Galatians 6:1-2

Dan,

I am Back East traveling and I am now near Bangor Maine, so I have been out of the loop about what is going on back home in Southern California. But I have heard that you have been on several radio shows recently denying the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ .All the reports that I have heard about what you are doing are not good Dan.

Since this recent tour of Evangelical radio shows, many people in various Evangelical Churches in America now are looking at you as a heretic and a cult leader a la Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, respectively and it breaks my heart to tell you this Dan.

I now kind of feel like Obi-Wan Kenobi trying to win back Anakin Skywalker from the Dark Side. Only, the reality of the issue is that the Star Wars movies are just fictitious forays of cinematic fantasy yet there is no Lava Planet Dan, the worldview expressed in the Bible is real Dan. Hell, eternal torment and the reality of apostasy is real.

Dan, you may already be there, but it appears that you on the brink of no return, on the road to complete apostasy but I am going to write to you one last time as a friend to ask you to reconsider your ways and come back to the truth as revealed in Scripture regarding Jesus Christ and the Godhead.

Many people are now saying that there is no hope for you, that you have apostatized from the Evangelical Christian faith and that you are on the way to a Christless eternity in hell. I do not want to believe this. I want to believe that something horrible has happened to you, that this is all just a temporary mistake and that you were somehow disillusioned about conservative Evangelicalism during your college years but that you can come back to the truth of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ before it is too, too late.

Dan, the reality of apostasy and hell is real, if there is anything I can do, anything I can write you, show you, investigate for you, to try to really, sincerely attempt to bring you back from this decision you have made to deny the Trinity and Jesus Christ's Deity please tell me what it is.

I write this to you not to debate you, but to talk to you as a friend. Dan, do not do this, don't go down this path. Please tell me what I can do, what I can show you from Scripture to convince you that Jesus Christ is God and the Trinity is true.

Patrick Navas and You are such nice guys, I am very saddened Dan that you guys have chosen this path. What can I do help man?

There is still time to change the road you are on, but door is closing Dan, come back before it is too late.

I love you and your friends at Hunger Truth Dan, you know this personally, tell me now what I can do or show you that Jesus is God and that the Trinity is true.

Sincerely in Jesus, your friend,

Ed Enochs

2006-11-09T13:08:00.000-08:00

The Dangers of the Emergent Church Movement

By Ed Enochs

“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come.”

(2 Timothy 3:1)

Introduction: The Reality of False Teaching in the Last Days

Near the end of his earthly life and ministry, the Apostle Paul told his protégé Timothy that in the last days, before Jesus Christ’s return, “perilous times” would come. The Apostle Paul subsequently imparted to young Timothy what the characteristics of the end times would be. Paul said that in the last days,

“Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:3-5).

According to the New Testament, which is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative and self-authenticating Word of Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:18-21), another conclusive sign of the end times would be the increase and rampant proliferation of false doctrine in and outside of the Christian Church.

The Apostle Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.”

In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul wrote, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.”

In Acts 20, the Apostle Paul warned the Church at Ephesus ,

“That I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”

The Apostle Peter also warned of the rise of false teachers and false doctrine in the last days when he wrote,

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Our Lord Jesus Christ also warned us and gave us definitive signs of the end times and said that in the last days,

“Take heed that no one deceives you For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” (Matthew 24:34-5).

The false teaching that is so characteristic of the end times is the Apostle John warned us in 1 John 4:1,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Thus, we are commanded by God in the Holy Scriptures to be like the nobe Bereans of Acts 17:11, “to search the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so”

We are again, exhorted by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to “test all things and to hold fast to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

The Rise of the Emergent Church Movement

In our own day and age, at the advent of a New Millennium and the beginning of the 21st Century, false teaching and false teachers are abounding throughout the Christian Church. One such false teaching that is threatening to destroy the American Evangelical Church today, is what many are calling “The Emergent Church Movement” a pernicious and destructive heretical movement that is attempting to redefine historic New Testament Christianity.

The Emergent Church Movement and its leaders are attempting to create a new version of Christianity that is free of doctrinal and moral absolutes and
In our fast paced, technological and entertainment driven superficial Western culture where stylistic sound- bites and digitally enhanced imagery takes precedent over substance and clearly delineated thought, American Evangelicals often do not have time or conscience desire to soberly and critically analyze the secular and ecclesiastical framework in which we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).

Yet, make no mistake about it, there are currently ominously powerful sociological and ideological forces at work throughout Western Civilization that are working overtime to shape both the secular culture and Christian Church along postmodern lines and disseminate a secularist worldview that is bent on eviscerating the validity of the Church and is diametrically opposed to the historic Evangelical Christian faith and societal mission of world evangelization.

While most American Evangelicals are busy being lulled to sleep and unwittingly conformed into submission to secularist and Anti-Christian forces by ever improving technology and round the clock entertainment choices that communicate evil and abominable messages that are entirely antithetical to the teachings and Lordship of Jesus Christ, the devil is actively energizing the postmodern and secularist ideological forces to completely subjugate American civilization and suppress the mission of the Evangelical Church.

Bible believing Christians across America are now indulging themselves with the creature comforts of the world and are being lulled asleep by the call of the abjectly materialistic “American Dream” in pursuit of perpetual comfort and domestic ease through the quest for bigger and better material possessions.

The American Church has largely bought into the insidious lie that the essence of human existence is materialism and image and the most important goal in life is to acquire bigger and better things, be it, houses, cars, boats, vacation homes and a litany of other materialistic and entertainment driven venues.

We are told by secular forces that what matters most in life is to look good, to feel good and to live in optimum comfort for the indulgence of the self. American Evangelicals do not know they have actually bought into the philosophy of narcissism, an excessive preoccupation with self indulgence and one’s own personal importance, or with achieving one’s own chosen goals rather than bonding with others, or with associating only with others whom one chooses.

Like the fictious technological parasites known as the Borg, who incessantly and unquestionably assimilate all life-forms into their ominous robotic collective, made famous in the Star Trek: the Next Generation television series, American Evangelicals are being lulled asleep by postmodern relativism, narcissist and entertainment driven self- indulgence and are being unwittingly culturally assimilated and rendered absolutely irrelevant and ineffective agents of Gospel Change by the seductive sirens of secularism.

Contemporarily, many American Evangelicals have currently rejected the traditional Reformation emphasis on the centrality of the Bible, forensic justification and the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ and his Cross and in turn, have adopted grotesquely unbiblical patterns of belief and worship, as the mass Evangelical rush towards the Emergent and Liturgical Church movements conclusively demonstrate.

The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement according to a great article on the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia: within the American Christian Church that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture. While practices and even core doctrine vary, most emergents can be recognized by the following values:
· Missional living - Christians go out into the world to serve God rather than isolate themselves within communities of like-minded individuals.

· Narrative theology - Teaching focuses on narrative presentations of faith and the Bible rather than systematic theology or biblical reductionism

· Christ-likeness - While not neglecting the study of scripture or the love of the church, Christians focus their lives on the worship and emulation of the person of Jesus Christ

· Authenticity - People in the postmodern culture seek real and authentic experiences in preference over scripted or superficial experiences. Emerging churches strive to be relevant to today's culture and daily life, whether it be through worship or service opportunities. The core Christian message is unchanged but emerging churches attempt, as the church has throughout the centuries, to find ways to reach God's people where they are to hear God's message of unconditional love.

Emergent Christians are predominantly found in Western Europe, North America and the South Pacific. Some attend local independent churches that specifically identify themselves as being "emergent", while many others contribute to the conversation from within existing mainline denominations.

Another definition of the Emergent Church Movement is as follows,

Emerging Church groups have typically contained some or all of the following elements:
· Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection, as compared to many American churches in recent years. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films to liturgy, as well as more ancient customs. The goal in this area is generally to make the church more attractive to the unchurched.
· A minimalist and decentralized organizational structure.
· A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
· A holistic view of the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach.
· A desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation
· A continual re-examination of theology.
· A high value placed on creating communities built out of the creativity of those who are a part of each local body.
· A belief in the journey of faith, both as individual and community. Membership is often viewed as participation in the community of faith.

The Emergent Church movement has unwisely and unbiblically adopted the existential and ideological cultural hermeneutic of Postmodernism, the relativistic world-view that postulates that there are no ethical and propositional absolutes and seeks to deconstruct and overthrow traditional Western Christian doctrines and morals.

In the Emergent Church movement the doctrines of Historic Evangelical Christianity are unhealthy and unnecessary relics of a semi-modernist and medieval ethos that has been obliterated by postmodernist and postmodern influenced Biblical Scholarship such as the New Perspective and anti-traditional Evangelical theology proponents such as New Testament scholars as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn and NT Wright.

We are told by proponents of the Emergent Church movement that traditional Evangelical doctrine divides and that the contemporary Evangelical Christian Church movement within Western Civilization must immediately discard and instantaneously jettison the undue perceived dogmas of the Protestant Reformation and embrace traditionally divergent and diametrically opposed ecclesiastical movements such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy under the banner of one big relativistic conglomerate/ synthesis and smorgasbord of “Christian spirituality.”

We are told by the postmodern driven Emergent Church proponents that traditional Evangelical doctrine is divisive and dogmatic and hence must be avoided at all costs, to be replaced by a more tolerant and inclusive “Christian spirituality” that embraces all ecclesiastical traditions that have functioned historically under the umbrella of historic Christendom.

Essentially, the Emergent Church movement leaders and ethos are arguing that the Reformation was unnecessary and the quintessential doctrines of the Protestant Reformation such as the doctrine of the authority of the Bible alone and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is wrong, irrelevant and unnecessarily obstructionist towards the Emerging Church goal of uniting all professing Christians into one united church irrespective of heresy and unbiblical teaching and practices.

The Emergent Church movement is forcefully and openly proclaiming that the traditional doctrinal differences that have historically divided Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy are ill-founded and unnecessary. This is why many Evangelicals are now openly incorporating aspects of Roman Catholic spirituality and teaching into the spiritual disciplines and doctrinal instruction within their respective local churches. Since doctrine no longer matters to most contemporary Evangelicals and historic Reformation teaching is always anathema to many Evangelical Pastors, we are told we should openly embrace the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice into our fellowships.

We are also informed by many Emergent Church leaders that the traditional Evangelical opposition towards female pastors, elders and leadership in the local church are equally archaic and fallacious and that we must openly embrace the overt femmization of Christianity and allow women to lead men in the local Church despite the fact the Bible teaches that women are never to lead men in the context of the local church (1 Timothy 2).

Likewise, many within the Emergent Church movement are calling the Church to embrace homosexuality as viable lifestyle and similarly adopt pluralism, the acceptance of all religions and life-styles as being equally valid as being true.
However, despite this Postmodern and Emergent Church call to discard traditional and conservative Evangelical Doctrine and Practice, I believe this call towards complete assimilation into the postmodern ethos and the embracing of all varieties of spirituality and lifestyle _expression is unwarranted and self-defeating since the Postmodern world-view is so easily demonstrated to be illogical and self-refuting.

Just as relativism can be demonstrated to be false and self-defeating based on the fact that this view in denying there are concrete and real absolutes at once, borrows from the traditional Christian absolutist world-view and deems the traditional Evangelical view to be wrong, all the while proclaiming there are no propositional truths, thus operating in a vicious and self-defeating circle of nonsensical language.

Despite the Postmodernist Emergent Church call to disregard and discard the traditional and conservative Evangelical-Protestant doctrinal positions that clearly divided Evangelicalism from divergent forms of Ecclesiastical spirituality, doctrine, practice and engagement with secular culture, Postmodernity and the Emerging Church is self-defeating and offers the Christian Church in Western Civilization absolutely no concrete reason why we should not abandon Christianity altogether.

In counter distinction to this ill-advised and destructive pathway charted out by many Postmodern and Emerging Evangelicals, there is a better and wiser course of action: embracing the doctrines of the Historic Evangelical Church for these teachings are founded on the authority of infallible Scripture and will never fade away.

American Evangelicals must stand for the authority of the Bible alone, and the essential teachings of the Christian faith that has made Conservative Evangelicalism what it is, the most powerful force of Biblical change on the face of the Earth.

American Evangelicals should not abandon the traditions of our Biblical Christianity, to do so would be to go against the clear authority of Holy Scripture and to effect mutiny against Almighty God who sent His Son Jesus Christ to be both Savior and Lord of the earth.

Every Evangelical believer and Pastor in America should be careful to avoid the teachings of the Emergent Church movement and stand fast to the Word of God and the essential teachings of the Evangelical Christian Faith

“The grass withers, the flower fades away, but the Word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 43:10).

2006-11-09T12:55:00.000-08:00

Why the Republicans Lost Big

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes."

Proverbs 21:1

"And (God) changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise, And knowledge to those who have understanding."

(Daniel 2:21)

Crushed and humiliated, its dreams utterly shattered like an errant shell casing in the misguided war in Iraq, the Republican Party lost it's leadership of the House of Representatives last night and probably the US Senate if Jim Webb's lead holds up in Virgina. But why? Why did the national GOP experience such a devastating loss in last night's elections?

From a Biblical and theological perspective, the Republicans lost big, because this is the will of Almighty God, who the Scriptures says raises up kings and casts them down and works all things after the counsel of His sovereign will (Ephesians 1:11).

From a purely human perspective, the Republicans lost big because many Americans feel the Republican Party has spiraled out of control and is not listening to the American People, especially in the War in Iraq, which the Bush administration and the GOP have failed to give the American people a compelling argument on why we are still in Iraq, especially since it has been proved that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Evangelical Christians, while disappointed with the GOP's demise, should remember that the secular Republican Party and the Christian Church and the Kingdom of God are not one and the same thing with the same agendas and we should flourish in whatever political environment God chooses to put us in, whether it be under the Democrats or the Roman Empire.

2006-11-09T10:55:00.000-08:00

An Open Response

to Ed Enochs and The Evangelical Debate Society"

For we know in part and we prophecy in part...Now we see but a poor reflection...Now I know in part; then Ishall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1 Cor13:9-12).

Dear Ed,

It is obvious to me that you truly care and are concerned for my eternal well being. You are scared that God is going to torture me in hell for all eternity. I understand where you are coming from because I was once there myself. I too believed that God had this dark, cruel plan to torment without end those who never even asked to live in the first place. I too believed that everyone who disagreed with my perspective was an enemy of God.

I too thought that my interpretation of Scripture was the infallible , perfect, word of God. After long, deep, concentrated reflection, I now realize that godly men can disagree on interpretations of ancient texts. From the earliest times men who sought after God disagreed about the nature of the Messiah. As you know, godly leaders within your church disagree about Calvinism and Arminianism, they disagree about the rapture of the church, they disagree about the tongues.

Others disagree about the millennium, infant baptism, spiritual gifts, women in ministry, eternal security, predestination, and the nature and duration of hell. Daniel B. Wallace says, "In a historical-literary investigation we are dealing with probability vs. possibility. We are attempting to recover meaning without all the data. This is not a hard science...Unlike the hard sciences, a falsifiable hypothesis in the humanities is difficult to demonstrate because of the vacillations in the levels of ambiguity in the data examined (in our case, the ambiguities in the texts whose authors cannot be consulted" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 9).

I think it would be wise for us to take his warning seriously. We are not able to pull John, or Paul aside and ask, what did you mean by that? This leave us to put the pieces together the best we can. Biblical, or any other interpretation is not a perfect science. I understand why you interpret the text the way you do, because I once had the same perspective. You asked what you could do for me. What you could do is to please, please try to understand that godly individuals can and do often disagree about their interpretation.

The same reason why we haved I agreements on the timing of the tribulation or the various views on the millennium are the same reasonswhy some interpret the text as teaching Jesus is the human son of God and not YWHW, the one God of Israel. Ed, I think the church has used hell to scare people enough to not truly consider other viewpoints.

Why would anyone question the Trinity if they thought Godwas going to toast them forever without end if they changed their mind? If we were honest, most of us did not believe that Godwas one being in three co-eternal, co-equal persons when we were saved. We just knew that God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. Secondly, even mature Christians who have studied the Scriptures for years, when asked to explain the Trinity either articulate Social Trinitariansim (a God family), where three distinct beings are equally God, or Modalistic Monarchiansim, which is one God who manifests himself in three different ways, forms, ormodes. In other words, most people who claim to be Trinitarians are really only Trinitarians in name, orword, not in reality.

The truth of each persons belief is revealed upon their explanation. If we came across a person in church who claimed they were driving a Hummer, but upon being asked to explain the vehicle, they said it was built on the same frame as a Dodge Neon, and some of the newer ones are convertibles, we would immediately point out, thateven though this person thinks they are driving a Hummer, it is really a PT Cruiser :-) Lastly, the overwhelming emphasis in the NT is that aperson must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, not God, the second person of the Triune Godhead.

This is by far the general tenor of Scripture.

1. When Jesus asked Peter, who do you say that I am? Peter confesses that, "Thou art the Christ (Messiah),the son of the living God" (Matt 16).

2. Paul says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Godraised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9).

Is this not enough?

3. John says, "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 20:36). John explicitly tells us the whole purpose of his entire gospel right here. If he wanted John 1 and 8:58 to teach us that Jesus is the second member of a Tri-une Godhead, here was the perfect place. Instead he chose to say, everything I wrote is for the purpose of telling you that Jesus is Messiah.

4. John says, "For God so loved the world that he sent his uniquely begotten son, for whoever believes him shall not perish but have everlasting life"(3:16). 5. John also says, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well" (1 John 5:1). It seems pretty clear that everyone means everyone, no?

I know that you are having a hard time accepting it, but the truth is that I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord. I believe that God raised him from the dead. I love both the Father and Jesus his Son. I really hope that some day you can learn to appreciate this and see that I am standing on the plain testimony of Scripture.

Respectfully,

Dan Mages

HungerTruth

http://www.hungertruth.com/

2006-11-09T08:40:00.000-08:00

The Tragic Tale that is Gripping America!

Is It the end of the world as we know it?

"what is truth?" ----Pilate

Post election news....This just in! In what should be a Jerry Springeresque trailer park slug-fest for the ages, it has been recently reported that media created multi-millionaire teeny bop icon and diva Britney Spears has filed for divorce from her slacker back up dancer and wannabe rappa/gangsta husband Kevin Federline ("K-Fed" to his legion of fans).

Upon hearing of his estranged wife's decision to sue for divorce, K-Fed filed for spousal support. (How can he ever survive!)

The question now must be asked why the news media has spent so much, much time in recent days covering the election results, when an infinitely more pressing issue, like Britney and K-Fed's tragic break up became public knowledge. What a grave injustice!

Editorial:

Before many of you think I have lost my mind, I am using sarcasm to make the over the top point that are media and popular culture worship celebrities and that all the time and monetary resources America society spends on such banal and meaningless dribble could be spent on real issues like ending abortion and stopping the injustice and murder of Christians in Darfur Sudan.

In our superficial and celebrity obsessed American culture, it is not the real issues and meaningful people that matter to most, but it is pointless trash like the K-Fed breakup and talentless media created stars like Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson that make headlines...

Substantial and cognitive discourse over the real issues that face America is what is needed most, not gossip and innuendo that Americans crave like junkies seeking a quick fix...

Media can be a drug if you let it overwhelm you...

Or will you allow yourself to be overwhelmed by God and His Word?

In a sense, many American's are virtual junkies themselves, seeking to fulfill their emptiness on the pointless dribble witnessed on Ophra, Entertainment Tonight or Dr. Phil.

Our culture needs a spiritual and intellectual revival or we are doomed to drown ourselves to death on substance free T.V.

We all need to turn from the banality of superfical American Culture and back to Jesus Christ and the teachings of Holy Scripture...

"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 20:31