Category Archives: Truth

Man in His Fallen Estate

Posted by Dan C. on

. . .and sacrificing Truth on the Altar of Niceness

“Man, with all his boasted understanding and attainments, is a fool: so long as he is destitute of the saving grace of God, his conduct, as to his most important concernments, is more absurd and inconsistent then that of the meanest idiot; with respect to his affections and pursuits, he is degraded far below the beasts; and for malignity and wickedness of his will, can be compared to nothing so properly as the devil.” – John Newton (1725 – 1807 & author of “Amazing Grace) from the letter “Man in His Fallen Estate”.

That is HARSH! I can’t even imagine Rev. Newton preaching that in  some many most(?) of today’s churches!  Where did he ever get such a low opinion of people who have not believed in and received Christ as Savior? That’s a BIG difference in the way many preachers and teachers talk about man’s condition in today’s Christian environment.

Was John Newton too harsh? Do some of today’s preachers sacrifice hard truth on the altar of niceness?

Think about it and feel free to share your thoughts.

How to Hate Your Neighbor – Redux

Posted by Dan C. on

II don’t spend a lot of time using the WordPress tools to analyze this blog, but a few days ago I actually took a look at my blog’s Dashboard and noticed that the “Most Active” post right now is How to Hate Your Neighbor, with triple digit views. Discounting the possibility that some of my own views are in included in the count, It’s still a sizeable number, at least for an ‘average guy’ blog. There are only four comments for the most active post, however, two of them being author replies to reader comments.

Apparently, while the title attracted curious viewers, few wanted to talk about the subject matter. Either they just thought the author was nuts, might have had a point but it was hard to understand, or the point just escaped them. Whatever the case, a bucket load of viewers didn’t comment, even though discussion was invited and encouraged at the bottom of the original post.

Perhaps the ‘personal’ tone generated the usual “he’s judging ME” in the minds of viewers who either don’t share the Gospel, or who share the “wrong” gospel (that would have been the “don’t ever tell them” list).

That post was only as personal as any reader perceived it to be, and if perceptions are a a kind of reality, I guess it was personal. When I remember the time, years ago, when I shared a tract with a prostitute on a downtown street of a small Kansas town that maximized God’s “wonderful plan” but gave second place to “sin”, it’s personal to me.

I was really proud of myself for not ‘witnessing’ like the fellows on the other side of the street who passed out tracts that talked about Hell and judgment and asked passersby “Where’s your soul going to die?”, with what I thought was a snarky tone. Those same fellows, from an Independent Protestant church in town with what I called “legalistic” tendencies, operated a little Servicemen’s Center on that street. Night after night, they would stand outside of the entrance and “ambush” unsuspecting sinners. The “regulars” just walked on the other side of the street.

Back to the point. . .

I was really proud that I was engaging a few people on the street that night in real conversation and not ambushing them. I simply walked both sides of the street striking up a conversation or two and guiding it to spiritual matters. If the person with whom I was speaking seemed receptive, I pulled out one of the pamphlets I had in my pocket and shared all about “God’s love and wonderful plan”. Sure, sin was mentioned, but in the sense that it separates us from God and the “wonderful plan”.

Does God have a plan” Sure He does, but it might only be wonderful in His mind and not ours. He doesn’t think like us. If you take a close look at evangelistic encounters in the New Testament, you don’t find the “wonderful plan” approach anywhere!

Where did that leave me, considering I loved sharing the Gospel? It left me with SIN as the main issue. I would have to be able to talk about that which unbelievers find extremely offensive and I certainly wouldn’t win friends and influence people. The ONLY reason a non-believer needs to come to Christ is to deal with the SIN issue. Everything else falls into place after that is taken care of.

“Leading” people to a “decision” to accept Christ for all the great things in store for them, is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at it’s worst. You see, a half truth is still a lie, and representing something as the “main thing” when it’s not, is likewise a lie, at least in my book.

So yes, that last post was personal – and you are still encouraged to read it and respond, whether you agree, disagree, or just don’t care. I would love to talk about it.

How to Hate Your Neighbor

Posted by Dan C. on

Recently I watched a short video clip from a well known American entertainer and atheist in which he made a very thought provoking statement. The speaker defended both atheists’ and Christians’ efforts in proselytizing.  About Christians he asked a question that could be summarized: “If you believe there’s a Heaven and a Hell and people go there, that eternal life is a possibility, how much to you have to hate others to NOT tell them about it?”

Think about it for a minute. . ., or two, or three, or more. This guy did.

Well, after the dust settled in my brain, and I picked my heart up off the floor, I had to admit that the man had a point. We MUST really hate our neighbor to NOT share with him/her the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I couldn’t get it out of my head. Could there even be anything worse, more cruel or hateful, than NOT to share the truth that sets men free, can keep them from Hell, and assure them a home in Heaven? And it hit me like a ton of bricks. . .

Tell them, but. . .lie. . .

Just tell them . . .

  • God loves them so much He can’t imagine His heaven without them in it.
  • They can come to Jesus WITH their sin.
  • They can have their best life now !
  • They have a special purpose in life, custom made by God, and they just need to discover it to be happy and fulfilled.
  • Jesus died for their dreams.
  • God knows we are just human and make mistakes that separate us from Him, so He sent His Son to “bridge the gap”.
  • All they have to do is “decide” to follow Jesus, “ask/accept”  Him into their heart”, or repeat a little prayer. That way they are in total control.

In other words, tell them stuff that emphasizes that they are the very center of God’s universe and everything He does, He does just for them!

But don’t ever tell them. . .

  • That apart from Christ, we are all DEAD in our SINS, deserving of God’s wrath – that we are “born on death row”.
  • The truth about SIN – it’s not just mistakes and errors in judgment (things we do) but a terminal illness we are born with (who we are).
  • That Jesus died for their sins, in their place, to appease the wrath of His Father against all sin.
  • That the first word of the Gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter and John on Pentecost, was “repent”.
  • That repentance is part and parcel of the gift of faith and genuine belief in Christ.
  • Being a Christian is no guarantee of a better job, house, car, or any other form of material gain.
  • That they would face trials, persecution, be hated, and might face death because of their faith in Christ.

In other words, don’t tell them that God’s primary concern is His own Name – that everything He does is first and foremost a demonstration of His power, designed to bring Himself great honor and glory!

There you have it. Two ways to hate your neighbor: 1) Don’t tell others about the path to peace and eternal life, or 2) tell them, but lie about it.

And how might following the above lists of “do’s and don’ts” show a greater hatred for my neighbor than not telling them at all? 

Think about it and let’s discuss it.

What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?

Posted by Dan C. on

This is a question addressed at the gotQuestions site.  It is the central question to be asked and answered – What dies scripture have to say about the issue? Below is the answer that was presented and that seems to have been very objective and really address the issue directly from scripture. I believe all the links work and will take you to the referenced scripture or reference cited. Search the scriptures and please discuss!

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the Church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the Church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first Bishop of Rome. As Bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the Bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman Bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next Bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

4) Based upon the Roman Catholic claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, they teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the Pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the Papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “mother Church” as being necessary to guide the Church, and use that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, you find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace…” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Bible pope, Bible papacy and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Blasphemy, anyone?

Posted by Dan C. on

This picture reminds me of the crowd outside of Lot’s door . . .

gayrally2

At this rally, the Mayor of Sacramento suggested Jesus would allow same-sex marriage. I suppose he believes the sin in the encounter at Lot’s home was merely “inhospitality”. Consider this:

The basis for this (inhospitably) argument is that the men of the city asked “to know” (KJV) the angels in the sense of “to get aquainted” with them. The Hebrew word word translated “to know” is yada and is the common word for “to know.” In the average context, it does have this basic meaning. However, the Bible often used the term “to know” as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or sexual relations. It is used this way first when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived and bare him a son (Gen. 4:1). It is also used this way in the following passages: Gen. 4:17, 25; 38:26; Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4 and even in the New Testament in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 1:34. Most translations favor this meaning for Genesis 19:5 as well. Notice how this is brought out in the following translations:

“They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (NIV), “that we may have relations with them” (NASB), “that we may know them carnally” (NKJV), “that we may have intimacies with them” (NAB), “so we can have sex with them” (NLT), “so that we can have intercourse with them” (NJB).

The point is that this is the preferred meaning of scholars and translators. The only way you would arrive at the meaning of “get aquainted with” in Genesis 19:5 is to approach it with a bias in favor of homosexuality. The idea that God would destroy a city merely because of a lack of hospitality is unthinkable. And all the men of the city would not surround Lot’s house and beat down his door merely to “get aquanited” with these men. Lot would not have begged them “Please, my brothers . . . don’t do such a wicked thing” (verse 7, NLT) if that was all that they wanted. When he offered his two daughters to them instead and said that they “have not known a man” (verse 8), it is obvious that he did not mean that they had never been aquanited with anybody so you guys can go ahead and get aquanited with them. This is further emphasized when he says “do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men” (verse 8). This indicates that the men of the city wanted to do something more than merely meet these men. It can also be seen in their response, since they told Lot “now we will treat you worse than them” (verse 9). Finally, Jude 7 specifically states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality (see also 2 Peter 2:6-10). – Source.

At least in the Genesis account, there was no pretense on the part of the men of the city who lusted after Lot’s visitors that God somehow approved of their immorality.

And don’t even think about playing the “Why do you Christians single out homosexuality?” card. If you are engaged in homosexual activity, or a proponent of “gay” marriage and reading this, remember that you brought this to our door and made it an issue, with all of your recent ‘activity’.

Yes, ALL sin is SIN. It is SIN that sends men to Hell, regardless of what it looks like. There is good news however:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

If you are reading this and know not Christ, know that in your unbelief you stand condemned already (John 3:18) may God open your eyes and ears to see and hear His gospel, so that you would recognize your wretched condition, and by His grace repent, turn to Him, and LIVE! (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Sufficiency of Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

John Piper, in a short article here, while discussing doctrinal disputes of the 4th century church, had this to say about the sufficiency of scripture:

“That doctrine (the sufficiency of scripture) is based mainly on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Jude 1:3.

The sacred writings . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. . . . Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”).”

The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is not a discussion of those things for which scripture is profitable, however we do need to take a hard look at the statement:

“We have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge.”

None of us Bible believing, small group (real or virtual) attending, evangelical Christians would dare disagree with the thought that scripture is the perfect standard for judging other knowledge. However, I think we have a problem with ALL other knowledge. My observation over recent years has been that while we will quickly quote some scripture or another as the authority for some point we make during our kitchen table/living room “what this verse means to ME Bible studies”, we have a serious issue with applying that principle to ourselves!

In some cases, we’ve been ‘raised’ with the aforementioned method of studying the bible, having been taught by our pastors, teachers, and leaders that this is the way we are supposed to approach scripture. On the other hand, some of us know better, having been taught at some point the great orthodox doctrines of our faith (that would be me). I am still prone to apply a verse or passage where, if taken in context, or interpreted rightly, might not really apply to the matter at hand.

Another way we violate the principle of judging what we ‘think’ we know by the standard of scripture, is accepting every thought that arrives between our ears, or every warm fuzzy feeling in our hearts as having come from God! We are really good at having ‘personal insights’ that are not necessarily found in the scripture we are studying, and even heading to other places in scripture, pulling other passages out of their context, in order to ‘prove’ our special ‘insight’! Then when share our special insights, we pat ourselves on the back and affirm each others imaginations!

Woe to the person who attempts to inject into our self-affirming love fests the possibility that we might be even a bit ‘off base’, or who asks the question “But is that what the scripture is really saying?” Critical thinking is not allowed! And don’t ever suggest that we might be completely wrong about our errant musings! Any input that is not intentionally affirming, uplifting, or encouraging is ‘bad, bad, fruit’ and the one who would dare bring it to the table is mean spirited, divisive, intolerant, judgmental, and since ‘bad trees’ bear ‘bad fruit’, such a one is at least a false prophet, and might not even saved!

My brothers and sisters, we have a serious decision to make. We need to return to the authority and sufficiency of scripture, interpret it rightly instead of out of our own hearts and imaginations, lest we become false prophets unto ourselves, if we aren’t already.

Has the Holy Spirit Left the Building?

Posted by Dan C. on

You probably think that’s a silly question. I mean it in all seriousness, so I guess I need to explain why I ask it. We need only look to a short passage in the Gospel of John for a clue to the answer.

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. – John 16:7-11 (ESV)

The context of this passage is the conversation Jesus had with His disciples after they had supped for the last time and before His betrayal and arrest that were soon to follow. Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure and comforting them with the promise of the Helper to come, the Holy Spirit. For some, the Holy Spirit would be ‘another comforter’ in Jesus absence (John, Ch 14). For others, the Holy Spirit would be the One who would ‘convict’ of sin, righteousness, and judgment. It is to the matter of the conviction concerning sin, that we now turn.

First, who is it that would be convicted? The passage tells us ‘the world’, the kosmos, and that paints a broad picture. We can say with certainty that ‘the world’ must include those in it that have an issue with sin. We can further propose that the sin of which Jesus speaks is the sin of ‘unbelief’ that He spoke of repeatedly in John’s Gospel; that He was indeed the One sent by God to ‘save His people from their sins’. The ‘world’ refers at least to all those remain in unbelief and stand condemned from birth (John 3:18).

What about our question, then? To what does it refer?  Allow me to explain in terms of ‘modern’ evangelistic practices. To a great extent, “today’s church believes it must win the lost to Christ by winning their favor, it no longer teaches the biblical doctrines of sin, hell, repentance, or the cross because those would offend the lost or make them feel uncomfortable,” (John MacArthur). The gospel according to the ‘Beatles’ has replaced the Gospel according to inspired Scripture. “Love, love, love” is the drawing card, instead of confronting sinners with their perilous condition of being DEAD in sin (Eph 2), and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict of sin ‘draw’ sinners to the Cross.

Are people saved if a sinless gospel is preached? I would say yes, but IN SPITE OF a powerless message, NOT because of it!

So, since people ARE saved when a sinless gospel is preached, HAS the Holy Spirit left the building?  “Technically’, NO. Without the presence of the Holy Spirit regenerating and drawing lost souls to Christ, no person would EVER be saved.

I propose that there is something far more serious taking place wherever and whenever a ‘sinless’ gospel is preached,  You see, it takes intentionality to preach the gospel without mentioning sin, the need for repentance, and judgment, unless the preacher/messenger is so ignorant that he/she doesn’t know that SIN is in fact the central issue. There was a time when I would never have dreamed such ignorance exists, but I fear that in today’s evangelical climate, that which was once unimaginable is now common place.

Well, if the Holy Spirit has not left the building (technically), what’s the issue? The issue is simply this:

Although the Holy Spirit is still in the building, regenerating and drawing to the Cross those whom God has mercifully elected for salvation, the Holy Spirit has actually been asked to leave!  Hear me out. Any church, or any person, who would dare claim to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ without addressing the very issues the Holy Spirit came to address – sin, righteousness, and judgment – has in effect pointed to the ‘front door’ and said “Leave the building, we don’t need you!”

What we are left with, no matter how many or how few people attend a particular church, are pews and/or stadium seats filled with a lot of ‘tares’ with a few stalks of ‘wheat’ scattered here and there, hungry for doctrine and ‘hard’ truth they may never be served.

Think about it. . .

________________

Relevant and scripturally supported comments are encouraged, whether you agree or disagree.

When did it change?

Posted by Dan C. on

When did the Gospel message change from telling others of the need to ‘personally’ recognize one’s sinful condition and believe in Christ as savior to telling them they need to ‘accept Him as their ‘personal’ Savior? One concept is founded in and specifically presented in scripture and the other is not. One focuses on God and what He has done to save sinners and the other on a person’s decision. One presents the sovereignty of God while the other makes the individual’s decision the final event in the chain of events leading to salvation, which would mean that God shares His sovereignty with man (even if it’s just a decision).

No scripture here yet, just the question “When did it change?”, followed by the next logical question “WHY did it change?”

Satan’s Gambit

Posted by Dan C. on

In the world of chess, a gambit is a chess opening in which the first player risks or sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position. One article I found that contained a list of twenty opening gambits, including one colorfully named the Fried Liver Attack. Not included in the list was Satan’s Gambit.   Perhaps that’s because in the world of chess there isn’t an opening gambit with that name – at least I didn’t find one.

So what do I mean by Satan’s Gambit, and to what game does it apply? I’m glad you asked those questions – we’ll address them in reverse order.

Satan’s Gambit is not about a game, but about our Christian faith, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph 6;12), and Satan is the enemy’s CINC (Commande in Chief).  In the art of spiritual warfare, Satan’s opening gambit has always been to attack the authority of inspired Scripture, since the days of the New Testament church. The Apostle Paul specifically addressed ‘other gospels’ that had corrupted the pure Gospel of Christ.

The latest form of Satan’s Gambit would probably reside in the philosophy of the Emergent church, and the leaders of the ‘conversation’ whose passion for the uncertainty of scripture has been heard from their own lips and thoroughly documented, as have strong connections to the ‘contemplative prayer movement’ . As novel and appealing as their ideas might be, they lack a truly original thought.  The Emperor of Uncertainty has new clothes but he’s still running around naked.  Dr. John MacArthur had this to say in an insightful interview with Phil Johnson:

The bottom line, I think, in the movement is that it is a denial of the clarity of Scripture. It is a denial that we can know what the Bible really says. And as I said, it’s amorphous because there’s a mish-mash of approaches to this and a mish-mash of styles and things like that. But they have embraced this mystery as if it’s true spirituality. And so, it becomes celebration of mystery, a celebration of ignorance, a celebration that we can’t really know. I think it’s just another form of liberalism. I think it’s just another form of denying the clarity of Scripture. And I think there’s a motive behind it…it’s just another philosophy.

Post-modernism is another bad philosophy. Modernism was a bad philosophy. Post-modernism is another bad philosophy. But in both cases, they assault the Scripture. Modernism made reason, human reason, the king. Reason was supreme in modernism. Thomas Payne, The Age of Reason, The Enlightenment, all of those things, the Renaissance. Out of that came the worship of the human mind and the mind trumps God. Now mystery trumps the Bible. The human mind trumps the Bible in modernism, mystery trumps the Bible in post-modernism. It is at the foundation an unwillingness to accept the clear teaching of Scripture. (Online source) (Emphasis mine.)

However dangerous to the church the Emergent movement might be, there is a deceptive variant of Satan’s Gambit that is far more dangerous to the spiritual growth of the individual believer. Rather than openly doubting the authority of scripture, this version of the gambit is far more subtle. While seeming to allow for adherence to biblical doctrine, the variant assigns more importance to personal insights and feelings about scripture than the clear teaching of scripture itself. There is even an online university that advertises a book ‘Hearing God’s Voice – Guaranteed!’. The book teaches that the best way to hear God’s voice is through our ‘spontaneous thoughts, feelings and insights’. To test the validity of these ‘journaled’ spontaneous thoughts, they are given to three others who ‘discern’ whether or not it was God speaking.

I am not saying that God doesn’t ever speak, or isn’t involved in our thoughts and emotions. The test of their validity,however, should be the light of Scripture, not the ‘third party’ discernment described above. What we have here is a form of mysticism that teaches the gullible how to be false prophets to themselves! The authority and light of Scripture is supplanted by subjective internal feelings and experiences. Sound rather ridiculous? It should!

You might be asking “How do sincere believers fall for this kind of false teaching?”  Well, there are probably several ways, but I know of a perfect ‘training ground’ that the enemy uses to slide the gullible (usually believers young in their faith) right into it! I speak from experience because I’ve been there and back. What I am referring to is popular What Does this Verse Mean “to ME”? form of Bible study.

This highly subjective approach to scripture lets the individual interpret the text by what he/she ‘feels’  God is saying. When this is the accepted/preferred form of studying the Bible, all sorts of ‘wonderful insights’ are obtained and self-congratulation abounds, accompanied by considerable fawning over everyone else’s ‘insights’. I remember many such Bible studies in which no one was really growing in grace and discipleship, but we sure felt good about ourselves! Can you see the progression here?

  • Reading the Bible but spending more time discussing how one ‘feels’ about the text instead of inductive study to learn what it says in context and applying it.
  • Progressing to a deeper level of ‘hearing’ God’s voice and receiving ‘personal words’ of prophesy for one’s self and others, outside of scripture.
  • Doubting the very certainty of the truth of scripture and embracing forms of mysticism as the best or only way to really hear God.

While there may be other, smaller steps from innocent appearing Christian fellowship to complete apostasy, these three can almost always be observed in the process and all three attack the certainty and authority of scripture, almost invisibly at first, but sometimes resulting in embracing the heretical.

So there you have what I call Satan’s Gambit. Similar to a well played game of chess, there is an initial move that is not necessarily harmful, but that can escalate and end in disaster. Experienced chess players study various opening gambits and how to counter the advance of the enemy. How much more crucial it is for believers to be able to recognize the enemy of our souls and counter his subtle attacks!

There are NO true Atheists!

Posted by Dan C. on

I say again…there are NO true atheists, and add that the religion of atheism is Humanism. ‘Self’ is the god of atheismn.

If you are reading this as a ‘professing’ atheist, listen closely. Sir/Madam Atheist, you are your own God. I do compliment you for your sense of morality. Where did you obtain it, by the way? Where did any sense of morality come from? It came from the God of the Bible. Your sense of morality is based on ‘borrowed capital’. You borrow from God’s moral law to have a moral system, yet you desire to deny His existence. You either make it up as you go along, deciding what is ‘moral’ based on your own desires, or you claim the moral values of the system of humanism that denies God.

The only difference between the two sources of morality is the amount of self-pride resident in choosing of one over the other!

Here is a bit of Scripture for you:

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. – Psalm 2:1-4

Unlike God’s attitude toward those who “take counsel against God and His Anointed” I am not laughing.

I pray that God will pour out His mercy and grace upon you, draw you to Himself, and bring you into His glorious kingdom! If my flesh rises up in anger against you personally, I pray that God will accuse me of my own self-righteousness, and pray that He will replace that anger with tears – and He does. I pray that my zealousness in this matter is for His Kingdom and not for MY thoughts or opinions – they don’t amount to a hill of beans.

One last bit of Scripture for you, and for those who might believe in a god, but not the God of Scripture:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18, from Jesus’ own lips. . .