The Religion of Environmentalism?

Posted by Dan C. on

Nancy Pelosi on Earth Day:  “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'”

Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars alike seem to be united that It’s not in the Bible. Read the entire article here. Apparently this is not the first time Ms. Pelosi has used this biblical ‘quote’, which she attributed to Isaiah.

I performed an Internet search for ‘the religion of environmentalism’ and got back 9000,000+ hits.  Environmental (along with socio-economic) themes have taken center stage in many evangelical churches, fueled by the global warming doomsday scenario for which a former vice-president received a Nobel prize (do they ever take those things back?). Such a scenario can serve to unite nations (and religions?) all over the globe (how does the U.N. fit in here?).

What about the connection between worship of the earth, etc. and pagan religions? Pagan religions are being accepted by those in the “Emergent” conversation that accept the ‘all roads lead to Rome’ system of religious pluralism, which is even gaining popularity by evangelical leaders who have said that they are no longer sure of the exclusive claims of Christ (John 14:6). 

I am not saying that being good stewards of God’s creation is not important:

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”Genesis 1:28

“Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” Genesis 2:15

Finally, is there a connection between any/all of the above to the one-world religion spoken of as arising before the second coming of Christ?

Regardless of the answer to any of these questions, I am reminded once again of what Paul said is of FIRST importance in 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 – the death and resurrection of Christ. As believers called to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, we need to keep first things first.

Is God’s "Unconditional Acceptance" a Biblical Concept?

Posted by Dan C. on

Some time ago I participated in a Bible study concerning the importance of knowing what we believe as Christians – a great subject! A major point of the study book and materials was the topic of “unconditional acceptance” – God’s unconditional acceptance of us and the need for our unconditional acceptance of others. We should accept others with all their sin and faults, because we know that God accepts us even with our sin. This has become the mantra of much of today’s evangelical church – the new gospel, if you will. But is it biblical?

Well, I can’t find in anywhere in the Bible, and believe me I did my homework. What I do find in the Bible is Christ’s death for our sin as the first point of the gospel message that Paul preached, among others. What the death of Christ in our place means is that God can only accept us through the shed blood of His own Son. Saving faith hinges on recognizing our sin, repentance and a wholehearted turning from it, not bringing it with us!

I found that “unconditional acceptance” became the centerpiece of humanistic psychology beginning in the mid ’50s.  It gradually invaded the church until the condition we have today that it is this ‘new gospel’ permits avoiding the sin issue in the proclamation of the good news, as well as the need for continuously confronting the sin in our lives and turning from it in the process of sanctification as we grow spiritually.

Did I pose a rhetorical question? You bet, as far as I am concerned! The myth of God’s “unconditional acceptance” of sinners is the greatest lie the enemy has ever fed the human race (especially the church), except for the original lie in the Garden when he hinted that we can be like God and the first couple bit.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, unless someone can offer solid scriptural proof that I am wrong.

Concerning Fear of God and the Wrath of God

Posted by Dan C. on

“Why is it that even among those who profess to be the Lord’s people there is so little real subjection to His Word, and that its precepts are so lightly esteemed and so readily set aside? Ah! what needs to be stressed to-day is that God is a God to be feared. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7). Happy the soul that has been awed by a view of God’s majesty, that has had a vision of God’s awful greatness, His ineffable holiness, His perfect righteousness, His irresistible power, His sovereign grace. Does someone say, “But it is only the unsaved, those outside of Christ, who need to fear God”? Then the sufficient answer is that the saved, those who are in Christ, are admonished to work out their own salvation with “fear and trembling.” Time was, when it was the general custom to speak of a believer as a “God-fearing man”—that such an appellation has become nearly extinct only serves to show whither we have drifted. Nevertheless, it still stands written, “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him” (Psalms 103:13)! —A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

“If this generation were to take a crash course in the fear of God, our shallow view of sin would immediately deepen.”
-C.J. Mahaney

“While falling all over ourselves trying to conceal this ’embarrassing’ feature of God’s character, we’ve sent this signal to our culture: God is infinitely understanding, sympathetic, patient, and sentimental. God is nice! God is a kind of cosmic Mr. Rogers, always ready to greet you with a warm smile and a pleasant word.

Because we have difficulty reconciling wrath with our perception of a loving God, the Church and this culture have sought to create God in their own image. But Scripture makes no apologies concerning the wrath of God. In fact, A.W. Pink notes that there are more references to God’s wrath in the Bible than to his love. We probably don’t have any of these passages underlined, but perhaps we should. We need to give serious study to the wrath of God.”
-C.J. Mahaney

The above quotes were borrowed from the Reformed Voices blog. It’s a great place to visit!

Is anyone REALLY separated from God?

Posted by Dan C. on

I have not lost my marbles and been sucked into the great abyss of full-blown Emergentville that tells us that ‘all roads lead to Rome’ and we just need to connect with the ‘divine’ within our own hearts.

Modern evangelism many times presents the gospel as needing a ‘personal’ relationship with Jesus, as if we don’t know Jesus, we are separated from God. Is the idea that we have NO relationship with God if we have not trusted in Christ for our salvation really true? Or, is it a matter of being ‘in relationship’ with God’, but not in RIGHT relationship with Him. Ephesians 2 tells us that without Christ we are DEAD in sin and objects of God’s wrath. That sounds like relationship, and it’s personal. that would mean, of course, that even professed athiests are in relationship with God.

On the other hand, the who has believed in the Son of God and trusted Him for salvation has a relationship based on forgiveness – no longer objects of God’s wrath, but reconciled with, and in union with God.

There is a discussion here that speaks to the question I proposed called ‘The Gospel of Personal Relationship’.  I encourage you to listen and share your thoughts!

"The Rise of Extreme Tolerance"

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s the title of an article adapted from one of John McArthur’s latest books, a small portion of which is here:

“In the church today, there is a growing reluctance to take a definitive stand on any issue. Discernment is frankly not very welcome in a culture like ours. In fact, the postmodern perspective is more than merely hostile to discernment; it is practically the polar opposite. Think about it: pronouncing anything “true” and calling its antithesis “error” is a breach of postmodernism’s one last impregnable dogma. “Many evangelicals (once known for a very prudent and biblical approach to doctrine) are fast becoming as doctrinally clueless as the unchurched people they are so keen to please. At least three decades of deliberately downplaying doctrine and discernment in order to attract the unchurched has filled many once-sound churches with people who utterly lack any ability to differentiate the very worst fast doctrines from truth. I constantly encounter evangelical church members who are at a loss to answer the most profound errors they hear from cultists, unorthodox media preachers, or other sources of false doctrine.  . . .Certainty about anything is out of the question, and all who refuse to equivocate on any point of principle or doctrine are therefore automatically labeled too narrow. Zeal for the truth has become politically incorrect. There is actually zero tolerance for biblical discernment in a “tolerant” climate like that.” – Adapted from The Truth War, © 2007 by John MacArthur

Read the rest of this article at Grace to You. It’s an eye opener. In fact, I highly recommend you pick up the book. I found my copy about a month ago in a local Christian bookstore, in a small section that also contained a few classics by men like A.W. Tozer. that section seems to keep getting smaller and smaller while the quantity of totally self-centered spiritual junk food  keeps getting bigger.

Signs of the last times?

Salvation Apart From Repentance?

Posted by Dan C. on

Is salvation apart from repentance even possible? I am not talking here of some agonizing exercise of dredging up every little sin ever committed in order to make a verbal confession of each and every one. I am speaking however, of recognizing one’s sinful wretched state apart from Christ  and a consciousness turning away from sin and toward God.

“The idea that God will pardon a rebel who has not given up his rebellion is contrary to the Scripture and common sense. How horrible to contemplate a church full of persons who have been pardons but who still love sin and hate the ways of righteousness. And how much more horrible to think of heaven as filled with sinners who have not repented nor changed their ways of living.

I think there is little doubt that the teachings of salvation without repentance has lowered the moral standards of the church and produced a multitude of deceived religious professors who erroneously believe themselves to be saved when in fact they are still in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.” A. W. Tozer – The Root of the Righteous

There are those who would say that ‘repentance is an act, something one ‘does’, making it a work and therefore not necessary for salvation.  I have even heard on more than a few occasions and from various sources that you are accepted by Jesus and will be embraced by God “with” your sin. Such is the popular notion of “unconditional acceptance”, and what appears to be the modern definition of grace. Not only that, it is being preached as the gospel of Jesus Christ in churches all across America, not to mention ‘sold’ as the gospel in Christian bookstores filled with ‘spiritual junk food’ as the main fare.

Step right up! Come to Jesus!  NO repentance necessary! If you give up on sin later, that’s ok. If you don’t, that’s ok too! God loves you SOOOOOOOO MUCH he cannot imagine heaven without you!

My friend, the creator of the universe did not send his Son to die for our sins so that we could just drag them along with us when we eagerly raise our hand, walk down front, or sign a little card in order to have our ‘best life now’. God sent his own Son, literally ‘gave him up’, so that when faced with our sin, we would hate it, forsake it, turn to Him and live the rest of our lives for His glory!

For God so loved the world. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

“For this is the way36 God loved the world: He gave his one and only37 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish38 but have eternal life.”39 – John 3:16 (NET)36tn Or “this is how much”; or “in this way.” The Greek adverb οὕτως (Joutws) can refer (1) to the degree to which God loved the world, that is, to such an extent or so much that he gave his own Son (see R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:133-34; D. A. Carson, John, 204) or (2) simply to the manner in which God loved the world, i.e., by sending his own son (see R. H. Gundry and R. W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16,” NovT 41 [1999]: 24-39). Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (Jwste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God’s love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.37tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).38tn In John the word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) can mean either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed, depending on the context.39sn The alternatives presented are only two (again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites): perish or have eternal life.

B4B NOTE: I think it worth noting that it only those who believe have eternal life, although the extent of God’s is love is to the world. The question then becomes “Who CAN believe?”, followed by “What does it mean to believe?”

What’s wrong with being ‘seeker’ sensitive’?

Posted by Dan C. on

Disclaimer: this post is not about any specific church, person, style of music, program, or any other contemporary methods involved in what is frequently called ‘doing church’. If you draw a similarity between the topic(s) discussed herein and any actual church you know of or are involved in, please do not accuse me of being hurtful, intolerant, or accusatory. However, do take it to heart, apply the Berean principle and be obedient to what God would have you do (or not do).

First of all, let’s say the principal of ‘seeker-sensitivity’ assumes that deep down inside everyone is seeking God, whether they know it or not. The purpose of being seeker-sensitive is to attract those who do not know Christ to come to church, hear about him and choose him.  By the way, I actually heard a sermon propose that to hear of Christ and NOT choose him is to go against human nature. Let’s see what scripture has to say about the ‘natural’ man:

“As it is written:
There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips;
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  Romans 3:10-18

In the above reference, the Apostle Paul spoke specifically to everyone being in the same boat, Jews and Gentiles, NOT seeking God.  I’ll leave it to you to look up where “it is written”.

Now hear Paul again, to believers in Ephesus.

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” (Ephesians 2: 1-30)

Here he tells believers they used to be just like everyone else, spiritually dead and as ‘natural’ men, objects of God’s wrath. So mucn for the ‘natural’ man.

Now let’s assume all men are ‘seekers’. Now that’s a perfectly sound statement. We are all seeking after something. Maslow would tell you the highest goal of ‘natural’ man is self-actualization. If you are unfamiliar with Maslow, the hierarchy of needs’ he developed is still the most prominent and accepted theory of human behavior. Pertaining to the ‘natural’ man, his theory is ‘spot on’, according to the Bible. We live for ourselves.

A couple of points here:

1.  Yes, all men are seekers, but NOT after God.

2. Those who do seek God, seek him because they were made alive by the Holy Spirit. (See John 4:44, 65)

If the above is true what does being ‘seeker-sensitive mean?

It means we are in the business of appealing to the spiritually dead who are only attracted to what pleases THEM, and what pleases them isn’t God.  We end up using worldly gimmicks and methods because that’s the only way they’ll come. That, my friends, is ‘self-centered’ church and dishonors God.

On the other hand, if we understand that only those whom the Holy Spirit has awakened from the dead will receive the message of the gospel, all we have to do is preach it!  The church doors are open to anyone who wants to enter, we preach the gospel in love (including sin, judgment and God’s holy wrath), awakened hearts hear their true condition apart from Christ, are drawn to the Savior, and God receives ALL the glory!

‘Doing’ Church

Posted by Dan C. on

You hear that phrase quite a lot these days. I’m not sure when the phrase ‘do’ became connected to ‘church’, but the recollection I have of the verb ‘do’ replacing ‘go’ was hearing ‘Let’s do lunch’, probably in a television program or commercial in which a couple of upper middle class friends/business types. It actually sounded a little pretentious. Most ordinary folk either ‘go to’ or ‘eat’  lunch depending on whether or not they are headed that way, or are seated with something ready to be consumed on the table/counter top in front of them. ‘Doing’ lunch includes the other things that will occur during the period of time designated/allotted for an event for two or more people. If you are alone you don’t ‘do’ lunch, unless maybe you are talking to yourself. If you are ‘doing’ lunch you aren’t in the kitchen fixing, cooking, making, or preparing it.

From what I have observed, ‘doing’ church involves the sum of activity  that is associated with an entity called ‘church’.  The term is used by those involved in planning and presenting, along with those who attend. ‘Doing’ church is ‘hip’, ‘cool’, ‘fun’, and oh. . . ‘so now’ (as opposed to ‘so yesterday’). ‘Doing’ church is contemporary, positive, encouraging, upbeat and exciting. It is never a negative experience. It’s everything YOU could want!

. . .but is it what GOD wants?

First of all, ‘church’ by definition is the ‘called out (of the mass of fallen humanity and by God) body of believers, not buildings, programs or activities. That, however is a small point compared to the bigger issue reflected in the question “WHO is the central focus of ‘doing church’?”

By all appearances, even the casual ‘unchurched’ observer would probably conclude it’s in order to get as many of the ‘unchurched’ IN church and then keep them coming so that they can become ‘churched’?  Well, not exactly. The goal is for the ‘unchurched’ to become believers, or followers of Christ, which IS the right goal. So why not just use the term ‘non-believers’? Well, in the always positive, upbeat and encouraging world of ‘doing church’, if we called the ‘unchurched’  ‘non-believers’ it could be perceived as negative, maybe a personal attack, or even hate speech! That’s an opinion – maybe exaggerated a bit, but I think there’s truth in it.

Everywhere I look at the typical American church these days, it seems to all about ‘satisfying the consumer’ than first and foremost about God and his glory. I see self-centeredness  instead of God-centeredness. I don’t care if you call it seeker-friendly, purpose driven, ‘real’ church for ‘real’ people, or whatever, if God is not at the center, it’s upside down, and in direct opposition to everything Jesus had to say about the new covenant and discipleship.

This is not about music or worship styles, or any of the other ‘things’ that accompany the gathering of God’s people, although some of the ‘things’ these days are highly questionable. It’s about  GOD and HIS glory. But to grasp what that really means, one must have a proper understanding of who we are and who God IS.

. . .and that’s another worthy and much needed discussion these last days.

Be blessed,

B4B

"I Saw the Lord. . ." – Isaiah 6:1-5

Posted by Dan C. on

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

      “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
      The whole earth is full of His glory!”

4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 So I said:
      “Woe is me, for I am undone!
      Because I am a man of unclean lips,
      And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
      For my eyes have seen the King,
      The LORD of hosts.”

One commentary  (Gill) has this to say about the fifth verse:

Isa 6:5 – Then said I, woe is me,…. There’s no woe to a good man, all woes are to the wicked; but a good man may think himself wretched and miserable, partly on account of his own corruptions, the body of sin and death he carries about with him; and partly on account of wicked men, among whom he dwells,

because I am a man of unclean lips; he says nothing of the uncleanness of his heart, nor of his actions; not that he was free from such impurity; but only of his lips, because it was the sin of his office that lay upon his mind, and gave him present uneasiness; there is no man but offends in words, and of all men persons in public office should be careful of what they say; godly ministers are conscious of many failings in their ministry.

The particular significance to this old guy at 04:15 AM, April 11, 2008 is this:

To see the Lord is to be abruptly confronted with the sin that still remains within us. I cannot imagine it otherwise.

There is also a question that comes to mind: “When Dan steps into the sanctuary of the church he attends, or even other churches, is the presence of the Lord so noticeable that there is a consciousness of personal sinfulness? Even a little bit?” There should be something about a church sanctuary that reflects his unique holiness, separate from this world and all it’s sin and sensual appetites.

That’s Sunday morning. No matter what the day of the week, I should live with a humble, ever-present consciousness of who I am in the flesh in comparison to the High and Holy One who dwells within me by His Holy Spirit. That’s not something I can somehow ‘drum up’ on my own. It is however present when the Holy Spirit within has sufficient sway over the still remaining lusts of my flesh. It comes ‘NEW naturally’ when His Word is hidden in my heart. (Psalm 199:11).