Click the post title to be taken to the source.
“Jesus does not speak mainly to create controversy. He speaks to call sinners to himself, and to humble the proud, and to glorify his Father. This is why he lived. This is why he died. This is why he rose again. Come to him. Be satisfied in him. Be humbled by him. Give glory to God because of him. Amen.”
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
J. C. Ryle, The Duties of Parents (pp. 30-32); HT: Nathan W. Bingham | It is a true proverb, ‘Who sins before a child, sins double.’ Strive rather to be a living epistle of Christ, such as your families can read, and that plainly too. Be an example of reverence for the Word of God, [...]
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
***Warning: Some of these images are very graphic***
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Years ago, when in high school in Carmel Indiana, I found myself in what would become one of the most memorable classes I would ever take. It was a class that was entirely focused on the French Revolution. I cannot remember my teachers name, but he was good. I say that because I remember [...]
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
Returning To Reimagined Roman Catholicism
In posts like Emerging Church To TransFORM Outlaw Preachers and Emerging Church And Adele Sakler TransFORM Gay Agenda In Evangelicalism previously Apprising Ministries has introduced TransFORM, a network created by “Kingdom Journalist” Steve Knight of Emergent Village, within the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which is a cult of postliberalism—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC).
As I’ve said before, most all of the familiar names in the EC existential rebellion against the final authority of the Bible are to be found among TransFORM. You’d best wake up to the fact that this EC as Liberalism 2.0 isn’t dead; it’s…well…transformed. I’ve also just brought out again e.g. in The Roman Catholic Church Preaches A Different Gospel an example concerning why I say the EC is egregiously ecumenical. I showed you that the other day TransFORM tweeted:
RT @tallskinnykiwi: What do Catholics have to do with the emerging church? A lot, actually. http://bit.ly/5QyCZT (Online source)
Since apostate Roman Catholicism preaches another gospel, which God says is really not another (see—Galatians 1:6-10) the question that should be asked is: What has the emerging church to do with the Church of Rome? It’s an unwitting dupe (being charitable) for the man-pleasing Roman Catholic Church and her bid to portray herself as being of Christ, when she long ago condemned the very Gospel of His Christ at its Council of Trent.
The foolish attempt in today’s Rodney King theology of “Can’t we all just get along”; *sniff, sniff* to embrace the Church of Rome as a Christian denomination is a large part of the reason why in Christian Soldiers Standing Up For Jesus? I told you there are very rough spiritual waters dead ahead in the church visible. The other reason is quite specifically because of the now widespread acceptance of this EC postliberal cult within mainstream evangelicalism.
You had better come to realize that the EC—which at its heart is an outright rebellion against the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura—has been busy embedding itself within the leadership structures of mainstream evangelical denominations, as well as within its seminaries, and inside its publishing houses. They have learned well from their evil forebears in the original Cult of Liberalism; you can see an excellent example of this in ELCA, Gospel Reductionism, And Homosexuality.
With this in mind I bring you another illustration of the EC blurring the lines through their core doctrine of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster along with his spiritual twin, and Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard. You may recall that as far back as 2004 EC guru Brian McLaren told you that that Foster and Willard were “key mentors” of the EC. So what did you think these purveyors of spurious Spiritual Formation were teaching?
The following will show those with eyes that see even more result of these years of leaving your evangelical Young Adult and Youth Groups to be used as spiritual guinea pigs for antibiblical teachings of EC luminaries e.g. like McLaren’s pals Tony Jones, “theologian in residence” at the EC church of his equally heretical quasi-universalist pastor Doug Pagitt. Today TransFORM tweets:
new video: @BlaineHogan shares the Lord’s Prayer as a spiritual practice: http://is.gd/57WAu (Online source)
That link takes you to the video at the bottom of this piece. So, why did I say that what you’ll see within more result of these years of leaving your evangelical Young Adult and Youth Groups to be used as spiritual practice ground; why, I’m glad you asked. Hogan’s Twitter bio tells us that he happens to be an “Artist, actor, writer, producer. Experience Engineer @ Willow Creek Community Church.” You know, one of the leading churches initially practicing tactics of the semi-pelagian Church Growth Movement.
We Can’t Be So Creative That We Pollute The Genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ
Willow Creek where Bill Hybels is pastor, and you may recall that ultimate man-pleaser Robert Schueller tells us, of his Institute for Successful Church Leadership, that alumni include pastors Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. And, if you’d like to know more about all of this, I recommend Faulty Premises of the Church Growth Movement by my friend Bob DeWaay, pastor of Twin City Fellowship. “Church Communications guy” Tim Schraeder says of ”Experience Engineer” Blaine Hogan:
My friend Blaine is the Experience Engineer out at Willow Creek (what a cool title, huh?) and he and his team put together a phenomenal piece called Behold the Dreamer Cometh for the opening of the Willow Creek Arts Conference back in June. (Online source)
Now as one quite familiar with the false teachings of Rob Bell—the Elvis of the EC—I can tell from looking at other videos by Blaine Hogan it seems pretty obvious that he’s, at least, influenced by Bell’s Nooma DVDs. Hogan appears to be quite creative, which in and of itself, is not wrong. Being a songwriter, I’ve been known to use creativity myself. Though I don’t perform the song anymore because of its lyrical content, I had worked out a solo arrangement of “Black Magic Woman” that I’d sing and perform on acoustic guitar.
In any event Hogan being with Willow Creek, sadly, this places us squarely within the mainstream of the church visible now. And concerning the video itself below from Hogan, you’ll get another glimpse of what CSM has being doing to your young. It’s important to realize that, in the real world—not that as conjured up by these EC spiritual adolescents—CSM actually originates with apostate desert hermits, and then later flowers within the antibiblical monastic tradtions of the Roman Catholic Church.
In other words it is what would eventually lead, what would later become the Roman Catholic Church, away from the apostolic and holy catholic church one reads about in the early Christian creeds. And being that I’m a former Roman Catholic myself, you may believe me when I tell you that from years of it, I immediately recognize mindless repitition when I see it. Remember, CSM is rooted in the corrupt Counter Reformation spirituality of apostates (at best) like Ignatius of Loyola—founder of the spiritual Gestapo Unit known as the Jesuits.
The practice of CSM will eventually lead one into ascetic practices of pietism and away from the Lord Himself which Ignatius, forever a slave to Rome, demonstrates quite well. And Who do you think raised up the Reformers to return His Church to proper Christian spirituality? Hint: Not Rome’s popes, who blaspheme usurping the title Vicar of Christ from its rightful Owner—God the Holy Spirit. As he introduces the video at TransFORM Knight tells us in the lingo of CSM: Blaine Hogan shares a personal spiritual practice, repeating the Lord’s Prayer.
And that’s why I feel very sad as I watch Blaine Hogan inform us, via what he writes in video with a marker, that:
My discipline is repetition of “The Lord’s Prayer” when I’m anxious, scared, hopeless. I repeat it over and over and over and…
Having been given a shepherd’s heart as pastor, I’m sorry when anyone feels that way; however, Hogan et al need to understand that disobeying Jesus isn’t the answer. No; it’s the problem itself. For you see oddly enough, just prior to teaching us what proper prayer should consist of, the Lord Himself most clearly tells us — “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them” (Matthew 6:7-8, NASB).
Let us pray that God, in His great mercy, will grant such as these repentance that they find the glorious freedom of the sons of God…
See also:
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
If you’re reading this on November 30, you can still download the audiobook of Desiring God from John Piper for FREE at christianaudio.com. This offer ends today, download this resource> CLICK HERE
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
As a former Roman Catholic I went on record a week ago asking some questions concerning this document in the November 23 Apprising Ministries post The Manhattan Declaration Of Christian Conscience.
In my opinion, if as the declaration says, we can unite together “as Christians” with those who adhere to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to “proclaim the Gospel,” then perhaps the most important of those questions becomes: What has become of the Protestant Reformation?
Here I point you The Manhattan Declaration by Alistair Begg, where he tells us:
The release of The Manhattan Declaration (an ecumenical document addressing the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty) has already generated significant discussion… was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented. I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions. I share the concerns expressed in the document.
I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it. Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it. The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith…
Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.” I do not believe it is possible to embrace the premises of ecumenical strategy and still draw the conclusions of evangelical orthodoxy.
In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel… (Online source)
I’ll also refer you to Nineteen questions for signers of “The Manhattan Declaration” by Dan Phillips today over at Pyromaniacs where, if you feel so led, you can weigh in on the discussion in their active comments section.
See also:
JAMES WHITE: FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION AND A RESPONSE TO FRANK BECKWITH
JOHN MACARTHUR ON THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
JAMES WHITE: TROUBLING ASPECTS OF MANHATTAN DECLARATION
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PREACHES A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?
THE HOLY AND CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
JAMES WHITE: GOSPEL-LESS ROMAN CATHOLICISM ONE OF MAN’S RELIGIONS
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
The brilliance of the gospel light is dimmed by error. The clearness of the testimony is spoiled when doubtful voices are scattered among the people, and those who ought to preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, are telling out for doctrines the imaginations of men, and the inventions of the age.
Instead of revelation, we have philosophy, falsely so-called; instead of divine infallibility, we have surmises and larger hopes. The gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, is taught as the production of progress, a growth, a thing to be amended and corrected year by year. It is an ill day, both for the church and the world, when the trumpet does not give a certain sound; for who shall prepare himself for the battle? (Online source)
Charles Spurgeon
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
This weekend marks the emergence of the familiar Bell Ringers of the Salvation Army–At least here in the Phoenix area.
William Booth embarked upon his ministerial career in 1852, desiring to win the lost multitudes of England to Christ. He walked the streets of London to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, and the destitute.
Booth abandoned the conventional concept of a church and a pulpit, instead taking his message to the people. His fervor led to disagreement with church leaders in London, who preferred traditional methods. As a result, he withdrew from the church and traveled throughout England, conducting evangelistic meetings. His wife, Catherine, could accurately be called a cofounder of The Salvation Army.In 1865, William Booth was invited to hold a series of evangelistic meetings in the East End of London. He set up a tent in a Quaker graveyard, and his services became an instant success. This proved to be the end of his wanderings as an indepedent traveling evangelist. His renown as a religious leader spread thoughout London, and he attracted followers who were dedicated to fight for the souls of men and women.
Thieves, prostitutes, gamblers, and drunkards were among Booth’s first converts to Christianity. To congregations who were desperately poor, he preached hope and salvation. His aim was to lead people to Christ and link them to a church for further spiritual guidance.
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
(Click here to download the first chapter of Bruce Wilkinson’s book, You Were Born for This.)
(Click on the following to read my earlier posts on the text: Title & Table of Contents, Table of Contents addendum, Testimonials, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 13, the final grade for the text, and my initial public challenge to Bruce Wilkinson.)
Dear Bruce,
Happy Monday! Like I wrote on Friday, I can’t tell you how glad I am to finish with this letter. In truth, to write to someone who has shown no interest in the concerns raised on this blog is akin to picking up the phone and talking to someone without ever dialing their number.
Does it make for lonely conversation? Somewhat. Does it make this less valuable? I don’t believe so. Besides, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not automatically assume that you are one of the elite who believe they are above having to answer legitimate questions regarding the material you produce.
Last Friday, I discussed how (in your latest book, You Were Born for This), you used your previous book, The Prayer of Jabez, for support for your premise rather than using the truths in Scripture, and the serious problems that causes you in the area of credibility.
(Premise: You Were Born for This teaches that we can be used by God to “deliver miracles” in the lives of others.)
Today, we address the last of five questions (that, to date, have received no answer from either you, your co-author, or your publisher):
5) There’s no place in your text where you actually talk about the one place where true believers can be used by God in a miraculous way: EVANGELISM. When a Christian shares the Gospel to an unbeliever (in obedience to the Great Commission given to all believers, and out of love for said unbeliever), God does His miraculous work of conversion in the life of that person. How could you overlook the most obvious and most important miracle we could ever be involved in?
During the 11/17 LiveStream event, I asked you this very question. Your answer was altogether unsatisfactory.
To paraphrase, you said that you and your co-author (David Kopp) considered that very question, but that you decided that there were many other texts on the subject of evangelism, so you didn’t feel it was necessary to include that matter in the text. You finished by sharing that perhaps you’ll address that in a future volume.
Why is your answer unsatisfactory? Because you don’t even make mention of evangelism. In a book written about people delivering miracles for God, you make absolutely no reference to the greatest endeavor any Christian could be about, the Great Commission.
Something else is going on here, and I suspect I know what it is. (And because you won’t email or call, the best I can do is careful conjecture.)
Probable reason: Sell more copies. (We keep coming back to this one, don’t we?)
Think about it, Bruce. You didn’t dare go there. Speaking about the “miracle ministry opportunity” of evangelizing to lost family members, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and strangers would be tantamount to eating a single peanut out of a Snickers bar and being satisfied.
If you had included the reality of evangelism in your text, you would’ve lost many potential readers who are (in fact) in need of salvation themselves. You would’ve been on a more biblical footing, but your text would’ve a) offended those non-believers who do not know Christ, and b) made uncomfortable those believers who (for some strange reason) do not have a passion to be used by God in the Great Commission.
Problem: You’re carefully writing in such a way as to avoid what are the most important things in God’s economy, and are instead writing of less important matters as though they are most important, all for the sake of selling more copies.
Offending people and making them uncomfortable is so against the grain of what I think of when I think of you and your teachings, Bruce. You project such a warm, kind, grandfatherly Christianity…
…just like Jesus when He confronted and sarcastically corrected His disciples.
…just like Jesus when He corrected and cursed the Pharisees.
…just like Jesus when He picked up a cord of rope and cleansed the temple.
What’s the biggest problem with being committed to playing the nice guy? You always wind up telling people what they want to hear. As if that wasn’t bad enough, it forces you to abandon the most important truths we could ever share with others, which is in violation to what God would have us to do in our teaching ministries.
Please think on these things, Bruce, and return to the truths we find in Scripture. Cleanse yourself of these humanistic teachings before you write another word, and God will again be pleased with what you write and say. You will lose a percentage of readers for doing so, obviously, but you will reap eternal rewards for faithfully proclaiming the fullness of His Word to others.
Unwilling to ever sacrifice at the Altar of Nice, instead striving to exhibit true Christian love in all that I do,
Chris
PS I’ll be sharing some old posts (wherein I reviewed Rob Bell’s Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile) for the remainder of the week, as I have a huge deadline on Friday that must be tended to.
PPS Next week, I’ll have two or three more texts to begin reviewing. JOY!
PPPS For new readers, my earlier analyses of Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile (by Rob Bell and Don Golden) is available for free download. Simply click on my title, Clear as a Bell, and decide for yourself whether or not Bell’s teachings match those found in God’s Word.
72MQW5X5P7HH
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Dear Friends,
I wanted to do a brief update on my mom and to share a goal with you that a friend suggested.
Mom’s red blood cell count continues to drop. She is tanked out on iron and had to go off of it. Due to the fact that she continues to have increased bone pain, she will have bone scans done to make sure there is no uptake in cancer.
I was sharing with a dear brother that although my mom is certainly in need, I never intended for this blog to become a means of any kind of monetary support for my mom’s medical expenses. He made a suggestion that I try to raise donations for my mom during the month of December and to remove the banner. I would then give the donations to my mom on Christmas day as a surprise. So beginning today, all donations received through December 24th will be given to my mom on Christmas day. I will still post updates on my mom’s health situation, good or bad. Mom is now in her 19th month of oral chemotherapy. She has 65 more months to go. I am going to post this the beginning of the week over the next three weeks and then remove it and the banner as well.
For those that would like to donate please CLICK HERE.
We want to thank everyone who has prayed, sent letters and cards of encouragement, and for all who have given in a tangible way. All gifts have been received as unto the Lord. The sovereignty of our Lord and the love of His children are amazing. We are truly humbled and grateful.
I will close with a few Bible verses that my mom and dad refer to often:
Hebrews 13:14 ~ For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.
2 Corinthians 4:17-18 ~ For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
Colossians 3:1-3 ~ If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
2 Corinthians 12:10 ~ For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Apprising Ministries has documented for you the fact that there have been no changes in the dogmas of apostate Roman Catholicism concerning soteriology since the Roman Catholic Church Condemned The Gospel at their Council of Trent in the 16th century, which you can see for yourself—from official Roman Catholic sources—in Has The Roman Catholic Church Really Changed?
I also just pointed out in The Roman Catholic Church Preaches A Different Gospel that, even despite doctrine in the Church of Rome remaining the same, more and more in mainstream evangelicalism have been running to embrace The Roman Catholic Church as just another christian denomination. I talked about this before in SBC Protestant Pastor Rick Warren Double-Minded On The Reformatiom And Roman Catholicism; however, here we take for example that Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren has said:
“Now I don’t agree with everything in everybody’s denomination, including my own. I don’t agree with everything that Catholics do or Pentecostals do, but what binds us together is so much stronger than what divides us,” he said. “I really do feel that these people are brothers and sisters in God’s family. I am looking to build bridges with the Orthodox Church, looking to build bridges with the Catholic Church,….”
(Online source, emphasis mine)“The Church, in all its expressions—Catholic, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Protestant and many others—has 2.3 billion followers.” (Online source, emphasis mine)
I happen to be an SBC minister, as well as a former Roman Catholic that God mercifully delievered from the religious bondage of the Church of Rome into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, by His grace alone, through faith alone, in the finished work on the Cross of Christ alone. Since the majority of my pateral family—on both sides—remains enslaved to Rome, this kind of lunacy in the Lord’s by Rick Warren, arguably the most famous pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention—itself the largest allegedly Protestant denomination—taking it upon himself to reverse the Reformation hits close to home for me.
But as ridiculous as these non-protesting “Protestants” are, we can see the attack on the biblical doctrine of the Reformation to the extreme with the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which is a cult of postliberalism—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC), within mainstream evangelicalism. We need only to look as far as the following from the Emerging Church Group TransFORM, which is a social network created by “Kingdom Journalist” Steve Knight of Emergent Village (EV). If you don’t know, EV is a very key group within the EC and Andrew Jones aka Tall Skinny Kiwi has been with the EC from the beginning:
RT @tallskinnykiwi: What do Catholics have to do with the emerging church? A lot, actually. http://bit.ly/5QyCZT (Online source)
And then yesterday TransFORM Retweets the below:
RT @Cathlimergent Cathlimergent Network http://cathlimergent.ning.com/ welcomes ALL denominations & noninstitutionals (it’s a conversation) (Online source)
That link takes you to the website of something called Cathlimergent Conversations: Catholics in the Emerging Church Conversation:
Radically “rooting” orthodoxy in Jesus, orthopathy in contemplation, orthopraxy in social justice & orthocommunio in authentic community (Online source)
And there we also find as members such Emerging/ent/ence Church royalty as leading EC guru Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, “theologian in residence” at the EC church of his equally heretical quasi-universalist pastor Doug Pagitt, and Phyllis Tickle, the Empress of Emergence. Since it isn’t the focus of this article, let just say the above is yet another attempt at reversing the Reformation—and most particularly Sola Scriputra— in favor of a rebirth of highly subjective corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism and its reimagined spiritually bankrupt social gospel. However, this now brings us rather neatly back around to the main point of this piece: The Reformation itself centered around the doctrine of justification i.e. the heart of the very Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.
So first, we note that in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures well respected Christian apologist Dr. Ron Rhodes hits the target dead-on when he says:
According to the current ecumenical spirit of the times, it might not be “politically correct” to say that many [Roman] Catholics are lost and are in need of evangelization. I am aware of the controversial “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document, signed by both evangelicals and Catholics. This document declares evangelical-Catholic unity, and its signers promise to refrain from evangelizing one another’s flocks, labeling this activity “sheep stealing”…
In this document we read; “Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ”… Certainly I concede that Catholics and evangelicals can work together for the betterment of society, actively cuntering secularism, moral relativism, societal decay, and the like. But I also believe there must be a line drawn when it comes to biblical doctrine. (17, 18)
And then Dr. David Wells brings out another very important point in his book The Courage to Be Protestant when he reminds us:
At the time of the Reformation, this case [of the distinction between the church visible and the church invisible] was made against the Roman Catholics, who insisted that the only way one could belong to Christ was by belonging to the [Roman] Catholic Church, submitting to its teaching, and receiving the grace available through its sacraments. To be in the church was to be in Christ…
The Reformers countered that we come to be in Christ by faith. We are joined to Christ by faith alone, faith in his finished work on the cross whereby he took our sin, bore God’s judgment in our place, and now clothes [regenerated believers] in his righteousness. From first to last, God’s acceptance of us is by his grace, and so, too, is our capacity to believe in what Christ has done for us. (219, emphasis his)
The issue of whether or not to consider the Reformation over and to now accept the Roman Catholic Church, which Dr. John MacArthur correctly called “a front for the kingdom of Satan,” as a Christian Church is really rather simple. The Church of Rome herself considers her popes and teaching magisterium, and as such her dogma of Roman Catholicism, to be infallible. And it is because of this very fact that the Church of Rome can never change her basic theology, e.g. as it relates to the Gospel and salvation.
So what an individual Roman Catholic, layman or theologian, thinks is absolutely irrelevant to the above. The issue still remains: What does the Roman Catholic Church herself say about the doctrine of justification, which as I said, was the issue at the very heart of the Protestant Reformation. Many people today think that somehow Vatican II changed everything; but those who do their homework, will quickly find that the Church of Rome teaches the exact same wrong view of justification today as she elucidated at her aforementioned Council of Trent.
With this all in mind, for your edification I now provide you with the links to a four part series on the essential doctrine of justification from the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. Because the bottom line is: If a man seeks to be forgiven by God in a way other than that which God has specified then he will not be forgiven. In Part One we read:
When we consider the differences that exist between the Catholic and Protestant view of justification by faith, there are six key terms on each side that represent the different positions…a look at those terms to help you understand the arguments each side raises… [Roman] Catholicism teaches that justification occurs by faith and works…
See also:
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
My biggest enemy is not Satan. My biggest enemy is Josh Rittenhouse.
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
I’ve pointed out many times now that as a general rule, and a courtesy, we do not publish email without the permission of the sender. However at the same time, all email sent to AM and Christian Research Network is considered the property of Apprising Ministries so we may indeed publish unsolicited email for the purposes of edification.
The one below originally came via the AM contact form; and as you’ll see, the following exchange is published by permission of the author of the initial email:
This seems as if you have confused the noun with the verb, so let me see if I can get some clarification: can a Christian struggle with homosexuality? Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex? How is that different than calling themselves gay?
I’m not trying to incite…actually, I’m trying to get my own terminology in order since this is the situation in which I find myself. I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.
AM Reader,
Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries, and please know that you came across as very sincere, and I did not at all take this as offensive. That said, let me also assure you that what I’m about to say is returned in kind, and written in the tone as two people talking over coffee, ok. I just put this up front due to the limitations of the written language.
I’m not the one confused about this issue of homosexuality; and I’m afraid that what’s happened is that you may be reacting to only one article, of many, which I have written concerning this important issue. In fact, I’m one of the very few who are even touching on it right now as it now begins to fester within the mainstream of the church visible because of the gay agenda of the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which is a cult of postliberalism—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC).
AM Reader, in my many articles I have been very clear as to what I’m talking about: Those who are unrepentant in their practice of same-sex sexual relations i.e. homosexuality, which because it will always be outside of marriage according to God, is actually under the sin of sexual immorality. And most of those to whom I’m addressing my writings also defy the Scripture and say homosexuality isn’t sin at all.
In my considered opinion, someone like yourself would definitely benefit by not referring to yourself as a “gay Christian”; if indeed you might do so. The reason being, for most of those you’d talk to right now, in their minds, it would place you in that prior camp to which I refer above e.g. the Outlaw Preachers slithering around Jay Bakker and/or Adele Sakler. It’s because of their growing influence that I began writing the truth about homosexuality.
Now you ask: “Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex?” But of course; this would be a good thing, and may even be helpful to others. Then you ask: “How is that different than calling themselves gay?” Well, as I see it, usually when someone says they “are” something, it means that they are still acting as such; i.e. practicing it.
Take for an example, if I were to say: “I’m a thief.” AM Reader, if I’m no longer acting as a thief, if I’m no longer in the practice of stealing, it would be better for me to say that I used to steal, or I struggle with the urge to steal, but as a Christian Jesus freed me from doing [insert sin here]. Make sense? No Christian, who is honest, would claim to be without sin, or free from struggling with it (see-Romans 7:7-25).
And here, beloved in Christ, is what sets you apart from those I am writing about: “I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.” The Lord be praised; that’s a wonderful testimony. I pray this has helped, and please know that you have a friend here if I can be of further service.
AM Reader, I think there are others who may feel as you do and this would be edifying for them. I don’t like to publish emails without permission, though I do on occasion. So before I put this exchange online at Apprising Ministries, I’d like to be able to note it’s with your permission. Can you just let me know; and I can edit your letter to make it gender-neutral, and it would just say it’s from “AM Reader”, which would protect your identity.
Ken Silva, pastor-teacher
I do consent to you publishing my email and I thank you for your kind response.
I think there is a notable cultural difference. Since homosexuality isn’t seen as a “civil sin” anymore, referring to myself as “gay” doesn’t mean practicing to most people my age (the under-30 crowd) any more than straight means having sex with one’s girlfriend. This, I suppose, wouldn’t matter to someone if they never identify themselves according to their orientation, but it seems to happen in my age set.
So for the sake of consistency, I’d like to ask a follow-up question, if I may: would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself “straight”? Does that connote active sexual behavior?
I have read several articles of yours on this topic over the past 2 years or so, but I’ve never quite gotten the sense of what a repentant homosexual Christian should call him or herself. Your response helps me with knowing where you stand and in the times that I have referred to myself as gay in the past, there has always been a context such that I’m not bearing false witness about the nature of my sin and my being ok with it…because believe me, I’m not.
And I also give permission, if it would fit in the context of a post, to quote from this reply. Thank you for the work that you’re doing to compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.
AM Reader
AM Reader,
I appreciate your permission, and you are certainly most welcome. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m really not a computer-programmed cyborg with no feelings. Seriously though, as far as a difference in our culture, I would quite agree; sadly, there is a growing acceptance of homosexuality. Now let’s be clear; in no way do I advocate mistreatment of anyone practicing homosexuality, I personally have family and friends who are gay.
As a minister of the Gospel, by sadly, I’m referring to the judgments of sin God’s speaking about in Romans 1. Dr. John MacArthur did a good job elaborating on them recently in his sermon A Nation Abandoned by God which is about what happens when the Lord abandons a culture. You ask a follow-up question: “would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself ’straight’? Does that connote active sexual behavior?”
No, that is as it should be in the created order; and no, it doesn’t necessarily imply that he is acting upon the impulse. It’s just been my experience so far, in tracking the issue of homosexuality slithering into the younger sectors of the evangelical community, that oft-times “gay Christian” refers to one who, unlike yourself, does not think homosexuality within a monogamous relationship is sin.
I also happen to think you’re quite right; there really does need to be more discussion as to what a repentant homosexual Christian, no longer living in this sin, should call him or herself. However as I said, that hasn’t been the focus of my writings, and I don’t see myself as someone qualified to make that decision. So please know that my comment before re. the use of “gay Christian” is simply my opinion, and some advice, which you’re free to use, or not, as you may see fit.
Here’s my hope, your permission to publish these exchanges may indeed open the door for the Lord to begin such discussion, which it seems to me, would be profitable for all of us as we move forward. By the way, I like what you said here: “compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.” Sounds just like my good friend Chris Rosebrough, host of Fighting for the Faith on Pirate Christian Radio.
Blessings,
Ken
See also:
QUICK WORD ON SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY
THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT
GROWING GAY AGENDA IN EVANGELICALISM
ROB BELL, PETER ROLLINS, AND QUEERMERGENT’S ADELE SAKLER
WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE?
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
I’ve pointed out many times now that as a general rule, and a courtesy, we do not publish email without the permission of the sender. However at the same time, all email sent to AM and Christian Research Network is considered the property of Apprising Ministries so we may indeed publish unsolicited email for the purposes of edification.
The one below originally came via the AM contact form; and as you’ll see, the following exchange is published by permission of the author of the initial email:
This seems as if you have confused the noun with the verb, so let me see if I can get some clarification: can a Christian struggle with homosexuality? Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex? How is that different than calling themselves gay?
I’m not trying to incite…actually, I’m trying to get my own terminology in order since this is the situation in which I find myself. I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.
AM Reader,
Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries, and please know that you came across as very sincere, and I did not at all take this as offensive. That said, let me also assure you that what I’m about to say is returned in kind, and written in the tone as two people talking over coffee, ok. I just put this up front due to the limitations of the written language.
I’m not the one confused about this issue of homosexuality; and I’m afraid that what’s happened is that you may be reacting to only one article, of many, which I have written concerning this important issue. In fact, I’m one of the very few who are even touching on it right now as it now begins to fester within the mainstream of the church visible because of the gay agenda of the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which is a cult of postliberalism—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC).
AM Reader, in my many articles I have been very clear as to what I’m talking about: Those who are unrepentant in their practice of same-sex sexual relations i.e. homosexuality, which because it will always be outside of marriage according to God, is actually under the sin of sexual immorality. And most of those to whom I’m addressing my writings also defy the Scripture and say homosexuality isn’t sin at all.
In my considered opinion, someone like yourself would definitely benefit by not referring to yourself as a “gay Christian”; if indeed you might do so. The reason being, for most of those you’d talk to right now, in their minds, it would place you in that prior camp to which I refer above e.g. the Outlaw Preachers slithering around Jay Bakker and/or Adele Sakler. It’s because of their growing influence that I began writing the truth about homosexuality.
Now you ask: “Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex?” But of course; this would be a good thing, and may even be helpful to others. Then you ask: “How is that different than calling themselves gay?” Well, as I see it, usually when someone says they “are” something, it means that they are still acting as such; i.e. practicing it.
Take for an example, if I were to say: “I’m a thief.” AM Reader, if I’m no longer acting as a thief, if I’m no longer in the practice of stealing, it would be better for me to say that I used to steal, or I struggle with the urge to steal, but as a Christian Jesus freed me from doing [insert sin here]. Make sense? No Christian, who is honest, would claim to be without sin, or free from struggling with it (see-Romans 7:7-25).
And here, beloved in Christ, is what sets you apart from those I am writing about: “I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.” The Lord be praised; that’s a wonderful testimony. I pray this has helped, and please know that you have a friend here if I can be of further service.
AM Reader, I think there are others who may feel as you do and this would be edifying for them. I don’t like to publish emails without permission, though I do on occasion. So before I put this exchange online at Apprising Ministries, I’d like to be able to note it’s with your permission. Can you just let me know; and I can edit your letter to make it gender-neutral, and it would just say it’s from “AM Reader”, which would protect your identity.
Ken Silva, pastor-teacher
I do consent to you publishing my email and I thank you for your kind response.
I think there is a notable cultural difference. Since homosexuality isn’t seen as a “civil sin” anymore, referring to myself as “gay” doesn’t mean practicing to most people my age (the under-30 crowd) any more than straight means having sex with one’s girlfriend. This, I suppose, wouldn’t matter to someone if they never identify themselves according to their orientation, but it seems to happen in my age set.
So for the sake of consistency, I’d like to ask a follow-up question, if I may: would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself “straight”? Does that connote active sexual behavior?
I have read several articles of yours on this topic over the past 2 years or so, but I’ve never quite gotten the sense of what a repentant homosexual Christian should call him or herself. Your response helps me with knowing where you stand and in the times that I have referred to myself as gay in the past, there has always been a context such that I’m not bearing false witness about the nature of my sin and my being ok with it…because believe me, I’m not.
And I also give permission, if it would fit in the context of a post, to quote from this reply. Thank you for the work that you’re doing to compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.
AM Reader
AM Reader,
I appreciate your permission, and you are certainly most welcome. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m really not a computer-programmed cyborg with no feelings. Seriously though, as far as a difference in our culture, I would quite agree; sadly, there is a growing acceptance of homosexuality. Now let’s be clear; in no way do I advocate mistreatment of anyone practicing homosexuality, I personally have family and friends who are gay.
As a minister of the Gospel, by sadly, I’m referring to the judgments of sin God’s speaking about in Romans 1. Dr. John MacArthur did a good job elaborating on them recently in his sermon A Nation Abandoned by God which is about what happens when the Lord abandons a culture. You ask a follow-up question: “would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself ’straight’? Does that connote active sexual behavior?”
No, that is as it should be in the created order; and no, it doesn’t necessarily imply that he is acting upon the impulse. It’s just been my experience so far, in tracking the issue of homosexuality slithering into the younger sectors of the evangelical community, that oft-times “gay Christian” refers to one who, unlike yourself, does not think homosexuality within a monogamous relationship is sin.
I also happen to think you’re quite right; there really does need to be more discussion as to what a repentant homosexual Christian, no longer living in this sin, should call him or herself. However as I said, that hasn’t been the focus of my writings, and I don’t see myself as someone qualified to make that decision. So please know that my comment before re. the use of “gay Christian” is simply my opinion, and some advice, which you’re free to use, or not, as you may see fit.
Here’s my hope, your permission to publish these exchanges may indeed open the door for the Lord to begin such discussion, which it seems to me, would be profitable for all of us as we move forward. By the way, I like what you said here: “compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.” Sounds just like my good friend Chris Rosebrough, host of Fighting for the Faith on Pirate Christian Radio.
Blessings,
Ken
See also:
QUICK WORD ON SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY
THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT
GROWING GAY AGENDA IN EVANGELICALISM
ROB BELL, PETER ROLLINS, AND QUEERMERGENT’S ADELE SAKLER
WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE?
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
I’ve pointed out many times now that as a general rule, and a courtesy, we do not publish email without the permission of the sender. However at the same time, all email sent to AM and Christian Research Network is considered the property of Apprising Ministries so we may indeed publish unsolicited email for the purposes of edification.
The one below originally came via the AM contact form; and as you’ll see, the following exchange is published by permission of the author of the initial email:
This seems as if you have confused the noun with the verb, so let me see if I can get some clarification: can a Christian struggle with homosexuality? Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex? How is that different than calling themselves gay?
I’m not trying to incite…actually, I’m trying to get my own terminology in order since this is the situation in which I find myself. I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.
AM Reader,
Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries, and please know that you came across as very sincere, and I did not at all take this as offensive. That said, let me also assure you that what I’m about to say is returned in kind, and written in the tone as two people talking over coffee, ok. I just put this up front due to the limitations of the written language.
I’m not the one confused about this issue of homosexuality; and I’m afraid that what’s happened is that you may be reacting to only one article, of many, which I have written concerning this important issue. In fact, I’m one of the very few who are even touching on it right now as it now begins to fester within the mainstream of the church visible because of the gay agenda of the egregiously ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which is a cult of postliberalism—now morphing into Emergence Christianity (EC).
AM Reader, in my many articles I have been very clear as to what I’m talking about: Those who are unrepentant in their practice of same-sex sexual relations i.e. homosexuality, which because it will always be outside of marriage according to God, is actually under the sin of sexual immorality. And most of those to whom I’m addressing my writings also defy the Scripture and say homosexuality isn’t sin at all.
In my considered opinion, someone like yourself would definitely benefit by not referring to yourself as a “gay Christian”; if indeed you might do so. The reason being, for most of those you’d talk to right now, in their minds, it would place you in that prior camp to which I refer above e.g. the Outlaw Preachers slithering around Jay Bakker and/or Adele Sakler. It’s because of their growing influence that I began writing the truth about homosexuality.
Now you ask: “Can a Christian be forthright with his/her friends about their temptation by telling them they are attracted to members of the same sex?” But of course; this would be a good thing, and may even be helpful to others. Then you ask: “How is that different than calling themselves gay?” Well, as I see it, usually when someone says they “are” something, it means that they are still acting as such; i.e. practicing it.
Take for an example, if I were to say: “I’m a thief.” AM Reader, if I’m no longer acting as a thief, if I’m no longer in the practice of stealing, it would be better for me to say that I used to steal, or I struggle with the urge to steal, but as a Christian Jesus freed me from doing [insert sin here]. Make sense? No Christian, who is honest, would claim to be without sin, or free from struggling with it (see-Romans 7:7-25).
And here, beloved in Christ, is what sets you apart from those I am writing about: “I am a Christian person who is attracted to members of my own sex and who is seeking to live in repentance granted to me by God and abstaining from sin. Since Christ has redeemed me, I am honoring God with my body.” The Lord be praised; that’s a wonderful testimony. I pray this has helped, and please know that you have a friend here if I can be of further service.
AM Reader, I think there are others who may feel as you do and this would be edifying for them. I don’t like to publish emails without permission, though I do on occasion. So before I put this exchange online at Apprising Ministries, I’d like to be able to note it’s with your permission. Can you just let me know; and I can edit your letter to make it gender-neutral, and it would just say it’s from “AM Reader”, which would protect your identity.
Ken Silva, pastor-teacher
I do consent to you publishing my email and I thank you for your kind response.
I think there is a notable cultural difference. Since homosexuality isn’t seen as a “civil sin” anymore, referring to myself as “gay” doesn’t mean practicing to most people my age (the under-30 crowd) any more than straight means having sex with one’s girlfriend. This, I suppose, wouldn’t matter to someone if they never identify themselves according to their orientation, but it seems to happen in my age set.
So for the sake of consistency, I’d like to ask a follow-up question, if I may: would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself “straight”? Does that connote active sexual behavior?
I have read several articles of yours on this topic over the past 2 years or so, but I’ve never quite gotten the sense of what a repentant homosexual Christian should call him or herself. Your response helps me with knowing where you stand and in the times that I have referred to myself as gay in the past, there has always been a context such that I’m not bearing false witness about the nature of my sin and my being ok with it…because believe me, I’m not.
And I also give permission, if it would fit in the context of a post, to quote from this reply. Thank you for the work that you’re doing to compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.
AM Reader
AM Reader,
I appreciate your permission, and you are certainly most welcome. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m really not a computer-programmed cyborg with no feelings. Seriously though, as far as a difference in our culture, I would quite agree; sadly, there is a growing acceptance of homosexuality. Now let’s be clear; in no way do I advocate mistreatment of anyone practicing homosexuality, I personally have family and friends who are gay.
As a minister of the Gospel, by sadly, I’m referring to the judgments of sin God’s speaking about in Romans 1. Dr. John MacArthur did a good job elaborating on them recently in his sermon A Nation Abandoned by God which is about what happens when the Lord abandons a culture. You ask a follow-up question: “would you have a problem with a man who is attracted to women calling himself ’straight’? Does that connote active sexual behavior?”
No, that is as it should be in the created order; and no, it doesn’t necessarily imply that he is acting upon the impulse. It’s just been my experience so far, in tracking the issue of homosexuality slithering into the younger sectors of the evangelical community, that oft-times “gay Christian” refers to one who, unlike yourself, does not think homosexuality within a monogamous relationship is sin.
I also happen to think you’re quite right; there really does need to be more discussion as to what a repentant homosexual Christian, no longer living in this sin, should call him or herself. However as I said, that hasn’t been the focus of my writings, and I don’t see myself as someone qualified to make that decision. So please know that my comment before re. the use of “gay Christian” is simply my opinion, and some advice, which you’re free to use, or not, as you may see fit.
Here’s my hope, your permission to publish these exchanges may indeed open the door for the Lord to begin such discussion, which it seems to me, would be profitable for all of us as we move forward. By the way, I like what you said here: “compare the claims folks are making in the name of God to the Word of God.” Sounds just like my good friend Chris Rosebrough, host of Fighting for the Faith on Pirate Christian Radio.
Blessings,
Ken
See also:
QUICK WORD ON SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY
THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT
GROWING GAY AGENDA IN EVANGELICALISM
ROB BELL, PETER ROLLINS, AND QUEERMERGENT’S ADELE SAKLER
WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE?
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Now, while in the process of writing this blog entry, I was directed to a comment left by Frank Beckwith, revert to Rome, criticizing John MacArthur’s statement on [The Manhattan Declaration]… But given that Dr. Beckwith has become exceptionally active promoting and defending Romanism on the web over the past few months, I think it proper to provide a response. Dr. MacArthur’s point seems to have been lost on Dr. Beckwith, who has made it clear that even during his time away from Rome, he was never truly gospel-centric. He never saw Rome’s gospel as a false gospel, and hence did not trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ as his sole hope before a thrice holy God. So it is understandable why he would think that his re-presentation is somehow relevant. Dr. MacArthur does not believe, of course, that the gospel is about “merely getting people into heaven.”
Such a representation says more about Beckwith’s journey in “evangelicalism” and the wide range of churches he was a part of than it does MacArthur’s comments. The point is that the only real answer to any of those issues, whether the radical redefinition of marriage, homosexuality, the murder of unborn children, rape, incest, torture or theft, lies in the changing of the hearts of men. And it is just here that Rome’s gospel fails to be able to do this very thing! Surely man’s religions can bring about a surface-level moral reformation, if there is sufficient reason offered to the reprobate sinner to change for his own self-interests, but true change, the exchange of the heart of stone for the heart of flesh, is the divine work of the Spirit of God, not the work of the alter-Christus, the baptismal font, or the never-ending cycle of Masses and confessionals. Calling men to recognize the sovereign and holy God of Scripture, bowing the knee before the all powerful Lord of all men, Jesus Christ, is a powerful (and uniting) thing, but when men’s traditions have so encrusted those truths as to rob them of their power and meaning, what are we to do? Stand apart, of course, identify the perversions of the truth, and trust the Lord to guard His people and build His kingdom through the Word and the Spirit. This is what the Apostles did when false teachers arose amongst them, and we must follow their example.
Beckwith speaks of seeking to see young people live holy lives. Rome has been particularly notable in its utter failure to do this very thing, has it not? By reducing God’s grace to the sacramental system, by teaching people they are in a “state of grace” outside of actual repentance and change, by confounding justification and sanctification, robbing men of a finished work of Christ—in other words, through the entire “gospel” of Rome, unchanged, unrepentant, unregenerate people are called “Christians,” resulting in the constant denigration of the faith on the part of Muslims, atheists, and others, who take Romanism as the very definition of “Christianity.” Rome’s gospel produces worldwide nominalism, does it not? And does this not illustrate the main point of what has come above? Theology matters. The gospel forms the faith, and if you do not have the right gospel, you can call what you have Christianity all you want—it isn’t. Without the gospel, you have one of man’s religions, and men’s religions will never have the power to change the heart, and hence the society. (Further Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration and a Response to Frank Beckwith)
James White
See also:
THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE
JOHN MACARTHUR ON THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION
JAMES WHITE: TROUBLING ASPECTS OF MANHATTAN DECLARATION
DR. FRANCIS BECKWITH: “MY RETURN TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH”
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PREACHES A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
HAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REALLY CHANGED?
THE HOLY AND CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
