Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Separation’

(Revised 11/19/15)

Today many LGBT proponents of gay marriage are accusing born again Christians of hate crimes. Seems to me they’re confusing the definitions of these supposed transgressions: “bias”, “discrimination”, “bullying”, “persecution”, “hate speech”, “hate literature, and “hate crimes”.

Regarding the traditional definition of “hate crimes”, I have never heard of truly born again, biblically sound, mature, godly Christians causing violent, physical, bodily harm to LGBT people or their property. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Can LGBT people say they have never caused violent, physical, bodily harm to truly born again, biblically sound, mature, godly Christians or their property?

But I digress. The question at hand: does the Bible have hate speech towards LGBT people, as they claim? I say no! And Pastor Jack Wellman concurs. I have taken the liberty of reposting Pastor Wellman’s article below. Click here for the original posting of his article. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets].

Jack WellmanArticle by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book  Blind Chance or Intelligent Design available on Amazon.

Does The Bible Have Hate Speech?

Some call what is preached in the Bible hate speech.  Does the Bible actually have hate speech?

What is Hate?

There are laws in Canada that make it a crime to preach against certain things that exist in their society and these laws may soon be coming to the U.S but is there really hate speech in the Bible?  Can we say that with authority?  We know that God hates sin and it is said that God hates divorce but it never says that God hates divorced people.  Psalm 7:11 says that “God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day” but the Hebrew doesn’t actually call it “hate” but the Hebrew word “za`am” means “to denounce, express indignation,” or “to be indignant” and it is the wicked because of their sin that God denounces and expresses His indignation against.  For those who have repented and put their trust in God, His anger against sin was satisfied by Jesus Christ at the cross.  Christ “was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities” and “upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace” (Isaiah 53:5) which is what Paul wrote “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1) so now there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).  God hates sin because sin was very costly…costing Jesus His life and the price for our sins was placed upon Jesus at Calvary in unimaginable torment and suffering that went on for hours.  God loves the Son but He also loves those who have repented and trusted in Him too so Jesus took the wrath of God so that we wouldn’t have to bear it ourselves in hell and it was “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

Does God Hates Sin but Love the Sinner?

If we look at the Bible verses that contain the word sin + hate we can see that it is not always directly pointed toward the person but what the person does.  I hated it when my son or daughter disobeyed me but I never hated them…so in my love I disciplined them.  If I didn’t love them, I would do nothing…that would be apathy.  Regarding the sin and not as much the sinner, God has much to say about it and it’s not good; “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him” (Prov 6:16).  The psalmist added “you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4).  For the most part, the world is separated from God by their sins (Isaiah 59:2) and if we love the world, then the love of the Father is not in us because whoever has “friendship with the world is at enmity (or hostility) with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).  That’s why those “who love the Lord, hate evil [and] He preserves the lives of his saints” (Psalm 97:10).

What is Love?

If you knew someone who was blind and they were walking toward the edge of a cliff, it would be hateful to not warn them. You could be held legally liable for not warning them.  Just as if you saw a child drowning in a swimming pool and did nothing to save them would be criminally negligent, so it is to not warn people that if they step out of this life without Christ, they face an eternal punishment from which there is no escape.  It is not hateful to warn them of an impending judgment that is coming, on the contrary, it is the most loving thing you can ever do…even if it comes at the expense of their hating you.  It is really the message that they hate and not the messenger.  The message from Jesus’ own lips says “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18b).  Everyone loves John 3:16 but it means nothing without John 3:18.

Conclusion

The opposite of love is not hate…it is indifference or apathy.  Do we care that people are dying every day without Christ and will suffer in hell for their sins?  Do we not care enough to point them to the One and only way that they can be saved (Acts 4:12)?  I believe if we don’t share the bad news of people’s sins separating them from a Holy God (Isaiah 59:1-2) and that “whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36b) the “good news” of salvation in Jesus Christ alone will mean nothing.  It’s actually a cruel thing to not tell others that they will stand before God and be judged someday apart from Christ (Rev 20:12-15) and that no works will ever be good enough to save them (Eph 2:8-9).  They must repent of (turn away, forsake) their sins and then put their trust in Jesus Christ.  Show them love by telling them the truth; that God is angry at the sinner every day (Psalm 7:11).  Tell them how they can be saved from God’s wrath and after they die and at the judgment (Heb 9:27) they will be saved.  And tell them to their face that it is in their “hard and impenitent heart [that they] are storing up wrath for [themselves] on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:5) so they need to repent, believe, and be saved (John 3:16).

Copyright 2008-2015, Patheos. All rights reserved.      Terms of Service  | Patheos Privacy Policy  | Website Development By Patheos Labs

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

(revised 11/19/15)

In recent days I have been very concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the “same-sex marriage” issue. As we all know, “same-sex marriage” was approved for all 50 states of the U.S. (plus the District of Columbia) in 2015.

A question for born again Christian readers: are you “vexed” (troubled) by the possibility of nationally recognized gay marriage? I’m not talking about just the possibility of various Christian rights being taking away. I’m also talking about concern over sin itself.

I must admit, I have a tendency to be angry towards sinners themselves. But we need to take a deep breath, step back, and realize why we preach against sin. Sinners are headed straight down the path to Hell and the eternal Lake of Fire, if they do not accept Christ as Saviour. This is what our preaching against sin (of various kinds) should be all about – pointing out sin, and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict so sinners will turn around, repent of sin and accept Christ as Saviour and Lord.

I realize there are various ways to approach sinners and sin. And I would say different people need to be approached in different ways. Plus preachers vary in their personalities and God-given missions. John the Baptist and other prophets seemed to “rail” against sin in righteous anger. On the other hand, Jeremiah was called “the weeping prophet” (see the book of Lamentations), and Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

Following is an excellent, pertinent sermon outline I came across, by Independent Fundamental Baptist Pastor James J. Barker. The original sermon outline can be found here. I hope to add links to the Scripture passages, as time permits.

BEING VEXED IS NOT ENOUGH

Text: II PETER 2:1-9

INTRODUCTION:

1.     I would like to draw your attention to a word found twice in our text this morning – “vexed” (2:7, 8).  Lot was vexed. He did not approve of the so-called “gay lifestyle” of Sodom and Gomorrah.

2.     To be “vexed” means to be troubled, to be afflicted, to be disturbed, to be annoyed, and to be distressed.

3.     From our text we see that Lot was vexed by the filthy behavior of the Sodomites (2:6-8).  In fact, some Greek scholars even translate this word as “tortured” – i.e., Lot was being tortured by “seeing and hearing” what the Sodomites were doing.

4.     If all we had to go by was the OT, most of us would assume that Lot was not a saved man.  However, in II Peter 2:7, Lot is referred to as a just man, and in verse 8 he is referred to as a righteous man.

5.     In other words, Lot was saved.  He was carnal; he was backslidden; he was a compromiser – but he was saved.  Lot knew the Lord.

6.     As we look at the life of Lot this morning, I would like to remind you that I Corinthians 10:11 says these OT historical accounts were “written for our admonition.”

7.     Then the very next verse says, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” This is an important lesson for us because in the Bible, Lot represents the carnal, worldly Christian, and the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah represent the world.

8.     Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to many times in both the OT and the NT.  We do not have time to look up all of the references, but we will look at a few in order to demonstrate that in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah is a picture and type of the world (cf. Isaiah 1:9, 10; 3:8, 9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:17, 18; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 4:11, 12; Zeph. 2:9; Luke 17:28-32; Rev. 11:8).

9.     Did you notice that God not only compares Israel, and Judah, and Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah; He also compares Babylon, Edom, Moab, and Ammon to Sodom and Gomorrah.

10. In other words, just as Lot represents the worldly, carnal believer; and Sodom and Gomorrah represent the world.

11. My message this morning is entitled, “Being Vexed Is Not Enough.”  There are many Christians who complain about the homosexuals but they let their children dress just like the world.  They oppose abortion but they let their children go to proms and get involved in dating.

I. LOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FROM THE SODOMITES

1.     Second Peter 2:7 says that Lot was “vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.”  In the King James Bible, “conversation” refers to conduct and behavior.

2.     Lot was not only vexed by the way they talked, he was vexed by the way they lived – “their unlawful deeds.”

3.     I think it is easy to understand what happened to Lot.  We see this all the time.  For example, a young person goes to public school and tries to live for God and soon he or she gets discouraged – the ridicule, the derision, the sarcasm, the scorn, the contempt – it becomes to much to bear so soon the public school student begins to “blend in” rather than be different from his ungodly classmates.

4.     This peer pressure is very strong with teenagers but it is also a problem with adults.  Christians often hear dirty words and gutter language at work.  Wicked sinners will take God’s name in vain, but many Christians will not object.

5.     This is what happened to Lot.  He should have separated from the Sodomites.  He should have taken a stand for God.  He should have protected his family, but he didn’t.

6.     The Bible says, “For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2:8).

7.     Notice, Lot had to endure this ungodliness “day to day.”  He was horribly affected by what he was “seeing and hearing” (2:8).  Many Christians vex their righteous soul by what they are seeing and hearing – for example, by watching garbage on TV, and videos, and the Internet, and listening to rock music, and so on (cf. II Peter 2:8).

8.     Michael Green says, “It is customary for Christians today, living inn a secularized society, no longer to be shocked by sinful things which they see and hear.  They will, for example, without protest sit through a television program presenting material which a generation ago they would never have contemplated watching at a theatre or cinema. But when a man’s conscience becomes dulled to sin, and apathetic about moral standards, he is no longer wiling to look to the Lord for deliverance” (Tyndale Commentary).

9.     Remember, Lot had to be dragged out of Sodom (Gen. 19:16).

10. By the way, notice sodomy is called “unlawful” (II Peter 2:8).  Liberal politicians and wicked judges can pass all the laws that they want but they cannot make homosexuality lawful because God calls it “unlawful.” The Bible also calls it sinful, vile, wicked, abominable, unnatural, dishonorable, unseemly, and foolish.

11. James 1:27 tells us that we should keep ourselves “unspotted from the world,” but too many Christians are like Lot.

II.  LOT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD TESTIMONY IN SODOM

1.     You may remember the interesting conversation between the LORD and Abraham that is recorded in Genesis 18.

2.     In this portion of Scripture, Abraham is attempting to intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:16-33).

3.     Abraham is pleading for the wicked citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.  He does not want to see them destroyed.

4.     Note that Abraham starts with 50 (Gen. 18:23, 24) and ends up with the LORD assuring him that He will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if only ten righteous people can be found there (18:32).

5.     Perhaps Abraham thought that Lot and his extended family would be enough to spare the judgment of God. If Lot had just won his own family to the Lord, along with his daughters’ husbands and his sons’ wives, the Lord would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah, but Lot had absolutely no influence in Sodom (Gen. 19:12-14).

6.     The Scofield Study Bible says, “Lot had utterly lost his testimony” (cf. Gen. 19:9 and Scofield margin – “The world’s contempt for a worldly believer”).

7.     The reason Lot could not persuade his friends and family, and the reason he had absolutely no influence for God was he was not separated.

8.     And because Lot was not separated from all of the wickedness in Sodom and Gomorrah, he did not speak out against all of their filthy wickedness.

9.     Preachers today will not deal plainly with sin because (like Lot) they are compromised.   How can they boldly attack rock music when they themselves listen to rock music?  And when they even have it in their churches?

10. Or when they are afraid of losing members?

11. How can they preach against Hollywood if they are captivated by it themselves?

12. How can a preacher speak out against immodest dress when his wife or his daughter wears a mini-skirt?

13. How can a preacher preach about soulwinning if he never goes out soulwinning?  Some preachers say, “My area of expertise is discipleship.”  May I be frank and say that is baloney?  If preachers do not win souls soon there will be nobody left to disciple!

14. In his commentary on this text, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes, “We are to preach righteousness to such a world.  We are to warn it; to tell it of the judgment that is coming because of its sin; we are to plead with men to see their danger and escape from it.  And above all, we are to give them an example of the Christian life and the Christian character, and of loyalty to God and His truth.”

15. Here is where Lot failed. And when he finally did try to warn them about the judgment of God, they did not take him seriously (Gen. 19:14-16).

16. Thanks to the mercy of God (Gen. 19:16), Lot was able to get his daughters out of Sodom, but he was not able to get the Sodom out of them (cf. Gen. 19:30-38).

17. Isn’t it interesting that in Zech. 2:9, the LORD says, “Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah.”  And that is how these nations began – with an incestuous relationship between Lot and his two daughters right after they escaped from Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:37, 38).

III.  THE STORY OF LOT IS A LESSON FOR US TODAY

1.     We often think that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a warning against the sin of homosexuality, and it certainly is (cf. II Peter 2:6; Jude 7).

2.     This is one of the reasons why the ungodly hate the Bible.  This is why they make disparaging remarks about fundamental Christians.

3.     There are other reasons as well.  The Bible clearly teaches that if they do not repent and turn to Jesus then they will go to hell.  That is not a message they want to hear.

4.     But the Bible’s strong condemnation of homosexuality is a big bone of contention in these days of moral relativism and apostasy.

5.     However, there is another important lesson here – one that is often overlooked.  Lot represents the modern, worldly Christian.  He is saved but he has little interest in the things of God.

6.     He has godly relatives (e.g., Lot was Abraham’s nephew) but he is more comfortable associating with the wicked crowd (cf. Gen. 13:10-13; 19:1).

7.     Psalm 1 says, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”

8.     Lot was unwilling to take a stand in Sodom and it cost him his testimony; it cost him his conscience; and it cost him his family.

CONCLUSION:

1.     While the story of Lot is a lesson for the worldly Christian, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a warning to the unsaved (II Peter 2:6). God will judge the “ungodly” (2:6, 10).

2.     God is patient and long-suffering, but it is unwise to exhaust His patience (II Peter 3:9).

Pastor James J. Barker
email:   jbarker4@optonline.net

Read Full Post »

Paul admonishes us to:

“… be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Rom 12:2, KJV)

Yet how often do we encounter professing Christians who are conforming to this world – who after years of claiming to be born again are perfectly comfortable drinking, or smoking, or “clubbing”, or swearing, or dancing, or watching promiscuity-filled soaps, or laughing at dirty jokes, or reading horoscopes, or practicing yoga, or practicing contemplative prayer, or striving for material wealth, etc. etc.? Far too often, I’m afraid.

Sorry if I sound judgmental here. But what about those Christians around us who are doing these things? Should they not be corrected, warned that, for one thing, their witness to unbelievers is being destroyed by their own behavior?

Bottom line: all who claim to be born again Christians should be “no compromise Christians”. Following is an excellent list of links discussing this, by By Martha Mac of SO4J.com. Click here for the original source of this article.

Note – a number of these 50 signs are reflected in my own “old fashioned” separatist Wesleyan Holiness beliefs, as well as in The Fundamentals of 1910-1915 which I hold so dear. I’m not saying I never trip up and sin/compromise – I am saying these 50 signs are what I strive for, with God’s help.

50 SIGNS OF A NO COMPROMISE CHRISTIAN

Signs, Fruit, & Evidences of a No Compromise Christian

50 Signs of a No Compromise Christian - SO4J.com

By Martha Mac / SO4J.com ® / SO4J-TV

INTRO: 50 Signs of a No Compromise Christian – Looks at the Signs, Fruit, & Evidences of a No Compromise Christian or True Believer from the Scriptures in God’s Word. The Purpose is to: Provoke, Exhort, and Stir the Hearts of all those who call themselves a Believer in Jesus Christ— Provoking Believers to Biblically become More & More Conformed into the Image of Jesus Christ in all we: Say, Think, or Do (1 Cor 10:31, 2 Cor 3:16-17,18). This is an SO4J Bible Study about Sanctification & Holiness for the Believer(1 Pet 1:14-17)— it is NOT a set of Rules or a List to Follow in order to be Saved.

PLEASE NOTE: SO4J-TV believes that we are Not Saved by Works – Eph 2:8-9 (Legalism), but our Faith is Proven by our Works (James 2:14-20, Matt 3:8). This is NOT a Bible Study on Obedience to Rules in order to be Saved, or about Legalism. If there is No Obedience to Gods Word (1 John 2:3-6, John 14:15) & one Continues In Sin (1 John 3:8-10) then we’ll have to Face the Terrifying Consequences of Heb 10:26-31 which Jesus Warns us about in Matt 7:21-23 where MANY who Thought they were Saved will spend Eternity in Hell. This is about how a True Believer should Reflect the GLORIOUS IMAGE OF CHRIST in our Lives (2 Cor 3:18, 2 Cor 5:17, Matt 5:16), by living HOLY & CLEAN lives (1 Pet 1:14-15,16-17) for GOD’S GLORY (1 Cor 10:31)— and Obey God’s Word out of a LOVE FOR JESUS (John 14:15,21,23-24, John 15:10,14, John 3:36, John 8:31, Luke 6:46).

SO4J-TV also understands that Christians are not perfect— they still Sin once in a while (so to speak – 1 John 2:1, 1 Cor 3:1-15). We want to reach out to those people who call themselves Christians— yet use the Grace of God as a License to Sin (Rom 6:1-23, Rom 6:15-16). We are concerned that there are MANY “Christians” (Matt 7:21-22, 23) who are NOT ready to face Jesus on Judgment Day (Heb 9:27). Our Aim is to provoke all of us to Examine our Faith with the God’s Word (2 Cor 13:5), and make sure that we are Biblically Saved, and Ready to Face Jesus on Judgment Day (2 Cor 5:10).

"If What You SAY, THINK, or DO is Contrary to God's Word, Then You Are Being DECEIVED!" Martha Mac SO4J.com

ON THIS PAGE:

50 Signs of a No Compromise Christian

50 Signs of a No Compromise Christian - SO4J.com

PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD – Eph 6:10-20

By Martha Mac  / SO4J.com ® / SO4J-TV

LINKS

  1 – They Do NOT CONFORM To The Things Of This World—Their #1 Goal Is To Be Like Jesus
2 – They LOVE THE LORD their God with all their Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength
3 – They Are SEPARATING Themselves From ALL Ungodliness And The Things Of This WORLD
4 – They Are Walking Down The Narrow Road Of God’s HOLINESS—They Are God’s Holy Remnant
5 – They Do NOT WATCH WORLDLY (Lustful, Evil..): TV & Movies, Internet Pornography, Computer Games
6 – They Do NOT LOOK UPON Worldly Magazines & Books From Celebrity Magazines To Pornography…
7 – They Do NOT COMPROMISE With The World By Listening To WORLDLY MUSIC— TRUE WORSHIPPERS
8 – They Do NOT LOOK UP TO WORLDLY IDOLS Such As: Singers, Movie Stars, Sports Figures…
9 – They Do NOT PARTNER UP WITH UNBELIEVERS And Those Who Compromise Their Walk With Jesus
10 – They PURSUE PURE AND GODLY FRIENDSHIPS That Inspire Them To Be More Like Jesus
11 – They Display Christ-likeness In Their THOUGHT-LIFE & ATTITUDES – A Beattitude Attitude
12 – They Are HUMBLE and Have Child-like Faith
13 – They REFUSE LUKEWARMNESS—Having “One Foot In GOD’S WORD, And One Foot In The WORLD”
14 – They Seek To Please The Lord through GOOD DEEDS & HAVING A SERVANT’S HEART
15 – They Know That FINANCIAL GAIN DOES NOT MEAN GODLINESS
16 – They SEEK FIRST God’s Kingdom, NOT Worldly Wealth & Possessions
17 – They’d Rather SUFFER & BE POOR & NOT Compromise With The World Than Be Rich & Famous—Content
18 – They Are GENEROUS & are GIVERS Whether They Are Poor Or Have Much
19 – They Are SURRENDERING ALL To Follow Jesus—They Are “Taking Up Their Cross Daily”
20 – They’ve STOPPED PRACTICING SINAnd When They Do Sin There Is Deep Sorrow
21 – They SPEAK OUT & WARN PEOPLE Of God’s Coming Judgments, And PREACH THE GOSPEL
22 – They SUFFER PERSECUTION & BEATINGS For Standing Up For JESUS
23 – They LOVE and DO GOOD To Fellow Christians
24 – They OBEY GOD’S COMMANDMENTS, HIS WORD, and the LORD JESUS CHRIST
25 – They Are DOERS Of The Word, Not Merely HEARERS— Faith Without WORKS is Dead
26 – They FEAR THE LORD And Turn Away From Evil
27 – They Do NOT Seek The Approval Of Man, But Seek Only To PLEASE THE LORD
28 – They Are NOT HYPOCRITES—Giving God Mere Lip Service
29 – Their WORDS & SPEECH Are ENCOURAGING, EDIFYING, AND WISE—NOT Corrupt
30 – They PRAY FERVENT PRAYERS, And Pray Often With Fellow Believers
31 – They STUDY & TEACH GOD’S WORD & HIS WAYS To Sinners & Believers—Making Disciples
32 – They Are WINNING THEIR BATTLE AGAINST SIN & Keeping the FULL ARMOR OF GOD ON!
33 – They Are READY, WAITING, AND EAGERLY ANTICIPATING The Soon Return Of Jesus Christ
34 – They LOVE GOD’S COMMANDMENTS & HIS WORD, Reading It Daily And Memorizing It
35 – They Make Use Of Every OPPORTUNITY To Do Good & Preach The Gospel— They’re “Fire Snatchers”
36 – They PRODUCE MUCH FRUIT For Jesus— They’re PRODUCTIVE with the GOSPEL & Are GODLY
37 – They Are Co-Heirs With Christ: And Share The SUFFERINGS OF JESUS By “Crucifying Their Flesh”
38 – They Understand GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSES For His HOLY PEOPLE Vs. This Temporal Evil World
39 – They Know They Are Merely Passing Through This World, And Their REAL HOME Is With The Lord
40 – They Do Everything For The GLORY OF GOD
41 – They Do NOT BELIEVE FALSE TEACHINGS & Anything That Is CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD
42 – They CLEARLY Understand The Gospel & CLEARLY PREACH God’s Word With BOLDNESS
43 – They Let Their LIGHT SHINE—Their FACE & LIFE EXUDES CHRIST
44 – They Put NO CONFIDENCE IN THEIR FLESH – They Are Decreasing & Christ is Increasing
45 – They Have INTEGRITY, HARD WORK, & PURSUE RIGHTEOUSNESS— They do Not Lie, Steal, Cheat
46 – They Are Always VERY THANKFUL TO GOD For His— Kindness, Provisions, Protection, etc
47 – They Are NOT Full of: SELFISH AMBITION, STRIFE, QUARRELING, JEALOUSY— But Are PEACEMAKERS
48 – They Acknowledge & Obey GOD’S WILL For Their Lives
49 – They Are NOT PREJUDICE— They Show NO PARTIALITY TO THE: RICH, POOR, SKIN COLOR, RACE,etc
50 – They do NOT allow the CARES & WORRIES Of This Life to DOMINATE their MIND & CONVERSATIONS

Read Full Post »

I have come across some excellent articles by Bro. David Cloud critiquing the heretical New Evangelical movement (aka the Neo-Evangelical movement). So I was pleasantly surprised to find even more historical details in an article by Biblical Discernment Ministries (BDM).

Click here for the original text of this article, which I have reposted  below. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in brackets.

Neo-Evangelicalism

Characteristics and Positions

In general, a neo-evangelical would be defined as one who has taken a “lower view” of Scripture, has developed a more open, inclusivistic spirit toward liberalism, and has become ecumenical in evangelism efforts. The movement was one born of compromise, nurtured on pride of intellect, growing on appeasement of evil, and doomed by the judgment of God’s Word (Lightner, p. 109). In general, the neo-evangelicals “are radical — theologically, politically, and socially” (Pickering, p. 131). One of the chief spokesmen of neo-evangelicalism would be Billy Graham; chief neo-evangelical scholars would be Edward Carnell, Carl Henry, and Bernard Ramm; major neo-evangelical organizations would be the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), The World Evangelical Fellowship, the Lausanne Committee, Campus Crusade for Christ, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship; and major neo-evangelical periodicals would be Christianity Today and Moody Monthly. Following are some of the characteristics and positions of the leading neo-evangelicals (see Overview below) (Where indicated, quotes and excerpts are taken from Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, by Ernest Pickering, pp. 131-138; Neoevangelicalism Today, by Robert P. Lightner, 208 pages; or from a Grace Seminary course syllabus on “Biblical Fundamentalism” by John C. Whitcomb, 1979, pp 1-2.):

Leading Characteristics of Neo-Evangelicals:

(1)  Espousal of, or toleration toward, questionable views of Scripture; e.g., most neo-evangelicals, to one degree or another, have scuttled the doctrine of total, complete inerrancy of the Bible (regardless of the lip-service given to it); there is evidence of the acceptance of a conceptual theory of inspiration, but the neo-evangelical hesitates to accept the total verbal inspiration of the Bible. The issue becomes: “Is the Bible inerrant in all its pronouncements [the conservative fundamental view], or is it merely an inerrant record of some inspired truth [the neo-evangelical view]?” A “popular view of the Bible now promoted” among neo-evangelicals is that “the Bible is inerrant when it is teaching us about God and His redemptive works (that is, when instructing in important doctrinal matters [revelational]), but it may contain errors in other areas about which it speaks [non-revelational matters]” (Lightner, pp. 80-81, 84; Pickering, pp. 132-133).

(2)  The sufficiency of Scripture is effectively denied as evidenced by neo-evangelical attempts to “Christianize” pagan ideas and systems founded upon unbelief (i.e., psychology/psychiatry, numerology, astrology, personality theory, etc.) In effect, the Bible is deemed NOT sufficient for all matters pertaining to life and godliness (cf. 2 Pe. 1:3,4). Emphasis has been shifted from the authority of Bible doctrine to the realm of human experience, thereby causing churches to move toward a seminar type of ministry rather than an authoritative and dogmatic preaching ministry.

(3)  The neo-evangelical’s weak view of the inerrancy of Scripture has inevitability led to the toleration of a wide diversity of theological viewpoints (Pickering, p. 131).

(4)  Expresses a dangerous subservience to science; the desire to gain intellectual acceptability has led to a friendly attitude toward science, almost to the point of placing scholarship and science in the seat of authority. This is evidenced in a friendliness toward, or acceptance of, evolutionary theories (e.g., progressive creation and/or theistic evolution), with particularly broad concessions to organic evolutionism and uniformitarianism at the expense of a consistent and normal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. (Lightner, p. 76; Pickering, p. 132; Whitcomb, p. 1)

(5)  Emphasis upon the implications of the social gospel; neo-evangelicals view the gospel as being two-pronged in nature — individual and social, thereby neglecting New Testament priorities. As a result, rather than making the gospel applicable to the world, the gospel tends to get watered down to make it acceptable to the world. “The societal impact which [the neo-evangelical] proposes to make fosters the connotation of a ‘Christianization’ of society …” which frequently speaks of a “‘Christian culture,’ a ‘new society,’ and a ‘new social order,’ … [the neo-evangelical aligns] himself and his church with existing social reform movements.” (Pickering, p. 134; Whitcomb, p. 1; Lightner, pp. 67-68, 91-92)

(6)  Enthusiasm over cooperative evangelism, even to the extent of aligning with groups that have been traditionally subversive of Bible truth (e.g., Roman Catholicism). (Pickering, p. 134) Billy Graham, more than any other, has epitomized this inclusivistic approach to evangelism (as opposed to the Biblical separatistic approach). Official neo-evangelical evangelism projects following this approach would be “AD 2000 Evangelism” and “Discipleship 2000,” both claiming the goal of reaching all the lost with the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the year 2000.

(7)  Strong criticism of traditional fundamentalism, particularly criticism of its doctrinal emphasis, which is said to have caused neglect of the social application of Christianity to the world (Pickering, p. 135; Lightner, pp. 133-134); this criticism usually includes the call for preaching only a “positive message,” as often expressed by the statement, “God called me to win souls, not to criticize others.”

(8)  The ways of the world are readily accepted by the neo-evangelical; there is a tendency toward finding justifiable reasons condoning and using that which evolves from a carnality, sensuality, secularism, and worldliness (especially in regards to music, theatrics, emotionalistic and psychological manipulations, promotionalism, and general appearance).

(9)  Pleas for more political involvement and “Christian” Activism (Pickering, p. 135).

(10) Unbiblical views regarding God’s role for women (Pickering, p. 135).

(11) Based upon a generally weak view of Scripture, there has been a natural shift from objective Biblical doctrine to subjective experience — allowance for the possible validity of apostolic sign-gifts for our own day (prophecy, tongues, miracles of healing through special persons, etc.) (Whitcomb, p. 2).

(12) Shift away from dispensational premillennialism to some form of “historic premillennialism” (even postmillennialism views are becoming widespread), together with a minimizing of the importance of Biblical eschatology in general, not from doctrinal conviction, but for ecumenical opportunity (Whitcomb, p. 2; Lightner, p. 101).

(13) Emphasis upon the unity of the church in preference to its purity. “Neo-evangelicals either tone down or completely neglect ecclesiastical separation from apostasy and personal separation from the world until these are virtually denied.” (Pickering, p. 135; Lightner, p. 16) (See later in report for more specific comments on this neglect of the Biblical doctrine of separation.)

Further Descriptions of Neo-Evangelicalism:

William Ashbrook — “A movement born of compromise, nurtured on the pride of intellect, growing on the appeasement of evil, and doomed by the judgment of the Word of God.”

Charles Woodbridge — “A movement with a new mood (toleration of false teachers, ridicule of fundamentalists), with a new method (‘the end justifies the means’), a new theology (questioning the canon of the Bible, its inerrant authority, and the nature of its content), and a new ethic (repudiation of personal separation for interaction with the culture). … following the downward path of toleration of error, accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and capitulation to error.”

Ernest Pickering — “It lacks moral courage in the face of the great conflict with apostasy. It lacks doctrinal clarity in important areas of theology. It makes unwarranted concessions to the enemies of the cross of Christ.”

Francis Stiles — “Neo-evangelicalism is a religious philosophy. It attempts to reach and minister to man through his felt needs. It seeks to commend man for his achievements and realign his energies for good. It emphasizes unity at the expense of truth and reduces the Biblical requirements of purity and separation unto God until they are obscure. Man and his present circumstances, rather than God and His eternal precepts, are the core of its concern.


Position of Neo-Evangelicals with Regard to Separation
:

[Separation from modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and all other errant philosophies and doctrines.]

(1) Willingness to remain within old-line denominations, even those that are clearly apostate, under the guise of favorably influencing them with the gospel. The neo-evangelical hopes to emphasize points of agreement with the liberal and the neo-orthodox rather than points of disagreement, in order to “recapture” denominations. (Pickering, p. 136; Lightner, p. 57)

(2) Ecclesiastical separation is considered to be merely a matter of conscience rather than a command of Scripture; the neo-evangelical ignores Rom. 16:17,18. (Lightner, pp. 94, 152-153)

(3) Maintains broad ecumenical fellowship, even to the extent of being involved in the apostate National and World Council of Churches; evangelicals are even urged “to obtain all or part of their training at liberal universities and seminaries” in order to “give evangelism more clout.” The conservative is called upon to welcome the neo-orthodox as friends and brethren since “truth is welcomed wherever it is preached.” This ecumenism generally involves the elevation of “love” above doctrine. (Pickering, pp. 136-137; Whitcomb, p. 1; Lightner, p. 56)

(4) Participates in ecumenical missionary efforts, clearly placing a higher priority on “opportunity” than on “purity of testimony.” (The neo-evangelical also tends to justify questionable methods in missions or evangelism by pointing to successes, e.g., the popularity of the enterprise, numbers, “conversions,” etc.) Leaders in this effort would be Billy Graham, Wycliffe Bible Translators, and the Latin American Mission. (Pickering, pp. 137-138; Lightner, p. 155)

Contemporary Fundamentalism is defined by the doctrine and practice of Biblical separation. To a large degree the difference between Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism is a matter of separation. Contemporary Fundamentalism maintains stricter views of moral and ecclesiastical (or doctrinal) separation than Evangelicalism. While many spiritual leaders in conservative evangelical circles would practice separation from apostates and Roman Catholics, virtually none would practice separation from [professing] believers who persist in sinful doctrine or sinful practice. In many cases, while certain conservative evangelical leaders would oppose false doctrine by actively teaching against it, few would actively separate from [professing] believers who persist in false doctrine. History has vindicated the Fundamentalist view of separation; that is, no doctrinal position can be maintained over time apart from the practice of separation. (Source: Rocco Piserchia)

Part of the immediate problem is that many so-called evangelical churches and leaders spent much of the mid-twentieth century separating themselves from those who preached separation from unbelief. The neo-evangelicals had such a horror of separation that they had to separate from the separationists. Carl Henry was one of the leaders of the neo-evangelicals. He and others wanted to lead a movement that would distance itself from fundamentalism, and neo-evangelicalism was born. This in turn led quickly to Billy Graham’s acceptance of liberal churches as sponsors of his crusades in the 1950s, and in the 1960s to acceptance of Romanist churches as sponsors of the crusades. What the Bible teaches on theological and ecclesiastical separation was ignored; and compromise, though under different labels, became the modus operandi of the neo-evangelicals. It was called “cooperation” — and who is anti-social enough to oppose cooperation? It was called “engagement,” and who is isolationist enough to reject engagement? It was called “co-belligerence,” a metaphor borrowed from war in which two parties fighting a third party do not fight each other. But the idea of co-belligerence — let alone the notions of cooperation and theological alliance — is itself a betrayal of Christ; it is abandoning theological warfare for cultural warfare. Co-belligerence involves deciding that Christians will neither criticize Romanism nor evangelize Roman Catholics, nor criticize Arminianism nor evangelize Arminians, nor criticize Judaism nor evangelize Jews — because they are our allies in the Culture Wars against the secularists. But fighting Culture Wars is not the Great Commission; Scripture knows only Theology Wars, and in those Wars, all unbiblical thoughts and institutions are the enemies of Christ. Making a separate peace with any one of them, as co-belligerency requires, is treason to Christ.


Overview: The following overview of Neo-Evangelicalism is excerpted from Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, by Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (copyright 1979, Regular Baptist Press), pp. 127-130:

Some errors are openly evident to true believers. Others are far more difficult to discern. The old modernism was transparently erroneous. God’s people saw immediately that men who denied great truths taught in Scripture, such as the virgin birth of Christ and His substitutionary death, were obviously heretics. They were branded as such and duly rejected.

In more recent years, however, systems of thought have been espoused by men thought of as evangelical, teaching in evangelical schools, or ministering to multitudes in evangelism. These are more subtle in their compromises and are much more difficult for the average believer to detect. The more truth contained in a specific system of thought the more difficult it is to isolate the errors. So it has been with the system which has been named the “new evangelicalism.”

Someone has said that the new evangelicalism had its beginnings with a mood. Perhaps this is true, and it makes it the more pernicious because a mood is extremely difficult to describe. You may feel it, but you cannot verbally diagnose it.

After the great struggles between modernism and fundamentalism, a group of younger men arose who had been reared, for the most part, in the homes and churches of fundamentalism. They were intellectually bright and aspiring scholars, many of them trained in either completely secular or liberally oriented religious schools. They were embarrassed by what they viewed as the “backwoodsy” provincialism of fundamentalism. Somehow they wanted to make evangelical truth more “relevant” and acceptable to a larger segment of society. No doubt many of them were sincere in their desire to do so. This mood which characterized them, however, was to lead them into strange paths.

Among these young scholars a more open spirit developed toward liberalism. Not that they openly embraced it, for they did not. But they desired to have more interaction with liberal scholars and leaders, with the hope of learning from them and hopefully imparting some Biblical truth to them as well. It was also their fervent desire that evangelical scholarship have wider recognition. They noted that evangelicalism (fundamentalism) was viewed as unscholarly by society as a whole. Why could not evangelicals win recognition through the writing of books and by securing faculty appointments at prestigious institutions? Of course, to win such recognition before unbelieving scholars, who, for the most part, were bitter enemies of Biblical truth, it would be necessary to show that evangelicals were sufficiently broad-minded and flexible to be able to accept new ideas and work them into their system of thought. Two areas were particularly troublesome to humanistic, unregenerate scholars: the doctrine of Biblical infallibility and the doctrine of creationism. But rising young evangelical thinkers were prepared to make concessions in these areas. Some began to adopt compromising positions regarding creationism. They accepted certain evolutionary premises, using such terms as “theistic evolution” or “threshold creationism.” It was an attempt to incorporate at least parts of the theory of evolution into a Biblical framework.

As they moved along in their efforts, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture became more and more of a stumbling block. If the Bible were without error when speaking in areas of biology, cosmology, geology and the like, then evangelicals would have no latitude to formulate views that would accommodate to contemporary scientific theories. So, many evangelicals began to equivocate on the doctrine of infallibility.

There were also the pressures of ecumenicity. Ecumenism is a hot commodity these days. Everyone who is anyone is in favor of getting together. For one to be against all [professing] Christians working together is like being opposed to the most sacred things in human life. The ecumenical fever struck many evangelicals. They disdained the isolationism of fundamentalism and longed for wider fellowship and broader horizons. They felt that the evangelical viewpoint should be represented in ecumenical circles. Definite moves were made to see that it was.

With these attitudes prevailing, several historical incidents took place, which were important stepping-stones to the public, visible ascendancy of the new evangelicalism. One of the earliest was the organization of Fuller Theological Seminary (1947). Named after Charles Fuller, famous radio preacher, one of its main purposes, according to its first president, Harold Ockenga, was to train young men to go back into the old-line denominations and win a place for evangelicalism. Because millions of people were acquainted with Charles Fuller through the “Old-Fashioned Revival Hour,” and because he was a strong Bible believer and preacher, the public naturally assumed that the school which bore his name would also occupy his theological position. In this they were sadly misled. Fuller became one of the major fountainheads for the new evangelical philosophy, and it has drifted farther and farther from the position of the man whose name it bears.

In 1956, articles appeared in Christian Life magazine entitled “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” The conclusion of most of those interviewed was that it was changing. Among those responding to the question were Vernon Grounds, Bernard Ramm, and Edward Carnell. They felt that fundamentalism was changing for the better by having a more open attitude toward the gift of tongues, by being less dispensational, and by evidencing a more accepting attitude toward science.

In 1956, the magazine Christianity Today was begun. It was intended as an evangelical counterpart to the prestigious liberal journal Christian Century. In early issues, two editorials appeared which showed the direction of the magazine. These were entitled “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy” and “Dare We Renew the Controversy?” The thought was expressed that too much time has been wasted on fighting the battles with modernism; evangelicals should now progress to more productive efforts. Another editorial, “The Perils of Independency,” supported the mediating view of the NAE [National Association of Evangelicals] as over against the views of independency (fundamental separatism) or church unionism (ecumenism). The editors of the periodical expressed the opinion that “the apostasy condemned by Independency is not as clearly discernible as it is assumed” (Editorial, “The Perils of Independency,” Christianity Today, Nov.12, 1956, pp. 20-23).

Interestingly, in the early days of Christianity Today‘s existence, the Conservative Baptist Fellowship submitted a display ad for the famous Casebooks written by Chester Tulga. These books exposed various forms of modernism and unbelief. The magazine refused to run the ad, explaining the reaction of their editorial committee thus:

“There was a strong feeling, however, that in view of our circulation among many different groups, and of our announced intention to win the liberal, we would be, by running this ad in an early issue, standing the risk of alienating the very persons whom we are trying to win” (Quoted by R.T. Ketcham, “Christianity Today–An Analysis,” Baptist Bulletin, XXII, March 1957, pp.8,9).

The ministry of evangelist Billy Graham also aided the rise of the new evangelicalism, since he was one of its chief spokesmen. His crusades, mixed in nature as they were, gave popular expression to the whole philosophy behind new evangelicalism.

Many of the new evangelicals were authors, some of them prolific. Books and articles began to appear from their pens. Edward Carnell, Carl Henry, Bernard Ramm and others produced works which had widespread influence and promoted aspects of the new evangelical position.

The National Association of Evangelicals became an organizational haven for leaders of this movement. The NAE made no official statements about it, but its own approach to the question of the apostasy made it a natural gathering place for the new evangelicals.

[Return to Text]


Biblical Discernment Ministries – Revised 8/01

Read Full Post »

Thanks to our discernment ministries friend Manny Silva for making us aware of Greg Gordon’s article, reposted on Manny’s blogsite.

Click here for the original site of the article.

95 THESES TO THE MODERN EVANGELICAL CHURCH
“revised”! by Greg Gordon [founder of sermonindex.net]

Saints, I have revised many of these and also all of them are of a size that will fit on tiwtter and facebook easily to re-post. Pray about sharing these with others and sharing each theses individually. I believe many need to hear these truths and they are shared in the humility of my weakness and lack in my own Christian Life. May God in His mercy come and revive North American Christianity for His glory alone. “May the Lamb of God receive the reward of His sufferings in our lives today!”

—-

Official website for the theses: http://95moderntheses.wordpress.com/

—-

1. The “church” at large has forgotten that the chief end of man is to glorify God. (Rom 16:27; 1Cor 6:20; Mt 6:9; 1Cor 10:31)

2. Christians ignore most of the methods, practices and principles found in the book of Acts. (Acts 2:42,44; Acts 2:46; Acts 2:38)

3. Many treat “church” like any other social club or sports event that they might attend. (Acts 2:46; Heb 10:25; Acts 1:14)

4. We’ve made Christianity about the individual rather than the community of believers. (Rom 12:5; 1Cor 12:12; 2Tim 4:16)

5. In most “churches” the priesthood of all believers isn’t acknowledged and the role of pastor is abused. (1Pt 2:9; 1Cor 12:12; Eph 4:11-13)

6. The “church” as a whole has lost the concept of their being grafted into the promises given to Israel. (Rom 11:15, 17-18, 20, 25)

7. There needs to be a recovery of teaching the whole counsel of God, especially in expository form. (Acts 20:27; 1Tim 4:6, 2Tim 2:15)

8. We take it too lightly that we have the blessing and honor of having God’s Scriptures in our possession. (Ps 119:16; Acts 13:44; Neh 8:9)

9. There has never been more access to the Word of God, yet so little reading of it. (1Tim 4:13; Neh 8:1-3; Ps 119:59)

10. Some read the Scriptures to attain knowledge, but do not practice what they read. (Jam 1:22; Mt 7:21; 3Jn 4)

11. Worship has become an idol in many “churches”. The music often resembles that of the world. (Amos 5:23; Phil 4:8; 1Jn 5:21)

12. The world is shaping the views of the “church” more than the “church” shaping the world. (Rom 12:2; Mt 5:13; 1Cor 1:22-23)

13. The “church” spends more money on dog food than on missions. (2Cor 9:6; Lk 21:2; Acts 4:34-35)

14. We take lightly the cost of discipleship laid out by Jesus Christ and do not deny our lives. (Lk 14:33; Lk 14:26-27; Mt 8:19-20)

15. There is a lack of true discipleship and making others to be obedient disciples. (Mt 28:20; 2Tim 2:2; 2Tim 2:14)

16. Many subscribe to the error that parts of life are to be spiritual while others are to be secular. (1Pt 4:2; Col 3:3; 1Jn 2:6)

17. Modern Christians often find Jesus’ command to sacrifice and serve abhorrent. (Phil 2:21; Jam 3:16; Rom 12:1-2)

18. Self disciplines in the Christian life such as fasting and praying are considered legalistic. (2Tim 2:21; 2Tim 1:8; Mt 6:17)

19. Little thought and contemplation is put towards the lostness of men, the seriousness of the Gospel. (Phil 3:8; Gal 2:20; Heb 10:34)

20. We are living with an epidemic of cheap grace with flippant confession and shallow consecration. (Lk 14:28-30; Lk 14:26; Jam 4:8)

21. Since the inception of the Church, the Gospel had the requirements of repentance and discipleship. (Acts 2:38; Lk 14:26; Jn 8:31)

22. Now forgiveness is offered without repentance, discipleship without obedience, salvation without sanctity. (Heb 10:29; 4:11; Lk 13:24)

23. Introspection, counting the cost, godly sorrow over sin, are all foreign to many in the “church”. (Acts 2:37; Ps 119:9; Heb 6:1-2)

24. The modern church loves itself more than its neighbor. (1Cor 3:3; Gal 5:13; Phil 2:3)

25. The church must repent of its idolization of personality, and of business principles. (2Cor 2:17; 1Cor 3:5; 1Cor 12:23)

26. Many elders and pastors of the “church” sadly are fleecing the flock to supply their own wants. (Jn 10:12-13; 1Pt 5:2-3; Rev 2:15)

27. The qualities most in demand in today’s pastorate are frequently foreign to the Scriptures. (1Tim 3:2-3; 1Tim 3:5; 1Tim 1:5-7)

28. The professionalization of the pastorate is a sin and needs to be repented of. (2Cor 11:13; Gal 3:1; Gal 2:6)

29. There must be repentance for the ambitious desire and idolization of the celebrity pastorate. (3Jn 9; Jer 17:5; 1Cor 12:22)

30. Pastors must trust the Spirit, not statistics. (2Sam 24:1; 1Cor 1:25; Rom 8:14)

31. Modern day prophets are being stoned by criticism and neglect. (2Tim 4:3-4; Gal 1:10; Jer 1:7-8)

32. God’s prophets are ill-treated and shunned by most “christians” considered too harsh or extreme. (Jer 6:10; Isa 6:9-10; Gal 4:16)

33. The prophets prophesy falsely, priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so. (Mt 24:4, 11-12; 1Cor 1:19, Jude 8 )

34. There are many false gospels being preached from pulpits in our day. (2Cor 11:4; Gal 1:8-9; Jude 16)

35. There is an epidemic of a “mock” salvation message. It is correct in doctrine, but false in reality. (2Cor 3:6; 1Jn 5:11-12; Rom 8:9)

36. A salvation that does not make men holy is trusted in by a deceived multitude. (Jude 4; Rom 8:1; Rom 6:17-18)

37. There is a needed perseverance in the truths of the Gospel without unbelief. (Eph 1:1; Heb 6:11-12; Heb 10:26-27)

38. A great need is to see “christians” become saints in actual experience. (1Jn 2:29; Col 3:5-8; Tit 3:8)

39. Many professors of religion are forbidding people to be a part of the holy body of Christ. (Mt 23:13; Ps 119:1-2; 2Pt 1:3-4)

40. Preaching has become all about the happiness of man and not the glory of God. (Jn 6:26; Rom 4:20; 1Pt 4:11)

41. Preachers give smooth words to entice men, yet very few give any words of correction or rebuke. (Jer 6:14; Pro 1:23; 1Tim 5:20)
———————————————————————————–
[Note: Theses #42 through #52 are found in this sermon by Carter Conlon- DM]

42. Run from gospels that focus on our success and prosperity in the name of Jesus Christ. (Jn 2:16; Acts 20:33; Jer 6:13)

43. Run from gospels that focus on self-improvement. (1Tim 6:5; Heb 12:14; Jam 4:14)

44. Run from churches where men, and not Christ, are glorified. (Col 1:18; Jude 25; Jn 16:14)

45. Run from churches where there is no Bible, no cross, no mention of the blood of Christ. (1Pt 1:18-19; Eph 3:13; Rev 1:5)

46. Run from churches where the worship leaves you cold, where there’s no sense of God’s presence. (1Cor 5:4; Ps 80:14-15; Jer 12:11)

47. Run from churches where you’re comfortable in your sin. (1Cor 14:25; Heb 10:30-31; Heb 4:13)

48. Run from churches that use the pulpit of God for a personal agenda. (Jude 10-11,19; 3Jn 9)

49. Run from those who preach division between races and cultures. (Jam 2:4, Gal 3:28, Rev 5:9)

50. Run from ungodly, spasmodic movements and endless empty prophesying. (Jer 5:13; 1Cor 14:33, 1Jn 2:16)

51. Run from preachers who tell mostly stories and jokes. (Eph 5:4; Tit 1:8; 2:12)

52. Run from those that are only after money, who use one gimmick after another to get your money. (2Pt 2:3; 2Cor 12:14; 1Cor 9:18)
————————————————————————————-

53. The phrase “accept Jesus as your personal Saviour” is not found in the Scriptures. (Rom 10:9-10; Col 1:13; Acts 26:20)

54. Evidence of true conversion does not seem important to modern day Christians. (1Jn 2:6; 1Jn 4:17; Mt 7:20)

55. Thousands of sinners think of God as having only one attribute: Love! But they continue in sin. (Rom 1:18; Acts 5:11; Ps 2:12)

56. “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!” has hindered true evangelism. (Rom 3:19; Acts 26:18; Phil 3:18-21)

57. A Gospel of love and grace only, without the law of God being preached. This is a doctrine of Satan. (2Tim 4:3-4; Rom 2:4-5; 3:19)

58. There has clearly arisen a careless mixture of 20th century reasoning with God’s revelation. (Col 2:8; Rom 1:25; Gal 1:6)

59. Decisionism and the “sinner’s prayer” has been a major cause of false conversions in the “church”. (2Pt 2:1-2; Eph 2:4-5; 2Cor 5:17-18)

60. Many will be surprised to hear Jesus say, “I never knew you, depart from me.” (Mt 7:22-23; 1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21)

61. Men have taken the place of the Holy Spirit in confirming men in their supposed salvation. (1Jn 2:3-5; 2Ths 1:8; Gal 6:12-15)

62. The doctrine of hell and eternal suffering is something little grasped by most professing “christians”. (Mt 13:42; Jam 5:1; Ps 9:17)

63. The judgment seat of Christ is perhaps one of the most neglected topics in the modern pulpit. (2Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10; 1Cor 3:13)

64. The second coming of Christ needs to be re-instated as the church’s general thrust and burden. (1Jn 3:2-3; Col 3:4-6; 1Ths 4:14-17)

65. The church has lost the fear of God and has over emphasized the love of God. (Heb 12:28-29; Lk 12:5; Heb 10:31)

66. The church has left evangelism to a few trained professionals. (Acts 8:1,4; Acts 4:29; Rom 10:14)

67. Repentance is considered a one-time act in modern evangelism rather than a way of life. (Rev 3:19; Heb 12:17; 2Pt 3:9)

68. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is something that is not taught in many pulpits. (Acts 2:36; 1Cor 12:3; Rom 6:18)

69. Many in “churches” are not open to correction, church discipline or rebuke. (1Cor 5:5; 1Cor 11:31-32; Heb 12:7-9)

70. Some preach salvation as a theory instead of persuading men to come to Christ. (Jn 5:40; Col 1:28; 2Cor 4:5)

71. There has been a loss of the fullness and majesty of the gospel. (1Tim 1:11; Jude 25; Rom 15:29)

72. There is little mention of sin or the depravity of man from “church” pulpits. (Jn 3:20; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5)

73. Covetousness, consumerism, and coddling of the world’s goods does not appear wrong. (Jer 22:17; 1Jn 2:15-16; 1Tim 3:3)

74. Little is made of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in churches or in evangelism. (1Cor 15:14-15; Acts 4:10, 33)

75. The “church” has relied more on technology than God. (Zech 4:6; 1Cor 1:21; 2:4)

76. The prayer meeting is considered one of the least important meetings in the “church”. (1Tim 2:1; Acts 4:31; Phil 4:6)

77. Pastors have never prayed less than they do in the “church” today. (Jer 10:21; Phil 2:21; Eph 6:18-19)

78. Very few are waiting on God for His direction and purpose for His Church. (Eph 1:11; Ps 37:7; Isa 40:31)

79. The “church” has many organizers, but few agonizers. (Phil 3:18-19; Rom 9:1-3; Jer 9:1)

80. We need to have the gifts of the Spirit restored again to the “church”. (2Tim 4:2; 1Cor 14:39; 1Cor 12:31)

81. A serious, sober, self-controlled Christianity is very seldom found or preached. (2Pt 3:11; 1Pt 4:7; Jude 3)

82. The “church” at large has forgotten how to pray. (1Jn 3:22; Acts 6:4; 1Ths 5:17)

83. Many “churches” are more dependent on tradition than the leading of the Holy Spirit. (Mk 7:13; Acts 16:6; Acts 13:2)

84. Multitudes of professors preach and teach: that you cannot be freed from sin. (Rom 16:18; Rom 6:1-2; 2Pt 2:1)

85. The Apostles and Christ always preached the possibility to walk free from sin. (Tit 2:11-12; 1Pt 1:14-16; Rom 6:19)

86. Sinners are not saved to sin, but rather, saved to holiness and good works. (Rom 6:13; Eph 2:10; 2Pt 3:14)

87. Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. (2Tim 2:19; 1Pt 4:17-18; 2Tim 3:12)

88. A baptism of holiness, a demonstration of godly living is the crying need of our day. (1Tim 6:3; 2Ths 3:6; 2Ths 2:13)

89. Many are confused about obedience, and good works that are readily mentioned in the Scriptures. (Tit 3:8; Jn 10:32; Rev 3:15)

90. Little emphasis is put on the plan of God to make us like Jesus Christ in “churches”. (1Pt 1:14-16; 1Jn 2:6; 1Pt 4:1)

91. Christ did not die on the cross to obtain a worldly “church” but for a “glorious Church.” (Eph 5:27; Tit 2:14; Col 4:12)

92. Christ does not come into an unregenerate and impure heart as many contemporary theologians say. (2Cor 5:17; Mt 5:8; Eze 18:31)

93. A holy Church is God’s blessing to the world; an unholy “church” is God’s judgment upon the world. (Mt 5:14,16; Eph 4:1; 1Ths 2:12)

94. If Christianity is to make any headway in the present time, it must be proved to be more than a theory. (2Ths 3:6-7; 1Ths 4:1,11-12)

95. Unbelief has gagged and bound us as risen Lazarus! We need release in this final hour! (Heb 3:12-14; 1Cor 3:21-23; Heb 11:6)

Read Full Post »

(revised 02/27/14)

There are so many evangelical Christians falling away into apostasy in these End Times – sometimes I feel overwhelmed and discouraged. But then I remind myself there are many biblically sound Christian movements today that should be a source of great encouragement for all discerning, biblically sound Christians.

Following are a few of my favorite movements. I will be adding to this list as I come across more. Dear reader, I realize my list may be controversial. The list reflects my personal doctrinal stances – your list may be different.

The movements are listed alphabetically here, not in order of importance.

Abstinence movement
“Why Wait?” resources

Christian classics – Most Christian publishers are putting out fewer and fewer biblically sound Christian books. Yet at the same time, the Internet is providing us with more and more free, public domain biblically sound books viewable online, as well as inexpensive eBooks. No longer is our reading limited to “hard copy” publications.

– Google online ebooks advanced search page

Christian publishers – There are still a number of small, biblically sound Christian publishers. Click here for my blog listing many of these.

Church bookstores – It seems very few Christian bookstores are biblically sound. Most sell whatever sells well, regardless of how heretical the books, CDs, etc. Check out David Cloud’s article on a good alternative – church bookstores.

Confessing Movement – Mainly consisting of concerned Christians in mainline/liberal denominations. As the denominations grow more ungodly regarding homosexual “rights”, etc., these Christians are pushing for their local churches to become independent from their denominations. Click here and here for my blogs about this movement.

Conservative Holiness movement
Wikipedia article

Conservative Mennonites
Wikipedia article
Conservative Mennonite Fellowship

Creation Science (specifically, the Young Earth movement)
– Wikipedia article on Creation Science  (showing bias against it)
– Wikipedia article on Young Earth Creationism (showing bias against it)

Discernment Ministries, also called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs).  For links to my favorite ODMs, scroll down to the bottom of the right hand side of my blog page, to the section entitled Blogroll.

Frugal living (downward mobility) – This is a biblical principle. Jesus commanded:

19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal…” (Matt. 6:19-20, KJV)

Since our economy took a downward turn in Fall 2008, many Christians have been forced into frugality, learning how to live on less. Perhaps this economic difficulty is God’s way of driving us to our knees, to rid us of materialism and draw us closer to Him.

Mary Hunt’s Debt-Proof Living
DaveRamsey.com

Homeschooling (Christian) and private Christian schools
– Wikipedia article on Homeschooling (secular)
HomeschoolChristian.com

Hymn websites – Paul encouraged the New Testament Christians to:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Col. 3:16,  KJV).

Pew hymnbooks have disappeared from many churches since the early 1970s (the advent of Contemporary Christian Music). Thank the Lord for hymn websites, listing hymn lyrics and hymn tunes.

Hymnal.net
HymnSite.com

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches (I prefer IFB churches holding to the positions of David Cloud at Way of Life Literature)

King James Bible movement (including adherents of the Textus Receptus NT and Masoretic OT)
David Cloud’s position on the KJV-only movement
Dean Burgon Society

KJV Bible publishing ministries (Bearing Precious Seed)

Mission agencies – These agencies focus on evangelism (saving souls). They do not use a missional/Kingdom Now/social holiness approach, nor do they support the Insider Movement/ Contextualization.
list of KJV Baptist missions
Biblical Missiology (a consortium, not a missions agency)
i2 Ministries

“Persecuted Christian” groups
Persecution.org
Voice of the Martyrs

Post-Trib movement – I grew up being taught the Pre-Trib Rapture theory. I now prefer the Post-Trib view – although I love to fellowship with all premillenialists, whether Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib.
Post-Trib.net

Pro-Life movement
Wikipedia article on the Pro-Life movement

“Repentance Salvation” movement (I am using the phrase “repentance salvation” for lack of a better term) – This movement fights Easy Believism aka Easy Prayerism. This movement is mostly Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. Proponents are  David Cloud (IFB) and Paul Washer (Southern Baptist), to name a few.

Repentance Salvation overlaps with a movement perjoratively called “Lordship Salvation”, which is more extreme. Note – David Cloud opposes Lordship Salvation. Opponents of  Repentance Salvation often confuse it with Lordship Salvation, attacking both as equally heretical.

– This “Repentance Blacklist” was posted by a website critical of Repentance Salvation; I actually recommend most (but not all) of the names on this “blacklist”
– Wikipedia article about Paul Washer
“Repentance and Lordship Salvation”, by David Cloud
“Repentance and Lordship Salvation Revisited”, by David Cloud

Separatist Fundamentalist associations (multi-denominational)
– Click here and here for my blogs about these.

Tract-publishing ministries (mostly KJV)
“Witnessing With Gospel Tracts”, by David Cloud

Read Full Post »

(blog under construction)

Should Christians dance (or drink, or smoke, etc., etc.)? Originally the Nazarenes (CotN)(as well as many other Wesleyan Holiness denominations) banned dancing altogether, both inside and outside the churches: http://www.biblefacts.org/church/denom/holiness.html

Here’s the info regarding CotN specifically, at the above link:

“Church of the Nazarene, founded 1908, Holiness. Banned activities: dance, alcohol, smoking, theater, membership in secret societies.”

And many Conservative Holiness denominations are still very “strict” in their behaviors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_holiness_movement (I would say they’re “living holy lives” – “strict” sounds too negative.)

Conservative Holiness denominations, unfortunately, have “loosened up” somewhat since approx. 1900-1950. Yet I remember not too long ago when one of the denominations (I forget which one) would not allow “mixed swimming” at their church camps.

The most admirable example I’ve seen in recent years was a plainly dressed born again, biblically sound Mennonite woman with a daughter about five years old. She gave her daughter a coloring book showing a little girl on the beach. But she taught her daughter to color long black dresses on the little girl (down to her ankles), on every drawing of the little girl in her bathing suit.

Was this “old fashioned” or “backward” or “legalistic”? Many evangelicals today would say “yes.” But I admire this Mennonite mother for bringing up her daughter so modestly. Her daughter would now be about 15 years old – I’m guessing she has turned out much more godly than most kids nowadays. By the way, I’m guessing her daughter was home schooled – which also helped greatly I’m sure.

We need to set the bar very high nowadays when it comes to bringing children up in a moral way. It reminds me of the following passage:

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Prov. 22:6, KJV)

I’m pointing a finger at myself here. My stepchildren were almost out of high school by the time I got married, but there is much more I could have done (but didn’t) even in this situation to bring them up “in the Lord.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: