Apprising Ministries has reminded you that the Emerging Church progressive/liberal theologians such as Dr. Philip Clayton of the Transforming Theology network and Tony Jones, heretical “theologian in residence” at the church of his equally heretical quasi-universalist pastor Doug Pagitt, are busy “doing theology.” This is their term for bantering ideas back and forth—that may or may not have anything to do with the Bible—as they continue cobbling together their new postmodern version of Progressive Christian theology, which they’re referring to as “big tent” Emergence Christianity.

In fact, the term big tent itself really concerns the universalism forming the rotten core of this pseudo-Christian neo-liberalism—Liberalism 2.0—now being spread by an upgraded Emerging Church 2.0 throughout the mainstream of evangelicalism. At this point it’s important to remind you again that we are not just talking here about a universalism teaching men will be saved regardless of their religious convictions. Rather what’s under discussion is a Christian Universalism (CU), which does generally see Jesus Christ as the only way that all men will eventually be saved. There are various views but this CU is based upon some type of a universal atonement of Christ on the Cross that sounds a lot like the following from Rob Bell, the Elvis-like rock star pastor of the Emergent Church rebellion against the authority of the Bible:

So this is reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things, everywhere. This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.[1]

During this past year in articles like The Emerging Church And The New Progressive Theology On Other Religions I’ve been giving you some glimpses at a few of the sources this Liberalism 2.0 is drawing from, as well as, some of what comprises its spiritually bankrupt theology. For example, Philip Clayton’s current book Transforming Christian Theology cites Hal Taussig, “New Testament professor” at Union Theological Seminary, whom he says gives a “beautiful summary” of this “progressive Christianity”[2]; and here’s what Taussig tells us about this progressive neo-liberal de-formation of the Christian faith in his Grassroots Progressive Christianity: A Quiet Revolution:

4. The belief that Christianity can be vital without claiming to be the best or the only true religion. In contrast to mainstream Christianity’s lukewarm “tolerance” of other religions, progressive Christianity pro-actively asserts that it is not the best or the only. Progressive Christians take pains to simultaneously their own Christian faith and their support of the complete validity of other religions.[3] 

The pious statement likely draws applause, and will certainly please the world, but the problem is the historic, orthodox, Christian faith has never taught “the complete validity of other religions.” I began studying liberal theology many years ago, but as I began to see the EC drifting toward universalism—particularly with the unholy Emergent trinity of Pagitt, Jones, and EC guru Brian McLaren—I began to study the works of more recent progressive Christians such as Marcus Borg and Diana Butler Bass. Bascially I simply followed the interlocking concentric circles closing all around Brian Mclaren, who’s always been the EC’s tip-of-the-spear advancing postmodern progressive Christianity.

You may recall that not too long ago McLaren even embarked on a speaking tour with both Borg and Butler Bass, with whom he is good friends. In fact, Diana Butler Bass is also associated with McLaren, his friend Tony Campolo, and new Obama spiritual advisor Jim Wallis in something called Red Letter Christians (RLC). It’s also important for you to know that a founding member of RLC just happens to be Roman Catholic mystic and Christian universalist Richard Rohr, who’s also a Franciscan priest as well as founder of the interspiritual blackhole called Center for Action and Contemplation. And this past year or so Rohr’s really become quite active around EC sectors.[4]

As we watch the development of this Liberalism 2.0 advanced by the EC it’s important that you begin to recognize the names of some of the major proponents; you may rest assured they have an agenda to take over the visible church with A New Kind of Christianity, which is what McLaren’s latest book was about. Now if these people do believe in “the complete validity of other religions,” then quite obviously, we have some form of universalism being taught. Now I’d like to draw your attention to a book, which gives us a glimpse at what this man-centered Liberalism 2.0 looks like; its by Dr. R. Scott Thornton, Director of Sacred Grounds Resource Center and is called Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith. Of this book Richard Rohr says emphatically:

This excellent book deserves a broad reading! Unless we bring R. Scott Thornton’s kind of faith-filled intelligent response to our Scriptures and practice, I see little ability for Christianity to heal, transform our world. With this kind of wisdom, which is merely Jesus’ wisdom, we can do just that![5]

Thorton’s supposedly “faith-filled” progessive Christianity involves universal pluralism as he explains:

Many paths lead people into relationship with God. If I grew up in Indoa, I’d probably be a Hindu; Saudi Arabia, Muslim; Israel, Jew. But I wasn’t. I was born into a Christian family…as I’ve committed more of my life to Christian discipleship, I’ve experienced a transformation that leads me to believe that “the way” taught and modeled by Jesus is a pure reflection of God’s intentional will for humankind. [6]

However, even though the progressive/liberal Christian believes that only they are living the “pure reflection” of the way God would have everyone live, still they acknowledge that there are other “paths” which can also take “into relationship with God.” From About Us—The 8 Points  at the website of The Center For Progressive Christianity:

Point 2: Pluralism
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who… Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
(Online source, bold mine)

As such then, we’re not surprised that in Thornton’s sermon Grace, delivered at something called The Institute for Progressive Christianity, he takes a shot the doctrine of hell as he tells us we’ve set up bad rules like:

If you do not believe certain things about Jesus you are not “saved”. You are somehow condemned to an eternity of torment in a place called hell. We draw distinct lines in the sand and label some people good and some people evil and propose that those we have labeled evil must be destroyed. I’m sorry to say that if Jesus appeared today, he would have to once again rebel against these barriers in the same way that he did 2000 years ago.[7]

Well, if other paths also lead to God and if, as Philip Clayton puts it, we’re going to “rediscover a deep, vibrant form of incarnational Christian life and faith–one based not on an economy of exclusion but of embrace”[8] then we need to rethink the doctrine of hell now, wouldn’t we; and so they are as you can see e.g. in Razing Hell With Sharon Baker, who even comes highly recommended by EC guru Brian McLaren. You may also recall in Brian McLaren Attacks The Substitutionary Atonement I showed you he has said:

[T]he kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice, right? But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.

Baker puts it this way:

I’m even more concerned about remaining faithful to the God of love, who loves the worst of the worst, the world’s enemies, including, even, the Hitlers, the Idi Amins, and the Osama bin Ladens of the world. Our traditional views of hell as a place of eternal punishment where unbelievers dwell in undying flames contradict the image of God as merciful, forgiving, and compassionate. (Online source)

At this point, Baker’s postmodern opining deconstruction aside, I’ll remind you that the “traditional views of hell as a place of eternal punishment” is actually derived from God’s inerrant and infallible Word in the Bible so there’s no conflict at all concerning what He’s revealed about Himself and hell. Against this backdrop I’m pleased to bring your attention to the September/October 2010 e-Journal from 9 Marks that’s entitled Hell: Remembering the Awful Reality. Editor Jonathan Leeman tells us:

Wisdom so often in life prescribes moderation. It’s wise to eat with moderation, to speak with moderation, to feel with moderation, some would even say to believe with moderation.

But there’s absolutely nothing moderate about the doctrine of hell. It’s extreme in every way. It’s an extreme idea for the mind. It’s an extreme confrontation for the heart. And it blows against all the rules of social etiquette.

Embracing the reality of hell means setting aside moderation. It means admitting that our sin is dark and heinous to the point of eternal damnation; that the white light of God’s character and glory justly destroys those who have fallen short of his glory; and that that our non-Christians friends have nothing greater to fear. That’s tough to do when you have moderate views of your sin, your friend’s sin, and of God’s glory.

Embracing the reality of hell also means going against the fallen cultural structures and belief systems of this world, all of which conspire together with our own hearts to repeat the serpent’s promise of a moderate outcome, “You will surely not die.”

As hard as it is to stare at the doctrine of hell, surely it must be salubrious to our faith to do so from time to time. It forces us to once again reckon with who God is and who we are. We hope this issue of the 9Marks eJournal will help all of us to do just that. (Online source)

Among other articles in this timely e-Journal you’ll find Pastoral Fearmongering, Manipulation, and Hell by Mark Dever, How Does Hell Glorify God? from James M. Hamilton Jr., and Greg Gilbert‘s Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel where he brings out what’s happened to those following the spiritual dead-end of progressive Christianity, which is neither progressive, nor Christian:

For some, the horror of the Christian doctrine of hell—that it is a place of eternal, conscious torment where God’s enemies are punished—has led them not just to avert their eyes and minds, but to deny it entirely. “Surely,” they say, “hell is a fictional construct used to oppress people with fear; a God of love would never allow such a place to really exist.” There’s an emotional power to this argument, to be sure. No one, certainly no Christian, likes the idea of hell.

At the same time, this doctrine isn’t just drapery on the side of the Christian worldview, something with no relevance to the structure of the faith itself. Nor is the doctrine of hell an embarrassing, unnecessary, primitive wart that we believe just because we’re told we have to.

On the contrary, the doctrine and reality of hell actually throws the glory of the gospel into sharp relief for us. It helps us to understand just how great God really is, how sinfully wretched we really are, and how unutterably amazing it is that he would show us grace at all. Moreover, the reality of hell—if we don’t push it out of our minds—will focus us, above all, on the task of proclaiming the gospel to those who are in danger of spending eternity there… (Online source)

Which is why I continue to warn such as these I’ve been discussing here; though the progressive/liberal Christians follow a Jesus, in actuality, their glorified social reformer is a phantom who’s essentially Gandhi with a beard. And, because they have gone through the gate [that] is wide out onto the way [which] is easy that leads to destruction (see—Matthew 7:13), a non-existent savior is powerless to help them. And so this is why, in the love of God, we will continue to pray for these deceived progressive/liberals—for whom Christ also died—because there’s still time for them to avoid hell and accept the good news of the glorious Gospel of repentance and the forgivness of sins in the Name of Jesus Christ.

________________________________________________________________________________

End notes:

[1] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], 146, emphasis mine.

[2] Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010], 120.

[3] Bold is his.

[4] Rohr is also a member of an important Emerging Church network I’ve discussed previously e.g. in Emerging Church TransFORM.

[5] R. Scott Thornton, Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith [Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 2009], back cover.

[6] Ibid., 7.

[7] http://tiny.cc/ui70a, accessed 9/1/10.

[8] http://tiny.cc/w5wue, accessed 9/1/10.

See also:

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON CHRIST 

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE DOESN’T MATTER TO BRIAN MCLAREN

ROB BELL AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

DOUG PAGITT AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

SURPRISED BY GOD’S JUDGMENT

WHAT IS THE WORST THING ABOUT HELL?

These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves… (Jude 12)

Christians Who Don’t Believe What Christians Believe

Apprising Ministries has told you before that the sinfully ecumenical Emerging Church, which has now blossomed into a full-blown neo-liberal cult that’s operating within mainstream evangelicalism itself, would prove to be a Trojan Horse unloading critical-thinking skills numbing Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism under the guise of so-called Spiritual Formation ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard. 

Online apologetics and discernment ministries tried to warn you that the primary goal of the Emergent Church has been to attack the Protestant Reformation—specifically Sola Scriptura—but, unfortunately, the warnings went unheeded. Instead mainstream evangelical churches made the horrible decision to use their Young Adult and Youth ministries as spiritual guinea pigs feeding them on materials from apostate EC leaders.

Two of the most notorious of these would be the heretical quasi-universalist Emerging Church pastor Doug Pagitt, who heads the Emergent Solomon’s Porch, along with his equally heretical “theologian in residence” Tony Jones; two-thirds of the unholy trinity of the Emerging Church, with the other being guru Brian McLaren. Sadly, these men will have much to answer for having caused so many to make shipwreck of their faith (see—1 Timothy 1:19).

I’ll tell you again that you listen to such fools to your own demise. In The New Christians With Christianity Worth Believing—No Sola Scriptura: Yes, Women Pastors And Queer Christians I showed some of what their spiritually libertine legacy comprises as well as mentioned that among the books authored by DougPagitt is one called A Christianity Worth Believing.

Now courtesy of A Simple Review of “A Christianity Worth Believing” we ask the question: What kind of Christianity does Doug Pagitt offer?

Emergent leaders use the same tactics in their books and lessons: a personal life story followed by an applicable theological lesson; very little use of scripture, and if any is used most commonly out of context; most of all, they commonly say, “Oh, we’re not teaching that! Let me explain…” followed by an exact definition of what they claimed they weren’t teaching. The obviousness of this latter point is sometimes so unintentionally humorous that I’m suddenly reminded of the end of An American Tail, where the villain is revealed to be a cat in disguise but says to the mice: “C’mon, who are you gonna trust? Me, or your own eyes?”

What Christianity has Pagitt presented us? We are taught that sin isn’t a serious issue, that Jesus was simply an example of what we’re meant to do, that the crucifixion wasn’t necessary in the long run, that the afterlife isn’t important, and that we can learn a lot more from holistic medicine than we can the Bible. At what point does this become Christianity? How can this be Christianity? The role of Christ is diminished and our role with God is simply played out in a post-modern ideal that borders along pantheism. You can call it spirituality, but you can’t call it Christianity.

So what is a Christianity worth believing? I would move the Christianity we are taught in the word of God by the Eternal Word of God and His blessed apostles. The Christianity that promises eternal life through faith in Christ, so that we may be justified before the Father on the day of judgment, when the real “renewal” – not in holistic nature but in the body of believers who will be purified and sanctified forever – takes place. Upon no other form of Christianity should we take our stand. Amen. (Online source)

See also:

DOUG PAGITT, THE EMERGING CHURCH, AND AFFIRMING HOMOSEXUALITY

DOUG PAGITT AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

DOUG PAGITT EXCITED ABOUT EVENTS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE ENNEAGRAM

DOUG PAGITT, JOHN PIPER, AND KARMA KICK-BACK

DOUG PAGITT AND ARROGANCE OF LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS

DOUG PAGITT AND JOHN SHELBY SPONG

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

It is common to say that hell is the absence of God. Such statements are motivated in large part by the dread of even contemplating what hell is like. We try often to soften that blow and find a euphemism to skirt around it.

We need to realize that those who are in hell desire nothing more than the absence of God. They didn’t want to be in God’s presence during their earthly lives, and they certainly don’t want Him near when they’re in hell. The worst thing about hell is the presence of God there.

When we use the imagery of the Old Testament in an attempt to understand the forsakenness of the lost, we are not speaking of the idea of the departure of God or the absence of God in the sense that He ceases to be omnipresent. Rather, it’s a way of describing the withdrawal of God in terms of His redemptive blessing.

It is the absence of the light of His countenance. It is the presence of the frown of His countenance.

It is the absence of the blessedness of His unveiled glory that is a delight to the souls of those who love Him, but it is the presence of the darkness of judgment.

Hell reflects the presence of God in His mode of judgment, in His exercise of wrath, and that’s what everyone would like to escape.

I think that’s why we get confused. There is withdrawal in terms of the blessing of the radical nearness of God. His benefits can be removed far from us, and that’s what this language is calling attention to.

Dr. R.C. Sproul [1]

________________________________________________________________________________

End notes:

[1] R. C. Sproul, The Truth of the Cross (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2007), pp. 157-158.

HT: Justin Taylor

See also:

RAZING HELL WITH SHARON BAKER

SURPRISED BY GOD’S JUDGMENT

ROB BELL AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2)

Spiritually Obtuse Evangelicals And Jesus’ Brother Satan

As rapidly apostatizing mainstream evanjellyfish as it continues its lust for acceptance by unregenerate mankind, pitifully begging for his approval, this online apologetics and discernment work of Apprising Ministries has no shortage of silly developing trends to cover. Through evangelicalism’s embrace of the sinfully ecumenial Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which has grown into a full-blown neo-liberal cult operating within its walls, we’re seeing doctrinal lines blurred and erased at levels unprecedented. Take for example an article of mine from almost three years ago called the Mormon Church Is Now Christian.

I asked within: Does that statement come as a bit of a shock to you? Then I said that if you listen to all the rhetoric a while back from several evangelical Christian leaders who endorsed Robert Millet’s A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, a book which was written by a dedicated LDS apologist and actively practicing Mormon, you just might get the impression that Mormonism is now just another acceptable form of Christianity. As I also pointed out Millet is Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University and an active apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).

My friend Bud Press of Christian Research Service further informs us that Millet is “the ‘Manager of Outreach and Interfaith Relations’ with the Mormon Church Public Affairs.”[1] I happen to have much experience with Mormon doctrine, as well as with LDS people, from living ten years in a heavily Mormon area of Wyoming not far from Salt Lake City; so in my prior post I used the pro-Mormon Millennial Star blog to show you why having spiritually obtuse “evangelical leaders” lend their name to this book was so welcomed by the LDS Church. Below is what one Mormon writer said:

I applaud Eerdmans for making the offer, Millet for taking the opportunity, and Richard Mouw (who wrote the fore and afterword) for consistantly putting his reputation on the line for the Mormons.

I predict some Evangelicals will actually read it and find that Mormons are not as heretical as previously thought, but not as many as I’d hope. Others will demonize Mouw, Eerdmans and Owen as “giving away the store,” as James White already has. Quelle surprise… (Online source, emphasis mine)

Yes, that’s right; this book of Mormon doctrine was published Eerdmans, and here’s what Dr. Jame White of the fine work Alpha & Omega Ministries astutely observed at the time:

Robert Millet is the Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding and professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. A believing Mormon, he has been key in the dialogues taking place between certain non-LDS scholars and pastors and LDS scholars from BYU. His book, Another Jesus?, though advertised by Eerdmans as a work “intended to inform rather than to convince or persuade,” is pure apologetic from start to finish. You could find this kind of work at your local LDS bookstore, but thanks to Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, now you will be able to find it in your Christian bookstore, too!

Yes, friends and neighbors, not only has Richard Mouw apologized for all of us mean-spirited folks who have labored to witness the true God and the true Christ and the true Gospel to Mormons for decades, but now he has made sure to provide a “Trojan Horse Apologetic,” a work that attacks the Trinity, deity of Christ, sola scriptura, justification by grace through faith alone, the sovereignty of God in salvation, the finished work of Christ on the cross—OK, like I said, it is an LDS work of apologetics, so it is pretty well opposed to sound theology at just about every point—and he has made sure that book will be right there in your local Christian bookstore (how many bookstore owners will recognize it for what it is? Then again, what section will they put it in anyway?). Cards, roses, and copies of the Book of Mormon can be sent to Fuller Seminary in thanks. (Online source)

This would be the same Richard Mouw who was also part of the whole Ravi Zacharias debacle in Salt Lake City “when [Zacharias] accepted an invitation to speak at the LDS temple in Salt Lake City but failed to make any distinction between the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and the demonically inspired false Christ of Mormonism.”[2] So here’s the president of an ostensibly orthodox Christian theological school and Mouw writes both the Foreword and the Afterword for Millet’s book of blasphemy; but it gets even worse as Bill McKeever points out in A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Review). McKeever, who is hardly harsh, tells us:

Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, writes the “Foreword” and “After word” to A Different Jesus. He takes full responsibility for Millet writing the book and Eerdmans for publishing it. “Indeed, I encouraged him to write this book, and I urged the Eerdmans folks to publish it” (p.viii)… Mouw has also gained a reputation over the years for the many apologies he has given on behalf of Christians whom he feels have been bearing false witness against the Mormons. He uses his “Foreword” to take another shot…
(Online source)

I’m not the only one noticing this rash of supposed evanjellyfish apologists apologizing for the historic, orthodox, Christian faith, which is the central point I’m drawing out here in this post: We certainly do have an infestation of spiritually spineless people in the church visible posing before people of the world and apologizing for the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead of preaching it to them. Specific to Richard Mouw, as an evangelical Christian here’s what he said in his Afterword of LDS apologist Robert Millet’s book A Different Jesus (ADJ), which also appeared on the websites of LDS bookstores while being used to promote the non-Christian cult of Mormonism:

I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation. That is certainly my sense.[3]

This despite the fact that Millet clearly states the official Mormon teaching about Christ on page 20 of ADJ—“Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of God the Father.” And there can be no mistake here because I personally have ADJ and in the paragraph before that quote Robert Millet cites LDS “Apostle” Bruce R. McConkie from his book The Promised Messiah—“[Jesus Christ] was born, as were all the spirit children of the Father. God was his father, as he is of all the rest.”[4] Since I covered this in greater depth recently in The “Jesus” Of Glenn Beck here I’ll simply show you the following from the official website of the LDS Church where we read:

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. (Online source, emphasis mine)

Here’s a news flash: If you claim to be Christian and you can read this official LDS doctrine that our great and mighty, generous and merciful, Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan without feeling anger rise within then you’d better check to see if you’re even in the faith (see—2 Corinthians 13:5). If Richard Mouw thinks this Jesus, whom Robert Millet has given himself to, is the Jesus of the Bible then it’s well past time for people supporting FTS to investigate what Bible it is he’s reading. And now we consider this from Bill McKeever as he tells how Mouw says he:

has no doubt that Millet has been honest in presenting his case in the book, but at the same time he admits that “The question of whether he really does mean what, say, an evangelical means when he uses the same words that we employ is, of course, a more complicated matter” (p.180). If this is so, doesn’t that place the entire book under suspicion?… (Online source)

Um, ya think? Now in regard to Robert Millet’s laying out “the ‘more’ of Mormonism (baptism for the dead, temple rites, the ancient office of prophet and apostle, golden plates, and new revelations),” McKeever correctly explains that Mouw does admit that these are “reminders that the divide between many LDS doctrines and some key beliefs of Christian orthodoxy is still wide indeed.”[5] Well, I should say so; think Grand Canyonesque, McKeever next tells us :

On the same page, Mouw states that God is “Wholly other – eternal and self-sufficient – who is in a realm of existence that is radically distinct from the creation that was brought into being out of nothing by God’s sovereign decree. On this view of things, to confuse the Creator’s being with anything in his creation is to commit the sin of idolatry. Mormons, on the other hand, talk about God and humans as belonging to the same ‘species.’ Inevitably, then, the differences are described, not in terms of an unbridgeable gap of being, but in a language of ‘more’ and ‘less.’ “ He goes onto say: “This kind of disagreement has profound implications for our understanding of who Jesus Christ is” (p.182). (Online source)

And now we’re about to enter the whacked Wonderland of postmodern Humpty Dumpty language; please keep in mind this is not at all related to Bill McKeever, but rather, what he’s telling us concerning Richard Mouw:

These comments make me question his conclusion on page 183 where he says: “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation. This is certainly my sense.” If Mouw agrees that the Mormon view of God is idolatrous, and that this has profound implications for understanding who Jesus is, how can a person like Millet be trusting in the “Jesus of the Bible” when he believes in this idolatrous version of God the Father? Based on Mouw’s explanation in the previous paragraph, should we not conclude that Millet is an idolater when he admits that he believes that “God is an exalted man” (p.145)?

In 1996, Millet also wrote: “Knowing what we know concerning God our Father — that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth…” (“The Eternal Gospel,” Ensign (July 1996), p.53). Are we, as Christians, going to change the biblical definition now to say that an idolater can be a saved individual at the same time? Mouw’s reasoning becomes even more problematic when we take into account that the Jesus of Mormonism is the literal offspring of what must be a non-existent God!  (Online source)

Twisting The Postmodern Gumby Bible Until Unbelievers Are Also Believers Too 

McKeever has insightfully taken us to the heart of the matter here: Why are Christians so willing to try and bend the Bible like Gumby into whatever shape it needs to be so that we can be inclusive and then consider people who are unbelievers, um, believers? This back story from a couple of years ago now sheds much light upon the Glenn Beck issue, where this baptized, and practicing, Mormon is now being considered as Christian albeit in “the fourth Abrahamic religion.” Today in her Washington Post article Glenn Beck may be unlikely leader for conservative Christians Michelle Boorstein informs us:

A few weeks before organizing a massive rally on the Mall that had the feel of a religious revival, Glenn Beck sought the blessing of some of the country’s most prominent conservative Christian leaders. The Fox talk show host wanted their support as he shifted from political commentary to a more spiritual message, he told the group of about 20. This is where God is leading me, Beck declared, according to Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was there, along with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

Land said most in the group found Beck’s faith genuine and heartfelt, although not everyone agreed to embrace him publicly. “We walked back to the hotel after and said: ‘That was extraordinary,’ ” Land said of his conversation with Dobson after the dinner in Manhattan. “I’ve never heard a cultural figure of that popularity talking that overtly about his faith. He sounded like Billy Graham.” (Online source)

Sounded like Billy Graham; so somehow, Graham’s a Mormon now? Then yesterday Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, appeared on NPR Radio’s All Things Considered with Melissa Brock and Robert Siegel to discuss Glenn Beck And Obama’s Christianity. The program begins by reminding listeners:

Glenn Beck’s big Washington rally over the weekend was many things: It was a benefit for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, it was widely described as a Tea Party event, and it turned out to be, as much as anything, a call to faith, a religious rally.

Mr. GLENN BECK (Host, “The Glenn Beck Program”): Something that is beyond man is happening: America today begins to turn back to God. (Online source)

The pertinent question is: Which God? Siegel then asks a question similar to the one I recently discussed with host Derek Gilbert in Pastor Ken Silva On View From The Bunker Podcast: What should we make of this latest mix of religion and politics? Siegel goes on to say:

We’re going to ask one of the guests at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday what he thinks. Dr. Richard Land has been President of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission since 1988. He’s considered one of the country’s most influential evangelical Christians. (Online source)

What follows below is part of the transcript from this NPR program where you’ll see “one of the country’s most influential evangelical Christians” in lock-step with apostates Phyllis Tickle—Empress of Emergence Christianity—and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren trying to get us to believe that Mormonism is supposedly “the fourth Abrahamic faith.” Although. not surprisingly, guru McLaren goes even further and includes Mormonism as a part of Christianity, which you can see for yourself in The New Christianity Of Brian McLaren And The Emerging Church:

Dr. RICHARD LAND (President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention): Well, thank you. It’s good to be with you.

SIEGEL: Let me ask you about that rally: a very partisan political figure, a man who has accused president Obama of being a racist, then questioned his Christianity, holds a big rally with, among others, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Is the message here that God wants the Republicans to win in November?

Dr. LAND: Well, that certainly would not be the message you got from the rally. The rally did almost everything it could to not be political and to be as ecumenical as possible.

We had rabbis praying. We had Catholic priests praying. We had Muslim imams praying and participating. We had Protestant Christians. And he kept saying over and over again this is not a political event, and politics is not the answer. The answer is spiritual renewal and rebuilding a civil society one person, one family, one church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and one community at a time.

SIEGEL: Are you concerned about what Glenn Beck has said, for example, on “FOX News Sunday,” yesterday, more pointedly than from the podium on Saturday, that Americans do not recognize President Obama’s brand of Christianity? And you share that belief, by the way.

Dr. LAND: Oh, I recognize it. To me, he’s a very typical, mainline, liberal, Protestant Christian. I know lots of people like the president and who have been deeply influenced by liberation theology.

I think liberation theology is wrong. I reject collective salvation as an oxymoron.

SIEGEL: And Mr. Beck’s assertion that most Americans wouldn’t recognize the kind of Christianity that President Obama practices obviously you would disagree with. You say we know what that is.

Dr. LAND: Well, I do. I do know what it is. And I disagree with it. But, you know, it’s a free country, and that’s one reason we have freedom of religion. There were lots of differences of religion that were present at the rally. I mean, you know, you had Jewish rabbis, and as you can imagine, I would have some differences of opinion with Jewish rabbis and with Muslims and with Catholics.

But we were all there together talking about the fact that we need we believe that America needs a return to a greater faith in God, that this country is in trouble, and it’s in trouble at a very basic level. And it’s going to have to be rebuilt at a very basic level and that politics is not the answer.

SIEGEL: Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Is that brand of Christianity as distant or more so from yours than the National Council of Churches mainline Protestantism you…

Dr. LAND: Probably more so.

SIEGEL: More so.

Dr. LAND: And look, Glenn knows this. He said, look, I’m a Mormon. Most Christians don’t think that I’m a Christian. And so, you know, I’ll quote the pope, when he’s talking about liberation theology.

I do not think Mormonism is an orthodox Christian faith, with a small O. I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.

SIEGEL: Not a Christian faith.

Dr. LAND: Not a Christian faith. (Online source)

Being an SBC minister myself, and having studied Comparative Religion and non-Christian cults for 23+ years, I can assure you that Islam and Mormonism are not Abrahamic faiths, As you’ll read in Keeping You Apprised Of: Islam, the god of the Quran is not the God of the Bible; and Mormonism teaches polytheism (many gods), which is in complete conflict with the monotheism (one God) of the Bible. And so I’ll close this out, for now, with the following from Land Calls Mormonism “The Fourth Abrahamic Faith” While The SBC Calls It a “Cult”, a post today by Kyle Mantyla of the secular site Right Wing Watch. Of Land’s outlandish opinion writes:

Really? That is pretty amazing that Land would place Mormonism on par with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, especially considering that the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board labels Mormonism a “cult” [PDF]… (Online source)

As I essentially asked in Why Glenn Beck Wants To Save America, what does it say about the current state of the man-loving visible church when those who do not even claim to be Christian are showing more discernment than our so-called evangelical leaders?

________________________________________________________________________________

End notes:

[1] http://tiny.cc/mqjge, accessed 8/31/10.

[2] http://tiny.cc/zwmhk, accessed 8/31/10.

[3] Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus?: The Christ Of The Latter-day Saints [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 183.

[4] Ibid., 20, emphasis mine.

[4] Ibid., 182.

See also:

MORMON CHURCH: DEITY OF CHRIST

JOHN MACARTHUR: NO SPIRITUAL COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY AND MORMONISM

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS VS. THE GOSPEL

TWO STICKS: REFUTING THE MORMON VIEW OF EZEKIEL 37:15-17

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM—THE SAME GOD?

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: THE DEITY OF CHRIST

DO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD?

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment. (Hebrews 9:27)

Trying To Put Out Hell With A Faulty Fire Extinguisher

A large part of this online apologetics and discernment work of Apprising Ministries is cover foolish trends developing within rapidly apostatizing mainstream evanjellyfish as it continues its lust for acceptance by unregenerate mankind and his world system ruled by Satan. Yes, I know, that’s so yesterday and apparently embarrassing  to those so seduced by the man-centered semi-pelagian (at best) Church Growth Movement, which is far more deeply rooted within largely pretending to be Protestant evangelicalism than you may even realize right now.

 Now I’ve already warned you that evanjellyfish is only just beginning to pay a heavy price for its foolish embrace of the sinfully ecumenial Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, which has grown into a full-blown neo-liberal cult operating within its walls. This is because what we’re now dealing with is an upgraded Emerging Church 2.0—complete with its new version of Progressive Christian theology that they’re referring to as “big tent” Emergence Christianity; and it’s not as if they’re even hiding it because this Liberalism 2.0 forms the theology EC guru Brian McLaren began to lay out in his latest book A New Kind of Christianity.

Sadly, for a good fifteen years now evangelical churches have been treating their younger sector in Young Adult and Youth ministries as spiritual guinea pigs in “alternative” worship services where they’re using the warped and toxic teachings of EC leaders to feed them, which now brings us around to this issue. A couple of days ago the Huffington Post tweeted:

(Online source)

The link takes us to the article The Problem with Hell by Dr. Sharon Baker, who’s Associate Professor of Theology and Religion, Messiah College, which:

is a Christian college of the liberal and applied arts and sciences. The College is committed to an embracing evangelical spirit rooted in the Anabaptist, Pietist and Wesleyan traditions of the Christian Church. Our mission is to educate men and women toward maturity of intellect, character and Christian faith in preparation for lives of service, leadership and reconciliation in church and society. (Online source)

Now because I’m tracking the traitorous teachings of EC guru McLaren the name Sharon Baker was already familiar to me from his post 11 Women Writers You Should Be Reading, where Baker appears first. Guru McLaren muses:

Here are some of my favorite women writers of spirituality and theology in no particular order with short comments on why I recommend them.

1. Sharon Baker: Her new book, Razing Hell, will put her on the front line of Christian thinkers asking important questions and responding to them in helpful ways. (Online source, bold his)

We note that Baker’s book happens subtitled: Rethinking Everything You’ve Been Taught About God’s Wrath and Judgment and, but of course, comes “highly recommended” by—surprise—Brian McLaren who gushes:

“What I tried to do in my book The Last Word and the Word After That, Sharon Baker has done in Razing Hell – with more brevity, more levity, and probably with more clarity and accessibility too. Highly recommended.” (Online source)

So this pretty much tells you that we’ve already wandered off the reservation and out into the whacked Wonderland of postmodern Humpty Dumpty language; yet another “re-ing” of whatever, of which, I personally am getting really tired of reading about. Seriously though, you need to understand that people like McLaren and Baker are not really coming up with anything new; no, what they’re doing by and large is repackaging views from progressive/liberal theology and then bringing them into the mainstream of evangelicalism. It only looks new because, prior to these rebels against the Word of God gaining evangelical acceptance, the average evangelical wouldn’t even have had to deal with these vapid views as they have already been largely debunked by respected mainstream evangelical scholars; though sadly, their number is rapidly dwindling.

Baker begins her post, which is essentially a commercial for her book by telling us, “When I was 26, I found out I was going to hell.” Being “impressionable, and without a strong faith,” Baker then describes an event “25 years ago” when she:

listened intently as the pastor of a church I was visiting described in graphic detail the tortuous, unquenchable flames that would burn human bodies forever and ever. He spoke of worms eating away at decaying flesh, total darkness without the presence of God, and worst of all, no release from those horrors for all eternity. I certainly didn’t want to be one of those unfortunate many to feel the flames licking at my feet soon after leaving life in this world. So I took out the proper fire insurance and asked Jesus to save me from my sins and, therefore, from eternal torment in hell. (Online source)

You’ve probably heard similar descriptions yourself while those who wish to “rethink” set up their pet attack on some “fire insurance” gospel they apparently heard somewhere; as if something akin to Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God by Jonathan Edwards is being preached every Sunday. Dr. Al Mohler put it well in his post from January of this year Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens. While discussing the “new pattern of evangelical evasion” of the doctrine of hell that ”has surfaced” in the evangelical community Mohler points out that because they “already rejected the truthfulness of Scripture” the “Protestant liberals and modernists of the twentieth century simply dismissed the doctrine of hell” outright. He goes on:

Though this pattern is found among some who would claim to be evangelicals, this is not the most common evangelical pattern of compromise. A new apologetic move is now evident among some theologians and preachers who do affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament doctrine of hell. This new move is more subtle, to be sure. In this move the preacher simply says something like this:

“I regret to tell you that the doctrine of hell is taught in the Bible. I believe it. I believe it because it is revealed in the Bible. It is not up for renegotiation. We just have to receive it and believe it. I do believe it. I wish it could be otherwise but it is not.” (Online source)

Fast forward now to Sharon Baker and a remarkable similarity to Mohler’s example:

Hell haunts me deep down inside, where I fear to tread and fail to admit uncertainty lest ripples of doubt disturb my secure little world of faith, lest someone find out and think me less Christian and more heretic. I have no intention of doing away with hell. I can’t — certain verses in the Bible won’t allow me to do that. So I am very concerned about remaining faithful to the Christian scriptures; but I’m even more concerned about remaining faithful to the God of love, who loves the worst of the worst, the world’s enemies, including, even, the Hitlers, the Idi Amins, and the Osama bin Ladens of the world.

Our traditional views of hell as a place of eternal punishment where unbelievers dwell in undying flames contradict the image of God as merciful, forgiving, and compassionate. Our traditional focus on hell as an evangelistic tool does not genuinely communicate the very heart of the gospel. If we receive Jesus as Savior merely because we want to avoid hell, we miss the entire point. (Online source)

Don’t get caught up with Baker’s red herring about receiving Jesus “because we want to avoid hell”; it’ll only take you down a rabbit trail, and you’ll miss the main point that Al Mohler will bring out for you when he says:

Statements like this reveal a very great deal. The authority of the Bible is clearly affirmed. The speaker affirms what the Bible reveals and rejects accommodation. So far, so good. The problem is in how the affirmation is introduced and explained. In an apologetic gesture, the doctrine is essentially lamented.

What does this say about God? What does this imply about God’s truth? Can a truth clearly revealed in the Bible be anything less than good for us? The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us. Apologizing for a doctrine is tantamount to impugning the character of God. (Online source)

Bible Believing Liberals Confusing Cultural Conservatism With Theological Conservatism

As an example that we’re not dealing with anything new, consider the following from Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Emerging Theology of Early Liberalism by Dr. John MacArthur. Of this leader of early liberalism MacArthur reminds us that:

Fosdick ultimately would not acknowledge the literal reality of God’s wrath toward impenitent sinners. To him, “the wrath of God” was nothing more than a metaphor for the natural consequences of wrongdoing. His theology would not tolerate a personal God whose righteous anger burns against sin. To Fosdick, the threat of hell fire was only a relic of a barbaric age. “Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more.”

Fosdick wrote those words almost ninety years ago. Sadly, what was true of liberalism then is all too true in the so-called “evangelical movement” today. “Evangelicals” have to a very large degree rejected the reality of God’s wrath. They have disregarded His hatred for sin. The god most evangelicals now describe is completely benevolent and not the least bit angry.

Post-modern “evangelicals” have forgotten (or simply refused to believe) that “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). These days, they are the ones saying, “We do not believe in that kind of God any more.” (Online source)

You see what we have here with people like Sharon Baker is what pastor Todd Wilkin, host of the fine Issues Etc. radio program, has called Bible Believing Liberals, which he explains as those who:

have confused cultural conservatism with theological conservatism.  Theologically these Bible-believing Christians have a lot in common with liberals. I had been thinking about this for some months. Then, during a conversation with Gene Edward Veith, he said something that made it all clear.  Dr. Veith was describing the old-line liberals in the 20^th century: 

In the churches there was a sense of panic, that “Oh people, the culture’s changing!  So if we’re gonna survive, we’ve got to go along with the culture.”  And so you had a movement in the Christian church to change Christianity according to the dominant culture… And that’s what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is.

I suddenly realized that Dr. Veith was also describing many Bible-believing Christians today.  “That’s what liberalism is: changing your theology to fit whatever the culture is.”  He was describing Bible-believing liberals. (Online source)

But for those who accuse God of being unfair by creating hell, or of not explaining Himself to us in the ways we’d prefer—the dreadful and awful, glorious and majestic, LORD God Almighty of the Bible would likely say to you: “Take off your shoes, you’re on Holy ground. Don’t you ever ask Me about Who I Am, or what I Am; you just be thankful when I tell you that I Am!” There’s a book that discusses the doctrine of hell on a lay level called The Other Side Of The Good News (TOS), which I highly recommend to every serious student of the Bible. It’s written by Dr. Larry Dixon, who points out that one of Christianity’s greatest theologians, the great 16th century Church Reformer John Calvin, once said: “We are taught by Scripture to perceive that apart from Christ, God is—so to speak—hostile to us, and His hand is armed for our destruction.”

In his article Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin? Dr. John Gerstner also brings out:

“Repent or Perish” forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, “God hates the sin and loves the sinner.” Is a necessary repentance consistent with “God loves the sinner?” If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment? …

God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2). God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Ps. 139:22) (Online source)

Then in TOS Dixon goes on to point out that, “Seldom do we consider the malevolence of God, and almost never do we hear, or preach sermons on God’s wrath and the justified perfect hatred God has of sinners”; we’re speaking of those apart from Christ here. We need to remember that God is infinite and to our limited, finite, minds many things about Him are a paradox; in other words at first things appear to contradict, but actually don’t. You must understand that apart from Christ we are simply not the delightful little creatures we like to think we are. Here is what Jesus said about the unregenerate nature of man in Matthew 7:11 — If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Did you get that? The Master, your Creator, says you — who are evil.

Let’s go to the Book of Romans chapter 8 for a moment. The Apostle Paul tells us that, without the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, our basic nature is self-ishness, as our minds are set on the “flesh”, the “carnal” — in other words on our-selves. Romans 8:7 — For the mind — [if you have the King James Version it reads — the carnal mind]; the Greek word here is sarx, and it refers to your body—your flesh—the carnal nature…well, you. With this in mind then, let’s begin again — For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. The absolute truth is that all who are, apart from, i.e. without Christ are controlled by the carnal, sinful, human nature—those not regenerated, or born again — cannot [possibly] please God (Romans 8:8). And this is not just my opinion, that’s the very Word of God the Holy Spirit Himself.

In commenting on this verse John Calvin put it this way, “the will of man is in all things opposed to [God’s] will; for, as much as what is crooked differs from what is straight, so much must be the difference between us and God.” Still need more convincing? Note what God tells us about our human natuure in Genesis 8:21 — “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Now listen to what Jesus tells us about mankind here in Mark 7:21-23 — For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” And Paul once again — For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh… Wretched man that I am! (Romans 7:18, 24).

Understanding the above helps you see through Sharon Baker’s six centered on the self (see—2 Timothy 3:2), points in her post where she “rethinks the issues surrounding traditional notions of hell as a place of eternal punishment in favor of a view more consistent with that of a loving God.” I’m not going to bother with a specific rebuttal because frankly her piece is somewhat self-refuting where she is in some contradiction with herself, e.g. “I have no intention of doing away with hell. I can’t — certain verses in the Bible won’t allow me to do that” with, “By holding on to the doctrine of eternal hell, we in essence hold to the belief that in the end God’s will to save all people goes unfulfilled, which puts God’s power and goodness in doubt.” She’s appears to be arguing for a form of Christian Universalism; and sounds very similar in that regard to EC rock star pastor Rob Bell, with a futile hope for an empty hell.

Suffice to say that the Bible unquestionably teaches that all who die apart from a saving relationship to God through the blood shed on the cross by Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins—no matter what culture, no matter what race, no matter what religion—all who die apart from Christ will follow the Devil and his angels into hell. They will be forever in the presence of God’s wrath; with no second chance. And not even the mystic musings of Rob Bell, or his friend heretical quasi-universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt, can help them. Now let’s not get bogged down here either with what exactly hell is, or isn’t, because we do know this much for sure: hell is so awful that Christ Jesus was willing to undergo crucifixion to grab the keys to the gates of it. Not only that, but consider carefully it also took the power of the life, death, and resurrection, of God the Son to keep all of us from going there!

Certainly, one has the right to believe whatever one wants to believe, that most—or eventually everyone—will be saved; as I just mentioned above, this view is called “universalism.” As I previously pointed out it’s a very popular belief right now—it’s rapidly gaining ground even within mainstream seminaries—and now even within the heart of the alleged evangelical community as it continues embracing Emerging Church apostate e.g. like Spencer Burke: I’m A Universalist Who Believes In Hell. However, even though those like Sharon Baker may try, it’s crystal clear that you will find no actual support for this heretical view in the Bible; the eternally fatal false hope of avoiding the bloody Cross of Jesus Christ, and the absolute certainty of hell for all those who reject Him, collapses with the precision laser beam light of God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures of Lord’s Word—the Bible.

And something Emerging Church fools, following their mythical mush god with a man-shaped hole in its bleeding heart, ought to take note of; it was Jesus Christ Himself Who says to false religious teachers — You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? (Matthew 23:33)

See also:

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON OTHER RELIGIONS

CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM AFFIRMS SALVATION BY JESUS

ROB BELL AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

 DOUG PAGITT AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

RICHARD ROHR: ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

PASTOR CHAD HOLTZ EXPLAINING CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

by Dr. John Gerstner (1914-1996)

“Repent or Perish” forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, “God hates the sin and loves the sinner.” Is a necessary repentance consistent with “God loves the sinner?” If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?

There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His eternal wrath and does not love him. Either “you are going to hell unless” because God hates you, as you are. Or, God loves you and “you are going to hell unless” is false.

What leads almost everyone to believe that God loves the sinner is that God does the sinner so much good. He bestows so many favors including letting him continue to live. How can God let the sinner live and give him so many blessings, unless He loves him? There is a kind of love between God and sinners. We call it the “love of benevolence.” That means the love of good will. Benevolens — willing well. Doing well. God can do well to the sinner without loving him with the other kind of love. “Complacent love,” a pleasure in, affection for, admiration of. It exists in perfection between the Father and the Son, “in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11).

God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Ephesians 2:2).

God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Psalm 139:22)

Why does God do so much good for those He perfectly hates and as soon as they die impenitent send them immediately to hell and never in all eternity does them one solitary favor more? It is to show His willingness to forgive the sinner if only he will repent. It shows the sincerity of God’s willingness to pardon the greatest sinner that, even while He hates him with a perfect hatred, He showers him with constant daily blessings.

As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is no “problem of pain.” The only problem is the “problem of pleasure.” Dreadful as it is, it is not surprising that God sends sinners to hell. The problem is why He does not do it sooner. Why does God let a hell-deserving sinner live a minute and then let him prosper like the green bay tree (Psalm 37:35), as well? It is obvious that God can destroy the ungrateful. Why doesn’t He? That is the problem.

Yes, the sinner suffers, too. But so little. It is a gentle reminder: though the sinner receives many divine favors, that does not mean that God is pleased with him. It is in spite of the fact that God hates him with a perfect hatred.

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)

Our text also shows that the one reason a sinner is permitted to be born into and enjoy this world rather than wake up as an infant in hell is that God, with His love of benevolence, is determined to give the sinner a “chance,” an opportunity to repent. Alas, most sinners use it as a chance to sin! They make God’s blessed love of benevolence into a curse.

In this world the sinner enjoys nothing but the benevolent love of God. Every experience of pain as well as pleasure is from God’s love — of benevolence. Even pain is from love because it tends to wake the sinner to his danger. God indeed loves the sinner, whom He hates with a perfect hatred, with a perfect love of benevolence.

The sinner, as I said, makes every divine blessing into a curse including God’s love of benevolence. This he does by construing a love of benevolence as a love of complacency.

Construing God’s love of benevolence as a love of complacency is fatal. Instead of the divine forbearance leading to repentance, it is used as an excuse for non-repentance. Thus the sinner is not saved but damned by God’s love of benevolence.

God “loves” the sinner benevolently and hates the sinner displacently. If the sinner dies impenitent, God removes His love of benevolence and pours out the full wrath of his displacent love.

As far as “hatred of sins” is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes.

God never hates the redeemed even when they sin. Is He an unfair respecter of persons? No! (Act. 10:34) God hates the unredeemed sinner but loves the redeemed even when they sin for a good and just reason. God loves the redeemed even when they sin because His Son, in whom God is always well-pleased, ever lives to make intercession for them. (Romans 8:27, 34) Christ died to atone for the guilt of His people’s sins. When they sin, these are atoned-for sins. They are sins with their guilt removed. In one sense, they are not sins at all. God does not hate His people when they sin because they are in His Son, Christ Jesus. And they are made acceptable in His Son. He “has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:6)

Divine nepotism? No, His Son died for these people and paid the price for their sins past, present, and future. They are cancelled before they are committed. That is truth, not fiction. Righteousness, not nepotistic favoritism. In fact, it is not their original relationship to Christ which makes their sins guiltless, but Christ’s making satisfaction for their sins that created the relationship as children adopted into the family of God.

God, in hot displeasure, chastens His people when they sin (Psalm 6:1; 38:1). It is not hatred but complacent love in Christ Jesus. “Whom the Lord loves He chastens.” (Hebrews. 12:6,7) God loves His people even when He afflicts them and hates the impenitent even when He befriends them.

Why the chastening when there is love? God blessed the wicked when there was holy hatred. Now He chastens His people when there is holy love. This is because true moral behavior must be perfected. No sin can be tolerated in those for whom Christ died. He died to purchase a “peculiar people zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) Being redeemed, so far from tolerating their sinning, precludes it. Anyone who persists in sinning proves thereby that he is not a child of God. God punishes His own especially because they are His children. “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth: Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)

“Upright” man was promised and warned. A holy, just, and perfect God would promise and warn. Eternal life — if obedient. Instant death — the moment of disobedience. (Genesis.3:5; Ecclesiastes 7:29)

When man sinned, he died spiritually and was rejected from communion with God his maker and friend. (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12ff) The wrath of God was upon him; labor was his lot; suffering in childbirth; alienation and death, as threatened. God is holy; of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. (Habakkuk 1:13)

Yet mortal man “lived” on (though to live in pleasure is death, 1 Timothy 5:6), and so did promise. When the angels sinned they perished without delay, without promise, without hope.

Man’s fate was better and worse than the fallen angels’ lot. It was a day of possible salvation but also of possible greater damnation, greater damnation for sinning away the day of possible salvation. God in His wrath; God in His mercy; at the same time.

This was a terrible but holy wrath. God was using His omnipotent power but according to His perfect justice. Man was affected but he deserved it. It was no more, no less, than he deserved. God is no more powerful than holy; no more holy than powerful.

As man continued to sin, God continued to increase His fury. His wrath is in no hurry. The record is kept, all accounts receivable. Every idle word will be brought into judgment (Matthew 12:36). The cup of iniquity must be filled. Then wrath to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:16) God’s glory shines in the perfection of His work.

But — God decreed the sin, (Proverbs 16:4). Yes, for good and for glory. Man did it for evil and for shame.

A little sin and infinite wrath? A little sin against an infinite God is infinite. Wrath is in perfect proportion to the guilt. But even if the punishment were finite it would go in “infinitely,” unendingly, because the sinner continues to sin in resenting it.

All glory to God for His holy anger. (John 17:3; Romans 9: 17f)

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. (Acts 15:1-2)

The Gospel Is Of Paramount Importance

You are likely aware that this online apologetics and discernment work Apprising Ministries has been among those who’ve been reporting on an ill-advised decision by Dr. John Piper to bring Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren into the Desiring God Conference 2010 as the keynote speaker. As I’ve pointed out before, sadly, it got even worse when Dr. Piper offered the below defense of his decision; and so, Warrengate is still slowly simmering: 

At root I think [Rick Warren] is theological and doctrinal and sound. 
(as cited Online source) 

Warren’s Twitter bio humbly informs us that he is a “Radical Christian, Loves&mentors next generation leaders, Saddleback pastor, Leads Global PEACE Plan & church planting network”; in other words Warren, arguably the most visible pastor in the Southern Baptisit Convention—itself the largest Protestant denomination in the United States—influences many, many people around Christian circles. To give you some further perspective, Warren’s Twitter account tells us he has 144, 115 followers and he tweeted the below not long ago, which was retweeted within two minutes by another 27 people to their followers:

(Online source)

As  write this, Warren’s false statement which is very dangerous for the purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has already been retweeted by 100+ people; as if it were true, but it’s not. I showed you, e.g. in Rick Warren And Roman Catholics, Warren’s sinful ecumenicism. Not to be concerned; I never expected the many women wearing men’s pants in leadership positions in pretending to be Protestant evanjellyfish to actually acknowledge that it is sin to consider the apostate Roman Catholic Church, which Dr. John MacArthur has rightly called Satan’s best front for the Kingdom of God, a member of the Body of Christ as Rick Warren does. O, it’s only as Dr. R.C. Sproul, one of the men Warren’s sharing the platform with in the upcoming DG 2010, has said:

The Roman Catholic Church condemns “sola fide! (L.)” Now if, please understand this, if “sola fide (L.)” is the gospel, then the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, nobody who went to the Council of Trent, as a delegate, went there with the intention of condemning the gospel. The theologians of Rome really believed that they were defending the gospel and that the Protestants had in fact committed apostasy. And I admire the Church, the Roman communion of the 16th century for at least understanding what apparently people don’t understand today, and that is what is at stake here. That they understood that somebody is under the anathema of God!

And we can be as nice, and as pleasant, and as gentle, and as loving, and as charitable, and tolerant as we can possibly be, but it’s not going to change that folks. Somebody is preaching a different gospel! And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of “Justification by faith alone” I believe, Rome, when placing the anathema on “sola fide (L.),” placed the anathema of God upon themselves. I agree with his [John MacArthur] assessment, that the institution [Roman Catholic Church] is apostate! (Online source)

But O no, “America’s Mega-Pastor” Rick Warren would have us believe that the Gospel doesn’t contain “doctrine we debate”; so, is he now prepared to say men like Martin Luther were wrong? Yeah, you see, the Protestant Reformation that Warren spreads skubalon upon; well, it was about the Gospel. And what about that silly Apostle Paul in my opening text; I guess Rick Warren is smarter than this inspired man who authored half the New Testament. God the Holy Spirit tells us that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with those men [who] came down from Judea; my, what were they thinking? The world was “dying,” perhaps not unlike Latimer and Ridley, eh, and that foolish Apostle Paul was concerned that adding to God’s Gospel 1) robs Jesus of His rightful glory, and 2) makes it a false gospel, which God tells us is no gospel at all (see—Galatians 1:6-9).

The point being: The world is already dead in its sin; and since there is only one Gospel of repentance and forgveness of sins in Jesus’ Name, by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in the finished work on the Cross of Christ alone, making sure it is preached purely is the only way someone may pass from death to life. I would offer that’s well worth debating; and we have a Biblical mandate, which I’ve clearly shown you in Scripture. But O no says Rick Warren and his cult network of church planters; following is how these resident missiologist church geniuses have now found as a way to round off those nasty edges in God’s Word, which once often would lead to conflict with the world, they one so love to find favor with and beg for it’s approval.

Here’s what they’ve been able to do with Acts 15:1-2 in their man-pleasing Missional Church Planter’s Planting Church Bible, the magum opus of missional/emerging (same thing) church growth marketing techniques, which is dedicated to their beloved Leadership Network who spawned them in the first place:

Some inovative emerging church planters came down from Judea and started teaching the Lord’s followers that they could not be saved, unless they were circumcised as Moses had taught. This caused lead apostle Paul and his missiologist bro Barnabas to include them in the next Explosive Growth Conference so those church planters could share how they had contextualized the gospel.

So it was decided to send Paul and Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to have a missions conference with the apostles and the missional church leaders there to teach them how the emerging church planters were engaging the Jewish culture and bringing the church back to her Jewishness.

See also:

IS THIS DOCTRINAL AND SOUND DR. JOHN PIPER? 

RICK WARREN ABOVE NEEDING TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF

RICK WARREN DECEPTION ALREADY INVADING REFORMED CAMP  

SADDLEBACK CHURCH, RICK WARREN, AND SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES 

DR. MICHAEL HORTON ON THE CHAMELEON-LIKE RICK WARREN 

THE INADEQUATE GOSPEL OF RICK WARREN 

REFUTING RICK WARREN

These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you. (Psalm 50:21)

Good Intentions Just Aren’t Good Enough

In the recent Apprising Ministries post Philip Clayton And A “Jesus” Who’s Gandhi With A Beard I reminded you about an upcoming event for the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emerging Church, an apostasia-palooza called Big Tent Christianity: Being and Becoming the Church (BTC):

On September 8-9, 2010 in Raleigh, North Carolina, we will be offering a first-of-its-kind national conference, “Big Tent Christianity: Being and Becoming the Church.” Thanks to a generous grant from the Ford Foundation,… (Online source)

The two main apostates behind BTC with its “big tent” Progressive Christianity aka Emergence Christianity are EC guru Brian McLaren and his friend Dr. Philip Clayton of the Transforming Theology network and the United Methodist Church’s Claremont School of Theology (CST). You may recall that CST is the silly seminary that’s now going to be producing “wise leaders” for pagan religions; as Clayton recently put it:

One last example: I’m part of a first-of-its-kind experiment here in Claremont to train Christian pastors, Jewish rabbis, and Muslim imams side by side at the same institution. We help religious leaders deepen their own religious identity through their encounter with leaders in other faiths. What emerges is not a weird, watered-down blend of religions, but men and women of faith who become wise leaders within their own communities, working separately and together to heal the world. This is an unprecedented new world of religious encounter, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. (Online source)

As you can see in Methodist Church Rescinds Warning Against Seminary even the rather liberal UMC initially balked at this…but just for a moment; after-all, in today’s centered on the self (see—2 Timothy 3:2) religion masquerading as Christianity—pathetically begging for the world’s approval—we’re not going to please everyone unless we change the Gospel from repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name  into “making the world a better place.” Yeah, that’s a much easier sell; and remember, *wink* that’s “God’s dream” for the world:

In an attempt to clear up misconceptions, Claremont maintained that they are not watering down Christianity but rather, taking “Christ’s commands to be peacemakers and to love our neighbor as ourselves seriously.”… we are simply asking [CTS students] to show respect, honor, and love to each other in spite of their differences, in order to learn how to work together to solve the world’s problems. This fits in well with each group’s faith traditions of loving ones neighbor and practicing the Golden Rule.” (Online source)

Wow, you can almost hear the applause, can’t you; however, the Lord would put it this way — They are from the world;  therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them (1 John 4:5). As I recently pointed out in The Gloves Must Come Off what’s happened is apostatizing Apostles of Unbelief within the neo-liberal cult of the Emerging Church aka Emergent Church, for example EC rock star pastor Rob Bell, have perverted the faith with their ne0-Gnostic delusions received from practicing Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism. This then causes them, and their counterparts in the Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven arm of this insipid man-centered Church Growth Movement, to turn what Jesus—Whom they’ve remade into Ghandi with a beard—taught about love completely backward.

You need to stop listening to the effete version of Jesus ever so politely purred before the world by these women in men’s pants with their quasi-universalism under a spiritual circus “big tent.” It is as the Dr. F.F. Bruce, considered by many to be the dean of evangelical scholars, said:

Our Lord’s sayings were all of a piece with His actions and His way of life in general. The fewer preconceptions we bring from the outside to the reading of the Gospels, the more clearly shall we see Him as He really was. It is all too easy to believe in a Jesus Who is largely a construction of our own imagination—an inoffensive Person Whom no one would really trouble to crucify.

But the Jesus we meet in the Gospels, far from being an inoffensive Person, gave offense right and left. Even His loyal followers found Him, at times, thoroughly disconcerting. He upset all established notions of religious propriety. [1]

Now look at what Jesus, Yahweh of the Old Testament—the one liberal/progressives call the “tribal” God—in human flesh, actually taught about love. In Mark 12:28 the Master is asked — “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Note carefully His response in verse 30 — “The most important [Commandment],” says Jesus, is to “Love the Lord your God.” And it’s only then that we can get to verse 31 — “ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” We must come to understand that while there are no greater commandments than these, they are simply not equal to each other. Verse 31 again — “The second is this”; meaning, quite obviously, that it is not the first, nor is it the greatest. And what’s been lost is until one has been born again, he cannot possibly fulfill either of these:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. (Romans 8:5-11)

As you can see the Lord just told us that not even someone who is as noble as say, a Ghandi or a Mother Teresa, could ever even possibly hope to please the glorious and majestic, purely holy, one true and living God of the Bible unless they are a new creation in Christ (see—2 Corinthians 5:17). Now you’re ready to see through the faulty foundations laid by men like Philip Clayton with their mush god of Open Theism; who’s but a slightly larger version of themselves, and has a man-shaped hole in his heart. Today Clayton tweets:

(Online source)

The link above leads us to his post Who Defines the “Big Tent” of Christianity? where Clayton tells us:

In responding to “Why Big Tent Christianity?” a few days ago, Ian Carmichael worried about my use of the phrase, “To those on the other side…” Ian writes,

I’d have thought that transformation is a key concept in any and every strand of Christianity. Classical evangelicalism, for exam[le would be serious about sanctification – even if struggling with its social consequences – which is transformation. I can’t imagine any Christianity – indeed any religion – which would make a call to us to remain as we are. (Online source)

The Genuine Christian Faith Has Never Had A Big Tent In The First Place

I have no idea who Carmichael is, but I can tell you that no one with any credibilty is arguing for "us to remain as we are." That's a common straw man in order to broadbrush as legalists those of us who adhere to what renowned evangelical apologist Dr. Walter Martin (1928-1989) would so often refer to as "the historic, orthodox, Christian faith"; in other words we hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught (Titus 1:9) and contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So 1) this is why we know that this new postmodern form of liberalism Clayton et al are cobbling together under their “big tent” is not in line with the Christian faith, and 2) since the Church already had the faith delivered in the first century, we know we don't need this foolish hybrid form of postmodern Progressive Christianity that Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren began laying out in his A New Kind of Christianity. 

Yet amazingly Clayton says to Carmichael that his words were, "Beautifully put." At this point I'll remind you of some words which were put forth very insightfully by Dr. John MacArthur:

I think that it is so important to know this. In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance. It will always say you are being divisive, you are being unloving, you are being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn’t get scrutinized. So it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny—just let’s embrace each other; let’s love each other; let’s put all that behind us.

False doctrine cries the loudest about unity. Listen carefully when you hear the cry for unity, because it may be the cover of false doctrine encroaching. If ever we should follow 1 Thessalonians 5, and examine everything carefully, it’s when somebody is crying unity, love, and acceptance. (Online source)

Clayton continues:

The day I responded to Ian, the internet was filled with hostile attacks on me and on the Raleigh conference that opens in ten days. There are certainly those who think that emphasizing Christian unity as Brian McLaren and I and the other speakers are doing betrays Christ. They say that we must emphasize the differences in order to judge the many, many people who hold false theologies.

It’s not for me, for anyone, to define the boundaries of the tent. (Online source)

Since the only things even remotely resembling "hostile attacks," indeed the only things I've seen period, concerning Philip Clayton and the EC big tent heresy-fest have come from this online apologetics and discernment ministry, his opining "the internet was filled with hostile attacks" would appeaar to be a bit a grandstanding on Clayton's part. That aside, he's now introduced a pet progressive/liberal red herring that you need to be ready for when you talk with these types. The issue isn't about "emphasizing Christian unity"; it's about: Is the Christianity being taught in line with the historic, orthodox, Christian faith? In this case it clearly isn't as I've shown you many times previously; for example, the post I mentioned above Philip Clayton And A “Jesus” Who’s Gandhi With A Beard. This is, at the very least, one of the so-called "hostile attacks"; and yet, Clayton doesn't address any of the actual substance of it.

Instead, following the format MacArthur just laid out, Clayton tried to change the subject, from what he teaches, to the idea of Christian unity. He first speaks of those, whoever "they" are, which supposedly are talking about the need to "emphasize the differences" they have, and then he plays the piety card: “It’s not for me, for anyone, to define the boundaries of the tent." As pious as that sounds, it isn't true. Clayton is ostensibly a professor of Christian theology, while EC guru Brian McLaren even teaches evangelical pastors. So, just as any other teachers, they must teach and preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Timothy 4:2). This these centered on the self men like Clayton and McLaren refuse to do; instead they continue to contribute to, and consort with like-minded apostates in The New Downgrade With Its Apostles Of Unbelief.

Even though Clayton and McLaren appear to me to be nice people, and sincere in their beliefs, they still happen to be sincerely deceived because apparently they do not know Jesus; for if they did then they would be able to understand that Jesus did "define the boundaries of the tent." First, allowing Clayton's metaphor of a tent, Christ told us about the path leading to it — “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (Matthew 7:13). Next, in stark contradiction to dreamers like Clayton and McLaren, Jesus let's us know that the tent really isn't big after all — “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matthew 7:14). This is why these quasi-universalists eshew Sola Scriptura in favor of their neo-Gnostic mythology received through their romanticized Roman Catholic mysticism, the Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism I mentioned earlier.

So now they follow a glorified social reformer they call "Jesus," which is what Christian apologist Chris Rosebrough—host of the fine Fighting for the Faith program on Pirate Christian Radio, meant by calling this phantom Ghandi with a beard. The actual Jesus also told those few that do find it how to enter the tent; so you see, they're not already within it. The Lord says — “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"; and earlier He'd already informed us — “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). I've covered this before, e.g. Mormon Church: Deity Of Christ, so here I'll' simply tell you that the word "he" is not in the original Greek text. Jesus has taken the divine Name spoken of in Exodus 3:14 and applied it to Himself; in other words, Jesus is unambiguously claiming here that He is the Lord God Almighty.

And in closing this, for now, this hits the heart of "the differences" the genuine Christian would have with someone say, like Living Spiritual Teacher and Progessive Christian scholar Marcus Borg. Borg specifically, and quite adamantly denies, Who Jesus is; therefore, Jesus Himself has told us that Marcus Borg remains dead in his sins. To put into its proper perspective: Borg is still an unbeliever, as defined by Christ Jesus, despite his claims to the contrary. So in the end, as noble as Emerging Church 2.0 theologians and leaders like Clayton and McLaren may be—with their humanitarian efforts under their big tent—the Christian cannot worship with unbelievers (see—2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Let us pray that God, in His great mercy, will give such as these eyes that see; and may they respond to His glorious Gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of their sins in Jesus' Name, before it's too late...

________________________________________________________________________________

End notes:

[1] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996], 18, 19)

See also:

SEDUCING SPIRITS SOUNDING THE SAME

PHILIP CLAYTON AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0 

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY  

THE EMERGING CHURCH, MIKE MORRELL, AND MARCUS BORG

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON CHRIST 

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON OTHER RELIGIONS

Host Derek Gilbert writes at the VFtB website:

LOVE HIM or hate him, there’s no denying the syndicated radio and Fox News host Glenn Beck, a Mormon, has become the de facto spokesman for conservative Christians in America.

But his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday shows that his call for political change has morphed into a call for revival:

“Something beyond imagination is happening.  America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness.”

Pastor Ken Silva, president of Apprising Ministries, talks about Beck’s message and whether Christians should align themselves with a professing Mormon in what has become a religious movement.

We also touch on the emergent church, contemplative spirituality, and the ELCA’s recent decision to admit openly homosexual clergy into the pulpit, and trace these movements — including the call to “take America Back” on religious grounds — to the rejection of sola scriptura in favor of new “revelations”… (Online source)

You can dowload and listen to the program right here.

See also:

THE “JESUS” OF GLENN BECK

JOHN MACARTHUR: NO SPIRITUAL COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY AND MORMONISM

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS VS. THE GOSPEL

PRISCILLA SHIRER PROMOTING CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

EMERGING CHURCH ELCA PASTRIX NADIA BOLZ-WEBER BOLDER IN APOSTASY

THE NEW CHRISTIANS WITH CHRISTIANITY WORTH BELIEVING—NO SOLA SCRIPTURA: YES, WOMEN PASTORS AND QUEER CHRISTIANS

…they are full of things from the east… (Isaiah 2:6)

Going Beyond Scripture Like Roman Catholics Mystics

In Priscilla Shirer And Contemplative/Centering Prayer, which serves as the first part of this follow up article, Apprising Ministries reminded you that both Shirer and her good friend Beth Moore were part of the Be Still…And Know That I Am God DVD. I explained further that this Be Still project was openly advocating a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness known as Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP).

And this is easily corroborated, for example, from a pro-contemplative prayer article entitled “Be Still” Invites Viewers to Discover Contemplative Prayer, which was carried by the mainstream evangelical website Crosswalk.com. You also saw that Shirer’s ministry, Going Beyond Ministries (GBM), arose from what Shirer called her “inner revival,” which involved the Lord “speaking” to her:

In her case, God was speaking to her about going to “the place of abundant living–an experiential relationship with God.” “He said: ‘Priscilla, you’ve been at this mountain long enough. There is a new place that I want to take you to,’” Shirer says. In light of God’s challenge, Shirer naturally desired to “go beyond” personally. (Online source)

Like I’ve said before, as soon as you hear someone claiming to teach in the Name of Jesus Christ use the term “go beyond” your discernment radar needs to kick in. The key question to ask is: Go beyond, what? As I’ve pointed out previously, invariably where we’re headed is going beyond Scripture. Again, here’s the bottom line: In the Bible we know we hear God’s Voice; but as soon as we go beyond into “inner,” i.e highly subjective, experiences we then open a door that is leading so many today into such spiritual deception.

I’ve already told you that this CCP—a transcendental meditation-lite lightly sprayed with Christian terminology—the very crown jewel of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), which itself is actually a romaticized version of the Counter Reformation [hello!] spirituality of apostate (at best) Roman Catholic mystics. It’s become the current fad now under the guise of so-called Spiritual Formation e.g. that taught by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, along with his trusty spiritual twin Dallas Willard. 

Against this backdrop I now point you to the GBM blog and a July 23 entry “Submitted by Priscilla” called Wisbits, seen below via screen shot in case it suddenly vanishes:

(Online source)

Shirer begins by telling us that she’s “anxious to connect you with some folks who I think you’ll be so blessed by.” And then she continues:

Years ago, I got a chance to meet Jan Johnson albeit only by phone – and yet in the short time we spent talking, I was encouraged and redirected in so many ways. As a young woman trying to navigate the ins and outs of my relationship with the Lord, Ms. Jan spoke wisdom into my life that was extremely pivotal in my life – personally and in ministry.

While I’ve not had the chance to meet her in person (I’m hoping to attend one of her conferences one day) I’m continually blessed by the word the Lord places on her heart every month through her “Wisbits” – articles she writes for anyone to subscribe to.
(Online source)

Hence the title of Shirer’s post. Before we go on, in Beth Moore And Lifeway (SBC) Head Deeper Still Into Deception I told you about the Deeper Still conferences of LifeWay, which is the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Now consider the following from an article that originally appeared in Charisma Magazine, which is a leading voice within the charismatic movement, where we’re told by SBC Bible teacher Beth Moore:

“[Priscilla] is quite possibly the most gifted communicator I have ever witnessed,” says consummate Bible teacher Beth Moore, who has ministered alongside Shirer and Kay Arthur at Deeper Still events for the last three years and has been on a ministry circuit for more than 15… (Online source)

So we should take notice when this “most gifted communicator” Priscilla Shirer tells us above that “in the short time” she spent talking with Jan Johnson she was “redirected in so many ways”; and not only that, Shirer also shares how she’s “continually blessed by the word the Lord places on her heart.” Mighty impressive praise Shirer lavishes upon Johnson, whom she’s so “anxious to connect” with the women who follow her. But the question we need to ask is: Exactly who is this Jan Johnson that’s supposedly speaking such “wisdom into” Shirer’s life?

Entering The Spiritual Twilight Zone In The Silence Of “Christian” Meditation

As I originally showed you two years ago in Learn Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) The SBC Way With Baptist State Convention Of North Carolina And Spiritual Director Jan Johnson “spiritual director”/guru Jan Johnson tells us that she is, “a writer, speaker and spiritual director in southern California.”[1] And interestingly enough under “Teaching” at Johnson’s website we read:

Teaching: lectio divina instructor for Dallas Willard’s Fuller Seminary class: Spirituality and Ministry; Senior Teaching Fellow, Renovaré Institute;… Education: BA, Christian education, Ozark Christian College {occ.edu}; journalism courses, UCLA; spirituality courses, Azusa Pacific University; graduate, Academy for Spiritual Formation {upperroom.org/academy/}; Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola 30-day Retreat, 2006; D.Min. Graduate Theological Foundation (Ignatian Spirituality & Spiritual Direction), 2006. (Online source)

The leading online apologetics and discernment ministry Lighthouse Trails Research informs us that the “Upper Room is a religious organization that promotes Eastern style meditation and is the creator of the popular, meditation tool Walk to Emmaus”;[2] and you may recall that Ignatius of Loyola was the apostate (at best) founder of the militantly anti-Reformation pro-Roman Catholic Church spiritual Gestapo Unit known as the Jesuits. So quite obviously Johnson is well-trained in “Ignatian style meditation” in an altered state of consciousness; in other words, the Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP) I mentioned before, which forms the centerpiece of that spurious CSM perpetrated by the dubious duo of Foster and Willard. In reality however, it’s but a romanticized version of the putrid Pietism that first festered within the anti-biblical monastic traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

So, considering Johnson is “Senior Teaching Fellow” at Foster’s spiritual blackhole of Renovare, we’re not at all surprised that among her writings she lists Dallas Willard’s Study Guide to the Divine Conspiracy. And Johnson also recommends that:

For more in-depth information and exercises, take a look at my book Savoring God’s Word, which explains both lectio divina and Ignatian style meditation in detail.[3]

In my prior post concerning guru Johnson I told that in the November 2007 SLN of her SpiritLines Newsletters, then “Spiritual Formation Coach” for the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (SBC) Dr. Wendy Edwards, teaches us about this so-called “Christian Meditation.” Under “Christian Meditation Helps” we find guru Edwards recommending Johnson’s book When The Soul Listens: Finding Rest And Direction In Contemplative Prayer (WtSL). Welcome to the whacked Wonderland of postmodern Humpty Dumpty language; click on that link and it’ll take you to the SBC publishing outlet Lifeway Christian Stores where members of the Southern Baptist Convention—ostensibly the largest Protestant denomination in the United States—may purchase this book teaching the main practice of the Counnter Reformation spirituality of apostate Roman Catholicism:

(Online source)

When The Soul Listens: Finding Rest And Direction In Contemplative Prayer (WtSL) by Jan Johnson happens to be part of the Spiritual Formation Line [read: contemplative spirituality] series of NavPress of The Navigators so it carries a General Introduction by—surprise—Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard. In WtSL guru Johnson gives us the following instruction about the transcendental meditation-lite of CCP:

The two primary tools of the contemplative way are the spiritual disciplines of silence and solitude… Madame Jeanne Guyon, a sought-after counselor and author of the seventeenth-century classic Experiencing the Depths of Jesus Christ, wrote that two kinds of people keep silent:

The first is one who has nothing to say, and the other is one who has too much to say. In the case of the deeper encounter with the Lord, the latter is true. Silence is produced from [abundant life in God], not from lack. This silence is rich, full and alive!

… Both silence and solitude require discipline at first, but then they become enjoyable and refreshing… Thomas Kelly assures us. It is not an arduous task, but “nothing more than turning our heart toward God and receiving in turn His love.” [4]

Next guru Johnson goes on to speculate, “In solitary silence, we encounter the love of God,” but then she quotes deceased universalist Roman Catholic mystic Henri Nouwen to caution us that if we really want God to touch us, “It requires a lot of inner solitude and silence”[5], i.e. this CCP form of so-called “Christian” meditation. She also wants us to know in WtSL that, “Silence and solitude are the outward, physical manifestations of the inward surrender of the heart.” Johnson explains that in CCP aka transcendental meditation-lite:

We relinquish talking, analyzing, and enjoying the company of others in order to attend only to God. This relinquishment is crucial. “We have all heard this holy Whisper at times,” wrote Thomas Kelly, a Quaker college professor… “[But w]e have not surrendered all else, to attend to it alone.”[6]

Leaving the burden of the Law just placed upon us as I close this out, for now, to fill you in further concerning the Roman Catholic messed-up mystic Madame Jeanne Guyon mentioned favorably above by guru Jan Johnson I will refer you to The Mindless Mysticism of Madame Guyon by the fine apologetics and discernment ministry Personal Freedom Outreach. Let me also briefly enlighten you concerning Thomas R. Kelly, yet another spiritually corrupt Quaker mystic. Johnson’s quotes of Kelly come from his book A Testament of Devotion (AToD). On page 3 of my copy of AToD, which even contains an Introduction from guru Richard Foster, the mystic Kelly shares about the Inner Light, which is the classic heretical Quaker doctrine that God is already dwells within all mankind. But what you may not know is this teaching itself is actually a mythical musing of classic mysticism often referred to as “the divine spark” or “a spark of the divine.”[7]

In fact Kelly himself begins by quoting the heretical Roman Catholic mystic Meister Eckhart, who’s a veritable superstar of this mind-numbing mysticism, who was sharing the demonic delusion of  “the Light” supposedly “[d]eep within us all”:

Meister Eckhart wrote: “As thou art in church or cell, that same frame of mind carry into the world, into its turmoil and its fitfulness” Deep within us all there is an amazing inner sanctu [sic] of the soul, a holy place, a Divine Center, a speaking Voice,…the Light within,… It is the Shekinah of the soul, the Presence in the midst. Here is the slumbering Christ, stirring to be awakened to become the soul we clothe in earthly form and action. And He is within us all. [8]

But casting these mythical mystic musings back to Hell where they belong, I now proclaim to you, no; “He” is not “within us all,” as it is written:

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:8-9)

And following is the final fruit produced by Roman Catholic mystic Henri Nouwen, a leading teacher of this anti-biblical Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism; below is the “revelation” which came to him through an entire lifetime devoted to this “Ignatian style meditation” in an altered state of consciousness aka Contemplative/Centering Prayer:

One of the discoveries we make in [contemplative/centering] prayer is that the closer we come to God, the closer we come to all our brothers and sisters in the human family. God is not a private God. The God who dwells in our inner sanctuary is also the God who dwells in the inner sanctuary of each human being. [9]

Today I personally believe that Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her way to God. [10]

The following questions now come emerging: Why would you want to practice this Contemplative/Centering Prayer when it made one of its most noted, and knowledgeable, practitioners into a universalist? And, why is Priscilla Shirer so anxious to expose the thousands of women who follow her to gurus like Jan Johnson who are foisting this foolishness upon Christ’s church? So, you tell me.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1]  http://tiny.cc/85znv, this is the Google cache because Johnson’s website was not working at the time of this writing 8/28/10.

[2]  http://tiny.cc/njwb7.

[3]  Unfortunately Johnson’s website was still not functioning properly but the original link was here: http://www.janjohnson.org/meditations.html, accessed 8/26/08.

[4]  Jan Johnson, When The Soul Listens: Finding Rest And Direction In Contemplative Prayer [Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1999], 79, 80, 81.

[5]  Ibid., 82.

[6]  Ibid., 83.

[7]  I refute this mystic fantasy Biblically in Understanding The New Spirituality: God Indwells Mankind.

[8]  Thomas R. Kelly, A Testament Of Devotion [New York: HarperCollins, 1992], 3.

[9]  Henri Nouwen, Here And Now [New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1994], 24, 25, emphasis mine.

[10] Henri Nouwen, Sabbatical Journey [New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1998], 51, emphasis mine. 

See also:

A BETH MOORE EXPOSE

MEDITATING ON CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR  

DALLAS WILLARD ENCOURAGES CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST SOUL SHAPING RETURN TO RELIGIOUS BONDAGE

THE INWARD JOURNEY OF CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

HENRI NOUWEN HELPED BY “MEDITATION”