Tithing a false doctrine

by Jerry Nelson (All scripture is from the King James Version)

New Testament grace of Giving.

A majority of churches accept tithing as viable doctrine. I intend to prove that it is not, and that the concept of such, for Christians, is dangerous. It is one of the most used and abused doctrines in the church, and it is false doctrine. It is easy to establish tithing as an ordinance in Old Testament law.

The first mention of tithing concerning the law is:

Leviticus 27:30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.
Leviticus goes on from there to finish up with:

Leviticus 27:34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Tithing is clearly stated as being put in the law. Almost every argument I have had over tithing, the opponent will say "yes but tithing was before the law," then they quote:

Genesis 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

This is the first time tithing is mentioned in the Bible. Did Abraham tithe of all that he possessed? No. This is what he tithed:

Genesis 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

He brought back the spoils of war. That was what the tithe came from.

Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Abraham did not tithe from his personal possessions but the spoils of war. The king of Sodom even offered Abraham the goods and Abraham said:

Genesis 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

Does this sound like God wants 10% of your money? Does the law require 10% of your money? We can neutralize the opponents first move. No, in both cases. The word "tithe" is used 13 times in the Bible. Not once do you see the word "money" used. The word "tithes" is used 21 times in the Bible. The word "money" is not used once. The word "tithing" is used twice in:

Deuteronomy 26:12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

Money is not mentioned, but notice what they do with the tithe. Isn't that interesting? Now we can move to the "scare tactic":

Malachi 3:7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? 8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. 9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

Who would want to rob God? That is a fearful thought, but wait! Let's look at it. It is an ordinance! We? have held back our tithes and offerings. Granted, the word "offering" could imply money, as well as heave offerings and the like, but does not clarify it as such. More than likely, a mixture. We? are cursed with a curse. Didn't Jesus redeem us from the curse of the law?

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This isn't sounding good. What nation was Malachi speaking of? Israel! Not the church. This was the Old Testament. The law. We can neutralize the "scare tactic." The first mention of tithing in the New Testament is in:

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Here is where the opponent will take another shot at you. He will say something like: "See here, Jesus commended tithing." Why? Just because He said the word "tithe"? He did not commend any such thing! The Pharisees were under the law, and by law, had to tithe. Jesus had to "agree" with that because He was not yet crucified, and all people in Israel, were under the law. When Jesus was crucified He ushered in the New Covenant and the Old was finished.

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Jesus DID NOT commend tithing. The next mention of "tithe" is found in Luke 11:42 which is the same account given in Matthew. Tithing is not mentioned again until the book of Hebrews. Now it really gets interesting. First of all, consider to whom the book of Hebrews was written. It was written to Jewish converts (known as Hebrews), not to Gentile churches. These "Hebrews" were being admonished in this letter, partly because they were not understanding the difference between law and grace. They really didn't even quite understand the change in the priesthood. But lets stay in the context of this message, tithing. Mentioned as "tithes" four times in Hebrews ch. 7. There is a commandment spoken of in ch. 7. It is mentioned three times in chapter 7, 7:5, 7:16, and 7:18. What commandment are they talking about?

Hebrews 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

The sons of Levi, the priesthood, the commandment to take tithes, and the law. The commandment is that of tithes. The only commandment spoken of in ch. 7. That should be loud and clear!

Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Here it comes the one verse in the Bible, that puts an end to the debate! Tithing is ABOLISHED!

Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

These Jewish converts were mixing the law with grace, and were told in chapter 7 to STOP TITHING! There is a disannulling of the commandment . The Gentiles had no need of this message --- THEN! We do --- NOW! The Gentile church was never under the law.

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

When Paul begins to speak to the Galatians concerning the law what does he say?

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Do you get the picture now? It becomes a serious matter. The Judaizers are more prolific than ever.

1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Romans 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

These men, whether intended, or not, are dragging you into the law. Making you believe that you are required by God, to adhere to an ordinance of the law. Tithing! Well, how will the church survive without our tithes? If Satan thought that was what was holding the church up, he would have destroyed it a long time ago. God wants us to give from the heart, not by commandment. Even Israel couldn't keep up the law concerning tithing. Is not tithing of the law? Are you tithing in accordance to how the law said it would be done? Was not tithing abolished, and for a reason? Tithing is a clever manipulation, started who knows when? It is a BIG money maker.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

It also puts your very soul in jeopardy. If I am wrong, dig out the scripture that proves me wrong, and says that we should tithe. Let me finish by quoting:

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Read More...

Christians Under the Influence of Another Spirit

by Warren Smith ( www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com )


The apostle Paul went to great lengths to warn the Corinthians not to be deceived by a "Jesus" that wasn't Jesus Christ the Son of God, a spirit that wasn't the Holy Spirit and a gospel that was not the true biblical Gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4). Throughout the New Testament, believers are continually warned not to be deceived by spiritual teachings and experiences that are not from God. Jesus Christ specifically warned his disciples that spiritual deception would be a sign of the end (Matthew 24:3-4).

Today it is very sad to see so many believers falling under the influence of the same spirit that influenced me when I was in the "new age." This spirit says that it is a time for "breakthroughs" and for the fulfillment of our "destiny"; that there is something "new" and exciting in the wind. This teaching claims that we are in the midst of a great "transition" that will result in a "paradigm shift," and that through "new revelation" and "personal experience" God is in the process of taking the church to a "new dimension" and to a whole "new level." Many Christian leaders these days are so sure that what they are hearing and experiencing is from God, they are rarely testing the spirits, or even considering the possibility that they are being deceived.

The first century Bereans tested their leaders and tested their teachings as they "searched the scriptures daily" to see "whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers were always subject to God's holy Word. "New revelation" never nullified nor superseded scripture. The Bereans were not impressed by supernatural power and spiritual experiences that had not been tested by the Word of God. They did not depend on signs and wonders and miracles. They depended on the authority and reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Paul taught that if he or anyone else preached any other gospel--"new revelation" or otherwise--that person should be completely disregarded (Galatians 1:8). The Bible warns over and over again that we should not allow ourselves to be influenced or intimidated by teachings that originate not from God but from the spirit world and from the hearts of men. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1). "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7).

What had been called "new age" is now being presented as "new gospel." These "new gospel" teachings are not new and have actually been around for centuries in one form or another. Whether it was ancient gnosticism, the occultic teachings of Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) and Alice A. Bailey (1880-1949), or the present day "new gospel" channelings, the bottom line has always been the same--everyone is a part of God.

According to the "new gospel," Christ is not a person. It is an office. The "new gospel" teaches that while Jesus of Nazareth occupied the office during His active ministry, He no longer holds that same position. Today the office of "Christ" is occupied by someone else. And this "someone else" is presently in the process of establishing contact with humanity.

This "Christ" intimates that he is already in the world awaiting mankind's call. "Concerned" that humanity is in peril and facing possible extinction, this "Christ" explains that his "new gospel" will unify the world's major religions and bring peace to the world. He has communicated these "new gospel" teachings to his designated teachers, who in turn are now conveying these same teachings to the rest of the world.

This "reinvented" Christ of the "new gospel" teaches that all of humanity is the body of Christ. He, as the "Christ," is the head. This "Christ" states humanity's dilemma is that we have forgotten who we are. We are not "sinners" separate from God. We are all part of the one body of Christ and the one body of God. Salvation does not come by grace from accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Rather it is achieved--when we accept ourselves as Christ and when we accept ourselves as God.

The "new gospel" teaches that when humanity collectively accepts and experiences itself as being a part of Christ and a part of God, we not only save ourselves, we save our world. The "Christ" of the "new gospel" warns that the hour is late. Peace must come. He will help. He has a plan. But everyone must play their part.

With "new revelation," often accompanied by direct personal spiritual experience, people are being taught that because they are a part of God they are actually "at-one" with God and all creation. This "new gospel" teaches when people have what is described as their "God potential" or "Christ within" supernaturally "activated," they actually experience themselves as a part of the "one body" of God which is all mankind. As these same people unite and join together in remembering and experiencing their "oneness" with God and with each other, they feel they are doing the "work" that is necessary to prepare the way for Christ's return. (from Reinventing Jesus Christ, by Warren Smith)

Details at
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1345&more=1&c=1

Read More...

Life After Lakeland: Sorting Out the Confusion

by J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma.

Todd Bentley's announcement that his marriage is ending has thrown our movement into a tailspin—and questions need to be answered.
It was not supposed to end like this.

Evangelist Todd Bentley had heralded the Lakeland revival as the greatest Pentecostal outpouring since Azusa Street. From his stage in a gigantic tent in Florida, Bentley preached to thousands, bringing many of them to the stage for prayer. Many claimed to be healed of deafness, blindness, heart problems, depression and dozens of other conditions in the Lakeland services, which ran for more than 100 consecutive nights. Bentley announced confidently that dozens of people had been raised from the dead during the revival.

But this week, a few days after the Canadian preacher announced the end of his visits to Lakeland, he told his staff that his marriage is ending. Without blaming the pace of the revival for Bentley's personal problems, his board released a public statement saying that he and his wife, Shonnah, are separating. The news shocked Bentley's adoring fans and saddened those who have questioned his credibility since the Lakeland movement erupted in early April.
"Among those who jumped on the Lakeland bandwagon, discernment was discouraged. They were expected to swallow and follow. The message was clear: 'This is God. Don't question.' "
I'm sad. I'm disappointed. And I'm angry. Here are few of my many, many questions about this fiasco:

Why did so many people flock to Lakeland from around the world to rally behind an evangelist who had serious credibility issues from the beginning?

To put it bluntly, we're just plain gullible.

From the first week of the Lakeland revival, many discerning Christians raised questions about Bentley's beliefs and practices. They felt uneasy when he said he talked to an angel in his hotel room. They sensed something amiss when he wore a T-shirt with a skeleton on it. They wondered why a man of God would cover himself with tattoos. They were horrified when they heard him describe how he tackled a man and knocked his tooth out during prayer.

But among those who jumped on the Lakeland bandwagon, discernment was discouraged. They were expected to swallow and follow. The message was clear: "This is God. Don't question." So before we could all say, "Sheeka Boomba" (as Bentley often prayed from his pulpit), many people went home, prayed for people and shoved them to the floor with reckless abandon, Bentley-style.

I blame this lack of discernment, partly, on raw zeal for God. We're spiritually hungry—which can be a good thing. But sometimes, hungry people will eat anything.

Many of us would rather watch a noisy demonstration of miracles, signs and wonders than have a quiet Bible study. Yet we are faced today with the sad reality that our untempered zeal is a sign of immaturity. Our adolescent craving for the wild and crazy makes us do stupid things. It's way past time for us to grow up.

Why didn't anyone in Lakeland denounce the favorable comments Bentley made about William Branham?

This one baffles me. Branham embraced horrible deception near the end of his ministry, before he died in 1965. He claimed that he was the reincarnation of Elijah—and his strange doctrines are still embraced by a cultlike following today. When Bentley announced to the world that the same angel that ushered in the 1950s healing revival had come to Lakeland, the entire audience should have run for the exits.

Why didn't anyone correct this error from the pulpit? Godly leaders are supposed to protect the sheep from heresy, not spoon feed deception to them. Only God knows how far this poison traveled from Lakeland to take root elsewhere. May God forgive us for allowing His Word to be so flippantly contaminated.

A prominent Pentecostal evangelist called me this week after Bentley's news hit the fan. He said to me: "I'm now convinced that a large segment of the charismatic church will follow the anti-Christ when he shows up because they have no discernment." Ouch. Hopefully we'll learn our lesson this time and apply the necessary caution when an imposter shows up.

Why did God TV tell people that "any criticism of Todd Bentley is demonic"?

This ridiculous statement was actually made on one of God TV's pre-shows. In fact, the network's hosts also warned listeners that if they listened to criticism of Bentley, they could lose their healings.

This is cultic manipulation at its worst. The Bible tells us that the Bereans were noble believers because they studied the Scriptures daily "to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11, NASB). Yet in the case of Lakeland, honest intellectual inquiry was viewed as a sign of weakness. People were expected to jump first and then open their eyes.

Just because we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean we check our brains at the church door. We are commanded to test the spirits. Jesus wants us to love Him with our hearts and our minds.

Because of the Lakeland scandal, there may be large numbers of people who feel they've been burned by Bentley. Some may give up on church and join the growing ranks of bitter, disenfranchised Christians. Others may suffer total spiritual shipwreck. This could have been avoided if leaders had been more vocal about their objections and urged people to evaluate spiritual experiences through the filter of God's Word.

Why did a group of respected ministers lay hands on Bentley on June 23 and publicly ordain him? Did they know of his personal problems?

This controversial ceremony was organized by Peter Wagner, who felt that one of Bentley's greatest needs was proper spiritual covering. He asked California pastors Che Ahn and Bill Johnson, along with Canadian pastor John Arnott, to lay hands on Bentley and bring him under their care.

Bentley certainly needs such covering. No one in ministry today should be out on their own, living in isolation without checks, balances and wise counsel. It was commendable that Wagner reached out to Bentley and that Bentley acknowledged his need for spiritual fathers by agreeing to submit to the process. The question remains, however, whether it was wise to commend Bentley during a televised commissioning service that at times seemed more like a king's coronation.

In hindsight, we can all see that it would have been better to take Bentley into a back room and talk about his personal issues.

The Bible tells us that ordination of a minister is a sober responsibility. Paul wrote: "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others" (1 Tim. 5:22). We might be tempted to rush the process, but the apostle warned against fast-tracking ordination—and he said that those who commission a minister who is not ready for the job will bear some of the blame for his failures.

I trust that Wagner, Ahn, Johnson and Arnott didn't know of Bentley's problems before they ordained him. I am sure they are saddened by the events of this week and are reaching out to Bentley and his wife to promote healing and restoration. But I believe that they, along with Bentley and the owners of God TV, owe the body of Christ a forthright, public apology for thrusting Bentley's ministry into the spotlight prematurely. (Perhaps such an apology should be aired on God TV.)

Can anything good come out of this?

That depends on how people respond. If the men assigned to oversee Bentley offer loving but firm correction, and if Bentley responds humbly to the process by stepping out of ministry for a season of rehabilitation, we could witness a healthy case of church discipline play out the way it is supposed to. If all those who were so eager to promote Bentley now rush just as fast to repent for their errors in judgment, then the rest of us could breathe a huge sigh of relief—and the credibility of our movement could be restored.

I still believe that God desires to visit our nation in supernatural power. I know He wants to heal multitudes, and I will continue praying for a healing revival to sweep across the United States. But we must contend for the genuine, not an imitation. True revival will be accompanied by brokenness, humility, reverence and repentance—not the arrogance, showmanship and empty hype that often was on display in Lakeland.

We are weathering an unprecedented season of moral failure and spiritual compromise in our nation today. I urge everyone in the charismatic world to pray for Bentley; his wife, Shonnah; his three young children; Bentley's ministry staff; and the men and women who serve as his counselors and advisers. Let's pray that God will turn this embarrassing debacle into an opportunity for miraculous restoration.


http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=6057
http://www.charismanews.com/
http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/life-after-lakeland-sorting-out-the-confusion/
http://www.charismamag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=56707

Read More...

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome

The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle

By Bob DeWaay www.twincityfellowship.com

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3

Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.

A Biblically based commentary on current issues that impact you

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue105.htm

New “Reformations” Compromise Sola Scriptura

Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.

Robert Schuller and Rick Warren

In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.

For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8

In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.

But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:

And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10


The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.

As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13

There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.

C. Peter Wagner

Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.

The Emergent Church

The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.

The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.

So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?

Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome

The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.

The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:

“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18


But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.

Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.

If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.

Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:

But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22


This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?

Spirituality for the Unconverted

The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.

But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.

Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).

Conclusion

Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.

But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?

I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.



Issue 105 - March / April 2008


End Notes

1. Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today, February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay
2. Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008, 7.
3. Armstrong, 24.
4. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982).
5. Ibid. 25.
6. Ibid. 38.
7. Ibid. 98.
8. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of Schuller’s influence.
9. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed 8/27/2005]
10. The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty, disease, and ignorance.
11. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006).
12. My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren’s practice belies his statement of faith.
13. http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm
14. I critique Dallas Willard’s theology as taught in his popular book The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm
15. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18.
16. Ibid. emphasis his.
17. Ibid. 95.
18. Ibid. 62.
19. Ibid. 158.
20. Ibid. 162.
21. Ibid. 161.

Read More...

God Takes 40 Days to Prepare People for His Purposes?

Chapter 3 of the book In The Name of Purpose: Sacrificing Truth on the Altar of Unity - by Tamara Hartzell, 2006. www.inthenameofpurpose.org

One of Rick Warren’s premises for his book and the basis of his 40 Days campaigns (which have incrementally led churches into his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan that will be discussed later) is his assertion that:

“The Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days.” (PDL; p. 9)

Forty-day time periods are only mentioned in the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures a mere 22 times:

• 4 of these are in reference to the 40 days it rained on the earth during the flood.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days set by the Egyptians for embalming, which they did to Jacob.
• 7 of these are in reference to the two 40-day periods Moses spent with God on Mount Sinai.
• 2 of these are in reference to the 40 days the spies spent in the Promised Land.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days Goliath challenged the Israelites.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days Elijah took traveling to Horeb without eating, after an angel fed him.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days Ezekiel had to lay on his right side bearing the iniquity of the house of Judah, each day representing a year.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days the people of Nineveh were given to repent.
• 3 of these are in reference to the 40 days that Jesus was in the wilderness, tempted by the devil.
• 1 of these is in reference to the 40 days that Jesus was seen by His apostles after His resurrection.

All in all, there are only a handful of instances in Scripture where a 40-day period could possibly be construed as “spiritually significant.” Scripture does not in any way justify Rick Warren’s fallacious claims that “the Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period,” and that “whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days.” If this latter claim was true, then God has only prepared a handful of people, and everyone else in Scripture (and throughout history) was never prepared by God for His purposes!

Twisting Scripture to put spiritual significance on a 40-day time period is akin to occultic numerology. The Holy Scriptures are clear that transforming and life-changing power is found through the knowledge, belief, and obedience of the Lord God Himself and His Word. There are no ‘magical’ formulas or rituals that bypass this. Yet regarding his book Rick Warren confidently declares:

“The next 40 days will transform your life.” (PDL; p. 10)

Eight examples are given from the Bible in an effort to justify his premises regarding 40-day periods (these examples are listed on p. 10 of PDL). Not one of his examples, which he has removed from their scriptural context, supports his unscriptural premises. However, some of these examples when examined in their scriptural context actually warn against following what the majority is doing.

● “Noah’s life was transformed by 40 days of rain.” The 40 days of rain were actually God’s purpose itself. The 40 days brought the flood of God’s judgment on the disobedient world and destroyed it. Thankfully, Noah did not follow the majority, or we would not exist. As a result of following God rather than the crowd, he had found God’s grace (see Genesis 6:8). So God prepared Noah ahead of time in the years preceding the 40 days so that his life would be saved.

In addition, Scripture says nothing about these 40 days bringing about transformation in Noah’s life, so why claim that the days it actually rained are more significant to Noah than the 150 days the waters prevailed upon the earth or the 370 days he was on the Ark?

● “Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai.” God’s purpose was to deliver the Israelites from the oppressive Egyptians and then bring them into the Promised Land. Moses had already been obediently following God as a result of his transforming walk with God in the land of Midian. Rick Warren himself even wrote, “The Bible is filled with examples of how God uses a long process to develop character, especially in leaders. He took eighty years to prepare Moses, including forty in the wilderness” (PDL; p. 222; emphasis added)!

God specifically prepared Moses for His purpose not in the 40 days but in front of the burning bush. By the time Moses spent 40 days on Mount Sinai, God had already used Moses to fulfill the first part of His purpose. In addition, Scripture does not record that any transformation occurred in Moses’ life on Mount Sinai to prepare him for God’s purposes.

Food for thought: In neither of the two sets of 40 days on Mount Sinai nor in front of the burning bush did God reveal Himself to Moses in the context of community. He was alone when face to face with God. For Rick Warren to say that transformation occurred when Moses was on Mount Sinai alone is to contradict his own communitarian principles in The Purpose Driven Life!

Rick Warren’s numerous internal inconsistencies and contradictions clearly reveal that his book is not firmly founded on the unchanging and consistent truth of the Holy Scriptures but, rather, is “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

Incidentally, when Moses was with God on Mount Sinai, Aaron had assisted the “community” in adopting the ways of the world in its worship. The result of their having “turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them” (Exodus 32:8) was God’s severe judgment. About 3,000 men were killed, God blotted the names of those who had sinned out of His book, and then He plagued the people (see Exodus 32:28, 33, and 35).

● “The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land.” The tragic truth is that the spies (excluding Joshua and Caleb who remained faithful to God in walking by faith and not by sight) were sinfully transformed by their 40 days of walking by sight and not by faith. The spies were frightened by what they saw during the 40 days they spied out the land God promised them. As a result, they frightened the Israelites and turned them against God’s purposes (see Numbers 13:31-14:12).

God’s judgment was the consequence of this 40-day transformation. God killed the spies with a plague because they tried to thwart God’s purpose after their 40 days. God’s preparation of all the spies was His word, yet only two spies believed and followed God. In addition, because the Israelites heeded the majority rather than the two who tried to get them to heed God’s word, they were forbidden to enter the Promised Land for 40 years so that this generation could die off first (see Numbers 14:26-38). Yet nowhere does Rick Warren say the spies were transformed in anything other than a good way by their 40 days.

That these spies were transformed into plague-infested corpses should be heeded as a warning for those who think only good transformations can come out of 40-day regimes. In the name of purpose, churches are heeding the majority and are now walking by sight rather than by the faith and obedience of God’s Word. What they see in the world (e.g., its successful pragmatic ways and aversions to “traditional” Christianity) determines how they “do church.” By the way, anyone who thinks plagues are only for the Old Testament time period should carefully read Revelation 18:4.

● “David was transformed by Goliath’s 40-day challenge.” God’s Word does not clarify how many days David actually sees Goliath. However, the first time that David sees Goliath he begins to speak up about killing him, so it is more likely that David saw only a few days, if not just one day, of Goliath’s challenge (see 1 Samuel 17).

Contrary to supporting Rick Warren’s premises, this passage is another example of 40 days being a result of sin: The Israelites (the majority) did not trust God and cowered before Goliath for an entire 40 days before David finally came and killed him in faith!

David had already been transformed by his walk with God (see 1 Samuel 13:14, 16:7, 13). When faced with Goliath, David said he knew God would deliver him into his hands because God had already enabled him to kill a lion and a bear (see 1 Samuel 17:32-37). God had prepared David ahead of time to fulfill His purpose of slaying Goliath and putting an end to the Israelites’ 40 days.

● “Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single meal.” This took place when Israel’s leaders had led the people astray into the worship of false gods. Elijah had just killed the false prophets, and Jezebel threatened to kill him. After God’s angel had given him two meals, Elijah traveled 40 days to Horeb, the mount of God. It was there at Horeb that he communed with God and told Him that God’s children had forsaken His covenant, thrown down His altars, and killed His prophets. Although Elijah believed he was the only one left who was still following God, God let him know that He had reserved a remnant of 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to the false god the majority were following. (See 1 Kings 18-19.)

This 40-day period was near the end of Elijah’s faithful service to God and were traveling days in between serving God and communing with God. Scripture does not say anything about these 40 days being a preparation of God’s purposes or causing transformation in the life of Elijah. This is yet another example of adding to Scripture what God did not put in, which twists Scripture to fit man’s purposes.

● “The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days to change.” When Jonah finally obeyed God and told Nineveh that it would be overthrown in 40 days if they did not repent, Scripture does not say that Nineveh waited the entire 40 days to repent. It merely records that after Jonah “began to enter into the city a day’s journey” the people believed God and repented (see Jonah 3).

Yes, God chose to give them 40 days to repent, but the 40 days given to them were not the moving force behind Nineveh’s “transformation.” It was their belief and acceptance of the Word of God regarding their sin and God’s impending judgment that caused them to repent. This should be thoroughly heeded today, as the signs of God’s impending judgment rapidly increase in our own generation. Incidentally, the city’s repentance put an end to the 40-day countdown to God’s judgment.

● “Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness.” Scripture has been abominably twisted in this choice for a supporting example of his premise. God’s Word states that in the wilderness Jesus was “being forty days tempted of the devil” (Luke 4:2; see also Mark 1:13). Nowhere throughout all of Scripture does God even hint that being tempted by the devil empowers anyone! Besides, if these 40 days “empowered” Jesus physically, then the angels would not have needed to minister to Jesus immediately afterwards (see Matthew 4:11 and Mark 1:13). Furthermore, if these 40 days “empowered” Jesus spiritually, then Jesus would not have been fully God manifest in the flesh.

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16)

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8-9)

To even hint that the devil and his temptations were a source of power for the Lord Jesus Christ is appalling, to say the very least! Contrarily, Jesus was already prepared when His 40 days of temptation came.

● “The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his resurrection.” Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, after the 40 days He was with the disciples, Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were “endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49; see also Acts 1:3-9). On the day of Pentecost the disciples were transformed by the filling of the Holy Spirit, which was the preparation for God’s purpose of using them to preach the Gospel of Christ to the world. It is important to note that Pentecost is a Jewish festival meaning “fiftieth” because it was celebrated on the 50th day. This example as well fails to support Rick Warren’s claims.

Again, God’s Word is clear that transforming and life-changing power is found through the knowledge, belief, and obedience of the Lord God Himself and His Word, rightly divided. Yet, grievously, Rick Warren has taken portions of the Word of God and twisted them, giving them new meanings apart from their Scriptural context. He does this throughout his purpose-driven “manifesto” and Paradigm in the attempt to justify his faulty premises and fulfill his purposes. Nevertheless, the masses have fallen in step behind him, his purposes, and his 40 Days campaigns. They have accepted Rick Warren’s claims that his “spiritual journey” is all about God and His purposes.

God’s Purposes are Man-centered?

“He [God] has clearly revealed his five purposes for our lives through the Bible.” (PDL; p. 20)

“It’s not about you.” (PDL; p. 17; emphasis added)

Rick Warren’s personal list of God’s purposes for our lives consists only of the following five purposes, which he has clearly centered around “you”:

PURPOSE #1: You Were Planned for God’s Pleasure

PURPOSE #2: You Were Formed for God’s Family

PURPOSE #3: You Were Created to Become like Christ

PURPOSE #4: You Were Shaped for Serving God

PURPOSE #5: You Were Made for a Mission

Looking at each of these five purposes, a basic understanding of elementary grammar clearly shows that you, not God, are the subject. In sentence structure, the subject is what the sentence is about. Regardless of his repeated claims to the contrary, each of the five purposes are about you—not only here but also in his descriptions of them.

According to his “manifesto,” these five purposes can be summed up in worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. The God-centered scriptural definitions of these five things are indeed part of the many purposes God has for us. However, a great deal of man-centered theology and other unscriptural errors have been included in the purpose-driven definitions. You, not God, are the subject of this “spiritual journey.” God is merely the means to purpose, meaning, and significance in life.

God’s Word is clear that the nature of God is the basis for what He wants from us. Therefore, increasing our knowledge of God Himself also increases our knowledge of His purposes. Yet not much is said in The Purpose Driven Life about the nature of God. In a man-centered “spiritual journey,” helping people deepen their knowledge of God isn’t the primary issue.

Read More...

The Alpha Course: Is It Bible-Based Or Hell-Inspired?

Rev. Paul Fitton of European Institute of Protestant Studies. The Institute's purpose is to expound the Bible, expose the Papacy, and to promote, defend and maintain Bible Protestantism in Europe and further afield.

The Alpha Course runs across the denominational divides & it knows no denominational boundaries - Anglicans, Methodist, Congregationalist, United Reformed, Elim Pentecostal, Salvation Army, Baptists, Presbyterian, Charismatic Fellowships, Evangelical Free Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church: all run their Alpha Courses.

The question therefore arises concerning the Alpha Course: Is it Bible-based or Hell-inspired? Does its teaching rest solidly and squarely upon the authoritative rock of Holy Scripture or does it teach error in the name of Jesus?

1. REASONS WHY THE CHRISTIAN SHOULD EXAMINE THE ALPHA COURSE
Believers have a duty to test everything that is taught in the name of Christ by the Word of God. They have a duty to recognise that which is error, reject it as being error, and reprove it, that is, speak out against that error.

2. THE ROOT FROM WHICH THE ALPHA COURSE IS DERIVED
Whenever a movement or doctrine is examined it is always important to trace it back to its roots. The Lord Jesus Christ declared in Matthew 7:18 - "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

The course is formally attributed to Nicky Gumbel, Curate of Holy Trinity, Brompton. Holy Trinity, Brompton is an Anglican Church. The Anglican Church as a whole has tolerated error for a very long time. It has defended homosexuals among the clergy despite the Bible's condemnation of such practices. It has tolerated men who have denied the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

3. OUR RESERVATIONS CONCERNING THE ALPHA COURSE
"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." As a little yeast permeates through the whole loaf, so a little false doctrine spreads and corrupts the whole.

The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Alpha course. The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:8,9 -"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast". The Roman Catholic Church teaches that those who believe that doctrine are "anathema" - they are cursed.(The Council of Trent, session VI, Canon 10, stated: "If any one says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake; or that it is by that trust alone by which we are justified: Let him be accursed).Rome opposes and curses those who hold to the Biblical doctrine of justifying faith, because her religion is based upon works.

The Bible teaches that salvation is in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches that in order to be saved we must place our trust in Christ. This teaching is absent in the Alpha Course. Indeed, it appears to be what we could call 'conveyor belt' Christianity, whereby after being informed of the facts that make up the Gospel, a prayer of acceptance of Christ is recited and the person then is a Christian.

The Bible teaches that salvation is in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must believe that He is the Son of God the only Saviour, and that He died in our place at the Cross, bearing our sin and penalty. However this act of faith is not a mere assent of the mind to these truths. It is not a mere consenting of the human will to accept the doctrine of Christ, but, rather, it is the result of the Holy Spirit's working in the heart and soul of individuals, regenerating them, changing them by His power that they may receive Christ as He is offered to them in the Gospel. John 1:12,13 - "But as many as received Him [Christ], to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Scripture teaches that those who receive Christ, those who believe in His name, do so not because of an act of human volition, but because God the Holy Spirit has changed them from within. He has convinced and convicted them of their sins and so changed them that they repent and believe upon Christ. This teaching is absent in the Alpha Course. And here is a course, intended to be used to teach non-churchgoers, those who know little or nothing of Christ and the Gospel

Gumbel intertwines many falsehoods with truth as the course is followed. He gives credence to Westcott and Hort, two heretics responsible for the production of the text upon which the modern perversions of scripture are based. He advocates Ecumenical unity at the expense of fundamental Gospel truths.

The Alpha course is not Bible-based; it does not rest firmly upon the Book. It leads people away from truth and into error therefore it is Hell-inspired. As Christians we must stand apart from that which is the vehicle for propagating false doctrine and false experience. The Christian is told to reject error, to withdraw from those who teach and practice falsehood. God says: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate […] and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you". On the basis of God's Word I say we must reject the Alpha Course and all that is associated with it.

May God help us therefore to fulfil our duty and responsibility to reject this error and to speak out boldly against it.

For details, please go to
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=alpha1
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=alpha2
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=alpha3

Rev. Paul Fitton of European Institute of Protestant Studies. The Institute's purpose is to expound the Bible, expose the Papacy, and to promote, defend and maintain Bible Protestantism in Europe and further afield.

The Alpha Course: Is It Bible-Based Or Hell-Inspired? (Part 3 of 3)
The question therefore arises concerning the Alpha Course: Is it Bible-based or Hell-inspired? Does its teaching rest solidly and squarely upon the authoritative rock of Holy Scripture or does it teach error in the name of Jesus?

Now whilst I do not doubt that there have been some who have genuinely been converted, I also must point out that many have been led into a false profession. Bear in mind the fact that the original course and book were intended to redress the problem of declining numbers in the church. Bear in mind also that churches which have struggled for years to get people into their church see the course as a quick way to filling the church with people. It is being taken on by more and more churches which see it as a quick way to correct their failures. They are simply 'proselytes of Christianity'. They consent to the teaching that is given about Christ and seek to live as a Christian, but it results from an act of their own volition. They make a conscious decision to live as a Christian, believing the tenets of Christianity and doing basic Christian activities, but sadly their heart has never been changed by the Holy Spirit.

Gumble shows us that at the end of the day he holds to this view. On page 221, he refers to the vastness of the universal Christian Church, informing us that the Encyclopaedia Britannica states that the Church has some 1.7 billion adherents world-wide. He confuses church membership with belonging to Christ. Sadly, many, many of this vast number have never experienced the rebirth, they are not in a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Such thinking as expressed by Gumbel and propagated by the Alpha course is not Scripturally sound. It is Arminian in doctrine and humanistic in philosophy. There is a lack of understanding with respect to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. This is backed up by Gumbel himself. On page 120 of Telling Others he writes: "At the end of the course I send out questionnaires. […] If there is a change I ask when that change occurred. For many the decisive moment is the Saturday evening of the weekend." This of course is on the "Come, Holy Spirit" weekend. It is the time when Nicky Gumbel invites the Holy Spirit to come and the participants are filled with the Spirit.

There is something fundamentally wrong here. The decisive moment is when the Holy Spirit comes rather than the momentous occasion when they were supposedly converted. If nothing else shows the fallacy of the Alpha Course, this certainly does. The time when as the Bible teaches the Spirit of God enters the soul and works the miracle of regeneration, the soul dead in sin being made alive, the soul in darkness having the light of Christ lit within it, is not viewed as the decisive moment. There is something fundamentally wrong here.

Unfortunately time does not permit to deal with all the errors of this book, but suffice it to say, Christians need to be on their guard. Gumbel intertwines many falsehoods with truth as the course is followed. He gives credence to Westcott and Hort, two heretics responsible for the production of the text upon which the modern perversions of scripture are based. He advocates Ecumenical unity at the expense of fundamental Gospel truths. He teaches that natural gifts are greatly enhanced when they are taken on by the Holy Spirit which is why many rock musicians have turned their natural ability into what is now termed 'Rock Gospel'. These are aspects which we could spend considerable time examining, but there Is an Issue at the heart of the Alpha course that demands our attention.

The main objection with this course is its teaching regarding the Holy Spirit. The main objection with this course is its teaching regarding the Holy Spirit. This is especially the case in connection with His work and gifts. This should come as no great surprise for Gumble is extremely Charismatic in his teaching. His work is therefore filled with charismatic teaching and although the book was prepared prior to the phenomenon known as the Toronto Blessing it is undoubtedly pro Toronto Blessing.

Throughout the book there are references to John Wimber. Undoubtedly Wimberism has had its influence on Nicky Gumbel. On tape five of the video set Nicky Gumbel dates his call to Evangelism to the 1982 incident in which he received prayer from John Wimber. He relates part of that incident on page 201 of Questions of Life. The video, however, gives a little more information. It tells us that on the occasion in question, he experienced such supernatural power that he had to call out for it to stop. It was at that time that Wimber gave a 'Word of knowledge' that Gumbel had been given a gift of telling others. He can trace his ministry of telling others to that particular time. Isn't that interesting? Time does not permit me to deal fully with John Wimber, but let me say this. Wimber says that in 1977 God clearly spoke to him - that God gave him a revelation a direct communication. God said to him: 'I've seen your ministry; now I am going to show you mine. Preach forgiveness of sins, and the healing of the body; preach the Kingdom.'

Note that he is not being told to preach Christ, or the Blood, or the Cross or the Gospel, or the Book. Note that he is not being told to preach Christ, or the Blood, or the Cross or the Gospel, or the Book. He is being told to preach the Kingdom. This doctrine has been described in a variety of ways - Restorationism, or Dominion Theology, to name a few. It is a unique and new form of Pentecostalism and it is the basis of the Toronto Blessing. In fact it has been said that as to its theology and practice the Toronto Blessing is 'Wimberism'. Umbel shows aspects of this teaching in chapter thirteen. He refers to the Kingdom, the preaching of the Kingdom. He speaks of the Kingdom in the same terms as Wimber, the healing of the sick, signs and wonders. He is paving the way for people to experience the same phenomena as those in the Toronto Blessing.

Now in the Toronto Blessing the New Age philosophy that "experience leads to explanation" is the order of the day. Indeed, a close examination of the Toronto Blessing will reveal that it is a replica of New Age philosophy and practice in the guise of Christianity.

This is nothing but New Age teaching dressed up. We are constantly told that the Church is moving into the realm of the supernatural. This is nothing but New Age teaching dressed up. They believe humanity is moving into a higher humanity. That there is a quantum leap.

In the Toronto Blessing there is the 'experience of the Holy Spirit' in the New Age. It is called 'tuning in to the Divine Consciousness'.

In the Toronto Blessing there is the 'Word of Knowledge', and revelations from the Spirit realm. In the New Age there is what is termed 'Channelling from the Spirit World'.

In the Toronto Blessing there is a 'transmission of anointing' through the close proximity to a teacher, or the touch upon the forehead. In the New Age there is the 'transmission into Higher Consciousness' through the close proximity of a Guru, or Shakti pat, Shakti pat comes from Hinduism, shakti meaning power. Power transmitted by simply a touch.

I could go on, but that will suffice for the present to show the connection between the New Age philosophy and practice and the Toronto Blessing. Similarly, the thrust of the Alpha course is towards the experiential and not the written Word of God. Commenting on the weekend away, Gumbel says of those from a New Age background: "They are on more familiar territory in experiencing the Holy Spirit". (Telling Others, page 19.) How is this? Surely Christianity should be a million miles away from occultism. Yet they are at home. There is a similarity in what they believed and held to in the New Age movement, and what they come across in the teaching and experience regarding the Holy Spirit in that weekend away.

There are others and perhaps they are young converts ... who because of a lack of teaching in their particular Church, they have joined the course. It is obvious from what we said earlier that there are many who arrive at the part of the course which deals with the work of the Holy Spirit who know nothing of genuine conversion. There are others and perhaps they are young converts, and still others who because of a lack of teaching in their particular Church, they have joined the course. The Alpha course then takes them through the 'experience' of receiving the Holy Spirit. Now during this time - on the Saturday evening - Gumbel prays for the Holy Spirit to come upon them.

Now how do they know that they have received the Holy Spirit? Well, one of the evidences is that they speak in tongues. I say one because Gumbel does not fall into the trap of many Charismatics. He has learned by their mistakes and so he does inform us that not every Christian will speak in tongues.

I John 4:1 - "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." At this point let me do something which Gumbel tells Christians to do but which he himself and those on the course fail to do. Test the spirits. I John 4:1 - "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." The Bible teaches us to try, or test the spirits, to see if they are of God and the reason given is that there are false prophets in the world. How do we try the spirits? By the Book; by the Word of God. "If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them." If it is the Spirit of God coming upon them then their experience must measure up to what the Bible teaches. If it does not then the phenomenon - in this case tongues - and the experience - receiving the Spirit - must be rejected. If the phenomenon associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit does not measure up to the standard of God's Word, then it is not the Holy Spirit of God, but another spirit, that comes upon them.

Gumbel, in Questions of Life, chapter 9, pages 140-144, makes the following statements regarding what tongues are and the benefits they bring:

He states that speaking in tongues "is a form of prayer" and he quotes I Corinthians 14:2 as his proof. Let us read the verse: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God." That is where the learned Mr. Gumbel ends the verse and states that because it is speaking to God it is prayer. That is not what the Apostle is teaching. Paul does not say speaking in tongues is prayer. Look at the rest of the verse: "For no man understandeth him." He is saying that if a person speaks in another language in the gathering of God's people than the one that they understand then only God knows what he is saying. Paul backs up this statement by saying: "Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." Note the connecting word in the next verse: "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." Paul says no man but God knows what a person speaking in tongues is saying. His words are a mystery, they are of no value to the church.

This is not a commendation for tongues. It is not saying that tongues are for prayer, rather Paul is saying they are of no value it employed in this manner. It is not prayer. In verse 14 Gumbel expresses that Paul speaks of prayer in relation to tongues. So he does: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayer, but my understanding is unfruitful". There! Mr. Gumbel has proved it! I am afraid not! You must read the next verse. Paul says there: "What is it then, I will pray with the spirit, and pray with the understanding also." Paul continues to apply the same argument to worship to praise. What is his argument? It is this: If you pray in tongues your understanding is empty, it is unfruitful, but that is not the way you should pray, that is not the way in which you should worship. Your understanding, your mind should be active. This is a terrible aspect of the Charismatic and Toronto-style meetings. People are told to empty their minds, but God never tells Christians to empty their mind. They must be alert, aware, conscious of what they are doing.

Gumbel then gives us three areas where tongues can help the Christian:
1. In praise and worship
2. Praying under pressure
3. Praying for other people
Isn't that strange? The two things Paul has just spoken of here - praise and praying - are the uses of tongues which he gives. Paul doesn't substantiate what he is teaching! In fact the Bible teaches the opposite to what he is saying!
In fact the Bible teaches the opposite to what he is saying! I find it even more extra-ordinary when he omits to mention the Scriptural purpose for the gift of Tongues: Acts 2:4 - "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." They were speaking in their tongues. There was no learning to speak, no going over gibberish until it came. There and then they were given the gift of tongues. Does it not surprise you to discover that the same Holy Spirit according to Gumbel doesn't give a perfect gift? In the training manual of the Alpha Course, relating to the giving of the gift of tongues, page 17, section 9, it says: "Encourage the person to start to speak in another language […]." On page 147 of Questions of Life he not only teaches that we should "ask God to fill you with the Spirit and give you the gift of tongues", but in point 6 he states: "Persevere. Languages take time to develop. Most of us start with a very limited vocabulary. Gradually it develops. Tongues are like that. It takes time to develop the gift. Don't give up." Does the same Spirit give a perfect gift on the day of Pentecost and an imperfect one today? We are examining Acts 2:4. They began to speak in tongues. Why? Was it the sign that they had received the promise of the Father? Was it to praise or prayer to God? No! Verses 5 and 6 give the purpose. They inform us that there were men in Jerusalem from all parts of the earth and the Apostles preached to them in their own language. The gift of tongues was given that they might preach the Gospel.
Whatever comes upon them during that weekend, we can be sure that it is not the Spirit of God. Gumbel, in his teaching about the Holy Spirit, never mentions this. His doctrine is not in accord with the Bible. The experience of many who attend this is course is not in accordance with the Word of God. The tongues manifested at the "Come, Holy Spirit, Weekend" are not the same either in character or in purpose as the tongues in the Scripture. "They speak not according to this Word." Now it follows that if the evidence of the experience is unsound, the experience itself must also be unsound. Whatever comes upon them during that weekend, we can be sure that it is not the Spirit of God.

Time does not permit for the examination of other phenomena associated with this occurrence. Gumbel teaches that there are those who by the same spirit receive the gift of healing, words of knowledge, visions, dreams, and prophecies. He opens the minds of those who participate in the course to extra Biblical revelations, to signs and wonders. The mind of all who are taught these errors is open to the thought that a revelation from God, a word of knowledge from the Spirit, a word given by prophecy, are all on a par with the Word of God. If this is accepted, anything can be taught in the name of Christ. Absolutely anything can be taught and it follows that if it is as they claim from the Spirit of God, then it must be believed. Thus what men say is taken on board as the truth of God without any Scriptural ground.

There is a great danger here. There is a great danger here. The Alpha Course is being used to prime the pump, to condition the thinking of church people to accept the teachings an phenomena which we associate with the Toronto Blessing - phenomena which have no anchorage in Scripture; doctrines which otherwise would be rejected out of hand.

These phenomena are unbiblical. There is no ground in Scripture upon which to anchor them. The Alpha course in its philosophy is New Age. It relies heavily upon experience; in practice it leads to experiences which are rooted in the occult: if they are calling down the spirit and they are possessed by that spirit, and that spirit is not the Spirit of God, then they have opened their minds to other spirits, to evil spirits. It promotes Humanism, Arminianism, Ecumenism, and Charismatism. There is evil being done in the name of Christ, wickedness being practised and taught in the name of the Lord. The Alpha Course is only conditioning people to accept these errors, to tolerate and to take on these evils.

The Alpha course is not Bible-based; it does not rest firmly upon the Book. The Alpha course is not Bible-based; it does not rest firmly upon the Book. It leads people away from truth and into error therefore it is Hell-inspired. As Christians we must stand apart from that which is the vehicle for propagating false doctrine and false experience. The Christian is told to reject error, to withdraw from those who teach and practice falsehood. God says: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate […] and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you". On the basis of God's Word I say we must reject the Alpha Course and all that is associated with it.

May God help us therefore to fulfil our duty and responsibility to reject this error and to speak out boldly against it.

Amen and Amen.

Read More...

The Christian Response to Ecumenism

www.jeremiahproject.com
Nineteenth-century preacher Charles Spurgeon was known for taking unpopular positions as he ministered God's Word, and faced the same arguments confronting many Bible teachers today. His response to the seductive power of compromise for popularity's sake was especially poignant: "What have you and I to do with maintaining our influence and position at the expense of truth? It is never right to do a little wrong to obtain the greatest possible good ... Your duty is to do the right: consequences are with God."

How, you might ask, can a Bible-believing church accept many of teachings held up today? Simple. Few read the Bible any more. Far too many people simply go along with whatever they are told as biblical, with no particular interest in checking it out for themselves. For those whom the Lord equips, He sets forth an essential for discernment:

"...If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." [John 8:31-32]

For the sake of our growth in the faith and our development of discernment, we must "hold to" the teachings of God's word. "Hold to," or "continue" (KJV) means to submit to Christ's teachings, to abide in them (i.e., to let our mental, physical and spiritual life be governed by them), and to remain in them, becoming steadfast in the faith. If we do this, then we are His disciples, we will know the truth, and will be set free by the truth.

How many times have you heard that somebody was "causing division in the church?" Well, maybe they were supposed to! After all, there are two things that cause division according to the Bible: truth and error.
Haven't you heard the scripture,

"Do you suppose I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, rather division!"

That's right! Jesus said that...

"from now on five members in one household will be divided three against two, and two against three" (Luke 12:51-52).

Hard words to hear! Yet, harder to accept. But, that's what Jesus said and is preserved in the Holy Scriptures. He said that whole families would be divided over Him. And there are many occasions in the New Testament when whole assemblies of people were divided because of Jesus (John 7:43, 9:16, 10:19, Acts 23:6-7).

Click HERE for details or go to http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/ecumen01.html

Modern Ecumenical Movement
There is great emphasis in the church today on uniting professing Christians of all denominations and beliefs. The message is that we're not so different after all... we can work together. Setting aside theological differences, we can help each other in the things we all agree upon. That effort is commonly referred to as "ecumenism," which is defined as "the organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity of all believers in Christ."

The foundation for this ecumenical trend has been laid and built upon over many years. We saw the beginning of institutional ecumenism in the 1960's, with The World Council of Churches, mostly liberal mainline Protestant denominations who denied such essential doctrines as the inerrancy of Scripture and a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ. For years, Evangelicals distanced themselves from this institutional ecumenism because of the unsound theology of the groups involved.

Today, however, that spirit of compromise has invaded Evangelicalism. The more recent Catholic-Evangelical accord is an example of such compromise. In this accord, Evangelicals compromised essential doctrines such as justification by faith alone and the sufficiency of Scripture in order to unite with Roman Catholics on issues such as abortion and school prayer.

Compromising the Truth
The undiluted preaching from God's Word and an authoritative stand on truth seem to be on the decline. What we're seeing instead is a broadening of the gospel, a redefining of what it means to be a Christian, and a growing emphasis on inclusion and tolerance. Ecumenism has come to mean "reducing all elements of faith to the lowest common denominator. God's Word is neglected, experience is valued above truth, a false and selfish "faith" is promoted, and sound doctrine and correction are despised as "divisive" and "unloving."

Ignoring the Scriptures, numerous evangelical leaders today claim that a concern for doctrine causes division and therefore should be avoided for the sake of love and unity among the brethren. The Scriptures, however, couldn't be more specific in its opposition to such a teaching.

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. [Romans 16:17]

Divisions are created by teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" [2 John 1:9].

Unity in the faith is impossible without the doctrine of Christ. Without such a foundation we have no basis for the faith, for the gospel, for knowing Jesus, or for knowing anything pertinent to the Truth.

The glittering terminology of ecumenical is seen, on close examination, to be as hollow as a soap bubble and just as slippery and hard to hold onto. Where is the "common ground" between belief and unbelief? A believer cannot ignore the "major theological differences" between him and an unbeliever. Instead, he should be cutting through those differences with the Sword of the Word to win the unbeliever to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I cannot agree to ignore an unbeliever's condition without, by that very act, compromising my beliefs. For my beliefs include the Great Commission, which requires me to tell the world of the gospel of Jesus.

Modern Christian Ecumenical Movements
Even a cursory review of what has taken place in the Church during the last 25 years will reveal a fierce underming of the faith. Precisely as the Bible warns (Mt. 7:21-23; 24:4,11,24; 2 Thes 2:3; etc.), today's most effective enemies of Christ are those who claim to be Christians and call mankind not just to any old false religion but to a counterfeit Christianity. Consider some of the following:

• (ECT) Evangelicals and Catholics Together
  
• Freemasonry
  
• The New Age Movement
  
• Baha'i World Faith
  
• Pro-Life Movement
  
• Promise Keepers
  

People who love the truth will divide from people who love lies.
Today, when there are so many who are professing religion, is it any wonder that some of the deepest truths in the Bible - repentance, faith, holiness, etc. - are also some of the greatest objects of debate in the Church. It must be said that those who truly want to know God's views on these great pillars of Christian doctrine, will appear to be divisive - and rightly so, in an age when the great gospel message of salvation can be reduced to such a sugar-coated, bakery-item as, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!"

Can ecumenists by uniting, set the standards for the rest of the world? "Who's kingdom is the earth anyway?" This worldly kingdom belongs to Satan until Jesus Christ returns. Jesus said in John 18:36,

"My kingdom belongs not to this world..."

He said he did not come to bring peace, but rather division.

Division that comes from the proclaiming of the truth will usually include some intense reaction and opposition, but it will also produce good fruit and the advancement of God's kingdom (not to mention the conversion of souls.)

The Scripture is unmistakably clear: the primary attribute by which God wants to be known is holiness--He is totally separate from all that is sinful or defiled. Fifty-five times God refers to Himself in Scripture as the "Holy One." Fifty-nine times He is called or described as being holy. There are only forty-three times where God is said to love or that He Himself is love. Interestingly enough, the word "holy" (or a form of it) occurs 651 times in Scripture. The word "love" (or a related form) whether human or divine is mentioned only 546 times. Although no attribute of God is mentioned more frequently in the Bible than that of holiness, there is perhaps no other characteristic so ignored and misunderstood as this one. Many seem to view holiness and love as being contradictory: holiness is too negative and divisive while love seems to be positive and accepting. But contrary to God's nature is the notion that love must tolerate or even refuse to expose error. God's love is compatible with His holiness. As believers follow the command to imitate their God (Eph. 5:1), they are not free to pick and choose which characteristics to copy. The modern day definition of love largely sets aside God's demand to His children,

"Be ye holy for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:15,16).

Holiness is the hub of the wheel from which all other divine attributes radiate. Anything that is genuinely at the heart of God should primarily reflect that same characteristic of holiness. With the blatant rejection of the Bible doctrine of separation (which finds its foundation in the holiness of God), Promise Keepers cannot be legitimately considered "at the very heart of God." Whenever a movement becomes engrossed in compromise with error, it ceases to reflect that core attribute which God has chosen as His name (Isa. 57:15).

Still some would try to ignore the wrong of compromising methods and point out only the good that is seen. Some would even say that those who dare criticize a movement (as PK) which has enjoyed such phenomenal success are being nit- picky. If there can be an agreement on the "major" doctrines of Scripture, then why not get on the bandwagon of a good cause? To this Albert Dager makes the following remarks:

"The evidence of God at work is not outward results, but conformity to Scripture, which in turn results in outward change. Outward change without conformity to Scripture is merely human righteousness. Change of mind does not always equate to change of heart. A genuine change of heart results in the holding of Scripture in high esteem. Nor does it distinguish between so called `essential doctrine' and `secondary doctrine' ... (2 Tim. 3:14- 17)... When the Holy Spirit says that all Scripture is given for instruction in righteousness, He isn't speaking only of the so-called `Big Five' doctrines the ecumenists are claiming as reason for unity. He means all of Scripture itself is the essential doctrine of the Faith" (Media Spotlight Special Report, p. 14).

He then continues with these comments:

"The end does not justify the means. The proper focus must be on the means itself, as well as on the end. . . Results are not the final arbiter of truth; one's pious demeanor is not the final arbiter of truth; one's ability to call fire down from heaven is not the final arbiter of truth. God's Word is the only and final arbiter of truth" (Ibid.).

Behold the emergence of the ecumenical apostate church, the bride of Antichrist!
"Positive Christianity" is the enemy of the cross.
The truth offends those who don't want to hear it. Yet to speak anything less is to trifle with the eternal destiny of souls. Ecumenism's promise of "unity" is tempting, but it denies Christ and paves the way for the Antichrist and his new world religion. It is a unification that will ultimately lead to destruction.

True unity is not sought by pretending that there are no differences, as modern ecumenists have done, but by recognizing and respecting those differences, while focusing on the great orthodox truths all Christians share. Articulated in the classic confessions and creeds, it embraces such fundamentals as the Virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the authority of Scripture, and the Second Coming.

Man-made unity is not what God desires. He wants a holy people. Many Christians believe that unity in itself will bring about a holy revival. But unity cannot bring holiness, only holiness can bring about true unity. For when God's people start seeking to live, worship and pray according to the Holy Word of God, then God Himself will answer Jesus' prayer and make those who seek Him, truly "one!" THEN God will unite the hearts of those who love Him, and hate sin and error, and He will truly shine forth from the midst of such a people - the true people of God!

The unification of the various national identities, races, and religions can only be achieved through the eradication of sin. That means only through the Lord Jesus Christ can we become perfectly one. The other avenue to unite people, the program of the Antichrist, will only be accomplished temporarily through deception.

Read More...