Follow up on: 1-25-12 Elephant Room: Bible Prophecy; Apostasy "Jude also spoke prophetically about men who would in the last days make themselves out to be leaders over the entire Christian church...They "separate themselves", wrote Jude...perhaps, like a board of directors sitting in an "elephant room" thinking that they have the right to interpret the Word of God to fit their agenda and to direct policy for all churches everywhere..." [see post]
'New Tribers' T.D. Jakes, Jack Graham, Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Wayne Cordeiro,
Steven Furtick, Crawford Loritts; 1-25-12 Elephant Room 2
"THERE ARE NOW TWO PARTIES in the religious world. The party everywhere apparent has a faith fashioned for the present century – perhaps we ought rather to say, for the present month. It derides the 16th century Gospel and that, indeed, of every period, except the present most enlightened era. It will have no creed because it can have none; it is continually on the move; it is not what it was yesterday, and it will not be tomorrow what it is today.
Nor is it merely doctrinal belief – there is an essential difference in spirit between the old believer and the man of new and advancing views. This is painfully perceived by the Christian man before very long. Even if he be fortunate enough to escape the sneers of the cultured and the jests of the philosophical, he will find his deepest convictions questioned and his brightest beliefs misrepresented by those who dub themselves "Thoughtful men." When a text from the Word has been particularly precious to his heart, he will hear its authenticity impugned, the translation disputed or its Gospel reference denied.
At any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty." Spurgeon (1888)
excerpted from Attempts At The Impossible @ Spurgeon Archive
***
2Cor. 11:3,4
'New Tribers' T.D. Jakes, Jack Graham, Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Wayne Cordeiro,Steven Furtick, Crawford Loritts; 1-25-12 Elephant Room 2
"THERE ARE NOW TWO PARTIES in the religious world. The party everywhere apparent has a faith fashioned for the present century – perhaps we ought rather to say, for the present month. It derides the 16th century Gospel and that, indeed, of every period, except the present most enlightened era. It will have no creed because it can have none; it is continually on the move; it is not what it was yesterday, and it will not be tomorrow what it is today.
Nor is it merely doctrinal belief – there is an essential difference in spirit between the old believer and the man of new and advancing views. This is painfully perceived by the Christian man before very long. Even if he be fortunate enough to escape the sneers of the cultured and the jests of the philosophical, he will find his deepest convictions questioned and his brightest beliefs misrepresented by those who dub themselves "Thoughtful men." When a text from the Word has been particularly precious to his heart, he will hear its authenticity impugned, the translation disputed or its Gospel reference denied.
At any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty." Spurgeon (1888)
excerpted from Attempts At The Impossible @ Spurgeon Archive
***
2Cor. 11:3,4
11 comments :
Tom, I have a question for you. And, so I looked for an appropriate place to ask it, and this seemed to fit here. I know you have previously written about the gospel coalition, but your site doesn't seem to have a search option, but I wanted to ask what you know about it or if you could give me a link to what you have written previously about it.
The reason I ask is that we (my husband and I) are presently talking with a young church planter who says that if we want to get an idea of their values, emphases, and convictions: "the gospel coalition, desiring god, tim keller, john piper, robert coleman, jonathan edwards, c.s. Lewis, david platt, francis chan, and henry blackaby would be some of the people and organizations with whom we are like-minded." He also mentioned the Verge Network.
So, if you can lead me to any articles which might help me understand better where this young man is coming from, or where he is headed, that would be most helpful. Thanks! Sue
Sue (CFS),
[a note first: the blog does have a search bar in the upper left - in the dark blue band that runs across the top. If it does not appear in your browser most likely it is being removed by some sort of ad-blocker. There is a little 'blogger' icon next to it and and a G+ icon and some ad-blocks target those]
In a word, very straightforward, and to use an old phrase, 'The Gospel Coalition' is to be avoided like the plague. They hold to a 'reformed' or 'covenant' view of scripture, which means ultimately dominionist. Strong 'emergent' influence as well (see last link at bottom). Emergent as in very loose in interpretation of scripture. For example here is an older post on this blog - which really can be seen as telling a person everything they need to know about the 'philosophy' the GC is built upon:
'Gospel Coalition' - Piper, Chandler, Keller, Carson, Lutzer - Counsel "Folding" Homosexuals Into Churches
For further confirmation of this very dangerous emergent-like 'looseness' see this post turned up by a quick search (and especially the video on the page) - It's Keller, who is actually the VP of the GC, promoting Harry Potter for Christians:
Keller loves Harry Potter (Harry Potter = witchcraft)
For the record - in no way can either of the two examples above be of the Spirit of God the Holy Ghost. These things are of another spirit altogether - and another gospel - and another Jesus [2 Cor. 11:4]
On that, without going into all of it, reformed i.e. covenant doctrine is in opposition to a dispensational interpretation of the Word of God, in particular with regard to the New Testament.
As the two views are in opposition, only one can be true.
If an incorrect interpretation of scripture is held on to, and built upon, only error can result.
Again, while it's not possible to go into the whole subject here, reformed, or covenant doctrine (same thing), is basically a huge mish-mash of NT and OT. It's the dominionist-emergent spin on scripture. Preaching 'the Kingdom', and 'revival', and weaving everything together to 'make it say' what they say it says.
Bottom line is this: anything that preaches or speaks of an "earthly kingdom" is not correct NT-church doctrine [Philippians 3:20]. In short, it's a Judaized false gospel - setting up 'the Christian Church' to be absorbed by the last-days zionist-global religion of 'the kingdom of Antichrist'.
Gospel of Harry Potter and all.
(if interested wade through the GC website - it is literally steeped in emergent-speak mumbo jumbo)
This is very brief of course but hope it is helpful to a broader overall understanding.
Rev. 18:4
Tom, Thank you for the information. That was helpful. We did look up the Gospel Coalition (on their site), but we didn't see anything yet that jumped out at us as something which was a negative. But, we did read the stuff you sent us, and so we are watching to see what surfaces.
Oh, I did find the search bar where you said it would be. I guess I was looking for it over to the right where you have all the other stuff. So, thanks! That will be most helpful in the future.
So, I have a question for you. Is the church fellowship where you gather a 501c3 corporation? If so, or if not, what are your views on this, especially in light of all that you write about the US government? I am against it, just for the record. Sue
CFS,
Are you really saying that you could not find anything wrong on the GC website? Perhaps you did not try hard enough. Here are two quotes (with lots and lots more jumping out all over the place) that took no more than 30 seconds to find with just a quick skim on the "vision" page - which by the way is always a good place to start...
From this page: GC vision
"We affirm that truth is conveyed by Scripture. We believe that Scripture is pervasively propositional and that all statements of Scripture are completely true and authoritative. But the truth of Scripture cannot be exhausted in a series of propositions. It exists in the genres of narrative, metaphor, and poetry which are not exhaustively distillable into doctrinal propositions..."
a second:
How this relationship to culture shapes us.
"We believe that every expression of Christianity is necessarily and rightly contextualized, to some degree, to particular human culture; there is no such thing as a universal a–historical expression of Christianity"...
Just keying in on the bolded portions of these two statements that were found effortlessly - a very clear position is found stating that Christianity must be "contextualized" i.e. formatted as it were to prevailing culture - which always means exactly what the statement says, essentially everything but "doctrine" - or very little emphasis on "doctrine"; because (2nd statement) there is no such thing as a "universal a-historic expression of Christianity".
Can't see the emergent-speak in that - hear the hiss of the serpent? No "a-historical expression of Christianity"? - meaning we can 'adapt it to our times' - as we see fit, is what that is saying. Which is exactly what they are doing...and doing it by, in their own words, avoiding "doctrine" as much as possible. Even opening the homosexual-door because of the 2017 culture? Yes yes...the world has changed you know. Danger danger.
The gospel can not be contextualized. Ever. The blood of the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ - in any language, any culture, or historical period - will never change. It is in fact very much "universal". It cannot be 'better told' by dramas, metaphors, poetry, movies, 'worship', etc. 'Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God' [Rom. 10:17] - only.
"Contextualizing" is a purposeful deception, exchanging doctrine for story, metaphor, poetry, designed to destroy the true gospel.
***
As for me i've no church affliation as the church is today, unfortunately, thoroughly apostate. GC for a perfect example. Apostate as it gets. Book of Jude stuff. The book of Jude is right before the Revelation. We are in the days Jude prophesied of. Can a good church be found? Many cannot find one and have tried earnestly. This blog is called Rev. 18:4 for a reason.
The last church i was involved with i resigned numerous ministries and departed because they were unable to see the creeping deception Jude wrote of [Jude 4], and did in fact become partakers. Interestingly enough the beginning of the end there was when they started repeatedly doing Blackaby "Experiencing God". Again and again. Workbook christianity is not Holy Ghost christianity. Workbook christianity is dead christianity. No ears to hear though. No ears is epidemic these days.
501c3 churches is somewhat of an non-issue for me because it is not the real issue. There is no government control over what is preached at this point still - so that is not a factor. What is wrong though is churches that support themselves by teaching tithing. The 'tithe' does not belong to the NT. "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give..." [2Cor. 9:7] is the scriptural instruction for the NT church.
No KJV - no Holy Ghost!
Rev. 18:4
Tom, Thank you. I did not see the "vision" section. I will look at it tomorrow. No, I did not look at the whole site thoroughly, but I did look for anything that might tell me what they were about and what they believed and practiced, but other than the statement of faith, I had not yet found anything concrete. So, thanks for the help. I appreciate it.
I also do not affiliate with any institutional church but find fellowship with other believers wherever the Lord opens the doors, mostly on the internet, sad to say. My main issue with the 501c3 is that it incorporates the body of Christ with the US government in a partnership, which is forbidden in scripture (2 Co. 6:14-18), which places the government in the position as head over the church, and it turns the church into a business of men, though really how can you incorporate Christ's body? Basically, the church (not the whole church) is living in spiritual adultery against her Lord by being unequally yoked together with the US government, and it is a lot like Israel of old turning to Egypt for protection rather than trusting in the Lord.
Great to know about the search engine!
Wouldn't you agree that Theonomists (dominionists) are a very small subset of Reformed Christians? Many call themselves Reformed because they believe in the doctrines of grace....Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
What critiques do you have of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America? reformedpresbyterian.org
Not looking to be contentious or start debate, but I am always concerned about being in error and greatly respect your opinion!
CFS (2nd above)
re: 501c3
My comment as to 501c3 being a non-issue was not actually a reference to the 'principle' of it, but to the 'practical reality' of the church-world today. That reality is (1) that the 501c3 church is the majority; (2) that it is not going to change; (3) that no church today can blame 'the government', as a result of their 501c3 status, for preaching a corrupt or false gospel - and that ultimately the 501c3 status really has no impact on what is coming from the pulpits of today's churches. The churches are apostate - and it's not because of 501c3 - it's because their doctrine is false.
Likewise non-501c3, however many there may be, preach the same corrupt and apostate gospel. And both most likely a very high percentage preach tithing to support themselves which is false doctrine. Same on that count.
Here's the thing - say every church in the USA suddenly gave up their 501c3. Would that make a bit of difference as to the correct-ness of their doctrine (or lack thereof). Nothing would change. That of course will not happen though - which is why for me the '501c3 issue' - since nothing can be done about it - is somewhat of a non-issue. Pastors can still preach freely, no government restrictions on the gospel.
As to the principle of the 501c3 though - i'm definitely opposed. But what's that worth? It is a side issue in a 'realistic' sense. That being the fact of it, better to stay on topic with the issues that are directly affecting 'Joe-christian'.
Like this for instance: [2Tim. 4:3-4] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables'
will not endure sound doctrine - think GC
turned unto fables - think GC VP Keller - contextualized gospel of Harry Potter
tm
Tom,
Powerful truth for those with ears to hear! "Contextualizing" is a purposeful deception, exchanging doctrine for story, metaphor, poetry, designed to destroy the true gospel. Apostate as it gets. Book of Jude stuff. The book of Jude is right before the Revelation. We are in the days Jude prophesied of.”
These very things have been on my mind lately. Creeping compromises away from the truth or to keep one from the only truth.
Are people are being led into carnal earthly (cucumbers, onions) experiences based on: emotional feelings produced by altar calls, musical manipulation, group experiences, etc.? Are they being inoculated against the truth, as the Holy Ghost does not operate through the gimmicks of man that think their flashing lights and music brings the Holy Spirit? Is this blasphemy?
deb
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:13
to Anon (3rd comment above)
re: Theonomists (dominionists) are a very small subset of Reformed Christians?
First to clear up a bit the use of the term 'dominionist' in my above comment (2nd from top), it is being used in a very generalized way to basically encompass a number of eschatological views. Easier in a comment thread than naming them all. Reason for that is this: while the names are different, and the scripture interpretation of the different systems vary, ultimately they all still come to the same basic end point namely an "earthly kingdom". So just for simplicity 'dominionism' to cover them all.
Reformed Presbyterian for example. Reform Presbyterian holds to the doctrine of amillennialism. What does amillennialism mean? Very simple actually: there is no 1000 yr. millennium [even though the '1000-yrs' is found 6x in the 1st 7 vss. of Rev. 20:2,3,4,5,6,7]. To arrive at this interpretation RP essentially does away with any possible literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation. It is either spiritualized, or allegorized, or given a preterist or partial preterist interpretation, or combination of all of these. So with this the Book of Revelation is basically just nice poetry.
Instead RP teaches 'Last Day' theology [John 6:40]. Meaning everything just goes along until one day Christ says 'th th th that's all folks' and returns as king over his kingdom. No revelation judgments, tribulation, antichrist - none of these things.
And so what is that? - it is an 'earthly kingdom'. Earthly kingdom...dominionism - same thing [on the true agenda re: 'earthly kingdom' see 2nd comment from top].
Note: The Lord Jesus Christ speaking of the 'last day' in John 6 was just a very early and general revelation on the resurrection of the dead, not a complete revelation of 'the end of the world'. This was well before the cross, the resurrection and ascension of Christ himself, the giving of the Holy Ghost, and the revelation of the NT church. Obviously none of these things could have been understood at that point.
Which is why the Last Day - amillennial view is completely wrong having built it's entire 'eschatology' upon the very-incomplete revelation of the John 6 'last day'.
Anyway this is Covenant Theology. Reformed Presbyterians hold to 'Covenant Theology'. Covenant theology is in a word, false doctrine. Covenant theology lumps all the saved from creation to the 'last day' into one big group, and sticks them all together in 'the kingdom' at the eventual return of Christ [see 2nd comment from top re: 'kingdom' agenda]. OT Israel and NT christians no difference etc. - even though no OT saints were ever 'indwelt by the Holy Ghost' as are NT. Only NT saved are promised this, and that 'forever' [John 14:16-17]
"Covenant theology" - Cui bono? It is a judaized deception of the NT gospel. It robs the NT church of her unique position as the called-out, Holy Ghost indwelt, body of believers making up the body of Christ, the Lamb's wife, the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven [Rev. 21:2,9-10]. Heavenly, not earthly.
cui bono? Recommend get out of Reformed covenant-theology...today. It is false.
Rev. 18:4
Thanks a lot for this. A lot to digest so I don't have much to say right now, except I really appreciate your time and help!
Tom, Thank you for pointing me to the vision section on GC. It is as you say. I suspected as much. It is really clear where this is all headed. I have seen it too many times before with other groups. So, it comes as no surprise. Sad, though.
Post a Comment