Defining the Believer's Biblical Call to Judge

Many times, after publishing an article that disputes the claims of someone's published work, I am asked if I had talked to the person privately. There are those who claim that debating ideas in the public arena should not happen unless there was a prior Matthew 18 process of adjudication. It is my position that Matthew 18 does not apply to the public interaction of theological ideas." - Pastor Bob DeWaay

I just received an email from an elder of a local church that told me that I should be going directly to the people that I dispute. What he does not understand is that when a pastor or anyone posts something publicaly on the internet, radio, television, book, etc. for the world to see, we do not have to go directly to that person.

Below is a well written article by Pastor Bob DeWaay defining the believers Biblical call to judge.

It is not surprising that people are confused about the matter of passing judgment because some scriptures tell us we must make judgments and discern, and others warn us not to judge. We will see that Scripture provides straightforward, objective guidelines concerning making judgments and that both the commands to judge and the commands not to judge are understandable - and they are to be obeyed.

Do Not Judge - Matthew 7

The following teaching from the Sermon on the Mount warns us not to judge:

Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

Before we interpret those verses we must look at the sermon in Matthew that preceded it. The Sermon on the Mount concerns motives and sin. For example, the hypocrite prays to be "seen of men" (Matthew 6:5). Jesus' sermon contains warnings against anger (Matthew 5:22), lust (Matthew 5:28), a command to love one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) and a warning against loving money (Matthew 6:24). Jesus addresses many sin issues in a manner that would show everyone their sinfulness and need for the Gospel. Jesus said, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). This statement would have shocked Jesus' hearers because the scribes and Pharisees were fastidious in keeping the law of external rules. A righteousness greater than theirs could only be the imputed righteousness of Christ that changes the heart. Without Christ's righteousness we cannot enter the kingdom.

Given this context, what is the meaning of Matthew 7:1-5? The answer is that we are warned against judging how righteous others are in comparison to ourselves. This passage is a warning against self righteousness. As sinners, we tend to minimize or rationalize our own transgressions and magnify what we see wrong in others. Jesus warns about this because self-righteousness like that of the hypocritical Pharisees will keep a person out of the kingdom of God. It is the poor in spirit and the persecuted who will "inherit the kingdom of God" (Matthew 5:3, 10). These humbled people know they need a savior.

So does Matthew 7:1-5 teach that Christians should accept all teachers and teachings without discrimination? No. This passage concerns peoples' motivations and the degree of their internal righteousness. These matters we are not to judge. Other passages, which we will examine later, are concerned with judging the content of a person's teaching. Before we study those texts, let us examine other passages that are used to suggest that false teachers should not be corrected publicly.

Go to Your Brother in Private Matthew 18

As mentioned earlier, the admonition in Matthew 18 to go to your brother in private if he has sinned is often used to suggest that public teachings should be adjudicated privately. However, Matthew 18 does not address debate about the orthodoxy of someone's public teaching but how to deal with one of Christ's sheep who have strayed into sin. Let us examine the passage in context.

Matthew 18 begins with the disciples discussing who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus saw a danger in their attitude that could be very harmful to the church. The rest of Matthew 18 deals with relationships in the church, particularly how the "little ones" (meaning believers not young children - Matthew 18:6) are treated. The problem Jesus foresees in the discussion of who is greatest, is that "little ones" (believers who may appear unimportant to those concerned about their own "greatness") would be mistreated by those whose motives are wrong. Matthew 18 contains teachings to insure that every believer is seen as important and every effort is put forth to preserve their spiritual well-being.

In this context, we read this:

And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-17)

At issue is a "little one" who has become a straying sheep (Matthew 18:12). The tendency is for people who are seeking greatness in the kingdom to allow the sinner to wander off and perish rather than put forth the effort to preserve him or her. Jesus said, "Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish" (Matthew 18:14). As we have seen, the little ones are believers, and it is not God's will that a believer perishes. So the "lost sheep" that is rescued is a straying believer.

Given the immediate context, reproving in private someone who sins shows a willingness to take steps to keep one of the Lord's flock from perishing. It is not specified what particular sin may be at issue, but rather what the motives of the church members (i.e., disciples of Jesus Christ) are. They are to care about the well being of the little ones who may not appear important to others, but who are important to God.

The entire process outlined in Matthew 18 is about preserving church members from perishing. If the process does not result in the person repenting, they are to be assumed to be a lost sinner (a Gentile and a tax-gatherer). Lost sinners are the subject of gospel preaching. Any true Christian who has been confronted by this process will seek repentance and restoration. Those who claim a right to sin however they see fit show no evidence of regeneration. They are not "little ones" but targets for the gospel.

So, does this passage tell us that public false teaching should never be corrected or judged without first gaining the permission of the false teacher? No. As we shall see in many other passages, false teaching cannot be allowed into the church for precisely the reason Jesus tells us to care for the flock. The spiritual well-being of His "little ones" is more important than that aspirations of those who deem themselves "greatest in the kingdom." The flock must be protected and preserved. Allowing wolves into the congregation under the guise of Matthew 18 would be a horrible abuse of the passage.

Notice that verse 16 says that two or three witnesses should confirm "every fact." This is important, because someone could falsely accuse another of sin. What is being confirmed by the witnesses is that the person in question is guilty of the sin and refuses to change. In the case of publicly broadcast and published teachings, there is no need for this process because the "facts" are already public knowledge. What is needed is to compare the teachings to Scripture, not determine if the person is committing a sin and hiding it. At issue in public teaching is the integrity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not sin in the local fellowship.

Do Not Pass Judgment - 1Corinthians 4

Paul warns the Corinthians about wrongly passing judgment: "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God" (1Corinthians 4:5). This passage indicates that there are some things we will not know until God's future judgment. One of these things is mentioned in this passage: "the motives of men's hearts." We should avoid judging what we do not know. People's motives are often hidden from us, but their teachings are public information.

Consider what Paul said in Philippians:

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. (Philippians 1:15-18)
It is not clear how Paul knew about these bad motives, but it is instructive to see his response. Because the content of their message was the true gospel, Paul rejoiced. This is in clear contrast to what he said elsewhere when the content of the message was wrong: "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). It is safe to assume that an angel from heaven would be a nice person with good motives. But a false gospel is damning and still must be rejected. There are many "nice people" with damnable false teachings.

The content of the wrong judgment that the Corinthians were making had to do with matters that cannot be known now:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1Corinthians 4:6, 7)
As shown also in 1Corinthians 1, they were in the habit of judging who was superior and aligning themselves with human personalities. Paul is telling them not to do that. Who is superior spiritually is not known, and will not be known until God passes judgment in the future. But what can be known is "what is written." There is an objective standard for judging teaching, but not for judging motives and the relative superiority of personalities.

We have seen a consistent theme so far. We are not to judge the motives or the relative degree of righteousness of other believers. But we must judge what is taught, whether it is in accordance with the true gospel and what has been written in Scripture.

There is another matter concerning judgment that also concerns judging teachings, but most people misunderstand it. This is the section of Scripture in Matthew 7 about judging by the fruits.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits - Matthew 7

Jesus' teaching that, "You will know them by their fruits," is well known and often repeated. What is amazing, however, is that most of the time people come to conclusions about what this means that have nothing to do with the issues Jesus raises in Matthew 7. They often think of "fruits" as being character qualities, popularity, or the ability to do supernatural signs. I will discuss each of these ideas and then show what Jesus did mean.

Let us examine the passage. In Matthew 7 Jesus warned about false prophets:

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (Matthew 7:15-17)

First, personality traits are not fruits. On the outside, false prophets look like sheep. They are often very nice people who are kind, endearing, disarming, affable, winsome, and possess many other wonderful qualities. The false idea that these qualities are what Jesus means by "fruits" causes many people to be misled by false prophets. What they fail to realize is that the Dalai Lama has such qualities and he is hardly a Christian. Having a charming exterior is often the "sheep's clothing."

The number of one's followers is not fruit. Many assume that popularity is a sign of good fruit. But the context shows something entirely different: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13, 14). The false religious leaders of Israel had more followers than Jesus did. This can hardly be what Jesus meant by "fruit."

And signs and wonders are not fruits. Again we must consult the context:

So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:20-23)
People who call Jesus "Lord," come in His name, and do works of power are false prophets if they refused to abide within God-given boundaries. This is an important concept. This is lawlessness.

The boundaries are those that God's ordained spokespersons set. For us, they are the teachings of Christ and His apostles (See Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:3, 4). Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted and to whom we must listen (Deuteronomy 18:15; Mark 9:2-7; John 5:46, 47; et. al.). The book of Hebrews contains this warning: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:18, 19). Lawlessness disregards the terms of the covenant. Jesus has revealed the terms and boundaries of legal belief and practice under the new covenant, like Moses did under the old. John warned about this in his second epistle: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (2John 1:9).

Understood in this way, false prophets are those who teach and practice lawlessness. They do not abide within the once-for-all determined boundaries of New Testament teaching. We can see this as we continue in our Matthew 7 passage:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall. (Matthew 7:24-27)
The lawless ones do not abide by the teachings of Christ. They are the false prophets. The fruits by which they are known are their teachings, not their personalities, the number of their followers, or their miracles.

To underscore how important judging teaching is, we will examine Paul's address to the elders in Jerusalem. We will see that guarding the flock is a key duty of pastors and elders.

Church Leaders and Wolves

Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 instructs about the duty of Christian leaders to proclaim the truth and to guard the flock against wolves. First Paul recalled his previous practice in Ephesus:

How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20, 21)
Preaching that people should repent and believe is an important theme in Luke/Acts (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, 31; Acts 26:17-20; et al). Paul's preaching resulted in the formation of a church in Ephesus. Elders were appointed, and these were addressed by Paul as he headed to Jerusalem. What he said to them reveals what is truly important for all churches.

And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:27)
Notice, first of all, that the phrase "preaching the kingdom" is synonymously parallel with his description of his preaching in verse 21, "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The message of the kingdom was not some message like the social gospel as some claim today, but the gospel of the kingdom is repentance and faith (see Mark 1:14, 15). These are the terms of entrance into the kingdom.

Secondly, notice that Paul claimed innocence from bloodguiltiness. This means that had he not proclaimed both the terms of entrance into the kingdom, and the whole of what God has revealed of His purposes, Paul would have imperiled their souls, failed his sacred mission, and brought guilt upon himself for failing to warn them of coming judgment (see Ezekiel 33:6). These same responsibilities apply to pastors and other church leaders today. This is so very important because the flock must be equipped to withstand the onslaught of the inevitable wolves who will arise.

These wolves are the subject of Paul's warning to the church leaders:

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

It is important to see that the wolves come from two sources: outside and inside the church. Wolves are always inimical to the well-being of sheep. It is the responsibility of shepherds to make sure the sheep are safe from the wolves. To do this, the wolves must be identified. The way they are identified is through their teachings. Paul described the practice of the wolves: "speaking perverse things." The word "perverse" means "twisted" or "distorted." Their teachings are a distortion of the authoritative teachings of Christ and His apostles. Anyone is a wolf who purposely gives distorted teaching and refuses to repent when shown his error from the Scriptures. The elders must guard the flock against such people.

Notice what happens through the teachings of the wolves: they "draw away the disciples after them." False teachers and prophets have a message that comes from themselves, not from the whole counsel of God. The reason these wolves draw disciples away after themselves is that they are the only source of this teaching. If the church is proclaiming the true terms of the covenant and the whole counsel of God, whatever "perverse" doctrine is being promoted by wolves will not be heard from the faithful pastors and elders. Perverse doctrine cannot be found through valid implications from authoritative Scripture. Therefore, if the wolves succeed in giving some of the sheep an appetite for what they are offering, the sheep will have to follow the wolves to get that appetite fed. Since this is not from God, they are being drawn away from the true sheepfold and into spiritual peril and perhaps damnation.

This is a very serious situation. In John 10 Jesus uses a sheepfold analogy to show that robbers do not go through the true door: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). Jesus is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). Jesus has ascended bodily into heaven. His teachings as given in the New Testament delineate the boundaries of the sheepfold. The elders of the church are responsible to uphold the true words of Christ and His apostles. They are responsible to identify those robbers who will not abide in the teachings of Christ. False teachers refuse to do this job: "He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep" (John 10:12, 13). Jesus is the true Shepherd, and the under-shepherds (the term "pastor" is from the word "shepherd") are to feed the sheep the pure words of God and guard them from perverted words. Those who refuse to do so are hirelings.

Paul's Warning Comes True

Timothy became a key church leader in Ephesus where Paul had warned the elders about wolves. Paul's warning came true. We learn from the epistles to Timothy that false teachers did arise, some of them likely were elders themselves. This provides the background for Paul's admonitions in Timothy about correcting error, upholding the standard of sound doctrine, and the qualifications of true elders.

Paul specified to Timothy who the false teachers were by name:

This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. (1Timothy 1:18-20)
The reason false teachers are dealt with publicly is that their teaching is public. One does not need two or three witnesses or a private meeting to determine if a public teaching is Biblical or not. Everyone who heard them knows what they believe and teach. At issue is whether the teaching is Biblical. False teaching damages the church, and it cannot be tolerated. In the Greek, it says they made shipwreck "in regard to the faith." The definite article indicates that it was the content of their teaching that was wrong. It was not in accordance with "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

Paul, after giving instructions about the qualifications of elders, reminds Timothy of the key role of the church: "but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15). Elders and pastors who disregard sound doctrine cannot be tolerated. When they teach false doctrine, their conduct is unacceptable. They are responsible to make sure the church is the "pillar and support of the truth."

Paul predicts that in the later times people will give heed to "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1Timothy 4:1). Paul urges Timothy to instruct the church about this important matter of warning against false teachings and promoting the truth: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (1Timothy 4:6). Today many despise the very term doctrine and accuse those of being wrongly motivated who think it is important to correct false doctrine and espouse true doctrine. This is not at all what Paul told Timothy: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (1Timothy 4:16). Teachings have consequences--eternal consequences. If false teaching is allowed into the church, peoples' salvation is in jeopardy.

The duty of elders and pastors to protect the flock from false teaching, and to nourish the flock with sound teaching always has been foremost. But in the last days, the battle intensifies. We are living in an age of delusion and apostasy. So now, more than ever, we must confront false teaching and not allow it into the church. Paul made this admonition and prediction:

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2Timothy 4:1-4)
If people do not want to hear sound doctrine because of end time delusion, preach sound doctrine to them! The ability and willingness to do so is a requirement for elders: "[H]olding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9).

The duties of pastors and elders are very clear in Acts 20 and the Pastoral Epistles. They are to teach true doctrine, correct false doctrine, and protect the flock from the wolves. Sadly, those who do so today are often accused of being divisive or sinning because they have "judged" when Jesus told us not to judge. This is a category error. We are not to judge motives or relative degrees of righteousness, but we must judge public teaching.

Paul Publicly Rebukes Peter

In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he publicly corrected Peter:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews"? (Galatians 2:11-14)
Paul publicly rebuked Peter for publicly denying in action what Paul knew Peter privately believed. Paul called Peter's actions, "[being] not straightforward about the truth of the gospel." Peter's actions implied that Gentile Christians were still "unclean" unless they submitted to Jewish food laws. This is a denial of what was decided at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. They had determined there to not require that the Gentiles follow the Law of Moses.

The irony is that Peter himself was the spokesman who convinced the church that this was right:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.' (Acts 15:7-11)

Paul knew that he and Peter believed the same thing; they had both agreed to the decision of the council. There was no reason to go to Peter privately to correct his belief. Paul immediately dealt with the issue publicly, "in the presence of all." Peter's public practice negated his private confession. Being "straightforward about the gospel" means that what we preach and practice in public must be the same as the beliefs we hold privately. The New Testament calls any disjuncture between the two, "hypocrisy."

What happens often today is that public teachers proclaim false doctrines. When confronted about this, they point to an orthodox statement of faith. But what they teach publicly is damaging to those who hear them. Whatever they may claim to believe, their public false teaching needs to be publicly confronted.

What We Can and Cannot Judge

We have seen that we are not to judge motives. We are not to judge relative degrees of personal piety. What these have in common is the factor that they are unknown. Motives are hidden. Only God knows the heart. We do not know who is more righteous or pious than whom.

We are not to accuse someone of sin without two or three witnesses. The criterion for two or three witnesses exists to keep one person from bringing false witness against another and having them wrongly come under church discipline. But if there are witnesses, the facts are considered "known" and judgment can be made. In every situation, the hope is for repentance and restoration of the individual. Paul wrote, "This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (2Corinthians 13:1). As verse 2 of this passage shows, the issue was about "those who have sinned."

There is another issue about wrong judgment. According to Romans 14 we are not to judge matters of conscience that are not universal commands. Here is what Paul wrote:

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4)

Later in this chapter of Romans Paul warns against judging one's brother on matters that fall under the category of Christian liberty - food and the observance of certain days (Romans 14:4-10). It would be wrong to exclude a weaker brother from fellowship because he has a more active conscience in certain areas where the Bible legitimately allows liberty. But, if that weaker brother demanded that his scruples be followed by everyone else as a condition of fellowship, he would become an illegitimate lawgiver and should be withstood and ultimately, if he remained unrepentant, expelled from fellowship.

What is wrong with illegitimate law-givers is that they are claiming to know that someone is sinning when they are not. This is tantamount to making one's self God's lawgiver. To judge like this is to claim to know (that some certain action of another person is sin) what one does not know.

However we can judge what is true or false, sinful or righteous, based on what has been revealed in Scripture. Publicly proclaimed teachings can be judged to be false and should be publicly refuted. Paul did this. Paul told Timothy to do this. Paul gave all elders the responsibility to do this. The church must be warned about wolves when they arise, whether from inside the church or without. Likewise prophecy must be judged by the objective criteria of the Bible (1Corinthians 14:29; 1Thessalonians 5:21).

There is important action to be taken: We can and we must judge what we can know objectively, but we must not judge what we cannot know objectively. Ask yourself when you make a judgment, "can I know this with certainty"? If the answer is no, we cannot judge. If the answer is yes and the issue concerns Biblical doctrine or sin, we not only may judge; we must judge. Publicly proclaimed teaching falls into this category.

Conclusion

Too often people wrongly claim that if an author writes a book, or a preacher preaches a sermon, that no one is permitted to make judgments about the contents of these teachings without first asking the author's or preacher's permission. Paul did not ask Peter's permission to publicly rebuke him nor did he ask Hymenaeus' and Alexander's permission to rebuke them for teaching false doctrine. Claiming that false teachers have the right to spread their teachings throughout the body of Christ until such time that a Matthew 18 procedure is set up and implemented is a category error. Matthew 18 concerns the accusation of sin brought by one member of a congregation against another. This requires two or three witness if personal confrontation is ineffective.

Teachings that are published far and wide do not need two or three witnesses; everyone can see what is being taught for themselves. These teachings must be judged to be biblical or unbiblical. Those who bring false teaching should be publicly corrected. If they continue to bring false teaching and disregard the faith once for all delivered to the saints, they should be considered wolves and the flock must be guarded from them.

Today the teachings of the wolves come by way of the TV, radio, internet, books, seminars and any other media that is available. No pastor could discuss each of these specific heresies with their authors, nor is it required. What is required is that pastors and elders refute the heresies with sound doctrine, and warn the flock about their pernicious influence. The sad truth is that very few elders or pastors are willing to do this. Many take it as a badge of honor that they correct no one, and glibly allow the wolves to devour the flock under the guise of humility and unity. If we refuse to judge false teaching, we have neglected our God-given responsibilities.

"Reformed Stooge":

This was sent to me from my brother in the Lord Corey from Lancater PA, I stand with you brother as a fellow Reformed Stooge for Christ who wants to see a MODERN DAY REFORMATION. The time is at hand for the True Church to stand up and make it's stand for the TRUTH does MATTER.


Reformed: A summary of Reformed theology, or what it means to be Reformed, may be seen in the following: [1]
It means to affirm the great "Sola's" of the Reformation. (See the Five Solas)
It means to affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the sovereignty of God.
It means to affirm the doctrines of grace. . . to see God as the author of salvation from beginning to end. (See Calvinism)
It means to be creedal. . . to affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church. (See e.g. the Nicene Creed)
It means to be confessional. . . to affirm one or more of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church. (see e.g. the Westminster Confession)
It means to be covenantal. . . to affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. (see Covenant Theology)
It means to take seriously the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. . . to affirm the primacy of mission and understand that mission.
It means to have a distinctly Christian worldview that permeates all of life.


Stooge: Main Entry: 1stooge Pronunciation: 'stüjFunction: nounEtymology: origin unknown1 a : one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal b : PUPPET 3 [3 : one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence ]

Pastor Threatens To Have Congregants Arrested

COATESVILLE, Pa. -- Members of a Chester County church said they have really been at odds with the pastor since he came on board about a year ago.
Images Video
But after receiving a letter that mixed Bible verses along with threats of an arrest if they were to attend church on Sunday, that's when they said the pastor went too far.
"We are in spiritual warfare, we really are ... with our own pastor," said one woman.
It's a rift so deep that Coatesville police stepped in Wednesday to try to resolve the issue after the Rev. Malcolm Finkley of Coatesvillle's Tabernacle Baptist Church reportedly signed and sent the letter to dozens of church members.

Recipients of the letter threatening arrest included 87-year-old Waddell Tucker.
"If you don't agree with him, you've got to go," Tucker said.
Some congregation members told NBC 10 that they have not liked the way Pastor Finkley runs the church or how he conducts himself from the pulpit. When they tried to oust Finkley as they say it states they can in the church bylaws, their vote has been interrupted and not allowed to continue.
The certified letter told several members they were creating an "atmosphere of hostility" and threatened criminal charges if they showed up anymore.
"To tell someone who has been coming to this church for over 60 years that, 'You can't come into the church because I say so,' that's objectionable," said John Robinson, of Coatesville.
NBC 10 tried to ask Finkley about that, but he twice had no comment Wednesday.
Members said they went to the police to see if they could actually be placed under arrest if they showed up to worship God. They said the short answer they received was no.
"We've made multiple attempts to set up meetings with him to try to discuss some issues that we had concerns about. That was unsuccessful," said church member Charles Ward.
It's a holy war that church members said has no winners.
"Just want to go to church and praise the Lord," Ward said.
NBC 10's Jamison Uhler said that he did find members who said they were happy with the church's new leadership and direction, and they said they were sad to see that other members were standing in the pastor's way.

Rick Warren 'Works With' and 'Strengthens' Mormon Churches and Other Non-Christian Sects

Did you know that Rick Warren and Saddleback church will work with and help ANY church become "Purpose-Driven" regardless of its 'doctrinal convictions'?
Here is what Saddleback Church said last week:
"There are Purpose Driven congregations in more than 200 different denominations and associations. Our desire is to work with denominations to strengthen their churches. Each church can maintain its own heritage and doctrinal convictions while cooperating with others on accomplishing the five purposes" (Online Source)
By their own admission Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven ministries will 'work with' and 'strengthen' ANY church.
Where does this 'strengthening' and 'working with' take place?
Answer: At a Purpose-Driven Church Pastor Training Conference
What happens at these Pastor Training Conferences? Here is what the Purpose-Driven website says:
The Purpose Driven model offers leaders in your church a unique, biblically-based approach to help them establish, transform, or maintain a balanced, growing congregation. What is a balanced, growing congregation? It’s one that is growing larger in numbers as it grows deeper in carrying out the God-given purposes for churches... (Online Source)
Conference Sessions include workshops on:
• Targeting Your Community for Evangelism - Understanding Who You are Trying to Reach
• Attracting a Crowd - How to Design Seeker-Sensitive Services
• Building Your Congregation - Turning Attenders into Members
• Structuring Your Church on Purpose - How to Organize Your Church for Growth
Did you know that these training sessions are attended by Mormons, Catholics and Jews?
Here is what Rick Warren told USAToday about his "Purpose Driven" training programs:
"Warren's pastor-training programs welcome Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jews and ordained women." (Online Source)
Wait a minute! Mormons and Jews are NOT Christians. How on Earth can a "Christian Pastor" 'work with' them and help them 'strengthen' and grow their congregations?
Here is Rick Warren's explanation for training Mormons and Jews. Said Warren:
"I'm not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won't try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?"
Since when is helping to strengthen and grow a non-Christian church a "non-essential"?
Christians are not called upon to help train non-Christian churches on how to strengthen and grow their congregations! Those congregations are sending people to hell? We don't want them to be healthy, strong and growing. We want those non-Christian churches to shrink and die by having their members repent and believe in the true gospel.
Plus, God forbids Christians to do this! Here is what the Bible says on this matter:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.
Sorry, Warren's explanation demonstrates a complete disregard for clear Biblical teaching! Warren said that he didn't want to be 'divisive' but in reality Warren IS being divisive by flatout disobeying God and helping to strengthen and grow these non-Christian sects.
Sadly, Rick Warren is trying to portray himself as being 'magnanimous' by working with leaders from all faiths and "building bridges" with them. But, when you compare what he is doing to what God’s Word tells us to do you'll discover that the correct word to describe Warren's behavior IS "divisive". The reason for this is because he is being openly rebellious to God's clear commands which forbid Christians to be in partnership with false churches and unbelievers.
For those of you tempted to think that USAToday got their facts wrong, please consider this: The week that the USAToday story broke, Rick Warren's Pastors.com website said this about the article:
Click Here to Visit the Pastors.com website
Rather than repudiate the article's claims regarding Warren's training of Mormons and Jews, Rick Warren instead asked for people to pray that the article would be successful in introducing the "The Purpose-Driven Life to a whole new secular audience."
Rick Warren obviously approved of this article and its contents.

Fellowship or Fight? By Phil Johnson

This is a classic post adapted from my original weblog. It’s a theme that correlates closely with things I have said in my seminars on fundamentalism at past Shepherds’ Conferences.
One thing you’ll quickly notice if you make even a casual study of historical theology is this: the history of the church is a long chronicle of doctrinal development that runs from one profound controversy to the next.
In one sense it is sad that the history of the church is so marred by doctrinal conflicts, but in another sense that is precisely what the apostles anticipated. Even while the New Testament was still being written, the church was contending with serious heresies and dangerous false teachers who seemed to spring up everywhere. This was so much a universal problem that Paul made it one of the qualifications of every elder that he be strong in doctrine and able to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9). So the church has always been beset by heretics and false teachings, and church history is full of the evidence of this.
Obviously, then, we who love the truth cannot automatically shy away from every fight over doctrine. Especially in an era like ours when virtually every doctrine is deemed up for grabs, Christians need to be willing and prepared to contend earnestly for the faith.
On the other hand, even in an obsessively “tolerant” age such as ours, the opposite danger looms large as well. There are some people who are always spoiling for a fight over little matters, and no issue is too trivial for them to overlook. It seems they are looking for reasons to take offense, and if you’re not careful what you say or how you say it, they’ll throw a major hissy. More often than not, it’s an insignificant issue, an unintentional slight, or an inadvertently indelicate “tone” that provokes the tantrum. (Ironically, these same folks are sometimes more than willing to tolerate major doctrinal errors in the name of “charity.”)
Scripture includes all the following commands: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11). “I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations” (Romans 14:1). “Follow peace with all men, and holiness” (Hebrews 12:14).
Clearly, there are two extremes to be avoided. One is the danger of being so narrow and intolerant that you create unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ. The other is the problem of being too broad-minded and sinfully tolerant—so ecumenically minded that you settle for a shallow, false unity with people whom we are commanded to avoid or whose errors we are morally obligated to refute.
It would seem that the only way to be faithful to all the above commands is to have a sound and biblical understanding of how to distinguish between core doctrines and peripheral ones.
But search for serious material that carefully discusses biblical guidelines for making such distinctions wisely, and you’ll come up mostly dry. This is an issue I fear most Christians have not considered as soberly and carefully as we should, and it would be my assessment that one of the crying needs of the church in this age of mindless postmodern subjectivity is a clear, careful, and thorough biblical understanding of when it’s time to fight and when it’s time to fellowship.
Few subjects interest me more than this. It seems a pretty obvious and foundational issue for the church and her leaders to settle. You might think the early fundamentalists ought to have done extensive work on the subject, but as far as I can see, they didn’t. They treated several key doctrines as fundamental, based mainly on what happened to be under attack by the modernists, and they declared themselves devoted to “the fundamentals.”
But they didn’t always keep very clear focus on the distinction between what was fundamental and what was not. As a result, later generations of fundamentalists often fought and fragmented over issues no one could rationally argue were “fundamental.” Predictably, the fundamentalist movement slowly collapsed on itself.
There are some valiant efforts currently underway to improve and preserve the best remnants of the fundamentalist movement. I sincerely wish them success. But it seems to me that unless the brightest minds and most careful theologians in that movement are willing to go back to this basic question and carefully think through the biblical and theological rationale for the original distinction between fundamental and secondary truths, certain things that ought to be clear will remain murky, and fundamentalism will be doomed to repeating cycles of failure.
If there’s anyone left in the “evangelical movement” who is truly evangelical in the historic sense, the same thing applies to them, by the way.

John Piper on The Pro$perity Gospel

http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/john-piper-on-the-properity-gospel/trackback/

Q&A WITH DR. RC. SPROUL

There are so many different interpretations of what the Bible is saying. How do I know which one is right?

That’s a problem that plagues all of us. There are some theoretical things we can say about it, but I’d rather spend time on the practical. The Roman Catholic Church believes that one function of the church is to be the authorized interpreter of Scripture. They believe that not only do we have an infallible Bible but we also have an infallible interpretation of the Bible. That somewhat ameliorates the problem, although it doesn’t eliminate it altogether. You still have those of us who have to interpret the infallible interpretations of the Bible. Sooner or later it gets down to those of us who are not infallible to sort it out. We have this dilemma because there are hosts of differences in interpretations of what the popes say and of what the church councils say, just as there are hosts of different interpretations of what the Bible says. Some people almost despair, saying that “if the theologians can’t agree on this, how am I, a simple Christian, going to be able to understand who’s telling me the truth?” We find these same differences of opinion in medicine. One doctor says you need an operation, and the other doctor says you don’t. How will I find out which doctor is telling me the truth? I’m betting my life on which doctor I trust at this point. It’s troublesome to have experts differ on important matters, and these matters of biblical interpretation are far more important than whether or not I need my appendix out. What do you do when you have a case like that with variant opinions rendered by physicians? You go to a third physician. You try to investigate, try to look at their credentials to see who has the best training, who’s the most reliable doctor; then you listen to the case that the doctor presents for his position and judge which you are persuaded is more cogent. I’d say the same thing goes with differences of biblical interpretations. The first thing I want to know is, Who’s giving the interpretation? Is he educated? I turn on the television and see all kinds of teaching going on from television preachers who, quite frankly, simply are not trained in technical theology or biblical studies. They don’t have the academic qualifications. I know that people without academic qualifications can have a sound interpretation of the Bible, but they’re not as likely to be as accurate as those who have spent years and years of careful research and disciplined training in order to deal with the difficult matters of biblical interpretation. The Bible is an open book for everybody, and everybody has a fair shot of coming up with whatever they want to find in it. We’ve got to see the credentials of the teachers. Not only that, but we don’t want to rely on just one person’s opinion. That’s why when it comes to a biblical interpretation, I often counsel people to check as many sound sources as they can and then not just contemporary sources, but the great minds, the recognized minds of Christian history. It’s amazing to me the tremendous amount of agreement there is among Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards—the recognized titans of church history. I always consult those because they’re the best. If you want to know something, go to the pros.

Why Grace? By Nathan Williams

Without question, the title “grace” is a very popular one around our ministry. From the name of our church (Grace Community Church) to the Sunday morning Bulletin (Grace Today) to John MacArthur’s radio broadcast (Grace to You), “grace” definitely abounds.
Grace is a very normal word within the Christian life and it should be! It should be normal in the sense that grace is something every Christian has experienced and will continue to experience as he progresses in his walk with God. But it should not be normal in the sense that grace becomes something we take for granted.
Grace must not end up on the same level as many modern conveniences we frequently use. Because of the familiarity of time and use, their employment seldom receives the same jaw-dropping reaction as when they were first showcased. As a silly example, when was the last time you were truly amazed over the fact that you have the ability to flip a switch and receive instant light? Honestly, it is stunning, and to an infinitely greater extent grace should be stunning as well.
We have all heard the definition given for grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. This is certainly true. Grace is God’s favor given to those who have not done anything to merit His kindness. We understand that grace by definition cannot be merited; it would destroy the very meaning of the word. Grace must be given to someone who has not earned it. The act of earning transforms the gift into something else entirely — from a gift to wages, from unmerited favor to merited payment for work done.
Although this definition of unmerited favor can rightly be said to define grace, it certainly does not exhaust a full understanding of the grace that God has bestowed upon us.
God’s grace goes beyond giving favor to those who are without merit; God’s grace is seen in that He gives favor to those who have done everything they can to demerit favor. It is not as if we were neutral, starting with an empty bank account into which God deposited the riches of His grace. No, we were much worse off than neutral. We started with an infinite amount of indebtedness, an amount so great we could never ever repay. Grace is God’s unmerited favor to those who have spit in His face and cursed His name. It is God’s kindness to those who crucified His Son.
One of the things that can be most helpful in our understanding of God’s grace is to look at our own level of graciousness to those who are undeserving (cf. Matt. 18:21-35). How do you treat those who do not merit your favor? What is your response to those who are not adding anything to your life or bringing you any particular happiness or joy?
Compare this level of grace to the grace that God showers on us. Even more than showing grace to someone who has not earned your favor, can you imagine showing grace to those who have harmed you in some way? It is hard for many of us to give food or money to those who are homeless. Imagine giving food and money to a homeless man who has broken into your house, stolen your most prized possessions and killed a family member. Hard to fathom, yet God’s grace goes well beyond this simple example.
Grace is multifaceted and there is much more to it than could ever be explained in a blog post, but I do think it will be helpful to consider two dimensions of God’s grace to us.
1. Grace is an attitude of God toward us. Ephesians 2:7 tells us that in the ages to come God will show us the “exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” God has a kind and generous disposition toward us. I love the phrase in Ephesians 2:7 that tells us that God will show the exceeding riches of His grace. I can only imagine a Father who looks lovingly on His child and longs to lavish good gifts upon Him.
2. Grace is an action of God toward us. God’s grace does not stop with a kind disposition toward sinners. God acts on His gracious attitude and this grace is preeminently expressed in the person of Jesus Christ and His sacrificial death. God sent His Son to die in our place and take the wrath that was meant for us upon Him. This is the ultimate act showing divine favor on those who have not merited it but have demerited it (Rom 3:24; 5:8; 5:15).
There is much more to grace, but this is the heartbeat of this important Christian word. God has an attitude of favor toward us who are sinners. He has acted on this attitude by sending His Son to die in our place on the cross. Remember, this divine favor rests on you and has been demonstrated to you if you have responded in faith. Live today in the reality of God’s great grace!
“The forgiven person should not only possess a theoretical understanding of God’s grace in the mind; he or she must also experience the reality of God’s kindness and mercy in the heart. Intellectual assent to the doctrine of grace must be balanced by deep personal resonance with the reality of grace in the life.” (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation)

War of the Worldviews (Part 2) By John MacArthur

In a pluralistic age, it is critical that the Christian message be proclaimed with clarity and conviction.
Below I have outlined six distinct components of a Christian worldview, as promised in yesterday’s post. These components are especially important in a relativistic age – in which the very concept of absolute truth is under attack. In upcoming posts we will look at some of these in more detail.
1. Objectivity — Authentic Christianity starts with the premise that there is a source of truth outside of us. Specifically, God’s Word is truth (Psalm 119:151; John 17:17).
2. Rationality — A second key word that helps define an authentically Christian world view is rationality. We believe the objective revelation of Scripture is rational. The Bible makes good sense. It contains no contradictions, no errors, and no unsound principles. Anything that does contradict Scripture is untrue.
3. Veracity — Biblical Christianity is all about truth. God’s objective revelation (the Bible) interpreted rationally yields divine truth in perfectly sufficient measure. Everything we need to know for life and godliness is there for us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).
4. Authority — An understanding of the Bible’s authority is the fourth foundation-stone for a proper Christian world view. Because we believe Scripture is true, we must proclaim it with conviction and without compromise or apology. The Bible makes bold claims, and Christians who believe it ought to affirm it boldly.
5. Incompatibility — Scripture says, “No lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21). As Christians, we know that whatever contradicts biblical truth is by definition false. In other words, truth is incompatible with error. Incompatibility is therefore a fifth essential key word in describing a biblical world view.
6. Integrity — Rounding out our list of essential principles for a biblical world view is the word integrity. This flows naturally from all the preceding principles. Since Christianity places such a high premium on truth, we must acknowledge that integrity is an essential virtue and hypocrisy is a horrible vice.
Unfortunately, the evangelical movement today is drifting from these fundamental principles and has already begun to embrace post modern ideas uncritically. Evangelicalism is losing its footing; people’s confidence in the Scriptures is eroding; and the church is losing its testimony. Fewer and fewer Christians are willing to stand against the trends of this generation, and the effects have been disastrous. Subjectivity, irrationality, worldliness, uncertainty, compromise, and hypocrisy have already become commonplace among churches and organizations that once constituted the evangelical mainstream.
The only cure, I am convinced, is a conscious, wholesale rejection of post modern values and a return to these six distinctives of biblical Christianity. We must be faithful to guard the treasure of truth that has been entrusted to us (2 Timothy 1:14). If we do not, who will?
Posted in Evangelicalism, Cultural Issues

War of the Worldviews (Part 1) By John MacArthur

Five years ago, I wrote a relatively brief book entitled Why One Way? Defending an Exclusive Claim in an Inclusive World. As the title conveys, the book was meant as a reminder of the gospel’s distinctiveness.
That reminder is still desperately needed today, as evangelicalism continues to find itself tempted by the siren calls of our pluralistic society. Now is not the time to make friends with the world. It is certainly no time to capitulate to worldly cries for ecumenism and inclusivism. Unless we recover our conviction that Christ is the only way to heaven, the evangelical movement will become increasingly weak and irrelevant.
It is ironic that so many who are downplaying the exclusivity of Christ are doing it because they believe it is a barrier to “relevance.” Actually, Christianity is not relevant at all if it is merely one of many possible paths to God. The relevance of the gospel has always been its absolute exclusivity, summed up in the truth that Christ alone has atoned for sin and therefore Christ alone can provide reconciliation with God for those who believe only in Him.
The early church preached Christ crucified, knowing that the message was a stumblingblock to the religious Jews and foolishness to the philosophical Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). We need to recover that apostolic boldness. We need to remember that sinners are not won by clever public relations or the powers of earthly persuasion, but it is the gospel — an inherently exclusive message — that is the power of God unto salvation.
That very narrowness sets Christianity apart from every other world view. After all, the whole point of Jesus’ best-known sermon was to declare that the way to destruction is broad and well traveled, while the way of life is so narrow that few find it (Matthew 7:14). Our task as ambassadors of God is to point to that very narrow way. Christ Himself is the one way to God, and to obscure that fact is in effect to deny Christ and to disavow the gospel itself.
We must resist the tendency to be absorbed into the fads and fashions of worldly thought. We need to emphasize, not downplay, what makes Christianity unique. And in order to do that effectively, we need to have a better grasp of how worldly thought is threatening sound doctrine in the church. We must be able to point out just where the narrow way diverges from the broad way.

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? By John MacArthur

As Christians we must understand that whatever opposes God’s Word or departs from it in any way is a danger to the very cause of truth. Passivity toward known error is not an option for the Christian. Staunch intolerance of error is built into the very fabric of Scripture. And tolerance of known error is anything but a virtue.
Jesus clearly and unashamedly affirmed the utter exclusivity of Christianity. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Obviously, that sort of exclusivity is fundamentally incompatible with post-modern tolerance.
Truth and error cannot be combined to yield something beneficial. Truth and error are as incompatible as light and darkness. “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).
We can’t tell the world, “This is truth, but whatever you want to believe is fine, too. It’s not fine. Scripture commands us to be intolerant of any idea that denies the truth.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not defending dogmatism on any and every theological issue. Some things in Scripture are not perfectly clear. But the central teachings of Scripture (in particular, those things related to the way of salvation) are so simple and so clear that even a child can understand.
Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession, 1:7).
All the truth that is necessary for our salvation can be easily understood in a true way by anyone who applies common sense and due diligence in seeking to understand what the Bible teaches. And that truth — the core message of Scripture — is incompatible with every other system of belief. We ought to be dogmatic about it.
No wonder post-modernism, which prides itself on being tolerant of every competing world-view, is nonetheless hostile to biblical Christianity. Even the most determined post-modernist recognizes that biblical Christianity by its very nature is totally incompatible with a position of uncritical broad-mindedness. If we accept the fact that Scripture is the objective, authoritative truth of God, we are bound to see that every other view is not equally or potentially valid.
There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian world-views, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing world-views on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error.

Trinitarian Worship By Rick Phillips

I think the greatest danger to Trinitarian worship in at least American evangelicalism is the oft-cited "Jesus-only" phenomenon. Instead of worshiping God, we say that we are "worshiping Jesus." Now, we should worship Jesus, but not only God the Son. Therefore, I think much progress can be made simply by emphasizing that we are brought to God the Father, through God the Son, by the power of God the Spirit. If this framework for our thinking and speaking sufficiently penetrated our speaking, preaching, singing, and liturgies, then enormous progress would be made in many of our churches.

"Good Food, Good News" - Good Bait and Switch?

just saw another one last week, it was a promo for one of those Christian evangelism festivals. You know the ones I'm talking about, the idea is to entice neighborhood unbelievers to come and enjoy "good food, good fun, and good news". By good news I mean, the church or organization that sponsors the festival will finish-off the event with an evangelism message. It sounds like a pretty good idea! I mean, we definitely want to evangelize a lot of people, and these parties do produce a huge number of decisions for Christ. They just seem like a great way for churches and organizations to bring in the multitudes, and while they are a captive audience, you may as well preach and reach. Right? What could possibly be wrong with that?! ... [Read More!]

"Am I Doing Enough To Get God To Forgive Me?"

I have a Roman Catholic relative who actually believes that he is maintaining the ten commandments in his own life, and once expressed to me that one of his deep concerns is that, on the occasion that he does break a commandment, what would happen to him if he were to get in a car accident and die before having a chance to do an act of contrition. In this post, Chad VanRens is back with us and is speaking once again on the subject of sanctification; he will demonstrate some of the more subtle protestant versions of that "I must do some 'work' to make myself clean again" thinking. Along the way, Chad is going to give you an excerpt from a very important book that could help you come to a better understanding of how to fight sin biblically. That's something that every true believer takes great interest in. ... [Read More!]

Unbelievers Can't Chose Christ or Make Him Lord

Quoting Obadiah Sedgwick . . .
True faith takes Christ and Him only to be it's Lord. Many will come to Christ and have a feast, but few come to Christ to bear His scepter. Some would come under the safety of His blood, but disdain the authority and dominion of His sword; they like Christ the priest, but not Christ the Lord. I will briefly show you two things - unbelievers will not accept Christ to be their Lord only, because their heart has another Lord. He is our Lord to whom we give service, and we His servants who obey Him. Let the commands of profit or pleasure versus Christ come into competition and you shall see that the unbelieving heart will go after it's lord; it will not hearken to Christ, for it prefers sin before Him. The unbelieving heart will easily adventure Christ's displeasure to fulfill it's own lusts. Again, the unbelieving heart cannot chose Christ; it cannot like him for a Lord.
Why? Because the dominion of Christ is holy and heavenly; it is directly opposite to the solid principles and affections, and ways of an unbelieving heart. Secondly, every believer admits to Christ as being their Lord as Thomas said, "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28) - and so (1) Faith sets up the scepter of Christ, and sweetly frames the soul to a willing subjection, (2) Again faith takes the whole Christ, and therefore Christ is the only King and Lord to faith, (3) Again, faith knows that the whole person is Christ's purchase, His blood has bought us, and so passed us into the entire dominion of Christ: "ye are bought with a price; ye are not your own," said the apostle, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.
Now then try yourself in this: who is your Lord? If by faith you have sworn fidelity to Christ, then though all temptations beset you, to captivate you, or to alienate your heart from the service of Christ, yet amidst all oppressions, yes, under all the knocks and buffetings, and interruptions by sin, the heart cries out, I acknowledge no Lord but Christ; him I would obey; Him I honor, I love; His I am, and yet hate those sins which yet I cannot conquer.
From:
The Humbled Sinner, year 1656 (Day By Day w/Puritans)

The Most Superficial and Me-Centered Church Evaluation Questions EVER

Pastor David Foster of The Gathering in Nashville, TN has compiled what we think to be the most me-centered and superficial test for evaluating a church that we've ever seen. Notice that in this list of 16 things Pastor Foster would look for in a church he never once mentions sound doctrine, Christ-Centered preaching or anything of Biblical substance. Here is Pastor Foster's list with our commentary in parentheses:
If I were looking for a church to attend in the morning, here is what I’d look for:
1. When I enter do I hear laughter? (What about reverence? Why should we prefer laughter over reverence?)
2. Are people greeting me as a job or a joy? (Come on'. When was the last time a church greeter gave you the same type of service you get at a post-office? If this is sooooo important to you, maybe you should fill out a Zagat survey after church and rate their customer service.)
3. Does the place look like they were expecting me?(What does this look like? Should the church set up VIP box seats for me and my entourage?)
4. Are people buzzing as they greet each other?(We call this the bee hive test and we have no clue what it means.)
5. Is there spirited music playing as people gather?(What does this mean? Should we be listening for Lynard Skynard music?
6. Does the music move me?(How me-centered and vain can you get?? So I'm supposed to show up at a church unannounced, expect to be given the VIP treatment and demand that the music move ME. What if I am only "moved" by opera music? Should I let the church know that I won't be back until they change the music to suit my 'moving' needs?" Here's a better question, "Does the music exalt Christ and what He accomplished for us on the cross or does it exalt me?"
7. Do the people on stage look real and engaged?(We'll I guess this test rules out every church that doesn't have a stage. Furthermore, we are now supposed to think and act like Simon Cowell from American Idol. Maybe we can provide the church with post-performance feedback like, "Sorry this performance didn't do it for me. Your wardrobe was attrocious, your vocals we're pitchy and you seemed a bit nervous. I didn't feel like you we're being real and engaged. I'll be finding a different church to attend next week."
8. Are the announcements short, strategic, and to the point?(We wouldn't want to have a single precious minute wasted having to hear about the church picnic now would we?)
9. Is there a printed outline with Scripture already printed on it?(Ah yes. Expecting people to bring their own Bibles, flip pages, follow along and take their own notes is now a sure and certain sign that a church doesn't care about people.)
10. Does the pastor smile?(Joel Osteen smiles a lot and he teaches false doctrine.)
11. Does the message title promise a relevant topic I am interested in?(God has His own agenda and things He wants me to know and learn from Scripture. These are messages I need to hear whether I want to hear them or not. Going to church with the expectation that I'm going to hear a message that is relevant "to me" brushes God's truth aside and turns me into my own god.)
12. Does the pastor speak with humility and authority?(Who cares? There are FAR more important questions that need to be answered. Questions like...Does he speak the truth? Does he rightly handle the word of God? Does he teach what is in accord with sound doctrine? Are his sermons Christ-Centered and Cross-Focused?)
13. Do I feel the presence of God?(What does this feel like? Is it goose bumps or a liver shiver? This is pure subjectivity! How on earth does this question tell us anything?! "Sorry I can't stay at this church because I didn't get goose bumps during the sermon.")
14. Are people listening and engaged?(The members of Jim Jone's church listened and were engaged and look what happened to them. This question tells us nothing.)
15. Is the service no more than 71 minutes?(Me. Me. Me. It's all about ME. "I don't want to have to spend more than 71 minutes in church cause I get bored. Plus I've got precious me time scheduled for Sunday afternoon. So hurry it up Pastor!")
16. Does it pass by fast?(See our commentary for question 15.)
This list clearly demonstrates the extent to which the me-centered, narcissistic, entertainment hungry American church has fallen. How ironic is it that a PASTOR is the one who compiled this list of questions? Aren't pastors supposed to feed us the word of God and condemn our sinful vanities and deeds and preach the transforming message of the Gospel; the message that transforms us from self-centered sinners into 'Christ-Like' children of God?
Anyone who is evaluating a church based on these criteria needs to repent of their me-centered sinful thoughts and deeds an come humbly before God and beg for his forgiveness for ever buying into such wickedness!

Why Pray to the Real Jesus?

Do you desire a more interactive savior? When you talk to Jesus do you need immediate feedback? You're in luck. Rather than praying to the REAL Jesus you can now talk directly to Virtual Jesus (VJ). According to VJ's website:
"Soon over 2.1 billion Christians worldwide will be able to have private, verbal conversations with virtual Jesus from any phone, anytime, anywhere on a daily basis. TalkToJesus will use advanced speech and AI technology to enable millions to develop a personal, lasting relationship with the Lord–in a whole new way.
Jesus will have a soothing, caring and inspiring voice. He will learn your name and address you personally. He will get to know you and develop a personal relationship with you."
So let's see here. We now have 2 options. We can either use the 'tradional' method (prayer) of building a relationship with Jesus or we can have an immediate interactive 'relationship' with Virtual Jesus.
VJ is NOT the REAL Jesus. VJ is a computer program. Oddly enough the REAL Jesus warned us about VJ. Here is what the REAL Jesus said about the last days:
Matthew 24:21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 False christs and false prophets will arise...

Pig Out BBQ and Baptism

This post will be controversial even by our standards because it falls into a grey area. Some of you will be upset by what this church has done and others of you will be upset that people are upset because you don't think this is a big deal at all. But we offer it to you as a 'think piece' exhibit.
Below is a composite of photographs taken at a church event billed as the "Pig Out BBQ and Baptism".
There was a time when Baptism was considered a Holy and Sacred thing. It was approached with the reverence befitting a holy gift from God. But, today's seeker-sensitive, 'mimic the world' approach to doing church has reduced baptism to something that is now done at a 'Pig Out BBQ'. We at the Museum of Idolatry would be ashamed to allow ourselves to be baptized at a 'Pig Out BBQ'.
We mourn for the loss of the sacred the reverent and the holy in our churches.
What's next "Poker, Karaoke and Baptism Night"? Imagine how relevant and irreverent that would be.

"I Believe in Jesus, Not Doctrine"

Quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones . . .
You cannot separate what a man believes from what he is. For this reason doctrine is vitally important. Certain people say ignorantly, "I do not believe in doctrine; I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; I am saved, I am a Christian, and nothing else matters". To speak in that way is to court disaster, and for this reason, the New Testament itself warns us against this very danger. We are to guard ourselves against being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine", for if your doctrine goes astray your life will soon suffer as well.
So it behoves us to study the doctrines in order that we may safeguard ourselves against certain erroneous and heretical teachings that are as rife and as common in the world today as they were in the days of the early Church. http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.446
From:
Exposition to Ephesians

The Evil Consequences of Plexiglas Preaching

Armed with a "big business" mentality, many in the seeker-sensitive movement have replaced Bible-based sermons with anecdote-filled talks. After all, that's the stuff that sells. What happens when preachers put the seeker before the Savior and abandon God's Word for ear-tickling entertainment. Often the result is superficial, marginally biblical preaching.
There are plenty of gifted communicators in the modern evangelical movement, but today's sermons tend to be short, shallow, topical homilies that massage people's egos and focus on fairly insipid subjects like human relationships, "successful" living, emotional issues, and other practical but worldly - and not definitively biblical-themes. Like the ubiquitous Plexiglas lecterns from which these messages are delivered, such preaching is lightweight and without substance, cheap and synthetic, leaving little more than an ephemeral impression on the minds of the hearers.
This article is an abridged version of John MacArthur's list of 15 negative effects of the superficial brand of preaching that is so rife in modern evangelicalism. These points are found in John MacArthur's book "Fool's Gold?: Discerning Truth In An Age Of Error"but you will also find them explained in detail - through the link at the bottom of this page.
It usurps the authority of God over the soul.
It removes the lordship of Christ from His church.
It hinders the work of the Holy Spirit.
It demonstrates appalling pride and a lack of submission.
It severs the preacher personally from the regular sanctifying grace of Scripture.
It clouds the true depth and transcendence of our message and therefore cripplesboth corporate and personal worship.
It prevents the preacher from fully developing the mind of Christ.
It depreciates by example the spiritual duty and priority of personal Bible study.
It prevents the preacher from being the voice of God on every issue of his time.
It breeds a congregation that is as weak and indifferent to the glory of God as their pastor.
It robs people of their only true source of help.
It encourages people to become indifferentto the Word of God and divine authority.
It lies to people about what they really need.
It strips the pulpit of power.
It puts the responsibility on the preacher to change people with his cleverness.
Church History
Listen to a shortaudio clip
By John MacArthur:The Preaching of the Reformers
What did they preach about in the 16th century,and how?
6 minutes, 750k MP3
Read the explanations for each of the 15 points, at: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/plexiglas-sf1.htm

Acts Church: Built Through Purity Not Pragmatism

The display of wrath within the Acts 5 church caused not two, but three casualties: Ananias, Sapphira, and the legitimacy of today's Seeker-Sensitive movement. In this chapter of the bible, God makes it clear to anyone who has eyes to see, that His priorities are different than the aims of modern pragmatism. In the Acts 5 church, we see the co-existence of two things that many today would think are in opposition with one another: 1) Unbelieving "seekers" were scared away from the church, and 2) God still grew His church.
Let's take a closer look at the first 14 verses of Acts 5:
1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much." And she said, "Yes, for so much." 9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
12 Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. 14 And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,
If God had the same priorities that modern pragmatists do, why would He display his wrath in such a way, so as to scare all of the seekers away? If He were seeker-sensitive, God would do everything in His power to make the Church of Acts: warm, inviting, relevant, uplifting, even entertaining.
The reality seems to be, that God has some other things (such as holiness) prioritized higher than the modern goal of "get them to come to church at almost any cost".
Listen to what John MacArthur's New Testament Commentary on The Book of Acts has to say about this passage:
The church that would reach the world must be pure; it must be a church that deals with sin. God displayed the importance He places on the purity of His church by His dramatic judgment of Ananias and Sapphira. While God may still intervene directly in the lives of sinning Christians (1 Cor. 11:30), disciplining sinning believers is the responsibility of each congregation.
Sadly, church discipline is practically an ignored duty today. It has fallen prey to the unbiblical notion that loving people and building up their self-esteem means tolerating their sin. Biblical love, however, seeks this well-being of others. ... The impure, worldly church that is the inevitable result of the absence of confronting holiness will not be an effective witness for Jesus Christ. ...
The swift judgment of Ananias and Sapphira kept the half-hearted and uncomitted from joining the Christians. The practice of sternly dealing with sin helps maintain a pure church. People do not rush to join a church that will expose their sin. Discipline is thus an essential key to evangelism, because it purifies the church and keeps the shallow and merely curious away. It is startling to see churches today that will purposely not make sin an issue so as to attract the shallow and the curious.
Many pastors fear that the practice of church discipline will drive people away and ruin their churches. It will drive away those who love their sin, but attract those who hate it and seek repentance and righteousness. Despite the strict discipline imposed by God so that unbelievers feared to associate with the church, (Acts 5 tells us) "more than ever believers were added" to the exploading church. ... The means of this growth was purity.
Uncompromising commitment to holiness characterized these believers... They were a fearful group, and that kept those who loved their sin away, and those who wanted forgiveness of sin near. That stands in sharp contrast to the masses of uncommitted, even unsaved, people that feel comfortable in the church today. The failure of churches to preach holy living, and to discipline those who dont live that way, allows sinners and hypocrites to remain in the church, convoluting it's direction, sapping it's power, robbing it of purity, and marring it's testimony. Men may build their churches with a tolerance for sin, but the Lord builds His among people who love holiness and hate and expose sin.
The Lord Jesus Christ wants total commitment. Only those who are willing to forsake all, including sin, and lose their lives in submission to Him, are worthy to be His followers. A church made up of such people will be a pure church, with a powerful testimony to the world.
For more biblical critique of the Seeker-Sensitive / Purpose Driven movements, see: "Pragmatism Missing in Ezekiel"

Real Relevance: Only By The Whole Counsel of God

Quoting John Murray . . .
A great deal is being said nowadays about the necessity of relevance, and in certain circles it is being asserted that the scripture as it was understood by Christians in the first century is not relevant to modern man; that, conditioned as he is to the scientific worldview, it is impossible to accept the framework in which the New Testament is cast. It is not to be denied that the gospel proclaimed must be relevant, that it must be presented to men where they are, and meet their needs in the situations in which they find themselves. But one thing must be said. It is only by the proclamation of the whole counsel of God, particularly regarding sin, misery, and the judgment of God, that men will discover where they are and begin to assess their need.
Much of the plea for relevance proceeds on the premise that what men assess as their need, and demand for the satisfaction of this need, is that to which the gospel must be adjusted. The result is that the solution proposed and the message proclaimed are accommodations to humanly conceived and framed demands.
There is the basic fallacy that men apart from the conviction created and conditioned by law and gospel are able to know what their real situation and needs are. It is God's judgment respecting sin and misery that must be brought to bear upon men where they are and where they find themselves. When this priority is not observed, then all presumed relevance is a distortion of the gospel. ...
We must unashamedly and uncompromisingly declare the whole counsel of God, so that men, in conviction, will be made relevant to the gospel. This is the relevance Reformation requires and it is the relevance that Reformation will bring.