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.

'Decisions For Christ' - The Measure of Success?

Trophies for "decisions" are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God's blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we'll explore the claims, concept, and counting of "decisions for Christ".
Within a few days of the annual Christmas musicals this last year, church-blogs everywhere began to light-up with claims of success. So often however, I noticed that "success" was being defined mathematically; here's an example of one church who reported 72 decisions for Christ that night. But it's not just a Christmas phenomenon; these conversion-reports are wide-spread in evangelicalism today. Here are some more examples:
A pastor of one seeker sensitive church claimed 1,879 decisions in a single year. Being enamored with these 'results', he declared: "There have not been in all of church history that many churchesthat have touched as many lives", unquote.
Another pastor preached a sermon on "Your Best Life Now" (apparently based on Joel Osteen's book), and said afterwards - this produced many decisions for Christ.
One pragmatic pastor who offers input on my blog occasionally, insists that all of this represents a great modern revival. Here are some more examples:
A basketball ministry that claims 6,000 decisions in one year.
There's a Superbowl outreach that produced 1,200 decisions.
A movie that led to 2,300 decisions in one weekend.
The Power Team even makes conversion predictions ahead of time.
The most dramatic example I've seen, is the account of one man, who was said to have influenced over one million decisions for Christ in his lifetime. That's Bill Bright. And we are told that a movie that he created lead to more than 200 million decisions.
Let's bring an historical element into this discussion. I'm amazed at how long some of history's greatest missionaries waited before seeing their very first convert. Why didn't they quit in discouragement, and how many of today's pragmatic pastors would have been willing to wait this long?:
William Carey was in India for seven years before he baptized his first convert.
David Livingstone served eight years in Africa before seeing anyone converted.
Adoniram Judson in Burma, six years.
Hudson Taylor in China, waited ten years!
Now with that bit of information from church history in mind, consider some of these claims:
A group of students on one recent missionary excursion in Buenos Aires claimed 1,477 decisions in a single day.
Another missionary trip saw thousands of decisions for Christ in a single week.
How can we explain the fact that a group of students ended up being radically more effective in initial outreach than the most well-known missionaries in church history? Were the missionaries of the past simply not smart enough to come up with innovative and culturally relevant outreach techniques? Could it be that there is really some massive revival going on today, that wasn't going on during the greatest century of missions? The more likely explanation is that Christian ministers of past centuries looked at lasting conversions, where as today - the short-sighted focus is on counting immediate "decisions".
Going back in church history, we see a more discerning attitude, that resisted making immediate conversion claims. George Whitefield, who was a leader in the 18th century Great Awakening, made it a practice to delay judgment until months or years down the road. Whitefield's reasoning for this was, you simply can't know right away. He said:
"There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm".
A century later, Charles Spurgeon was also very outspoken against potentially boastful and self-validating conversion claims, saying:
"Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battle-field? "Last night, 14 souls were under conviction, 15 were justified, and 8 received full sanctification". I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime". [read more]
He had the same common-sense that Whitefield had a century earlier. It's a common-sense that seems to be very much lacking today:
"It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over".
Today, we see examples of what Spurgeon referred to as conversions based on emotional 'excitements', not only in churches, but also in concerts:
Tony Nolan of the LifeSong Christian concert tour was said to have: "shared the gospel with humor and truth and over 1/4th of the audience made first-time decisions for Christ! Yes, that's right 765 people changed their eternal destiny".
Another series of concerts (Winter Jam) generated 35,000 decisions
Christian heavy metal rock group Stryper (pictured) is said to be responsible for decisions and healings
Rebecca St. James' recent concert tour created 15,000 decisions.
The singer Carman joins Bill Bright as another human attributed with one million decisions
I have no doubt that amongst the multitudes of "decisions" today, there are some that God has truly saved in the midst of it all, but as Michael Penfold explains, the vast majority of "decisions" simply end up "backsliding". Ernest Reisinger was right when he said:
"Too often modern evangelicalism has substituted a 'decision' in the place of repentance and saving faith. Forgiveness is preached without the equally important truth that the Spirit of God must change the heart. As a result decisions are treated as conversions even though there is no evidence of a supernatural work of God in the life."
The question I get inevitably asked is, "if SOME true converts are coming out of modern evangelistic methods - some is better than none, right?". But we need only look to the lessons learned from the Burned-Over District to realize that more harm can be done than good. Like others in that time period, Spurgeon actually saw danger in the new revivalism that was coming on the scene in his day (and is still with us today), saying:
"Sometimes we are inclined to think that a very great portion of modern revivalism has been more a curse than a blessing, because it has led thousands to a kind of peace before they have known their misery; restoring the prodigal to the Father's house, and never making him say, 'Father, I have sinned'."
At the root of all of this is a common error in modern times, known as "Decisional Regeneration". It teaches that man essentially has the power to cause himself to become born again by making a "decision". We saw this misunderstanding in the Christian concert description above, where it said "765 people changed their eternal destiny". The Purpose Driven Life book teaches it, encouraging the reader to pray a simple life changing prayer. Though they usually don't think of it in these terms, so many church leaders today believe they are getting man to save himself by making a "decision". But Decisional Regeneration is simply not biblical, nor does it have historical precedent prior the the 19th century.
More articles on related topics:
Read how numeric results can be deceptive
Study how God told Ezekiel not to engage in results-based ministry
Read how convert counting in the SBC is being questioned
Find out if you are evangelizing for the wrong reasons
What do the letters to Timothy have to say about numeric results?
Read how this current "revival" isn't really a revival after all
Learn from the bible "How God Converts The Human Soul" (video series)

Wrong Evangelism Fails To Start With Doctrine

Quoting Martyn Lloyd-Jones . . .
The trouble with all false evangelism is that it does not start with doctrine, it does not start by realizing man's condition. All fleshly, carnal, man-made evangelism is the result of inadequate understanding of what the apostle teaches us in the first ten verses of this second chapter of Ephesians. If you and I but realized that every man who is yet a sinner is absolutely dominated by 'the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience', if we only understood that he is really a child of wrath and dead in trespasses and sins, we would realize that only one power can deal with such an individual, and that is the power of God, the power of the Holy Ghost. And so we would put our confidence, not in man-made organizations, but in the power of God, in the prayer that holds on to God and asks for revival and a descent of the Spirit. We would realize that nothing else can do it.
We can change men superficially, we can win men to our side and to our party, we can persuade them to join a church, but we can never raise the spiritually dead; God alone can do that. The realization of these truths would of necessity determine and control all our evangelism.
From:
Exposition of Ephesians 2