Can I get away with this redaction? I mean, the popular media gets away with it all the time. There are 1.4 billion people online, and it was reported that in 2005 there were 50 million blogs growing at one per second. You can say just about anything about people with little accountability.
With the advent of drums messages traveled at the speed of sound with a one note band witdh, but hey, it was an improvement over yelling or running to the next village. Still, it mattered what rhyme was in the rhythm.
One of the advantages of the internet is the full spectrum access to information. No generation has known the likes. While the advantage is obvious, the dangers loom large as well. HD has not arrived when it comes to information dependability.
Anyone who is familiar with the tug and toe of the popular media is familiar with the claims that opposing sides make about bias. Accusations are made. Things are taken out of context and reproduced as matter of fact. The danger of internet traffic is considerably more dynamic when we add blogs to the mix. It is an economy of scale. It may be bigger and cheaper, mass produced as it is, but not necessarily better or safer and is subject to more vulnerabilities of market place competition and fraud than a conversation behind closed doors with someone you know. Just how one navigates these waters and arrives safely on shore begins to take on proportions similar to navigating mined waters in a hurricane.
For those of us on this side of the great echange: we need more than just a few keyboard strokes to be able to discern the truth. And here’s the problem, once we have found the truth we have no option but to tell everyone:
And we have another problem, we have to know its the truth. This post though is not so much about that, but what we do with the truth presented to us:
If you’ve managed to get through Mr. Turk’s reasoning then listen to Driscoll and ask yourself: “What?” His advice is better than Warren’s! We only wish he would take his own:
Driscoll needs to, and he needs to go deeper. By remaining in the pulpit though, he has done what centuri0n lists as Warren instruction:
Shout louder than your critics to define yourself and do not allow them to define you.
And he has shown over the half year or so since his humility teaching that he has done very little to implement his own instruction. But, I will leave it to you to decide. There is good criticism and bad, bad receivers of it and good. What Driscoll outlines here is good, what Warren instructs, is bad.
The point of this post: How then shall we put the right answers with the right questions that critics ask so that we might avoid self deception:
To be a rock and not to role by everywind of doctrine and the cunning and craftiness of men by which the lie in wait to decieve. But that is not the point here, the point is how are we to understand criticism.Which is another way of saying, how are we to be discipled and are we ever above it?
Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and with meekness receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls.
These Guys are lonely. Go see em at God’s speed.
It was said:
Funny thing is, without the Bible men of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But, equally as interesting. We only know that because what they spoke, they wrote down.
Here is the progression. All things remain the same as they were in the beginning. What can be know of God has been revealed. Paul said so in Romans, but let’s see what he was talking about: John said in John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.
No one is good except God alone… I am the light of the world.
John also bore witness that Jesus was the light.
The Gospel is proclaimed in the opening verses of Genesis. It is written that the Heavens and the Earth declare his Glory. Of Jesus it is said:
He is the radiance of the glory of God.
It is not the revelation that progresses, it is eternal, for it is of God himself, eternal. Time progresses but the revelation remains unchanged without shadow or turning, from the very first to the very end, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. To the wise this remains hidden and it has pleased God to reveal it to babes. Jesus said unless a man is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The conclusion is that the revelation is always there in its fulness, but the ability of man to see requires that it be unveiled by the new birth. It was said that in many ways, and in diversity, God revealed himself, but, when in the fullness of time, God finally, in the final analysis, has spoken in his Son. Not a new revelation, not a new light, but the same light in which God dwells, unapproachable.
Revelation does not continue in flux, changing, progressing. Revelation is timeless. It is the prologue and the epilogue, the Revelation of Jesus Christ which is the Spirit of Prophecy. It should not surprise anyone that the blind cannot see that which has always been, for a rational man would understand that blindness is not the voiding of the revelation, nor is sight the creation of it. But, blindness is the veil which God has drawn over the corpses of men born dead so that they cannot perceive that which is in front of them all the time. And except that they are created anew, they cannot see. The law, that is the prophecy spoken or written, by the stars or by men below is meaningless to those who have not been made anew from above. Only those given new eyes, the renting of the veil by God coming down to deliver a new man with a new life can see what has always been. That it is to God to whom all glory belongs, who has revealed himself in his creation so that no man has any excuse but to fall upon his face is awe of him who is the creator.
In the beginning the waters were upon the deep and out of them he brought forth the life of man on earth where there was no life. Out of the floods of child birth he brought for the fruit of life from the womb of one who was dead. Out of the waters of the flood he brought forth Noah and set him on high, seated in the heavens as it were with God, bringing him forth from the womb of an ark made from the earth which was dead. Out of the Nile he brought a child as one born a second time from waters of death to life. Out of the sea Moses brought a people who were as dead men in a land of firstborn men put to death. Out of the Jordan he brought forth Jesus, a man born from the womb of one who was as dead. It was he who would lead all who he would make to live by his death, through the vail of his flesh that gushed out water and blood. Through the tears of those who mourned until he rose, through his resurrection, he brought his people to live evermore, never to die again. It was he, who having come through a baptism that no other could, finally stood upon the mountain of the Lord where he ascended to be seated on high forever as God. Nothing has changed. God still today reveals himself as he did in the beginning. He comes to the children in the Garden to give them new garments of life, washed clean from the waters of death, birthed anew. But, the dead cannot see, though they watch on. Even though Revelation of God stands before them, revealed in heaven and earth eternally the Truth, the dead cannot receive the reality that is before their eyes, for their eyes are veiled in death, their eyes see only evil continually.
You will enjoy Sir Dan Phillips’ piece and while you’re contemplating dig this.
Or, if you aren’t ready to puke yet.
Such a condition of the world ought to cause the choice between modernism and traditionalism, liberalism and conservatism, to be approached without any of the prejudice which is too often displayed. In view of the lamentable defects of modern life, a type of religion certainly should not be commended simply because it is modern or condemned simply because it is old. On the contrary, the condition of mankind is such that one may well ask what it is that made the men of past generations so great and the men of the present generation so small. In the midst of all the material achievements of modern life, one may well ask the question whether in gaining the whole world we have not lost our own soul. Are we forever condemned to live the sordid life of utilitarianism? Or is there some lost secret which if rediscovered will restore to mankind something of the glories of the past? Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not the religion of the modern liberal Church, but a message of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth once more in God’s good time, in a new Reformation, and bring light and freedom to mankind. What that message is can be made clear, as is the case with all definition, only by way of exclusion, by way of contrast. In setting forth the current liberalism, now almost dominant in the Church, over against Christianity, we are animated, therefore, by no merely negative or polemic purpose; on the contrary, by showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from the weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.
The object of liberalism is to create the one world church through an ecumenism that eviscerates the timeless truth of Scripture. So, as I have already given you much to think on, think on this also:
Got a widows’ role at your church, or do you let the state-church provide SS for them and claim that whatever your mothers might have received from you is dedicated to social work? Why does Scripture proscribe who is to get subsistence from the church? And, have you established those first works? Do you care for your elders? Or have you relegated that responsibility to the government-church, also, or to some associational retirement annuity program? Are you raising up elders that you will have to provide for, provided they have served the Gospel faithfully? Have you disenfranchised the familial relationship and replaced it with a relationship with the state, or program, which cannot feel, see, speak, care, or love? 1 Timothy 5 Why would Jesus put the work of the Gospel, that is the proclamation of his death before the care of the poor?
“…an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table…when the disciples saw it, they were indignant…“Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” …Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him)…“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” …not because he cared about the poor…because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it…Jesus…said…“Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you…she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” (Why? That we should care for the poor first? Or that charity is secondary, just as it is in the commandments?) …Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests…“What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?”…they paid him thirty pieces of silver… from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.”
To betray what? The Word of God. Such are the wages of the betrayal of Jesus for a social justice gospel. Remembering, that Judas was a political zealot, advancing the cause of liberation and relief of the poor and oppressed of his world. Why does Jesus make care of the poor an individual action, outside the scope of the necessary work of the church; the equipping of saints with doctrinal maturity so that they are not children driven by every wind? Why is it that we are instructed that: Having food and clothing we are to be content there with, and not to pursue treasures on earth, either for ourselves or for others that we might share in theirs? Instead we are to prepare for tribulation, hardship, lack and the abundance of grace to persevere in the face of beatings, imprisonments, despair. What then is our message to the world: economic equalization, peace, mutual property, abundance: No, but having abandoned all, even while having the worlds goods, we determine individually what good we are to do, so that we have a peace the world cannot share because his grace is sufficient, because his power is made evident in our weaknesses.
Do you think you keep the commandments? Then go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor. Which of you has done so? Why wait if it is what you are to do so that it is in those things that you place your trust? But, be sure to keep the whole law, for if you fail in one point, you bear the guilt of all. If the grace that you believe has saved you is to you what you do, or do not do, it is not grace. And, do not condemn your brother for failing to keep the law which has not saved you. Why make him twice the servant of hell, when it is for freedom that Christ has set him free.
Then who is your neighbor, who is your brother, your sister, father, mother? Is it not those who keep the commandments? Yes, yet not one is able to do so. Have you taken care of the neighbor next to you in the pew? Surely Jesus has said, it is his disciples, who keep the commandments. Do you have an elders’ role, a widows’ role? Friends and families, whose needs you’ve met? Are they only those who have washed the feet of the saints? For that is the requisite; discipleship. Or, do you give indiscriminately? Not taking care of your own family? If you do not discriminate, you are in sin, and your works of charity are merely narcissistic exorcisms, for Jesus did not do miracles where there was unbelief and left the country of those who had no place in their heart for Him. Have you taken care of the members of your own family first, your own church family first? Who among you is poor then? There should not be one. If you have not taken care of them, Scripture condemns you as worse than an unbeliever, for unbelievers take care of their own and you do not.
Let each man then begin with what is written and do not leave it. For the little ones are “these my disciples”, and your neighbor who is your enemy are those who are your friends and family if they eat and drink of the blood of Christ. Feed them. For that is his commandment, that if you do not feed them him you are not eating him, and you cannot share in the body of Christ. “For I have meat to eat that you know not of, my meat is to do the will of him who sent me,” cf. Isaiah 61. And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.”
The co opting of the Gospel has been done before. The great social welfare systems of Nazi Germany, of fascists in general, are predicated upon the “good-works” gospel, theistic, or atheistic, which is no gospel at all. It is slight of hand, a diversion; the promise of favor with God, rewards for the things that you do, a heaven on earth. Fascisms operate by the power of the state-church, seizing one man’s property and giving it to the “more deserving poor”, (themselves). Like priestlings, they go about granting indulgences and absolution in the perfect state that they promise will come about by their guidance if we but submit to them.
The natural question, is just who is it that determines, who is my neighbor, who is poor? The government, the church, or is it the disciple, guided by the truth of Scripture, empowered by the Holy Spirit, who must first determine to faithfully dedicate ointment to the preparation of the proclamation of the Gospel, then these things will be added? Is it the heart of compulsion under law, or is it from what each man purposes in his own heart to give, not from compulsion or in fear? Is it first seek his kingdom and righteousness, then…? Should one give from fear of punishment from friends, family, the king, or condemnation from the Lord? Is it charity at all to support welfare programs that seize your neighbors tithe as an offering of the temple tax, or is it as Christ says, that it is the children of the King who are free, because they are those who receive the tithes to themselves, paying nothing. And who shall I feed when it is left up to me? My son here with me who is about to perish, or the prophet? Which takes priority? The widow with two minas gave all. Should we not commend the poor to do likewise? Which of you has sold all, or done as the woman of sin, and dedicated it to the Gospel, first, to follow him- instead of the bellowing trumpets of “feed the poor self-savers”? The woman of sin was commended and her story preserved as a memorial to her, over against the complaint of the “build a kingdom of God on earth Judases”. The message is simple. Do you get it? If you are advocating the care of the poor, requisite to the proclamation of the Gospel, you are Judas’, false disciples.
These are real questions and assertions, not just the blind following and belching of the emergent/new age mystic/progressivist/liberalism. I could continue to slash a hundred appellatives for the freak show of movements within the bounds of the “church.” Why is this the case? It is because the principle of Sola Scriptura is abandoned. The true dividing line between the true and false. They are simple admonitions- remain with in the boundaries taught by the apostles and prophets, lay no other foundation except Christ, do not add to, nor take away.
The first move of the enemy is to bring in to question the meaning of the text. Then to suggest that it is not directly knowable. Then to suggest that each man must for himself determine its meaning, experientially. Which necessitates that man becomes the determiner of his own reality; an occult spirituality. Then, when the enemy has emptied the mind of truth, he pours meaning into what has become meaninglessness. For that is what it is to determine for oneself the knowledge of good, and of evil. In the final analysis, it is the desire to become God, to choose for oneself what is right and what is wrong. To the contrary, Scripture commands us to become, each one convinced in his own mind such that it must be that we share this one faith, this one mind of Christ, once and for all delivered to the saints, not given for private interpretation, but God speaking through his words of knowledge of the Holy One. But first, one must abandon all hope in this world, for on this side of eternity: “The poor, you will have, always.”
Said shortly after the NBC conference in Atlanta.
How do you define the inerrancy of the Word? This is a sincere question.
There is no way to give a simple short definition of inerrancy. But I will give you point four in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
But, if you want a simple statement by Christ:
Scripture cannot be broken—
In the end some will say that they do not believe that because they will argue that we do not know that we have all the Scripture, without error and infallible. They will argue that and more to justify their rejection of it as the final authority in belief and practice.
The end of the arguement is that people like Jimmy Carter claim that they are Christian, yet at the same time say that no one knows what a Christian is, so they will say:
As far as some of you judging whether or not anyone is a Christian, God does not and will not give you that right.
The Scripture says however:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared…
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness… If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
Is it true that:
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
How does one know that, or to love his neighbor as himself if he is not sure that the commandment is without error?
Though we may not know what is in the heart of a man in the way Christ did, we can define them as Christian or not. If anyone does not bring this doctrine let them be accursed. To deny the inerrancy of Scripture is to deny Christ’s own Word. We have a sure prophecy, but the Carterites do not. They deny that such a thing exists. By their own definition they are not without error in their faith. But, we have a faith which is sure and certain.
Without this clarity, the fact is that throughout their “Christian” life they have not known for sure their salvation; if it is as they admit that the Scripture may be in error when it says that those who are believing in Christ have eternal life.
Some will say,
The Spirit of the Lord was there.
But, Paul said that those who do not hold this doctrine are accursed. It is hard to imagine then, that the Spirit who is given to us, to lead us in to all Truth, could be any where that the purpose of those who attended was to assert that they do not believe that we have the inerrant infallible Truth of God. Carterites, and the anti-SBC (NBCC) are a walking contradiction of Truth, by their own admission. How deceptive then that someone might “feel” that the Lord of Truth was there, when indeed, he only inhabits the perfect praises of his people. The Doxas of his presence is not granted to those who doubt his Word.
I am gentle and do not wish to offend.
Please go ahead and offend. Hypocrisy is free to be had by all. Morality contestation is not the issue, how can it be? Truth is. What we want to know from the likes of Carter and Campolo, is do they uphold the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Mormons are people of good morals, so are Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists…. But, what good are good works? Is it good works works to believe God is true to his Word. We are justified by the words we speak, the word of faith, and everyman out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth some things Old and New. So, I will testify to his Word and not mine. And, as Jesus said,
You will know them by their fruits,
referring directly to their doctrines, that is, the leavening of their speech. A man is saved by faith alone, and not works, also as Jesus said:
Your faith has saved you; go in peace.
But some say that,
it is not believing in Scripture without error that saves.
My question then to them is: If you do not believe Jesus’ statement to be without error by what fiat do you have peace by the faith which you claim to be saved, seeing as the faith once and all delivered to the saints cannot be trusted?
Paul made the words of his Gospel to be one and the same with the faith that saves. So did Christ, whose Gospel said:
Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.
interceding for us with this:
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Of course, if there is no word that we can know that is without error, there is no sanctification that we can know that is without defilement, because there is no Truth that can be known infallibly. It is therefore, as Paul said, anathema, to call the word of God unclean, a mixed cup of error and truth. So, anyone bringing the doctrine of errancy, cannot be considered Christian because they cannot be said to be cleansed by the blood of Christ testified to by His Word. And even though they emotionally strive for acceptance, it is the word itself that rejects them.