Question: Application of judgments of the early church councils

This is something I have been thinking about recently, and I would like some help from my readers. The question is:

The various early church councils, especially the ecumenical ones, took a stand on various positions, contra Arianism, Pelagianism etc. On top of that, they pronounce anathema on adherents of the various heresies. Now, since their position is biblical, and they were written and signed by the elders, bishops, pastors etc. of the early church to be made binding on all Christians, to what extent are their judgments authoritative for us now?

What I mean by this questions is this: As Christians, are we to follow the judgments of these councils, since their position is bilbical (as opposed to something like the Council of Trent which is unbiblical)? Since these early church leaders unaminously pass judgment on all who follow these heresies, are we to follow their lead and anathemize all who follow those same heresies, i.e. Arianism, Sabellianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, monothelitism, monophysitism etc.? I mean, after all, these judgments were pronounced by elders, pastors, and bishops, as an expression of the universal and visible Church of Christ at a certain period in history! As an application, are we at liberty to anathemize T. D. Jakes unless he repents of his false Gospel?

Do think about this, tell me your answer, and why you think your position is correct according to the Scriptures.

Statement regarding anti-Catholicism: How it ought to be written

Someone has feedbacked to me regarding this post of mine, suggesting that I did not differentiate from anti-Catholicism in the religious aspect (a polemical expression from the mouths of Catholic apologists which mean nothing), with anti-Catholicism in the sociological aspect, which the document I am critiquing is standing against. Note that I am definitely against discriminating against Catholics sociologically, however, this is not what the document is saying only. To stand against discimination of Catholics ≠ also stating that they are brother and sisters in Christ, which they are not, and which this document also do. Just for those who may not get it, I am hereby rephrasing this document to show that it is possible to stand against anti-Catholic sociological discrimination while never elevating them to brethren in the Lord, with the changed portions in red.

---

As Protestant Christians and as Americans, we condemn the grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry that is now on display as a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion.

We denounce as particularly odious a cartoon published by the Philadelphia Inquirer depicting the five justices who formed the majority in the case wearing Catholic bishops' mitres. Scarcely less offensive were the comments of law professor, and former University of Chicago Law School Dean, Geoff Stone identifying the Catholic religious affiliation of the justices forming the majority and accusing these distinguished and honorable jurists of imposing their religion rather than faithfully interpreting the Constitution.

We believe it is our particular duty to condemn the bigotry we are now witnessing in view of the history of anti-Catholicism in our nation. It is a stain on the Protestant Christian conscience that at one time many of our people accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanshard in his book American Freedom and Catholic Power, and supported the anti-Catholic agenda of the group founded by Blanshard and others that now styles itself "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" (formerly known as Protestants and other Americans united for Separation of Church and State).

Just as Pope John Paul II acknowledged past injustices committed by Catholics, or committed in the name of Catholicism, against Protestants, Jews, and others and pledged to work against any revival of these injustices, we acknowledge past Protestant prejudices against Catholics and pledge to fight against the anti-Catholic bigotry we are now witnessing. Our Catholic brothers and sisters friends will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them.

Because evil begets evil, we are not surprised that bigotry would emerge among those who have placed themselves in the service of the moral abomination known as partial-birth abortion. For our part, we praise any judge, statesman, or citizen—irrespective of religious affiliation—who steps forward to tell the truth about the injustice of this horrific practice, or to expose the lie that baby-killing is somehow protected by our Constitution.

We call on our fellow Protestant Christians of every denomination — including those denominations that do not share our view that the life of the child in the womb must be honored and protected by law — to join with us in condemning the new anti-Catholicism that has, in the aftermath of the partial-birth abortion decision, reared its ugly head. We hope that no Protestant Christian will bring shame on himself or herself and on the great tradition of Reformed Christianity by participating in this appalling bigotry or remaining mute in the face of it.

We also call on groups that present themselves as enemies of prejudice, including "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," to join with us in condemning the Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon and other manifestations of anti-Catholic bigotry. This is a time of testing for them. Are they selective opponents of prejudice? Do they regard anti-Catholicism as an acceptable form of bigotry? Are they content to see Catholics treated in ways that they would be the first to condemn if the victims were members of other religious traditions or minorities? By responding or failing to respond to our plea to them to join us in condemning the injustice being suffered by our Catholic fellow citizens, we will soon know whether their claim to oppose prejudice and bigotry is an honest one or mere hypocrisy.

Oh, and definitely Jim Tonkowich's statement is definitely VERY ecumenical. Just to alter it in order to render it biblical would alter perhaps half of his statements, so nevermind even trying.

Letter to NUS CCC

This is a letter I have posted to the Campus Crusade community in NUS (National University of Singapore) Science region. I am sharing this openly in the hope of encouraging the brethren.

---

Dear beloved brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:7b)

I am sharing this with you as an expression of my gratitude to all of you and as a service rendered unto our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is my hope that God will use this to encourage you and minister unto you.

I am graduating from NUS CCC this semester, and definitely I have mixed feelings. I joined Campus Crusade when I was in year one four years ago, and definitely I was much different then than I am now. Four years have come and gone, and many things I have endured, seen and experienced.

I would like to first of all thank the ministry and all of you for the love and kindness shown to me over these 4 years, and not to me only, but to many others. This was so especially during the purpose-driven crisis in my life (year 2-3), when I was shattered and hurt deeply emotionally by those whom I have placed my trust in, causing me to sink into systemic depression. I would like to thank all of you, especially those whom I have confided to in some extent or another, for the counsel and support you have given. Though I do know that some may not agree with me and even may think evil of me, and none could sympathize with me, yet you do not brush me aside as many others do, or just sprout forth useless, cheap platitudes which show the insincerity of the ‘counselor’. (Believe me when I say that I can discern whether you are sincere or not!)

During these four years, amidst much trials and testing, God has molded me and use various situations like the purpose driven crisis to break and purify me that I may grow in Him. I am forever grateful to NUS CCC for the love and support you have given me during this period of my life, and I would exhort all of you to continue to do the same to each other, and to the new freshmen who will join us, especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

Even as I graduate also, I would like to exhort each of you to godly living in Christ Jesus. In a world growing increasingly more and more wicked with each passing movement, with a widespread apostasy in the making, let us continue to shine forth for Christ and strive to win others for our Lord. As someone who has been called by the Lord as a watchman, I would like to warn all of you of the incoming tide of heresy encroaching into the churches under the guise of ‘tolerance’. I am sure many of you know that our culture is becoming enamored of the anti-Christian philosophy known as postmodernism, where absolute truth is denied. However, there is another postmodern ‘Christianity’ that Satan has synthesized for consumption in the churches, and of this I fear for all of you. It is so much easier to oppose postmodernism when its proponents are outside of the church blaspheming Christ with every breath they take, but what would you do with one who smiles and claims to belong to Christ, yet denying Him by constantly casting doubt on the Word of God? When such ‘angels of light’ appear (2 Cor. 11:14), will you give them an audience? The American churches are starting to self-destruct already due to the injection of this toxin into it as their shepherds sleep, and Singapore would follow them if we are not careful. Do we care enough about God and His truth to fight these heretics; and their new spirituality, which is just as much Christianity as salt is cheese? Take note of these ‘teachers’ and avoid them like the plague. The new movement is calling itself the ‘Emerging Church movement’ and is marked by logically nonsensical statements like “We can never know for sure whether what we think concerning the Scriptures is absolutely true”, yet they are dogmatically certain that this statement of theirs is absolutely true. Consider the implications of such theological postmodernism on steroids; you can never be sure that Christ died for you; maybe that’s not what the Bible verse was meant to mean. In fact, it is a well-documented fact that the most prominent ‘pastor’ in this movement thinks that people can go to heaven even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ (Why do evangelism, may I ask?), as written in his books A Generous Orthodoxy and The Secret Message of Jesus. (And we should demand to know from our Christian bookstores why do they sell such trash!). For more information about this movement, do check out Pastor John F. MacArthur’s new book The Truth Wars.

I hope that I have not lost any of you so far, but the fact of the matters is that we ARE fighting a spiritual war; and that on all fronts. While we are out trying to evangelize others, to share with them the Good News of our Lord Jesus Christ, we better make sure that we still have a Good News to proclaim! While we want to disciple others, we better make sure that we still have a Christianity to disciple them to! Going against the tide may not be pleasant, but I would like to ask of you how much do we actually love our Lord? Do we love Him enough to be persecuted for His sake? Or do we just pay lip service and only love Him in our songs but not our actions? The culling process has already begun in the Western churches; to separate the wheat and the chaff. Will we prove ourselves faithful, even when the world and nominal ‘Christianity’ turns against us? Are we willing to pay the price where it hurts the most? Remember that Jesus Himself warns us that nobody who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God (Lk. 9:62), and that if your love for Christ does not make your love for your own parents seem like hate (Lk. 14:26), you CANNOT be Christ’s disciple.

And this brings us to the last point: the Christian life is impossible to live! It was never meant to be lived … on your own strength alone. Even as you continue serving our Lord, it is imperative that you continue to be filled with the Holy Spirit, as apart from Christ, no one can do anything (Jn. 15:5)! I sincerely pray to our Lord for all of you that you will always remain surrendered to Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, knowing that apart from Him, you can do no good work! In fact, your attitude should be of one who knows that you cannot live without the Holy Spirit for even one second, and despair should that ever occur.

So therefore, my brethren dearly beloved in the Lord, continue to love and care for each other, of which I am indebted to all of you for your kind and loving support. Do take note of and avoid the postmodern ‘christianity’ coming towards us, as an expression of your love for Christ our Lord. Last of all, continue to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and earnestly desire Him to the extant that you cannot live without Him in your life. It is my sincere hope that NUS Campus Crusade may continue to shine forth for Him who has called us out of darkness into His glorious light, and do the work our Lord has given to her in reaching out to the lost who do not know Christ and building believers up in the Truth. I implore you on Christ’s behalf: Do not let your light go out by succumbing to the world, or to heretics. Stand firm and contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), saving others by snatching them from the fire; to others showing mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh (Jude 1:23)

Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling, to the only wise God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Him be all glory now and forevermore, worlds without end. Amen!

Pro Rege, Soli Deo Gloria (For the King; For the glory of God alone),
Daniel Chew.

Benny Hinn removing evidence (via legal force)

Seems that word-faith heretic Benny Hinn has used legal means to remove damning evidence from the web regarding his scam ministry. Oh well, at least one video is still present and could not be removed, here. See it to expose that charlatan while you still can.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Reversing the Reformation....

Just when we thought the ECT accords were bad enough, here comes another piece of trash. No, you anti-Protestants, Catholics were and are never brothers and sisters in Christ! They are no different from the Mormons down the road, and would be in eternal perdition unless they receive Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and get out of the RC communion. And any born-again Christians who remain in the RC communion is like a Christian who insists on worshipping God in a Wicccan ritual, just as detestable and abominable. To these people, repent of your sins against the Lord Almighty, or be prepared to face His wrath for your compromise.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Article: The handwriting on the wall

Here is a good article on Dan. 5 on the incident of God's handwriting on the wall which passes judgment on King Belshazzar of the Babylonian Empire. I agree with Mike in his application of the passage to post-evangelicalism today. The handwriting is already on the wall for these apostate ministers, and terrible will be the day of God's wrath against them, unless they repent.

The doctrine of separation (part 2)

[continued from here]

The doctrine of second-degree seperation states that we are to seperate from believers who compromise and are in a state of disobedience before God. It is the most controversial aspect of the doctrine of seperation since it calls for believers to seperate from other believers who compromise with the world

Now, since these errant believers are not immoral, nor do they hold on to serious doctrinal error, such seperation seemed strange and even sinful. After all, we as the body of Christ ought to be united, since Jesus did prayed for unity among believers, and that this unity is a testimony to the world that they may believe that Jesus is of God (Jn. 17:21). However, unity is not an absolute good, since unity with the world is an anathema before God. We are told in Rom. 12:18 to live peacefully with all, so far as it depends on us; or in other words, as much as we are able to. Unity is good, but unity is not something that we should work for, but something which we are to work towards. Put simply, unity is found in Christ, and we must be united to Christ, THEN united with each other, not the other way around.

The question is to be asked as to the rationale behind second-degree seperation from compromisers of the faith. The rationale behind second-degree seperation is the same behind that of first degree seperation — holiness. Second degree seperation is done because of holiness. As much as we should want unity within the body of Christ, unity is not to be purchased by compromising our obedience to God in holiness. When we collaborate with unbelievers in ministry, our witness for God is compromised, and that's why it is wrong to do so. Similarly, when we collaborate with compromisers in ministry, instead of reproving them, we are sharing in their sins. Our witness for God is sullied, as we are then associated with the heretics they work with. Furthermore, by not rebuking them for their sins, we actually hate them rather than love these compromisers (Prov. 27:5-6).

Now, there are a few concerns with regards to this doctrine. The first is the example of the present-day group of Fundamentalists, who have embraced the doctrine of seperation with an unnatural zeal, to the extant of distortion into seperatism. What, then is the difference between seperation and seperatism? Separatism is the promotion of the doctrine of seperation to the extant that we are to cut ourselves off and isolate ourselves off from any taint of evil and/or compromise. In other words, for the separatist, the principle stated in Jn. 17: 11-16 should read "Be not of this world nor in this world" instead of "Be not of this world though in the world". Yes, to a certain extent, we should 'isolate' ourselves from the world (Jude 1:20-23), but such isolation is only with regards to holiness, not that we are to 'let the world go to hell'. What is the difference, then? We are to be holy in the sense that we do not compromise our own walk with God nor our witness before God, but we should be actively reaching out to others for God (Mt. 28:18-20; Jude 1:22-23), and the latter makes the difference between the two. Another thing distinctive of seperatism is the fact that the doctrine of unity is neglected. Unity is important, and we are told to be united as much as we can (Jn. 17:21 ; Rom. 12:18). The working principle for all Christians is that we should be as united as much as it is possible to be so; not a unity at all costs, but we should desire unity if possible without compromise. Somehow, seperatism neglects this and in fact may even promote schism, instead of asking us to preserve the unity of the church where possible.

The second legimitate concern is with regards to its implementation. If second-degree seperation is practised, then wouldn't this cascade into third-degree, fourth-degree, or higher degree seperation, and if such, there would be no end and then wouldn't we have to seperate ourselves from almost all Christians? This question, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of seperation in its implementation, which would be addressed here.

Remember earlier that the doctrine of second-degree seperation is due to a need for holiness and the need for an unsullied witness before God and the world. Therefore, conversely, if something does not cause one to sully his/her witness for Christ, then there is no need to seperate from the other person. How this works out is that we may need not separate from compromising believers in every situation, only in a situation whereby the compromise is made. For example, if a person compromise in the area of working with heretics in i.e. preaching ministry, then we should seperate from the person in all forms of public ministry. However, this does not preclude that we could not meet up privately and we should definitely urge the person to repent of his/her behavior. If a person compromise in the area of collaborating with an organisation which allows heretics in, in prayer events like the GDOP (Global Day of Prayer), then we should seperate from the event itself, as joining it would link our witness with the global GDOP event and the compromise that is associated with it. However, that does not mean that we seperate from them in other forms of ministry which does not involve the GDOP.

In all these things, it must be noted that our primary motive must be the glory of God in our witness for Him. This is what second degree seperation is about, not a seperation for seperation's sake but for the glory and honor of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note also that all these is related to compromising leaders, since they are the ones who are publicly related to the act of compromise. For ordinary followers, since they are not publicly related to the act of compromise, we should not separate from them as there is no need to. If they are in error, following the stand of their errant leaders, we should all the more desire that they also turn away and reject such compromise as a blemish on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus teach and correct their errant ways, as obedience to Christ our Lord (Mt. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:24-26), as an act of love for our brethren (Prov. 27:5-6), and all for the glory of God as His bride is edified and build up (Eph. 4:12-16)

Therefore, the question of third of higher degree seperation is a red herring which misses the entire focus of the doctrine of seperation. We should not focus on how many degrees of seperation is correct, but whether by being part of the event or by working together with a compromiser in this particular ministry, that our witness for Christ would be sullied. If so, we should seperate; otherwise, we should not. When we embrace such a principle, the name of Christ would be exalted through our actions, and our testmony would not be dragged through the mud by deluded ministers who have an unbiblical view of unity and work for it at all costs.

The doctrine of separation (part 1)

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

"I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Therefore, go out from their midst, and be seperate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

and I will be father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. (2 Cor. 6:14 - 7:1)

The doctrine of seperation does not have a very illustrious past. It has been abused by fundamentalists and ignored by neo-Evangelicals. In this pertinent times in the last days, it is imperative that we recover a proper biblical perspective of seperation, and implement it. Between the seperatism of persent-day Fundamentalism and the ecumenism of Neo-evangelicalism, the cause of Christ and the Gospel has suffered tremendously. If we are to glorify God in our dealings with others (both believers and unbelievers), we must come to know and embrace the biblical doctrine of seperation.

So, what is the doctrine of seperation? The doctrine of seperation is basically the doctrine that tells us how we are to behave when relating to unbelievers and compromising believers, and seperate from them if the need arises. For this doctrine, let us first look at the principle text of 2 Cor. 6:14 - 7:1.

The first thing that we are to establish from this text is that the entire doctrine of seperation is based on a desire of holiness in the fear of God (7:1). It is because God is holy that the doctrine of seperation should be taken seriously and implemented. Closely linked to this is of course the fear of God. Only a person who fears God will obey Him when He commands us to "Be holy, as I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16). Consequently, non-implementation of this doctrine shows a lack of the fear of God in the lives of the individuals and churches who do not so implement this doctrine.

Now, this passage definitely does apply to holy living. In 6: 14b-15a, we are told that light and darkness should not mix, nor Christ and Belial (or Satan). Throughout the passage, everything which is mentioned is definitely consistent with the notion of holy living, and we ARE to live lives holy and seperate from the world for God. However, is that all there is to this passage, as neo-Evangelicals would have us believe?

In 6:14a and 15b, we are told that we believers are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. An obvious application would be in marriage. However, it goes beyond that to the area of ministry also. The words 'partnership' and 'yoked' suggest coorperation in working towards a common goal. And the terms 'temple of God' and 'idols' in verse 16 shows even further that we believers are NOT to be involved with unbelievers in any form of Christian ministry. This is further seen also in 2 Jn. 10-11 whereby we are not to allow non-Christians into our homes to teach or instruct us. Primary seperation from heretics and blasphemers is therefore demanded of all Christians, and is the first part of the doctrine of seperation. For far too many post-evangelicals, this doctrine has even been neglected, and that's why people have no problem with working with i.e. anti-Trinitarian heretics such as the Saballian 'Bishop' T.D. Jakes.

The epitome of the outworking of primary or first-degree seperation is in the example of national Israel during the OT times. Throughout the OT, Israel was to be seperate from the other nations in her national identity, her ethinicity, her religion (e.g. Deut. 7:1-5, Ez. 9), and her customs and practices (whole book of Lev.). Of course, such seperateness was necessary for the preservation of the purity of the faith until the first advent of Christ and the establishment of the Church, and the preservation of the bloodline of Jesus to be within that of the covenantal family. With regards to the issue of seperation, however, there are lessons that could be learned from Israel's example. We as the Church, spiritual Israel, are similarly a people who are set apart by God for Him (1 Peter 2:9-10). Similar to OT Israel, we are to seperate from unbelievers in order to preserve our distinct identity from the world. Between us and unbelievers, our beliefs are different, there should be no intermarriage between us and them (unless the person is converted after marriage — 1 Cor. 7:10-16), and our practices and customs are different from the world. Similar to Israel, we are to seperate from heretics and blasphemers also, as how the prophets seperated from the false prophets (i.e. of Baal).

First-degree seperation also involved seperation from those who are disobedient towards God in situations such as belivers in a serious state of sin, or even in embrace of serious doctrinal error.

At least some neo-evangelicals do practice seperation from unrepentant sinners, following the example of the Corinthian church in 1 Cor. 5:1-13 to purge the evil within her by excercising church discipline against the unrepentant immoral sinner. However, for the more serious crime of serious doctrinal error, churches tend to be more 'forgiving'. This, however, should not be the case, as doctrinal error is actually more serious than moral error, since doctrinal errors, especially serious ones, damn the soul and whoever believes it (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Thess 2:11-12; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 18-22; 1 Jn. 2:4). Of course, moral corruption could be evidence of an unregenerate heart and thus the sinner is damned, but the act itself is not damning per se. Furthermore, compared with moral corruption, spiritual corruption is less easily identifiable (our conscience warns us against immorality — Rom. 2:15), and therefore we should be sterner against those who are in serious doctrinal error, especially if they are in a position of leadership within the body of Christ.

The doctrine of first-degree seperation having thus been established, we shall now look at the more controversial one — the doctrine of second-degree seperation.

[to be continued]

Sermon: The Gospel of Accomodation

Here is an excellent sermon by Rev. David Wilkerson entitled The Gospel of Accomodation, and here is a video that applies it legitimately to the seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven movement.

Nice video...

Poor Rick! aLittleLeaven.com has came out with a special video calling on Rick Warren to discipline Robert Murdoch, as Rick Warren has proclaimed himself to be Murdoch's pastor, over Murdoch's promotion of pornography in his TV channels, and his publishing of the Satanic Bible.

Will God bless people who out of ignorance violate His commands?

After I had posted my post warning people of the Global Day of Prayer (GDOP), and talked with some of my friends to warn them about it, one carnard which some of them tried to put up in defense of people who go for the event is that God will bless the prayers of the people who go, especially since they do it in ignorance. In this post, I will look into this excuse and analyze it according to the Scripture.

Now, I would assume here the rightness and necessity of the Doctrine of Seperation, and that seperating from the GDOP is a proper application of this doctrine, of which I will talk about later. If such is the case, then first of all, those people whom I have warned about this event are commanded by the Lord NOT to go for this event, of which going for them would be a violation of God's command. Furthermore, since they are warned against it, the have no excuse for their disobedience against God and in fact would be held accountable and punished more for their disobedience, no blessed. As it is written,

And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Lk. 12:47-48)

So the question that now arises is only applicable to those who are truly ignorant of the rank compromise in the GDOP event, NOT those who have been warned or those in the committees involved in the event (since they have been warned before by me anyway), which woud be most of the rank and file Christian 'laity' in the neo-Evangelical not-yet-post-evangelical churches. To this, let us remember the verses we had just looked at earlier, Lk. 12:48a.

But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating.

From that, we can see that ignorance DOES not mean that God will bless the people who attend the event. In fact, God punishes people based on their actions more than their motives. Between actions and motives, wrong actions deserve punishment even if supplemented with good motives. According to this passage, therefore, motives at the most serve a mitigaing factor in delivering you to a lesser punishment than if you do know but still disobey. Those people who do attend the GDOP are therefore all being disobedient to God and do not deserve God's blessing but his punishment for taking part in this compromise event, regardless of whether they know it or no. And God is not unfair in this, because believers are already called to examine everything according to the Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1), and thus their ignorance shows a contempt for Scripture and heeding the biblical call to discern. Their pastors and leaders are of course held even more responsible for such an attitude in their congregants, because they have failed to fulfil their responsibilities as under-shepherds in shepherding and teaching and protecting their flock (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim. 6:2ff; 2 Tim. 2:14-15, 4:1-5; Titus 1:9, 11, 13; Titus 2:1).

Now, we would come to the issue whether God will hear their prayers. Yes, God will punish them, and yet, will He still in His mercy forgive their ignorance and still bless them? After all, it is 'all for the "global glory of God"'. As far as the ordinary Christian is concerned, he/she is doing it for Christ. To this, we look at the Scriptures and pose a question: Where in Scripture is it stated that God will bless and answer the prayers of the disobedient? Looking at 2 Chron. 7:14, the favorite text for intecessors, the verse reads that

If my people who are called by My Name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land. (2 Chron. 7:14)

The four conditions stated for God to hear our prayers is that we are to (1) humble ourselves, (2) pray, (3) seek His face, and (4) turn from their wicked ways. Now, the people going to the GDOP in ignorance ideally fulfil conditions 1,2 and 3. However, as what they are doing is a violation of Scripture, they violate condition 4, as the event itself is wicked. Therefore, are we to believe that God will violate His own Word and answer the prayers offered at this event?

Now, note that I did not say that God will not answered all prayers offered at this event, since some of the prayers may be those which are offered up in their personal prayer times too. However, all prayers for so called 'unity', 'peace' and for the expansion of the "global glory of God" would be despised by God and therefore NOT answered.

And speaking of intercession, check out this passage found in Ez. 14: 12-20

And the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.

“If I cause wild beasts to pass through the land, and they ravage it, and it be made desolate, so that no one may pass through because of the beasts, even if these three men were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters. They alone would be delivered, but the land would be desolate.

“Or if I bring a sword upon that land and say, Let a sword pass through the land, and I cut off from it man and beast, though these three men were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they alone would be delivered.

“Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood, to cut off from it man and beast, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness. (Ez. 14: 12-20)

Noah, Daniel and Job are well known for their righteousness. Furthermore, they were also known for their prayerfulness (at least for Daniel and Job). In this passage, God is pronouncing judgment on faithless Israel in the immediate context and stressing that even the intercession of righteous people would not save her. Translated into our context, the prayers of righteous people, even though they are said to be effective (Jas. 5:16b), do not avail much for the wicked whom God has destined for destruction. And therefore, while intercession is beneficial and even commanded, we must always keep in mind that ultimately whether God answers prayers DOES not depend on us or anyone else, but solely on His good pleasure.

This realization ought to temper our inordinate so-called 'passion' for prayer, and tell us that prayer alone does not mean that God must bless us, and therefore just because the GDOP is on prayer does not mean that it is a good thing. Prayer is only as effective as the God who is pleased with it wills it to be! Prayer alone sans the approval of God, in fact in violation of His commands, is an abomination and detestable before the Lord God of Hosts. And He will not bless it nor the people involved in it.

Quote: The reason why Christianity is not advancing

The reason why Christianity does not advance with a mightier stride is simply this: that professors are in a large measure a disgrace to religion; and many of those who are joined to the church have no more godliness than those out of it.

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon

[HT: Christian Research Net]

The Gospel and its proclamation (part 7): Finale

[continued from here, here, here, here, here and here]

We have seen that the Gospel is to be proclaimed in words, especially through the medium of preaching, and we have also seen the wrong way of sharing the Gospel message by the Amyraldians, neo-Amyraldians and the crypto-Arminians. So how exactly are we to proclaim the Gospel?

First of all, the proclamation of the Gospel must contain the Gospel, which includes elements such as the sinfulness of Man, the wrath of God against sin, the death of Christ on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead, the command to repent of our sins and believe in Jesus, and the consequences of doing so and of NOT doing so. We are to, like the apostle Peter, implore others to turn to Christ (Acts 2:40) and plead with them regarding their salvation from the coming judgment of God. The sincere promise of the Gospel, that ALL who turn to Christ will be saved, must be made known.

Note the difference between such a presentation and the presentation which the Amyraldians would give if they are consistent with their theology. Nowhere in the Gospel presentation should we tell others that God loves them, or that God loves them despite everything which they have done, which the Bible does not do so anyway. Our exhortation to sinners is along the lines of 'Repent and save yourselves', not 'God loves you and please accept Him'. The basis of our exhortation is thus also different: we should implore others based upon the fact that they are in danger of hellfire, rather than the 'fact' that God wants them to turn to Him. The former puts God in charge, and pleads for Man to escape hellfire, whereas the latter puts Man in charge as it elevates human autonomy to accept God or not, even in the decision to escape hellfire.

The reason why this is so important in the Gospel presentation is that only the sick would need a doctor (Mt. 9:12; Mk. 2:17; Lk. 5:31). Unless and until we expose the sinfulness of Man, no one would see their need of a Savior to save them from their sins. If we just present Jesus as anything less than a Savior from the utter wickedness of our sins, then we diminish the message of the Gospel. If Man is made to believe that they can somehow help themselves, even in being given the choice to decide to accept Christ or not, then they have not seen the gravity of their own sins and thus the Gospel message is compromised. Only when they know that they are helpless and doomed before the wrath of an Almighty God would they realize the awfulness of their sin and cry out to God for mercy.

The Gospel presentation must be one of urgency also. Since the Gospel is the only things that saved, then we should show urgency in bringing the message to dying sinners. God wants His people saved (2 Peter. 3:9), and we are the instruments (Mt. 28:18-20) that He uses to accomplish His mission of saving all His lost sheep (Mt. 18:10-14). Yes, their salvation ultimately does not depend on ourselves, since Christ has already said that all that the Father has given to Him would come to Him (Jn. 6:37) and would not be cast out (Jn. 6:37), but that doesn't mean that we can be disobedient to God's commands. Furthermore, we should all the more go out and evangelize since we have the confidence that all of God's people WILL respond to the Gospel sooner or later, unlike the synergists who have no assurance that their proclamation of the Gospel would save anyone.

Last of all, the Gospel presentation should be passionate. If you don't even believe in the Gospel, or show no sign of really believing it, how can you share it with others?

In conclusion, the Gospel message is to be proclaimed in such a way that the glory and holiness of God is lifted up, and the sinfulness of Man is exposed. Only then will the grace of God towards sinners shine and people would eagerly turn to Jesus Christ, if they are convicted of their sins. We should present the Gospel urgently too, knowing that time is short and we should do so with the passion of truly believing this truth of the Gospel. Such a Gospel presentation would be one that honors God, and would thus be blessed and used of God mightily in the salvation of His people and the condemnation of the reprobates (2 Cor. 2:16a).

[THE END!]

The Gospel and its proclamation (part 6): Baneful effects of Amyraldism and crypto-Arminianism on Evangelism

[continued from here, here, here, here and here]

When one embraces neo-Amyraldian, Amyraldian or even cryto-Arminian soteriological views, which expresses itself logically in the theories of 'Common salvific grace' and the 'Free Offer of the Gospel', this would then translate into various practices in Evangelism which would compromise the message of the Gospel.

An example of such a distortion of the Gospel message could be seen in the evangelistic video at the center of the 'Just stop and think' controversy, where the statements that 'Despite all you have done, God still loves you', 'Regardless of anything you have done in your life, God still wants to love you', '...the God of the universe is proposing to you right now: I want to forgive you, I want to spend eternity with you', 'God is begging you; it's almost like He is on a knee begging you', 'The God of the universe is crazy about you and screaming out for your attention' are made. Central to all of this is the theory of the Free Offer of the Gospel, taken to its extreme of course. After all, only if you believe that God has some sort of favorable disposition towards all Man and sincerely desires their salvation can you make such statements which appeal to Man at Man's level. Instead of proclaiming the holiness of God and commanding their repentance, the Gospel message has been reduced to an anthropocentric message based upon the supposed love and grace that God has for all Man.

Now, of course, embracing the ideas of Common salvific grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel does not necessarily translate into such a distortion of the Gospel message (which is still a mild distortion compared to others which come from a purely Arminian, Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian perspective, however). However, that is its logical consequence. Due to the contradictory nature of the theories of Common salvific grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel with the Doctrines of Grace, the Amyraldian and neo-Amyraldian position can only be maintained by celebrating irrationality and deprecating logic, which is what people like Dr. Cornelius Van Till has done when discussing such matters^[1]. However, as history has shown, compromise begets more compromise and heresy, and as such, the Gospel message would tend towards more and more distortion. Also, it is this tendency towards greater and greater corruption of the Gospel message that should be of grave concern, even more so than the slight distortion as seen in that video.

In conclusion, the embrace of Amyraldism, neo-Amraldism, or crypto-Arminianism would cause a distortion of the Gospel message along the lines of shifting the focus of the Gospel from the theocentric God's command for repentance to the anthropocentric need for Man to respond to the love for God. Of course, it is granted that repentance may be also present in the Gospel message of the Amyraldians, but the emphasis has shifted from God's command to Man's response and an unbiblical emphasis on and exageration of the love of God towards all Man, to the extent that God's special love for His elect could even be used of all Man in general, as can be seen in that 'Just Stop and Think' video. This, thus, is the baneful effect of Amyraldism on the presentation of the Gospel. If not halted, the downgrade of the Gospel message would continue as later generations would be more consistent with their theology and would tend to move towards the embrace of Arminian error, with the corresponding decline in the message of the Gospel.

We would now look more in detail into the proper way in which we should proclaim the Gospel message of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[to be continued]

---

References:

[1] W. Gary Crampton, Cornelius Van Till: An Analysis of his Thought, The Trinity Review, July 1996. (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=167)

Rick Warren: The accuser of the brethren

Well, Rick Warren just seem to can't stand having opposition to his social gospel. After facing oppositon from various quarters, he now accuse Christians who oppose him as not being true Christians and churches that do not implement his 5 purposes (according to how he define them, of course) as true churches. According to Chris Rosebrough, that means that

Fulfiling 5 purposes +False doctrine = True church

NOT fulfiling 5 purposes + True doctrine = False church

Go figure this one out. The first equation is proved right by his having 'purpose driven catholics' and 'purpose driven synagogues', and he just said the second one. With more and more rhetoric and polemics being directed against faithful Christians, I guess it is time to just kick Warren out of the visible Church; i.e. disown him. Not considering his various doctrinal errors and compromises too, which can be seen in my book and my review of his 2006 PDC conference message in Singapore here. OK, Rick Warren is from now on, as far as I am concerned, NOT to be considered as a Christian at all (de facto excommonuicated).

[HT: Christian Research Net here and here]