Showing posts with label Evangelical Errors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelical Errors. Show all posts

Friday, June 25, 2010

Series on Genesis At Pyromaniacs

Because it's such an excellent series, I need to link to John MacArthur's & Phil Johnson's stuff at Pyromaniacs. In essense, Genesis One is truth. It shows God's existence, & his Creation of the universe as supernatural acts, and Christians who compromise on the literal meaning of Genesis as a historical narrative are undermining the text as well as Christian orthodoxy on original sin and soteriology.


http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/humanistic-religion-and-origin-of-life.html It begins here, with follow ups at Phil's blog. READ IT!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Brothers, We Are Sinners

It's no surprise that the philosophies and religions of the world are offended at the notion of calling people "sinners", in the true sense of that word. Man-made traditions have a too high opinion of the human condition. That's why they don't have the solution to our common problem; it's just not found in man-made traditions, it can't be "found" at all, it's a matter of revelation from God, who alone truly knows what is in a man's heart.

Not everybody who professes Christ acts like they understand these things. I've been around believers with whom I've shared a little of my sinful past as part of a testimony. I mean, I am what the Bible says I was..."by nature a child[ren] of wrath", a "sinner", "wicked". I mean, yes, I'm also a "saint", a "son" by God's adoption, because of Christ. I have no merit of my own- only what He did for me. However, when past sins are mentioned, to demonstrate what I once was, what Jesus suffered to save me from, people in the church act like I slurped a tea cup of Darjeeling and wiped my mouth with the sleeve of my shirt. They're offended! I think a lot of these types grew up in and had the benefit of a Christian upbringing-and good for them. Nothing wrong with that. However, not everybody has.

I suppose nobody needs the gory details of the past. There's a "forgetting" of past things, and a "pressing on towards the high calling of God", and thankfully we can do that. Also, some things are too offensive to mention and I never would. Barring that,why do some church people act like there's a leper in the room if I talk about what I was once, before Jesus saved me. It's as if Jesus only came to save the righteous or Church is only for the "ceremonially clean", an elite of moralistic, upright Evangelicals who disdain any talk of what Christ saved us from, i.e. real sins, real wickedness.

Our sanitized testimonies are soulless and unimpressive.We've (some of us) imported the false evaluation of human nature I mentioned in the beginning, into our mentality. I've found that there's an unwritten rule in the churches that you don't say too much about whether you were a fornicator, an adulterer, a murderer, or anything else that God actually justifies us from. See, that would be too shocking to our sensibilities and we're apparently too holy to hear about real sins, real lives, and what the true power of God's forgiveness in Christ. Why the shock? Our most revered biblical heroes were the worst offenders. Noah built an ark by faith. But his story ends in a drunken, incestuous scandal. Yet we remember him as a "preacher of righteousness". David the King...after God's heart, but a conniving murderer and adulterer. Why don't these church regurgitate their Sunday brunch when they hear these stories? Are the sins of saints past any more "acceptable" because they made their way into the biblical cannon? Is Moses' manslaughter or Paul's persecution more elevated since they are mentioned by inspiration of God? No. These people are of the same flesh and blood Adamic line as we are. They sinned and their sins are just as heinous to God.

Brothers, God is going to cast away false, hypocritical, adulterous, lying, murderous, professing Christians. He's got a Lake of Fire reserved for the condemned, for all time. He appointed the death and spilling of rivers of blood of sacrifices for thousands of years until the Messiah, his perfect, sinless, Son, had his body nailed to a crucifix, for our sins. He died for our fornication and lust, and adultery, and murder, and gossip, and a thousand other sins. Real, black, vile, repugnant sins Jesus willing took on Himself, in fact he was made SUCH so that we might be God's righteousness in Him.

Let's not pretend anymore. It insults Jesus who condescended to our level for our sins without sinning himself. We're not righteous people. We're not to think of ourselves as better than anyone else. The message of salvation is joyful, but only because of the wretchedness and vileness of our sins. We need to hear the whole Gospel.

Let's begin here: Nothing good is in us of ourselves. We are sinners vile. Christ died for us while we were vile sinners. And because of that we can talk all we want about His righteousness in us.

Amen

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Evangelical Errors

The peace of God is one of the supposed indicators of being in God's will. How often have you been told: "Pray about your situation, and when you sense God's peace in your heart, then you'll know it's God's will."?
The Scripture which is used is Colossians 3:15...

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Two New Covenants? Dispensational Distortion

Dispensationalism is known for it's Israel/Chruch dichotomy. Israel and the Church are distinct entities, and never the twain shall meet. While one enjoys an earthly destiny, and the other a heavenly one, such extreme compartmentalization has been modified a little in the '50s and onward among Dispensational adherents.

However, Jeremiah's New Covenant promise has come to be applied to Israel exclusively, so that what the Church now enjoys is not that New covenant but "a" new covenant based on different promises to the Body of Christ alone. While more modern Dispensationalists eschewed the old hyper divisions between Israel and the church, this two covenant theory is basically consistent hyper dispensationalism.

The proper view is that Jesus did introduce and activate Jeremiah's New Covenant with Israel in inaugural form. The first people to enjoy this Covenant's blessings were entirely Jewish people. Christ, the Testator of the New Covenant, by his death, inaugurated a change in the priesthood, rendered the Old Covenant economy obsolete, and began a new dispensation in the outworking of God's plan of redemption. Hebrews 8:13 " In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete". This is after quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34.

This New Covenant is presently being mediated by Christ to both Jewish and Gentile believers in the Church. It will come to fullness in the Millenium when all Israel knows the LORD, and is regenerated with the law internalized by grace.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Messianic Errors of John Hagee

John Hagee is the charismatic preacher, and Christian Zionist, who wrote, In Defense Of Israel (Publisher:Front Line, 2007). Hagee is a Premillenial Dispensationalist, which is the theological underpinning for the modern prophecy movement. However, Hagee goes far beyond what most PDs believe concerning Israel and the Messiah.

In his book, like most DPs,he attempts to build a case for why Christians need to support Israel. Also, like most DPs he claims that God blesses those who bless the Jewish people. However, he goes much further and tries to convince us that the Jewish people cannot be blamed for the death of Jesus, because they never rejected him as The Messiah. IOW, Jesus never came to be the Messiah.

In Chapter 10 of In Defense of Israel, "Answering Christian Critics", he states:"Most evangelicals believe that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and therefore qualify for God's eternal judgment. Replacement theologians have said that "the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.""
Hagee then goes on to ask several questions to refute this statement about the Jewish rejection of Jesus. The main one I want to pick up on is on page 132 of the same chapter: "Did the words of Jesus or his actions convey the message that he wanted to be Messiah?"
After stating that God had a sovereign will for the life of Jesus which included being a "light to the Gentiles", Luke 2:27-32, and dying for sinners, he writes that the Jewish leaders plotted his death, and Jesus refused to be the Messiah, and be Israel's political Saviour. On page 135, he states five major points that he claims need to be understood to see that the Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah:

1. Jesus had to live to be the Messiah
2. If it was God's will for Jesus to die from the beginning...
3If it was Jesus (sic) intention to be obedient unto death...
4. If there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah...
5. And if Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews, then how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?
Amazingly, before stating that "there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah", and " ...Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews", he quotes from the Gospel of Luke, Luke 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them,"Thus it is written, THAT THE CHRIST SHOULD SUFFER AND ON THE THIRD DAY RISE FROM THE DEAD....".
This verse, quoted in his own book, on page 135, utterly refutes his claims about the Messianic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not have to only live to BE the Messiah. Jesus himself states that the CHRIST, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew term, had to DIE to fulfil the Scriptures.

When Andrew, one of John the Baptist's disciples who had heard John call Jesus "The Lamb of God" a sacrificial title, and one which even Hagee admits "Every Jewish person who heard John's words knew there was only one thing you could do with a young male lamb:kill it!" p. 134., he recognized Jesus as "The Messiah(which is translated, the Christ). John 1:41.
Is it true that only the Jewish leaders determined to kill Jesus? They did plot and conspire to put him to death. However, the unbelief of the Jewish nation was part of the sovereign plan of God in accomplishing the Crucifixion. John 12:37-40 explains the mass rejection of Christ by the unbelieving Jewish people. This was prophesied centuries before, especially in Isaiah. In John 6:66 we see that the people could not accept the hard truths of Christ. They sought a King who would cause an insurrection against the Roman occupation. Jesus did not commit himself to the people, NOT because he did not intend to be their Messiah, but because AS MESSIAH he demanded a commitment to Himself, by faith.

Hagee's claims are simply biblically false. In so many words, John Hagee is actually denying Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah to Israel. If Jesus did not come to Israel as their Messiah, then the Messiah did not die for anyone. He may not believe that, but that is the logical implication of his bad theology.

Bibliography

John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible's Mandate For Supporting the Jewish State (Front Line, 2007)