Monday, February 26, 2007

Great. Apparently, I'm a Wesleyan.

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

89%

Fundamentalist

79%

Reformed Evangelical

71%

Neo orthodox

61%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

46%

Emergent/Postmodern

36%

Classical Liberal

29%

Roman Catholic

18%

Modern Liberal

0%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

...and in the "you've GOT to be kidding me" category...

You have to read this to believe it. church members are tattooing "666" to themselves as outward signs of their faith in Jose Luis De Jesus.

Cameron on the lost tomb of Jesus

On the subject of the "lost tomb of Jesus" deal and the up-coming Cameron film... Johnny Mac has collated this list of responses to its claims, and this analysis.

Also, Charles Nestor has posted on his blog in response to the Cameron claim.

And Joe Paskewich, another blogging CC pastor, has this to add to the discussion...

And here's Chucky Missler's take.

Bob on Job

Bob Hyatt (the bob.blog and Pastor Hacks dude) just posted an intriguing post on his blog about pastoring and how it most certainly does classify as a "real" job...

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Narrow Minded...

I'm finishing up studying to teach John 14 this morning, and I ran across this gem from David Guzik...

b. No one comes to the Father except through Me: Is Jesus the only way to God? An often-heard disagreement with Christianity is "Jesus and Christianity are fine, and it is great that you have a way to God. But I have my own way, and the Muslim has his, and the Buddhist has his. All roads lead to God if we are sincere in seeking Him."

  • If a Christian objects to such a statement, they are often met with the reply, "What right do you have to send me to Hell just because I don’t believe in Jesus the way you do?"


  • But the Bible tells us that Jesus is the only way to God. How can we say this? We begin with the basic truth that Jesus is at least a way to God. Was He a true or a false prophet? Was He at the very least an honest man? If Jesus is a true prophet - or at least an honest man - then what He said about Himself is true. Therefore, Jesus is the only way to God.


  • Simply put, if Jesus is not the only way to God, then He is not any way to God. If there are many roads to God, then Jesus is not one of them, because He absolutely claimed there was only one road to God, and He Himself was that road. If Jesus is not the only way to God, then He was not a honest man; He was most certainly not a true prophet. He then would either be a madman or a lying devil. There is no middle ground available to us.


  • Sometimes people object and say, "I believe Jesus was an honest man, and I believe He was a true prophet. But I don’t actually believe He said those things about Himself in the gospels. I believe Christians added those things in later on all by themselves." But there is no objective reason for a person to make a distinction between "Jesus really said this" or "Jesus really didn’t say that." We have no ancient texts showing us just the supposedly "true" sayings of Jesus. Any such distinction is based purely on subjective reasons - "I personally don’t think Jesus would have said that, therefore He did not say that - later Christians just put those words in His mouth."


  • If it is all up to personal opinion - if we can determine what Jesus said or didn’t say on our own whims - then we can just throw out the gospels period. It really is an all-or-nothing deal. Either we take the words of Jesus as recorded by these historically reliable and accurate documents, or we throw it out all together.


  • To take it a step further, it is not enough to merely believe in Jesus. Shockingly, that isn’t narrow enough! The Bible also tells us the atoning work of Jesus on the cross was the only way salvation could be accomplished. In the Garden of Gesthemene, the night before His death, Jesus prayed if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39). Jesus asked the Father if there was any other way to accomplish the salvation of man other than His atoning work on the cross, other than Him drinking the "cup" representing the wrath of God poured out upon Him in our place, let it be so. But there was no other way.


  • Even the demons could admit the truth that Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew 8:29); but they did not submit to Jesus or believe in His atoning work on their behalf.


  • The idea that all religious beliefs are equally valid, and all that maters is that we be sincere in our beliefs is so absurd that people would only apply it to religion. If you thought you were a cow - sincerely, of course - and insisted that you should stay outside and eat the lawn, men in white coats would take you away. Why won’t they allow you to be sincere in your beliefs? Because they objectively know you are wrong. Why do we apply the same muddled thinking to religion?


  • But is Christianity bigoted? Certainly, there are some who claim to be Christians who are in fact bigots. But Biblical Christianity is the most pluralistic, tolerant, embracing of other cultures religion on earth. In fact, Christianity is rather pluralistic - it is the one religion to embrace other cultures, and has the most urgency to translate the Scriptures into other languages. A Christian can keep their native language and culture, and follow Jesus in the midst of it. An early criticism of Christianity was the observation that they would take anybody! Slave or free; rich or poor; man or woman; Greek or Barbarian. All were accepted, but on the common ground of the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ. To leave that common ground is spiritual suicide, for both now and eternity.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Josh Harris on Feeding the Flesh

This is a great blogpost by Josh Harris on Feeding the Flesh that is well worth the read...

4:14-dot-Org on Continuationism in Patristic Writings

In reference to the Johnny Mac blogposts about the cessation of the Gifts, y'all might like to read this post at ephesians 4:14, a UK blog from a self-confessedly "reformING evangelical" who happens to be a continuationist and has a really good grasp on patristics.

Of course, I don't agree 100% with the dude - he seems to believe that tongues as currently practiced is not valid, but hey - at least he's mostly right... ;D

Anyway, good read.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Johnny Mac on the Gifts

On Johnny Mac's blog, he's been doing a series of articles explaining why the Bible really teaches that the Gifts ceased with the passing of the "Apostolic Age" even though there's no independent Biblical reason to believe so.

Interesting read; it's a lot like reading Calvinist stuff dealing with why Hebrews 6 doesn't really say what it sure does seem to say. Or how "all" doesn't always mean "all," sometimes it means "all the elect", the Holy Spirit just forgot to put that addendum in there - good thing us Calvinists are here to help Him out, there, eh?

Anyway...

John's arguments have been... unconvincing. In essence, they boil down to "it seems to say this, but it really means this when you dig deep enough... after all, Scripture has perspicacity in all cases except when dealing with the Gifts..."

In the latest blogpost, we read this statement:

Throughout these posts we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.

It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.



...yeah, 'bout that.

In a nutshell, the cessationist argument can be boiled down to: the Gifts were unique to the age of the Apostles, and since there are no Apostles anymore, there are no gifts.

...the problem with the argument is that you have to presuppose it's major premise (the Gifts were unique to the age of the Apostles) to arrive at its conclusion (the Gifts have therefore ceased). This in logic is called "Begging the Question." And it's a formal fallacy.

Now, to be fair, the blogpost continues and says:

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.


Leaving aside commentary on the verses that are cited to bolster the cessationist claim for a later time, I think it vital to key in on that first statement:

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case...


No, it doesn't. And the antecedent, "it does strengthen the overall position," does not necessarily follow - unless you presuppose it.

Bottom line: the Gifts were given at the outpouring of the Spirit, and there are precisely zero strictly Scriptural reasons for believing that they were later revoked. Tying them to the "Apostolic Age" is an entirely esiegetical exercise. It is more reasonable (in my opinion) to tie the Gifts to the entire age of the Indwelling Spirit - the entire Church Age, in other words. The Gifts will cease to function - when the Spirit's indwelling ministry ceases. At the close of the Church Age.

It's also instructive to note that John has to go outside of Scripture to prove the discrete existence of an "Apostolic Age" as a distinct dispensation over against the incipient period of the current Church Age. Very, very interesting.

Ironically, the cessationist argument that the Gifts were given to establish the church undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. If the Gifts were needed to validate Scripture, then Scripture in and of itself is insufficient for faith. The continuationist position argues instead that Scripture - even the incomplete canon pre-A.D. 90 - is self-validating, and the Gifts were not for this purpose, but for the edification of the church (which continues to exist and continues to require and benefit from edification).

To me, that sounds like a stronger/better argument/position, but what do I know...

Anyway, the blog series on the Gifts there at Pulpit Magazine is a good read to be able to understand very good, if ultimately unconvincing, arguments for the cessationist position.

Rushdoony on Community

One of the more pretentious claims of the ECM is that of being the movement that carries the banner of restoring community to the church.

The Chalcedon Foundation is no friend of the ECM. To be fair, it is no friend of Calvary Chapel, either... in fact, it's no friend to evangelicalism in general. Their cause is to "press the crown rights of King Jesus into every sphere of life," in a very self-consciously Reconstructionist, Calvinist, Postmillennarian, theonomic way.

R. J. Rushdoony became recognized as the Father of modern Reconstructionism. His works are essential reading to understand modern postmil thought, theonomy, and of course Reconstructionism.

This is an article in which Rushdoony comments on community and Marxism, which I find very interesting in light of the ECM trend to soft-pedal socialistic tendencies (e.g., McKnight's coming out in favor of centralized government and wealth redistribution - keep in mind that McKnight is a highly regarded ECMmer, and is viewed by many of the less discerning as being "moderate").

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting...

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Warp drive...?

Okay, as a break from all the serious stuff...

I like theoretical science, which probably stems from my love for science fiction. This NASA article on theoretical propulsion systems is really really really interesting to me, given that it is one of the few that grounds the discussion in real-world physics - and all without using "I'm-Way-Smarterer-Than-You" scientistspeak. No math, just straight talk on the obstacles involved in the subject of interstellar travel and the reputable research currently underway to circumvent those obstacles.

Nice diversion...

Deeks on the ECM

This is the first of a series of blogposts by Ken Deeks, a "moderate" dean of a Canadian Bible college, which examines the question of whether or not the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement is heretical, using Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship's statement on the ECM as a launching pad.

It isn't complementary to CCOF's position, and in my opinion betrays Deeks' liberalism - er, I mean, "moderat...ism...".

However, it's a good counter-point and worth reading if you want a fuller-spectrum view of the issues involved in thinking through the implications of the ECM. And in thinking through how liber--ah, that is, "moderates'" view CCOF's position on the subject.

Munching through the series of blogposts, spitting out the plethora of pounds of gristle, there is some good meat in there, which I'll try to comment on at a later time...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Peter-John Courson on Brian MacLaren

Peter-John Courson - son of Jon Courson - has posted a review of Brian MacLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy.

As anyone who's read this blog over the last year knows, I don't much care for MacLaren, believe he's potentially one of the most wacked out guys in modern Christendom, which makes him all the more potentially lethal given his inordinate popularity.

However, PJC starts his blogpost with a very important premise that I sometimes forget and often need to be reminded of:

Eat the meat and spit out the bones. As true for Brian McLaren’s books as Luther’s.


...good point.

I maintain that MacLaren's got precious little meat in there, but...

PJC lists a "top ten" things that he came away with after reading Brian's book which are (mostly) good reminders.

Sort of gives the "other side" of the whole EmergENT deal...

Mondok on the Christianity Today debacle

This blogpost by Bryon Mondok brings another good balanced perspective to the Christianity Today mess...

Monday, February 19, 2007

Moriel Ministries responds to Christianity Today article

For those who may or may not have read the egregious article by Bob Moll in Christianity Today attacking the Calvary Chapel movement, this is a very important article to read as a counterbalance.

Moriel Ministries does not agree with Calvary Chapel on every particular (especially the issue of church polity), but their response brings a welcome counterpoint to Moll's drive-by editorial.

Conservative Anglican bishops looking to reunite with Rome

You really need to read this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Christianity Today hack journalism

Probably the single worst mistake a hack journalist can make is to report on real, verifiable events. Rob Moll of Christianity Today wrote a breathtakingly poorly researched article, "Day of Reckoning." In it he makes several very serious accusations against several Calvary Chapel pastors and ministries.

In and of itself, I wouldn't think much of the article - there are 1300+ CC's worldwide, several thousand pastors and ministry leaders, and hundreds of thousands of Calvary Chapel churchgoers. You would expect there to be problems when you have that many humans involved in anything.

However, Rob (who based on previous CT articles has an apparent axe to grind against CC) made the spectacularly bad mistake of commenting on a situation I happen to be very familiar with.

Rob attacks Roger Ulman, pastor of Calvary Chapel Kalamazoo Valley. I am very familiar with CCKV, Roger Ulman, and the "scandal" that Rob reports on. Let's just say that Rob's article presents a view of reality that's so stupendously skewed from actual reality as to be a complete inversion of actual events.

Several articles over at simplemindedpreacher have been dealing with this issue, and I've commented on the whole thing there:



I will say this: Because of the galactically poor fact-checking of Rob's CT article RE: Roger and CCKV, I can say I have precisely ZERO confidence that any of the other facts cited or quotes quoted are any more accurate.

For the record: I have watched Roger Ulman try to reach out to and minister to Holt over the last few years, and watched him get stabbed in the gut and back multiple times over it. Roger has been the example of sacrificial servant leadership through the whole Living Stone fiasco, and to watch the truth of the situation be completely inverted and Holt presented as the innocent victim and Roger as the evil perpetrator makes me furious and sick to my stomach.

I would expect this kind of hack journalism from the secular media.

That Christianity Today is engaged in it is vastly more than simply reprehensible.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Imam leads DNC in prayer

Now this is a really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really interesting article...

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Interesting discussions over at simplemindedpreacher

There's been a bit of interesting discussion about Calvary Chapel and related issues over at simplemindedpreacher. Especially:

  • this one on culture and the Gospel

  • this one asking the question "so what does 'missional' mean, anyway...?

  • this one about pastors & elders

  • this one about coming to terms with many of the current issues in Calvary Chapel

  • and this one titled: "Verse-By-Verse: Do the Distinctives Flex?" ...you can imagine what my response was...