Chuck Swindoll Points us to Roman Catholic Mystic Henri Nouwen…Again

Apprising Ministries continues to point out that syncretism, which is rooted in the love of self (cf. 2 Timothy 3:2), is really beginning to get out of hand within contemporary evangelicalism. Know nothing good will come of it.

It seems this truth from the Master has been forgotten — Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6). Notice we are to beware of false teachers, not turn to them.

Why? I’m glad you asked; because God has already told us — A little leaven leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:9). It’s important to note the inspired Apostle Paul wrote that concerning the Galatian church and the Judaizers.

A few years ago I had told you that on page 13 of his book So, You Want To Be Like Christ? Essentials to Get You There (SYW) respected Bible teacher Chuck Swindoll makes some rather odd citations and recommendations.

In SYW, the pastor of the nondenominational megachurch Stonebriar Community Church, heartily endorses the work of Dallas Willard along with his spiritual twin, Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster.

You may know that, through their corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) masquerading as so-called Spiritual Formation, this dubious duo comprise key mentors of the neo-liberal cult in the Emerging Church.

However, it’s beyond question that the CSM of Foster-Willardism actually germinated in the so-called “Desert Fathers” and would then later blossom throughout various monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism.

Swindoll informs us in SYW:

I came across Dallas Willard’s excellent work The Spirit of the Disciplines. Bedside reading it is not. This convicting piece of literature is not something you plop down on the sofa and read alongside People magazine. Willard’s words make you think. Continue at Apprising Ministries

Lent and the Sufficient Work of Christ

Over the past several weeks, I’ve been inclined to focus on the practice of Lent.  I’ve seen my Roman Catholic friends do this for years, but I never gave it much thought.  Yet Lutherans, Anglicans, and other denominations inheriting the Reformation tradition also observe this part of the liturgical calendar.  Most people who practice Lent sacrifice something from their daily life (usually a food item) from Ash Wednesday until Maundy Thursday.

Its purported purpose is to imitate the suffering and temptation of Christ during His forty-day fast in the desert.  In centuries past, the methods of penance were much more serious compared to the types of self-denial we commonly see today.  

Giving up sweets (for example) during the Lenten season may indeed trivialize the sufferings of Christ, but that’s not my main reason for opposing the practice.

Of the many theological errors before us, one of the most common is the confusion between historia salutis (redemption accomplished) and ordo salutis (redemption applied).  The former represents those once-for-all, unrepeatable events in redemptive history.  Roman Catholicism, for example, makes the serious mistake of confusing historia salutis and ordo salutis with respect to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (i.e., their practice of the Mass in which Christ is “re-sacrificed”).  Charismatic movements do the same thing with Pentecost.  Continue at Josh Dermer

Questions Steve Ray Thinks "Bible Chrisians" Can't Answer - Answered

Steve Ray seems to think that there are questions that we Bible Christians cannot answer. (Link to his post)

Not only can we answer them, we have answered them. For the most part, they are a bunch of loaded questions that are actually not that hard to unload and answer. The answers I provided below may not even be the only or best answers. Nevertheless, so as to bring to Mr. Ray's attention the answers that were provided over a year ago, the following provides an easy index of the responses.

Just click on the question for the answer. 

1. "Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?" 
2. "Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?" 
3. "Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?" 
4. "some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?" 
5. "Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)? (And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)" 
6. "If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?" 
7. "Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?" 
8. "How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?" 
9. "On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?" 
10. "Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)" 
11. "How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?" 
12. "How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?"    Keep Reading...

IMAGE

The Gospel according to the Church Fathers

After the apostles died, was the gospel hopelessly lost until the Reformation?

 

That certainly seems to be a common assumption in some Protestant circles today. Thankfully, it is a false assumption.

I’m not entirely sure where that misconception started. But one thing I do know: it did not come from the Protestant Reformers.

The Reformers themselves (including Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others) were convinced that their position was not only biblical, but also historical. In other words, they contended that both the apostles and the church fathers would have agreed with them on the heart of the gospel.

For example, the second-generation Lutheran reformer, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), wrote a treatise on justification in which he defended the Protestant position by extensively using the church fathers. And John Calvin (1509-1564), in his Institutes, similarly claimed that he could easily debunk his Roman Catholic opponents using nothing but patristic sources. Here’s what he wrote:

If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly —would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things.  . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert.  . . .  But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.     Keep Reading...