by gonzodave coulon 


Dear Reader,

The average American Joe and Jane cannot answer correctly just why there are 24 hours in a day. However, the math of tangible resources is inarguable. There is no new oil - only old.

Amazingly, on Mega Disasters (The History Channel) tonight the oil crisis is predicted to be in the year 2012. This date coincides with many comments about the last year contained in pre-colonial South American calenders. Also, this date is mentioned in other predictions.

Regardless of the date, the math goes like this: We now need about 86 million gallons of fuel per day - worldwide. In the near future, because China and India demand a ride on the Four Horses of the Apocalypse, gas consumption will be about 100 million per day.

Due to well funded and organized environmental activist - who, combined with American engineering copyrights, squelched U.S. nuclear power in the mid-1970's - there are no new oil fields that will be opened and productive; gas refineries number less by dozens, not more, than they did 20 years ago; nor, are there any soon-to-be alternative sources for this peak oil. I suggest God planned for oil to run out.

Let's say the average American who consumes energy to support a lifestyle that would be envied by a Greek god, travels 20K miles per year in automobiles that get 20 mpg. When gas was $1.50, the gross income needed (after 33% est. taxes) to fund this 1000 gallon fuel cost was $2250. Less than $200 per month. This was the average cost for decades after the first oil crisis of the 1970's.

Because of escalating demands, multiply this by a future factor of 5 (pump prices from 3 years ago are presently at the half-way point of 2.5=$3.75) and you have $1000.00 per month dealy-o daddy-o. More than the Federal Minimum Wage.

This increase will be marked by a concurrent rise in all other prices. "Peak income" for millions of Americans will be surpassed by these various increases. Sending millions into the homeless and crime filled streets of America.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave


Creative Commons 3.0 license by David Coulon 2007-2008. Free to share. Please use with credit only.

by gonzodave


Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable (Gk.=dektos #5847, #1189 propitious, received approval, OT Hebrew verbage was "merciful," before this announcement of His NT sacrifice.Year of the Lord  (viz., 0 A.D.). (Isa 61:1-2, Php 4:18) KJV

2 Cor 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation I have succored thee: behold, now is the day of salvation.) [author's note: every day is a day of salvation in the continuing forgiveness provided by Christ to the once and forever accepted faith of the believer.] KJV

_________________________________

The time is November, 1968. The scene is a monochrome color. The occasional, random sound echoes from off the hard, thickly painted masonry and metal surfaces.

You are sitting in the viewing gallery of a state prison, on death row, listening to the private thoughts of a condemned felon. Who, in only a few moments, will be electrocuted for the crime of multiple murders.

You are about to witness the execution of a man who had savagely slit the throats of his many victims.

___________________________________


Sweeney:

"For the last time the shiny blade has done its job. The ragged yellow page is in my wet palm. I can squeeze no more sense from it. I know it by heart. Yet, no better than I do my unfaithful wife.

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore: love is the fulfilling of the law."

My head is shaved. Time to pay ... No stay of death will stop what's coming my way ... My thoughts are razor sharp. They slash and bleed my doubting heart ... Am I saved? Am I saved?

If I can lose my salvation, that means there are unforgivable sins of mine that Christ did not die for and - I am lost. If my sin after saving faith can defeat my salvation, how was my sin forgiven in the first place? Is it not the blood of Christ that washes away all my sin? If I can be saved again, then I am back to where I started and I am lost. If salvation is a reward then Christ died for nothing and I am lost!

Oh, wretched man that I am! Condemned to die! Who will save me from the miserable followers of a God they command: "Save thyself! Save thyself! Come down from the cross"?

I am overcome and fallen from a grace I can never deserve. I am held hostage to doubt, blackmailed by religion, and left to make sense of it all!

Lies! Damnable lies! They are wrong ... Faith has made reason my friend ... Oh, glorious day! I am forgiven! You died my death and shed your blood for me. Save me! Give me your resurrection life, sweet faithful Jesus. Love me! Fulfill the law for me, before I leave this wicked world - to be with you 'today in Paradise!'"


Creative Commons 3.0 license by David Coulon 2007-2008. Free to share. Please use with credit only.

I invite the interested reader to view this article as originally composed with pictures at christiansunite.com under theology at (koinonia=2841) Koinonia: The Communication of Grace.

Dear topic writer,

Your username is "saved_by_grace." Whose grace? The work of God as a gift for undeserving mankind is grace; not, the work of man for God. There is no meeting of man in a common ground between heaven and earth. This was once and only accomplished by the unique God-Man (Theanthropos), the Last Adam. the pioneer of our faith, where nothing exists except in Christ. Permissively or decreed.

The doctrine of separation in 2 Tim 3:5 as given by the Apostle Paul, in his last writing before his death to his "son in Christ," Timothy reads: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power therof: from such turn away." KJV

If you are not trusting in Christ Jesus for salvation - who are you trusting? How could Christ give back those whom the Father has given Him (Gospel of John)?  How could a regenerated spirit deny the Christ that saved him in the act of willfulfully giving back his/her salvation?

You assert a doctrine that was a "post-Reformation" return to Catholicism. (Ref the 18th century writings Augustine v. Pelagius, of Luther v. Arasmus, and Charles S. Spurgeon along with Dr. Toplady on Arminiainism in the 19th century before critical analysis of the Bible formed modern-day liberal theology) You are probably shallowly repeating what you've heard from others and are not aware that you are <i>de facto</i>  claiming a doctrine known variously as the "Governmental, Rectoral, or Federal theory of atonement" that would devalue the infinite value in the death of Christ for salvation. This theory was codified (after the Pelagius; 4th century>Socinius>Arminius; 17th century>Hugo Grotius who fled a prison term, was granted asylum in France, and is considered the genius of codified Maritime Law; who asserted that his theory could be proved like a mathematical formula of reason without the Bible's witness by the ancient legal codes of Roman Law; 17th century>Dr. John Miley's Systematic Theology and others; 19th and 20th century) all of whom mentioned where judged heretical, except for the modern John Miley, et al.. This theory is an exercise in rationalism and religious humanism tailored to the sin of pride for only "good people" who deserve to go to heaven.

Why is this "theory" of a benevolent God who administratively forgives sin because of the"illustration of punishment" example set by the death of Christ heretical? A God who out of "fairness" and as an example must not forgive those who do not comply to a fickle, unstated, and dubious "scale of justice." To claim this as a valid theory, imputation to Christ of "all sin" and imputation of the "righteousness of Christ" to the accepted faith of a new believer as his/her permanent standing before God (i.e., justification by faith - a thread that runs through the entire Bible) must be denied. Also, the penal satisfaction in the reconciliation of man to God provided by the death of Christ must be denied. In addition, the "complete satisfaction"  that provides for the potential salvation of all unregenerate mankind is denied.

To answer the feeble few,  incorrect hermanuetical and exegeted verses which relay on the upside-down definition of English back into the KJV; instead of the underlying original Greek into modern concepts - which are then claimed as teaching a "loss of salvation."  The KJV only and a Webster's abridged Dictionary are NOT the proper  basis for interpreting Scripture. Most Arminian seminaries have long ago ceased from requiring a knowledge of Greek of Hebrew from their graduates.

The following quoted summary is available at (a-voice.org/main/12people.htm)  which as basic and complete as I could produce for the reader of this reply. This  "false teaching" has, by far, the majority forum in Protestant, neo-evangelical Christianity today. A teaching that joins hands with the Catholic salvation where a future determined "scale of justice" good "news promise" of evangelism which leaves the believer and his loved ones without the assurance of being joined together with Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the moment of accepted faith - in this life and the life that follows.

    
The Manifesto of Evangelicalism: Series - Part 5 of 5. END
« on: May 23, 2008, 12:34:39 PM »

by gonzodave


Post Note:

Dear reader,

Please go to the opening topic at the bottom of this posting. I am new to the structure inside a moderated forum. My apologies.

The full featured article may be viewed on this site at my weblog page listed under theology as (koinonia=2841) Koinonia: The Communication of Grace. Or, visit my website at (koinoniaofgrace.com.)

Thank you and my regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave



UPDATE 3 (5.16.08)

Dear Reader,

Straight from the official history of the National Association of Evangelicals which credits its origins to a Reverend J. Elvin Wright that associated with Dr. John Ockenga in Boston.

"When the younger Wright succeeded his father in 1929, he transformed First Fruits Harvesters into the New England Fellowship. Rather than continuing a ministry devoted to Pentecostal distinctives, the new fellowship would serve a broader constituency by operating a summer conference to inspire and bring together evangelicals of all stripes throughout New England. This was not his only change. In 1934 Wright became a Congregationalist, being received on profession of faith into the membership of Park Street Church in Boston. The new ecclesiastical commitment proved beneficial to the New England Fellowship, enhancing Wright's relationship with a number of emerging evangelical leaders, including one who would play a role in NAE, the Reverend Harold John Ockenga."

(nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.history)

The NAE gives 1942 as its founding date. The above and other previous citations are to establish the contemporary aspect of neo-evangelicalism which was a spin-off from fundamentalist groups. Evangelicalism denies the biblical doctrine of separation from apostasy, yet, that was the origin of its beginnings and fundamentalist bear the brunt of their condemnation of sin - the sin of being unloving. This is illustrated in a recent comment concerning "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" that reads:

"Fundamentalism not a part?
Submitted by MIKE (not verified) on Thu, 2008-05-15 20:19.

Upon reading the manifesto, I was delighted to see Evangelicals seeking to define themselves theologically. I believe too, the list of sins mentioned are extremely accurate too (ie. the entertainment, materialism, etc). One thing I do not understand is the stance against Fundamentalism. If Evangelicals are seeking to define themselves theologically, and Fundamentalists agree theologically with the manifesto's definition, would Fundamentalists not then be under the umbrella of "Evangelicals" too? The "liberals" were distinguished from Evangelicals based on theology yet the Fundamentalists were distinguished based on their practice (or sins). The manifesto mentioned the Fundamentalists' lack of forgiveness and love (p.9). These are horrible sins to be sure! Yet these are sins no greater than the ones listed by the Evangelicals themselves! Without doubt, Fundamentalists are in dire need of reforming and repenting themselves in these areas just as Evangelicals need to reform and repent of the areas they mentioned. It is my hope, that Evangelicals will accept their Fundamentalist brothers and sisters, even if the acceptance is not returned."

(blog.bible.org/bock/node/369)

A broad spectrum of comments regarding the question: "Evangelical Christians: who exactly are they?" (posted by Aris) may be read @
(christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=1683526#poststop)

In the following citation of my comment at Bock's Blog, "me thinks I've been assassinated" by some very quick dance steps that were executed to leave me lagging behind. See what you think.

Response to my comment:

"More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:07.

Gonzodave:

More of the same, thanks. Anyone who complains of Billy Graham today, suggesting he is liberal, really has an imbalanced spectrum. No one has presented the gospel clearly to more people in our time.

dlb"

My new comment to dlb's response:

"Your response to "More History
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Thu, 2008-05-15 19:27.

Dear Dr. Bock,

Thank you for your courteous responses. However, concerning an "imbalanced spectrum" held by John E. Ashford in his book "Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism II" that he updated and revised in 1991 from his father's work of 1958 and 1975, I read in Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America on page 319:

"The social gospel differed from evangelical reform movements like the Salvation Army in at least two respects. First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms, changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology."

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

dlb's response to the comment above:

"More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Fri, 2008-05-16 07:27.

Gonzodave:

I think you missed my point. There is no social gospel when the work being affirmed is a reflection of spiritual commitments that grow out of the gospel. This is not merely an ethic we are discussing in that context (as the social gospel was and liberal theology often is), but a responses tied to the concept of being faithful to Jesus' call to live in a manner that honors God. In other words in this issue, the point does not remove the centrality or role of Jesus (In contrast to the social gosple which made his role one only of ethical guide). So this is precisely why we are not discussing the social gospel here but the living out of values rooted in Jesus' teaching and the call to be faithful to the gospel in terms of how we engage others. This is why the quote you give does not apply to what I am saying.

dlb"

(blog.bible.org/bock/node/369)

Now bear in mind, the above is in context with Dr. Bock's posting titled "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply" in which he provides the following summary in 4 points:

"Jesus has much more to say about a whole host of issues than the ones that have been targeted over the last few decades, INCLUDING the ones that have been discussed and defended (sometimes very well, sometimes not so well). Does tone matter as well as content? I think so. To these questions the Manifesto also calls for reflection. What variety of factors are at stake in such an assessment? Among them are: (1) the well being of our society, (2) the authenticity of believers' claims to love God and one's neighbor, (3) the integration of those calls to love, as well as (4) the central importance evangelicals give to the need for spiritual transformation to really grow into human maturity, as individuals and as a society."

Maybe I'm slow to follow a highly regarded Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary who is a New York Times best selling author, but I read 2 of the 4 points addressing societal issues, as in a "social gospel" which is most assuredly a platform of evangelicalism that can be verified by many sources.

A short Bio of AW Tozer at (christiansunite.com) reads:

"In 1950 Tozer was elected editor of the Alliance Weekly now called Alliance Life. The circulation doubled almost immediately. In the first editorial dated June 3, 1950, he set the tone: "It will cost something to walk slow in the parade of the ages while excited men of time rush about confusing motion with progress. But it will pay in the long run and the true Christian is not much interested in anything short of that.""

I have read very carefully the MANIFESTO several times. If I am to take what Dr. Bock is asserting in his response, which is echoed in his many responses to comments about the MANIFESTO adding to the "culture war" and adding more mud to the water, I could be encouraged that this document is a turn toward a more fundamental view and away from a societal focus in Neo-Evangelicalism. I'll need to survey new comments and follow a few more articles before I am convinced.

More later and my regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

Part 5 of 5. End of series in Forum.

Creative Commons 3.0 copyrighted by David Coulon 2008. Use with credit.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 01:14:21 PM by gonzodave »    

Just another basket case, who like the Apostle Paul was saved by the grace of God. I am committed to sharing and defending God's grace through the knowledge of imputation, penal substitution, and completed satisfaction contained in the infinite worth of the death of Christ Jesus. I am one voice among many.

The Manifesto of Evangelicalism: Series - Part 4 of 5
« on: May 23, 2008, 12:29:00 PM »
   
by gonzodave


THE MANIFESTO OF EVANGELICALISM

Source of this featured article:

Darrell Bock's Blog
(widgetbox.com/dash/subscription.jsp?_sourcePage=%2Fdash%2Fsubscriptions.jsp&id=b26fbc5c-cce1-4ea7-a09f-32f123d94fa0
)
"Dr. Darrell Bock is Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an Editor at Large for Christianity Today and is a Past President of the Evangelical Theological Society (2000-2001). He is the author of over..."

Billy Graham is an Alumni of Wheaton (see my article The Scales of Justice which illustrates in a simple, brief essay the religious humanism of neo-evangelicals). Please do not be taken in by the ambiguous term and the umbrella of contemporary, ecumenical EVANGELICAL tolerance (viz., NEUTRALISM/HUMANISM). I've never identified myself by this term, nor have I used it in any of my articles aside from this one. Jesus Christ did not carry around the contemporary baggage of an evangelical. He was an evangelist, which is a world apart from today's evangelicalism. The word evangelist only appears 3 times within the NT. The major occurance is Ephesians 4:11 which bears the meaning of a pioneer missionary who takes the message of God's saving grace to new regions. Scripture knows nothing of evangelicalism as defined in "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" under discussion. More on this later.

Am I suggesting some type of retrogression? Of course not, eternal truth neither progresses beyond and outside of Scripture (as some would suggest; i.e., the Holy Trinity was always revealed in NT writing), nor does it fall out of fashion and develop new priorities.

Evangelicalism, without doubt, has control of the Christian forum in America. If someone suggests to you a gospel of self-improvement that does not have the living Jesus Christ as the central focus and means, run don't walk away from them.

If you haven't heard about Dr. Darrell Bock's blog articles at dts.org and bible.org concerning a "Manifesto of Evangelicalism" and an open invitation to sign-up with those who drafted this document, you will soon. It is destined to be the flavor of the month on all the Clear Channel Christian Radio stations.

The original posting that I followed was by Dr. Darrell Bock, titled "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 08.08." It may be viewed @ (blog.bible.org/bock/node/369#comment-8126)

I first began to follow comments concerning this MANIFESTO at many blog sites on Pentecost Sunday.

In the spirit of a well rounded "gonzo journalism of grace" (an oxymoron, perhaps?) I direct the interested reader to 4 pre-dated "contrary view" articles.

Firstly, "Please Don't Call me an Evangelical" by Dr. C. Matthew MacMahon, @
(apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonDontCallMeEvangelical.htm)

Secondly: "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church" by Dr. C. Matthew MacMahon @
(apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonPelagianCaptivity.htm)



You will not be disappointed in the new perspective that will be gained through these articles.

More later and my regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

_____________________

UPDATE 2 (5.15.08)

Dear Reader,

I posted the following comments at Bock's Blog "The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 8. 08" (blog.bible.org/bock/node/369) and received a courteous response from Dr. Bock each time. I don't agree with his take on the articles I suggested he read, but if you have read this article from the beginning you can see the background argument that I am making.

1) Definitions of "evangelical"
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Sun, 2008-05-11 21:17.

Dear Dr. Bock,

I've followed with interest the many comments around the "blogosphere" concerning this MANIFESTO of Evangelicalism. Definitions about "isms" come and go.

I invite you and any interested party to take a look beyond the "in speak" of evangelicalism and read a fascinating and timely piece written by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon @
(apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/McMahonDontCallMeEvangelical.htm)

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

1) Definition dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:02.

Gonzodave:

Thanks for the post. Just a note. Anyone who writes that Carl Henry was against the evangelical movment does not understand its history at all. Henry edited the journal that has represetnted the movment for years. Its name: Chrsitianity Today. So I am not at all sure how accurate the post is.

dlb

2) More history of evangelicalism
Submitted by gonzodave (not verified) on Sun, 2008-05-11 22:14.

Dear Dr. Bock,

Post Note to my previous comment:

In the spirit of "ecumenicalism" and a well rounded view of of the ambiguous word - evangelicalism, I additional invite any interested person to read the article posted @
(americanpresbyterianchurch.org/institutions.htm)

Regards in Christ,

gonzodave

2) More History dlb
Submitted by bock on Mon, 2008-05-12 14:07.

Gonzodave:

More of the same, thanks. Anyone who complains of Billy Graham today, suggesting he is liberal, really has an imbalanced spectrum. No one has presented the gospel clearly to more people in our time.

dlb

This writer:

Of course when the word gospel is used the language-game falls into play and what the speaker means by gospel is not necessarily that perceived by the listener. It just happens that I have a great article from my unpublished manuscript detailing "the gospel" in its varied aspects. I will post it first here in ChristiansUnite.com for my readers.

The latest posting for 5.13.08 concerning this topic at Dr. Darrell Bock's blog site may be found @
(blog.bible.org/bock/node/371)

For 5.14.08 see
Beliefnet Manifesto Feedback and the Under 30s May 14.08 (Revised May 15.08) @
(blog.bible.org/bock/node/372)

and the referenced weblog article at Beliefnet @
(blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/05/the-evangelical-manifesto-a-ca.html?bt=polmashup)

The document under discussion, The Manifesto of Evangelicalism, may be viewed @
(evangelicalmanifesto.com)



More later.

Regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave

END of Part 4. Continued in Part 5>

    
The Manifesto of Evangelicalism: Series - Part 3 of 5
« on: May 23, 2008, 12:49:26 PM »
   
by gonzodave


(citation of John E, Ashworth continued from Part 2)

"... A book could easily be written defending the thesis that Wheaton College is the educational parent of new evangelicalism. Dr. Ockenga, and a majority of the founding fathers of Fuller in particular and new evangelicalism in general, had roots at Wheaton.

... New evangelicalism has a vise-like grip on most of the Christian colleges and theological schools of our day. It has accomplished an almost complete takeover of the Bible institutes and colleges which sprang up after the fundamentalist-liberal battle in the early part of this century.

... To the new evangelical, the fundamentalist errs by lacking love, scholarship and a social program. The modernist errs by lacking Biblical faith. The two lacks are made to sound quite equal. As a fundamentalist I do not accept the new evangelical's charge. I would observe that to lack Biblical faith is far more serious than to lack love, scholarship and a social program.

... Mass evangelism is the exclusive province of new evangelicalism. New evangelicals such as Billy Graham and Luis Palau are the household names of evangelism. Publishers whose materials once helped establish fundamental churches now train a generation of new evangelicals. New evangelicalism owns the music publishers. The churches which once thrilled to the wholesome songs of great Christians now are satisfied with the trash of contemporary Christian music drawn from the rhythm of the same world the Lord commanded us not to love. The new neutralism is not logical; it is not Scriptural; but it is overwhelmingly popular.

... It is no mistake to call him the father of new evangelicalism. Dr. Harold John Ockenga coined the name, "Neo-evangelicalism". When the National Association of Evangelicals was born in 1942, its first President was Harold John Ockenga. As a pastor he occupied the pulpit of Park Street Congregational Church on the edge of Boston Common. When Fuller Theological Seminary was founded in 1947 its first President was Dr. Harold John Ockenga. Christianity Today, the daily racing form of new evangelicalism, had its birth in 1956 as the brainchild of Billy Graham and his father-in-law, Dr. L. Nelson Bell.

... Dr. Ockenga's third "re" is the recapture of denominational leadership. I cannot see from the Bible that either men or denominations are ever recaptured from apostasy. New evangelicalism has been on the scene recapturing denominational leadership for over forty years. What denominational leadership has been reclaimed? Has the United Presbyterian Church been recaptured for Biblical Christianity? Has the Methodist Church been recaptured for the doctrine of the Wesleys? Has the leadership of the United Church of Christ been triumphantly recaptured? Men from these denominations have talked in theological dialogue with the scholars of new evangelicalism and have sat on the platforms of great crusades with Billy Graham, but the leadership of not one denomination has been reclaimed. The policy has failed, for it is a policy of horrible, hideous, compromise. God's program for apostasy is to separate from it, expose it and contend against it.

... Dr. Ockenga wrote the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle for the Bible, published in 1976. In that foreword he said:

'Neo-evangelicalism [i.e., as opposed to Karl Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy] was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.'

Separation is God's prescription for treating the disease of apostasy. It is not ours to repudiate, for it is a divine command, not a human idea. The doctrine of separatism gets its name from 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18.

'Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.'

The same doctrine is taught in passages such as Ephesians 5:11 which says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." It is the theme of II John, culminating in verses 10 and 11:

'If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.'

It is taught throughout the Scriptures, but it is very plain in passages such as I Kings 13, II Chronicles 19:2, Romans 16:17. II Thessalonians 3:6 and I Timothy 6:3-5. It is not my purpose to expound the doctrine of separation in this book. I have sought to do that in another booklet. Repudiation of separatism may sound acceptable until you realize that it is a repudiation of God's command about how to treat apostasy. In a much earlier press release dated December 8, 1957, Dr. Ockenga made the following statements:

'The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of static front battles, the new theological war is one of movement. Instead of attack upon error, the New Evangelicals proclaim the great historic doctrines of Christianity ...The strategy of the New Evangelicalism is the positive proclamation of truth in distinction from all errors without delving in personalities which embrace error.'

In a war, generals may change strategy, but that is not the prerogative of the Christian when God has given a command. Obviously separation is God's command, and infiltration is man's idea. The irenic statement above sounds rather noble in man's eyes. One can picture the new evangelical standing peacefully with hands folded far above the din of battle. But how does that square with Jude 3 and 4?

'Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.'

What do you think of the new evangelical suggestion that we can proclaim truth "without delving in personalities which embrace error"? Throughout church history, heresies have always been identified with the men who perpetrated them. Almost every heresy of the past has been associated with a personality You cannot erase nineteen centuries of church history with a cute phrase. Certainly Dr. Ockenga was aware that the battle for the faith in the 1920's was between a Baptist unbeliever, Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, and Presbyterian believers. Did he believe that his brilliant teacher, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, should not have delved into the blasphemous statements of Dr. Fosdick in the First Presbyterian Church of New York City? The idea of preaching positively without contending for the faith is a compromise of Biblical truth."

END of part 3. Continued in 4 of 5>
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 01:17:42 PM by gonzodave »    Report to moderator   172.129.15.153
Just another basket case, who like the Apostle Paul was saved by the grace of God. I am committed to sharing and defending God's grace through the knowledge of imputation, penal substitution, and completed satisfaction contained in the infinite worth of the death of Christ Jesus. I am one voice among many.

   
The Manifesto of Evangelicalism: Series - Part 2 of 5
« on: Today at 12:46:00 PM »
   
by gonzodave


Dear Reader,

An Evangelical is commonly considered and explained as one who adheres to the historical gospel. This is more than a misrepresentation, it is a false claim and deliberate evasion of contemporary church history by those who because of their many advanced degrees and studies should know better.

A pro-comment concerning "The Manifesto of Evangelicalism" under the posting The Point of the Manifesto Put Simply May 08.08. (blog.bible.org/bock/node/369#comment-8126) reads:

"Manifesto
Submitted by dopderbeck1 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-05-14 07:05.

As a law professor who self-identifies as an evangelical, I think the Manifesto is an excellent and much-needed document, and I signed it without hesitation. Could I find nuances in it that I might not agree with 100%? Sure. But its tone, its holistic approach, its bold affirmation of vibrant and historic Christian faith, represent the very best ideals we should want to pursue -- ideals, I think, that go right back to Jesus' teaching and the Apostles' instructions to the early church as reflected in scripture."

The Apostle Paul writes to his "son in Christ" in 1 Tim 6:20: "O Timothy, guard {imperative-the gospel} and keep the deposit entrusted [to you]! Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge and spiritual illumination." {this writer} AMP

"All of us have been tempted to water down the gospel to make it palatable to a friend. We knew that we were wrong when we did it. New evangelicalism made it acceptable to water down the gospel. Campus Crusade's "Four Spiritual Laws" are a prime example. They give a diluted presentation of the gospel designed be non-offensive. Who could fail to be attracted to, "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life:"? It is not false, but it is not the gospel as preached by Peter or Paul. It is an accommodation to the way the natural man thinks about himself. It produces an easy-believism in which every man is saved but lives just as he did before.

With this accommodation of the message to the natural man came an accommodation in the way of presenting the message. The historic method has always been what Scripture calls, "the foolishness of preaching." The new method became the selling of the gospel by the use of sports heroes, beauty queens and famous people."

John E. Ashbrook, New Neutralism II

"Not only is the new-brand Evangelicalism born of compromise, but in the second place, it is a movement nurtured on pride of intellect. The statements of its leading advocates indicate that these men are trying very, very hard to be accepted among `the upper four hundred' of the intelligentsia. This new crop of evangelical scholars has done graduate work at Harvard, Chicago University and Princeton, and they know a lot of answers that the common herd of fundamentalist preachers can't fathom. To speak very plainly, an attitude of intellectual snobbery is very typical of many of its leaders."

William E. Ashford, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism (I)
_______________________________

FOREWORD

The following citation is somewhat extended, but necessary to establish my contra-view of the claims of neo-evangelicalism. Dr. John Ashbrook writes in New Neutralism II (1991):

"In 1958 when my father finished his eight page tract on new evangelicalism, he gave it the title, The New Neutralism. His thesis was that new evangelicalism was a movement which determined to take its stand halfway between fundamentalism on the right and modernism on the left. From its beginning new evangelicalism took a position on the top wire of the fence between belief and unbelief, in the no man's land between irreconcilable armies, and on the white line in the middle of the road. Neutrality has always been a precarious position, and precarious becomes "impossible" when the truth is involved. The title of my book indicates that it is a sequel and that I share my father's analysis of the position.

... As my father pointed out in his book, there is a tremendous pride of intellect in new evangelicalism. Let me quote again from Dr. Ockenga’s December 8, 1957 news release:

'The New Evangelicalism differs from Fundamentalism in its willingness to handle the social problems which Fundamentalism evaded ... The New Evangelical is willing to face the intellectual problems and meet them in the framework of modern learning ... The evangelical believes that Christianity is intellectually defensible, but the Christian cannot be obscurantist in scientific questions pertaining to the creation, the age of man, the universality of the flood and other moot Biblical questions.'

It seems to me that as Dr. (John) Ockenga paints the portrait of the new evangelical with his right hand, he caricatures the fundamentalist with his left. Do you see the picture? The fundamentalist is unwilling to handle social problems, unable to face intellectual problems, not possessing modern learning and obscurantist in scientific questions. Intellectual pride is peer pressure on a scholarly level, and it doesn't look any better on scholars than it does on teenagers. Ho, ye new evangelicals, wisdom has arrived and will die with us! From its inception new evangelicalism has been determined to impress the world with its intellect. It has craved the respect of academia. It has determined to earn plaudits at the fountainheads of secular learning. Why should this be a goal for the Christian?

END of Part 2 . continued in 3 of 5>
« Last Edit: Today at 01:10:01 PM by gonzodave »    

Just another basket case, who like the Apostle Paul was saved by the grace of God. I am committed to sharing and defending God's grace through the knowledge of imputation, penal substitution, and completed satisfaction contained in the infinite worth of the death of Christ Jesus. I am one voice among many.
ump to: 

Thu, May 22nd - 7:19PM
Update 1-3: The Manifesto of Evangelicalism, the Contemporary History of Neo-Evangelicalism, and Intellectual Assassination

by gonzodave



PREFACE

(Revised 5.22.08, latest update #3 - 5.16.08)

This is an update of my "gonzo journalism of grace" article/essay that will be developed over time. If you have read the previous UPDATES, please scroll down and find the beginning of the most recent posting.

Sadly, too many Christians have been lulled into the idea that Christianity is the same as "being nice." Quite to the contrary, Christianity is accepting and defending the truth of God's Word as revealed in NT Scripture, not personal opinions of how to impact the world. This is a complete reversal of priorities. Christians are the means whereby "the body of Christ" is self-developing until whatever proper number of those placed "in Christ" by the Holy Spirit is final. The focus, once again, is the completion of the kingdom, rather than a conversion of the world.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee, Holy Father keep through thine own name these whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are [implied - one]. (bold and brackets mine) KJV

Christianity and "the world" are polar opposites. God sees no shades of gray between them. We cannot see, but are told that Satan is the ruler of this age and the cosmos (KJV=world; Gk.=the organized world and its institutions controlled and executed by humankind. A different "world" underlies John 3:16 where the Greek specifies only unregenerate humanity, not the institutions of men controlled by Satan. In John 17:9 and Rev 13:8. Jesus did not pray to His "Holy Father" for the systems of the "world" which are anti-god and not theocratic as was the intention for OT Israel, which was chosen and unique.) This is according to the temporary permissive will of God until His kingdom comes in the blazing glory of our Savior and His will be done.

It required the writing of the NT to establish grace and salvation through the living, resurrected Jesus Christ. We learn from the Apostle Paul to be "quick to defend" God's gospel of grace against the pride of intellectualism (i.e., vain imaginations known in the primitive church as gnosticism). Much like Noah who "found grace" and preached for 120 years without the conversion of a single soul, it is the Christ-like effort and truth which we repeat that God accepts as credit to us for future rewards. And, as always, any success is to His credit and sovereignty.

Aside from the primary and serious difference in the salvation that is preached, today's Protestant Christianity properly falls into 3 current categories - fundamental, neo-evangelical, and liberal, or modernist. As can be easily discerned, a neo-evangelical view would be a middle-of-the-road compromise (viz., neutralism or religious humanism). Concerning contemporary neo-evangelicalism, Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America reads on page 319:

"The social gospel differed from evangelical reform movements like the Salvation Army in at least two respects. First, it tended to emphasize structural reforms, changes in law, government policy, and the formal institutions of society. Second, it was firmly rooted in Protestant liberal theology."

END of Part 1. Continued in 2 of 5

[The Hall of Church History]

by gonzodave

Dear Reader,

To become a Christian today is much like the experience of a time traveler. Speaking personally, yet for many, when I began seriously reading the Bible, it was from a self-centered point of view - from a position of: How does this passage apply to me? An assumption rarely corrected in the mind of church attending Christians is that whatever denominational perspective is taught, that was what the early believer in the first century, Apostlelic churches heard and believed. Is it necessary to say: "This is not - in all cases - true.?"

Should one enter the kingdom today, in order to find one's way to the city of the High Priest, it is necessary to know how and why the suburban real estate - surrounding the city - was developed. The suburbs are meant to be an attractive, enticing alternative to city-dwelling. A city which is marketed by the real estate developers as metaphorical. Thereby, it stands to reason, by living in and expanding the suburbs, those who wish to enter this future city will be accepted because of the fine housing and well manicured lawns that they have maintained.

I offer the highly regarded work of Phil Johnson - his "front page" is included here - as a useful way to understand why the suburbs are not the city. A literal city that has been divinely constructed without hands and freely given to the urban dweller. A quantum leap and improvement over living in the suburbs which truly fits the NT theme of ... now-but-not-yet.

My regards in Christ Jesus,

gonzodave



Hall of Church History
(spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/hall.htm)

Theology from A Bunch of Dead Guys™


The Hall of Church History

"Thus saith the LORD,
Stand ye in the ways, and see,
and ask for the old paths,
where is the good way,
and walk therein,
and ye shall find rest for
your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16).

 
   FRIEND who noticed my reading habits asked, "Why would anyone want to study theology by reading A Bunch of Dead Guys? Shouldn't you focus mostly on current works, or risk becoming an irrelevant theological fossil?"
   My answer: the truth about God is timeless. The last infallible book of theology was written nearly two thousand years ago. In theology, if it's new, it probably isn't true.
   The best of the men featured here knew that. Though they are dead, they still speak (cf. Heb. 11:4). Scripture was their supreme rule of faith. Their theological line of descent is clearly traceable from the Reformers, to Augustine, to the Apostle Paul, to Isaiah, to Abraham—all the way back to the first promise God made to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 3:15).
   The entrance is at the top center of the map. Watch your step, though. As you walk through The Hall of Church History, if you veer too far to the right or to the left, you'll encounter people whose tendency has been to enshrine tradition over Scripture, or to pursue what is innovative and novel at the expense of what is sure and steadfast.
   These dark corners of The Hall of Church history can be interesting and informative. But we encourage guests to spend most of their time in the central hall, which takes you from the Church Fathers, through the Medieval Churchmen, down a narrow, treasure-filled hallway devoted to the Puritan and Reformed writers, to the more recent stalwarts of the faith. We have named this corridor "Berean Hall," in honor of those noble recipients of the apostolic message, who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).


Phil Johnson
Curator

[/color][/color]

Tue, May 20th - 1:33PM
Abide In Me As I Abide In You

by gonzodave


God would say to the children of His grace,
To those who possess the power of faith:

Trim your sails and loose your rudder.
Let the breath of my Spirit carry you home.

And the rainbow water flying from your bow,
Is a stream of life in the river of now.

"At that day you shall know
that I'm in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you.
Because I live, you will too" 1


1. John 14:19ff, 20ff NET
2. Photo by Steve Ford Elliott, Ireland. Used with permission.


Creative Commons 3.0 license by David Coulon 2007-2008. Free to share and use with credit.