I think the church that takes on THAT immorality would probably be anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, too, but as I haven’t seen one, I can’t be too sure.

You haven’t seen one?

Are you kiding me?

Do you live underwater?

Why did you allow fundamentalists to use the internet?

“A materialistic religion that equates wealth with spiritual well-being is an ABOMINATION to God.”

Sure, it lacks the requisite post-modernist, touch-feely, I’m okay – you’re okay, multicultural bent, but I think it says what EVANGELICALS need to be saying loudly, and taking on fully.

When I see my local churches not speaking out against meth, alcohol, fornication, and other sins, I begin to think it’s for the approval of others for which they stand, not for God’s.

I fear some churches won’t condemn crime because it would make them targets of gangs and felons. I think that is some derision we need to relish.

Come to think of it, what is it about the word “abomination” that makes us so disinclined to say it?

I think the church that takes on THAT immorality would probably be anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage, too, but as I haven’t seen one, I can’t be too sure.

As far as the “widows and orphans,” I am all for it. But when you want to make the STATE the instrument of it, then my SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM radar starts to beep…. :-)

In going through R.T. France’s commentary on Matthew this morning, I was led (by France) to Isaiah 58 regarding fasting. I thought it most germane to the conversation, especially regarding the Christian’s duty to do good.

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Isaiah 58:6-7)

“Show me where Jesus, Paul. Moses or David untied with the cultures around them to seek peace, harmony and civility.”

Are you serious….You can’t find that anywhere in the Bible?

“Christians are called to separate from the world and its system”

Separate from the worlds sin, but not from the world…If we were called to separate from the world, why the heck would Paul become all things to all people?

“Each Christian is responsible to help the poor and sick around them if they can, but the church as an organization is not called to do this.”

Again, I disagree, 100%.

Read some of the verses where we are called to care for the poor, and you will see it isn’t an ‘if we can’ situation. The Church (as in, the body of Christ) isn’t called to care for the poor and sick?

The Bible I have read says the exact opposite.

Rob, I don’t want to judge you personally, but theologically we are on different pages.

I feel like you believe in “Evacuation Theology”

Which is basically, “Someday, ill be out of here, floating on a cloud in Heaven, so the matters of this world, the things of this world, the problems of this world…I don’t really have time to care.”

(They call that Gnosticism….)

Why then would Jesus pray “Thy Kingdom come on EARTH as it is in Heaven”?

Give Matthew 25 a read again.

Before I forget, “heresy” as I’ve seen it used generally means “doctrine which is erroneous in such a way that Christians must divide themselves as a church from all who teach or accept it; those adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to make definitive judgments on this matter.” (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/158-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith#note3)

That being my working definition of heresy I try to reserve the use of the word for those denying the faith not for those in error related to less weighty matters.

Knowing your working definition of heresy helps me understand some of your statements better.

Now to your points…

1-2) I’m going to group 1 & 2 together.

I don’t believe in a social gospel. However, we do have a mandate to do good.

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” Galations 6:9-10

Civil rights? You’re not suggesting the church should not have been involved in the civil rights movement are you? It is quite shameful the way some churches treated blacks in the past (and some still do today). The church should stand up for those who are oppressed. If not us, who?

3) I don’t see it that way at all.

4) It’s embarrassing to say it, but “fundamentalists” have a bad name and have earned it to a degree.

5) It doesn’t use the word “infallible” but it does say “The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.”

You state “This manifesto needs more clarity.” Sure. It could have more clarity in a few places, but so could The Apostles Creed.

To have a fully clarified manifesto you would have to write out the entire Bible. I think it would be more reasonable to simply state “The Bible … (is) our final guide to faith and practice.”

Good discussion. Back to work. Lunch goes by so fast when engaged in good discussions.

I should add for the benefit of the heart readers out there that any negative vibes you sensed coming from me might have been due to the smoothie I had for lunch. Freezing!

Your brother in Christ,

Stan

And I know, no one has said that about me around here, so please don’t react to that all defensive-like.

My apologies, that last post of mine was a bit harsh. I do take exception to some of what you’ve written and I don’t find much of what you said to be at all relevant to what the Manifesto actually says, but I’m certainly not trying to start something here. I was reacting, no doubt, to the general reaction all of Stan’s well-thought out postings were attracting.

Having read the entire Manifesto, while there are things I would have worded differently, there’s nothing there I find offensive and certainly not heretical.

Just because something sounds a bit like Rick Warren on occaision is hardly cause to call it heretical. It’s not like everything Warren ever said is wrong and this document carefully frames all of it’s social concerns as a natural outworking of believing the gospel.
Remember “Pure and undefiled religion is this: to take care of the widow and the orphan in distress.” That sounds like a social gospel to some, but it’s about as biblical as it gets.

There is no watering down of the gospel, no syncretism and enough there to offend any good Catholic/Mormon/JW or what have you. However, it does effectively tackle the issue of getting along in the public square.

It may not be the be all and end all, but it reads well enough to me. If that makes me a heretical liberal, so be it.

Why would that be? did you read all of my posts, I have been calm and polite in this whole debate. I have given Stan the last word. I have not been mean or sarcastic in any way. The only word I used that you might disagree with is the word heretical which I gave a definition for in my last response to Stan. It seems from your posts like you’re trying to start something, but i choose not to go in that direction.

Your latest responce to Stan amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “LaLaLaLaLaLaLa”

Call off the dogs.

If you look at my first post you will see that I said this (manifesto) is a Rick warren propaganda statement. Look and page 6 and 9, those two principles are almost direct quotes from his purpose driven peace plan. I also said they (framers of the document) were trying to seek civility because they we’re tired of being exposed for their heretical statements. Then I showed you some of their statements.

Look at the manifesto and the study guide and you will see that they are trying to change the way they are perceived. They are perceived the way they are because of the things they teach. A civil public arena won’t change the perception of their teachings; it will just stop the supposed persecution which is what they really desire.

As to your question, are they not brothers and sisters I Christ, we don’t know who is a brother or sister in Christ (true believer). Only God knows. Since they are leaders and teachers, all we can go by is what they teach. And some of them teach false doctrine which I have shown you by their quotes. We are called to flee from false teachers. Just because some one claims to be a Christian doesn’t make them one. Even Jesus said that in the last day many would say Lord, Lord and He would say I never knew you. We must judge all things by the word of God. It is possible to claim to be a Christian and believe most the doctrinal truths correctly and still not be a Christian. You can do this by adding extra things to biblical doctrine. There are things that we teach that will nullify our faith. Read Galatians. And I never said they were not Christians I said some of them taught false doctrine.

If Hayford claims to speak to God directly, if he claims that Christians are little gods wouldn’t this make someone question his faith. Mystics like Dallas Willard lead people into practices that are forbidden by God, is that not heresy. We are called to flee from teachers like these. We are called to expose them.

In response to each of your points

1- Uniting with other faiths for the cause of Christ. Read the last to two paragraphs in the manifesto. This is the implication. Show me where Jesus, Paul. Moses or David untied with the cultures around them to seek peace, harmony and civility.

Christians are called to separate from the world and its system; we’re not called to take over the arts and sciences for Christ. Nor are we called to unite with the world to bring common good to the world. There is no such thing as a cultural mandate.

2- Have you ever heard of the social gospel? It is not the churches responsibility to change society. You do not see this anywhere in the N T. church. They proclaimed the gospel. They taught fellow believers to help them grow in their faith and knowledge in Christ. They did help the poor but mostly it was the poor in the churches and not the world. Each Christian is responsible to help the poor and sick around them if they can, but the church as an organization is not called to do this.

Christ did not come to save us from our circumstances. He did not come to eliminate earthly injustice and bring democratic freedom to the world. Where are civil rights mentioned in the N. T, this is not the cause of the church. Christ died for sinners who rebelled against God. He said he came to bring division not peace. In the last days they will say peace, peace when there is no peace. The peace and justice we receive through Christ, by His atonement for our sins, relates the forgiveness of our sins and our peace with God. Christ did not reverse the curse so that slowly the church will transform this planet into paradise again.

3-Half of this document (which includes the study guide that goes with it) is complaining because evangelicals don’t like the response they get from the world because of fundamentalists.

4- page 9 of the manifesto,

-fundamentalists
-romanticize the past
-radicalize the future
-publicly militant
-sub Christian

Fundamentalist all too easily fail to love their neighbor and forgive without limit and even love their enemies. Need I say more?

5- Lastly, the manifesto says God’s word is our supreme authority it does not say infallible.

The catholics believe that salvation is in Christ and in no other religion, yet they do not believe salvation is by faith in Christ alone apart from the church or their good works. This manifesto needs more clarity.

Be discerning, don’t believe all that you hear or see. Search the scriptures to discern all things.

The world heretical refers to false or incorrect doctrine as it relates to the word of God. There is nothing wrong with exposing error or even calling someone heretical if they teach false doctrine.

Thanks for discussion, I will give you the last word, but I cannot continue, I need to got to work

May Christ show each of us the truth so that we may come together in true unity

In Christ’s name,

Rob

just my two cents…

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

“not heretical, it’s mistaken”

Well said.

LOL! That could be attached to just about any post, anywhere.

May I (humbly) suggest that before the word “heretical” gets tossed around any further, that anyone planning on using it answers this one question:

Is the belief/teaching I’m talking about enough to overturn or negate someones understanding of salvation such that it forces them to not believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, or, is is just a bit of wrong teaching?

Ie. For which ever view of baptism you hold (credo/paedo), the other is not heretical, it’s mistaken or wrong.
For which ever side of the charismatic movement you’re on, the other side is not heretical, it’s mistaken.
One the other hand, believing you bring something of value to the table in salvation, now that’s heretical.

Think a little people!! Let’s not be consigning anyone to the flames just because we don’t like their tone, or because they think differently on some issues!!!

Many of the Charter Signatories have, and do, believe and teach things with which I disagree. Does that mean they’re not Christians? Are they not brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we will spend eternity praising God?

I am pleased to see in your last post you started to address the EM. I greatly appreciate that.

As I am a slow reader, it would be helpful if you could directly quote the EM and maybe give the page number.

Sarcasm warning: For those who can see into man’s heart, I really am a slow reader. Ignore any electrical impulses you may be detecting from my heart.

I’ll try to address your points one by one.

1) “The fact that the peace plan states that you can work with anyone from any religion for the cause of Christ, just like the manifesto says, is heretical.”

I’m not sure it says that. Are you referring to the statement in the second paragraph on page five: “We call on all citizens of goodwill and believers of all faiths and none to join us in working for a civil public square and the restoration of a tough-minded civility that is in the interests of all.”

If so, believers and nonbelievers alike should strive to have “a civil public square.” No problem there.

2) “The idea that the goal of Christianity is to seek social justice is heretical.”

I’m not sure where it refers to that. It does state on the next to the last paragraph of page three: “To be Evangelical is to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the good news of Jesus.”

I’m not sure what you mean by social justice. Things that come to my mind regarding “freedom, justice, peace, and well-being” would include: civil rights, caring for widows and orphans, caring for the poor in general (taking into consideration Paul’s admonition regarding the man who wouldn’t work), and caring for our neighbor (defined as anyone in need).

3) “The complaining about the lack of civility in the public arena is just an attempt to avoid persecution and pushing it in this document as an evangelical principle makes it heretical.”

I addressed the “civil public square” in #1. I think you may have stretched a bit in assuming the motivation for a “civil public square.”

4) “Saying that it is unloving to judge error is heretical. Calling fundamentalists unloving just because they defend the truth is sinful and borders on being heretical.”

To the best of my knowledge, they didn’t call judging error unloving. They do state in the third from last paragraph: “But we also insist that “the right to believe anything” does not mean that “anything anyone believes is right.” Rather, respect for conscientious differences also requires respectful debate.” They also state in the third from the last paragraph on page four: “And we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose beliefs and behavior on anyone. We believe in persuasion.”

5) “The document also denies the inerrancy of scripture and it denies faith in Christ alone.”

It doesn’t say that. Item number three on page three states “Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.” In item one they call “Jesus…the only Savior.”

I look forward to your reply.

The five purposes of God in Warren’s purpose driven life, which is clearly promoted in the document, are heretical. The fact that God has a wonderful plan for your life, which is part of the purpose driven plan, is heretical. The peace plan, which is again promoted in this document, is heretical. The fact that the peace plan states that you can work with anyone from any religion for the cause of Christ, just like the manifesto says, is heretical. The idea that the goal of Christianity is to seek social justice is heretical. Furthermore, God is not going to bring heaven to earth before the return of Christ, that idea is heretical. The complaining about the lack of civility in the public arena is just an attempt to avoid persecution and pushing it in this document as an evangelical principle makes it heretical. Saying that it is unloving to judge error is heretical. Calling fundamentalists unloving just because they defend the truth is sinful and borders on being heretical. These are just a few of the heretical statements in this document. The document also denies the inerrancy of scripture and it denies faith in Christ alone.

YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO SEE SOME HERETICAL STATEMENTS. HERE’S JUST A FEW.

“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ. . . . And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.

[The problem is] “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”
J.P.Moreland quoted in “Postcard from San Diego: Fighting ‘Bibliolatry’ at the Evangelical Theological Society,” by Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, 11/14/07.

It is well known that Jack Hayford is a radical charismatic who is fully immersed in the spiritual warfare movement.
In the 10/91 issue of Charisma magazine, Hayford relates a vision of seeing Jesus seated in heaven and then rising from the throne. Hayford states: “As the anointing caught in the folds of His garments, it began to splash out and fall over the church.” Jesus then supposedly said, “I am beginning to rise now in preparation for my second coming. Those who will rise with me will share in this double portion of anointing.”

Hayford praised Richard Foster for his efforts in bringing together all the streams of the church. (Foster is the head of Renovaré, an international ecumenical organization that espouses the use of guided imagery and visualization as means of obtaining “personal spiritual renewal.”)

“If miracles really did cease at 90 A.D. … the heretic hunters were right! If we are not ‘little Gods,’ we will apologize to you in front of ten thousand times ten thousand before the Crystal Sea!” [Hayford has taught the "little gods" heresy himself, specifically in a message first recorded in 1979 (titled "Marching Against Mammon") and rebroadcast on a on a 10/2/86 Living Way radio program.]

John Ortberg promotes contemplative spirituality.

In Ortberg’s 2005 book, God is Closer Than You Think, Ortberg quotes favorably from contemplatives such as Anne Lamott, Annie Dillard, Gary Thomas (Sacred Pathways), Brother Lawrence (who danced violently like a mad man when he practiced), interspiritualists Tilden Edwards (Shalem Institute), Thomas Kelly (Divine Center in all), Jean Pierre de Caussade, Frederick Buechner, Meister Eckhart as well as Dallas Willard and Thomas Merton. And yet, Christian churches are using this book.

Max Lucado

Cure for the Common Life, by author Max Lucado, is a book about “living in your sweet spot.” Lucado tells readers in chapter one to “[h]eed that inner music,” and quoting mystic Martin Buber from his book, The Way of Man (a book on Jewish mysticism), Lucado tells readers they each have a “divine spark.” Buber had panentheistic affinities as he embraced the teachings of Hasidism (Jewish mysticism) and believed that this divine spark that Lucado refers to is in every human being and every part of creation.

Through Lucado’s book he quotes other mystics and contemplatives: Saint Thomas Aquinas,Thomas Merton, Eugene Peterson and Richard Foster

Dallas Willard also addresses this issue in “The Divine Conspiracy.” Atonement-centered understandings of the gospel, he says, create vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else. He calls us to move beyond a “gospel of sin management” – to the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I’d suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.

Dallas Willard

“What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.”—Dallas Willard, Apologetics in Action

Willard is a mystic, here’s a link to one of his reading lists

http://www.dwillard.org/resources/RecReading.asp

These are just a few of the heretical statements of the signers of this document. If you search on your own you will find more.

Bob Buford is one of the fathers of the seeker sensitive church growth movement and the head of the Peter Drucker foundation and founder of the emergent church movement through the leadership network.

Look at other representatives from the organizations they come from fuller seminary, Ywam, charisma magazine and the Lausanne movement all are heretical in their own way.

We are all called to defend the truth and expose error. It is not unloving to do so. Actually we keep people from going astray in the process.

I just looked at the evangelical manifesto statement again, I see you signed it. One day by God’s grace you might see the error in your way and take the path of Thomas Cranmer who at the pulpit on the day of his execution, opened with a prayer and an exhortation to obey the king and queen, but he ended his sermon totally unexpectedly, deviating from the prepared script. He renounced the recantations that he had written or signed with his own hand since his degradation and as such he stated his hand would be punished by being burnt first. He then said, “And as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy, and Antichrist with all his false doctrine.”[84] He was pulled from the pulpit and taken to where Latimer and Ridley had been burnt six months before. As the flames drew around him, he fulfilled his promise by placing his right hand into the heart of the fire and his dying words were, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit… I see the heavens open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.”[85]

Why don’t you sign the document? There don’t seem to be many reformed evangelicals from your camp on the list yet, so why don’t you sign it? Maybe you’re waiting to follow in somebody’s footsteps, but why not lead the way? You say it’s imperfect…well, so are a lot of things: the Nicean creed, the Apostles Creed, “Desiring God” (did I just say that?). I ask you to please consider.

I noticed that Josh Gelatt signed it; good goin brother!

It seems to me that you somehow connected the EM with him. It’s late and I just woke up from a rather long nap so forgive me for asking…was Rick Warren part of the group that wrote the EM? I don’t recall reading about that and I can’t seem to find his name on the list of contributors now. Of course I’m tired and that could explain it.

Note: For those of you who are able to look into my heart, you already know that I’m actually very tired and not just putting on some “false humility” so you don’t have to ask, do you?

Assuming Rick Warren was not part of the group, I’ll repeat my questions.

1) Please substantiate the “theological heresy” to which you’re referring and how it relates to the EM.

In other words, please demonstrate how the EM is heretical.

2) Are there specific items in the EM you find objectionable?

I’m not asking if any of the Charter Signatories have ever made a statement with which you take issue. I would like for you to demonstrate what you find objectionable in the EM.

Have you ever read Rick Warren’s purpose driven life or heard about his global peace plan, becasue if you had you would see that they are both heretical. The gospel is not Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. That’s just a bribe to get people to come to church. The church is not called to go into a village and seek the man of peace ( Warren says it doesn’t matter if he’s even a christian) to help Warren fulfill his social gospel to bring heaven to earth. Study Warren before you defend him.

Are there specific items in the EM you find objectionable?