Idolatry: Can the blind lead the blind?–Part 1

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39; KJV)

He further told them a proverb: Can a blind [man] guide and direct a blind [man]? Will they not both stumble into a ditch or a hole in the ground? (Luke 6:39; Amplified Bible)

WHAT IS IDOLATRY?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines idolatry as follows:

in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God. The first of the biblical Ten Commandments prohibits idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Several forms of idolatry have been distinguished. Gross, or overt, idolatry consists of explicit acts of reverence addressed to a person or an object—the sun, the king, an animal, a statue. This may exist alongside the acknowledgment of a supreme being; e.g., Israel worshiped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai, where it had encamped to receive the Law and the covenant of the one true God.

A person becomes guilty of a more subtle idolatry, however, when, although overt acts of adoration are avoided, he attaches to a creature the confidence, loyalty, and devotion that properly belong only to the Creator. Thus, the nation is a good creature of God, but it is to be loved and served with an affection appropriate to it, not with the ultimate devotion that must be reserved for the Lord of all nations.

When Jesus warned his disciples against the dangerous leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, He said the following.

Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops. (Luke 12:2-3)

I don’t think He had the internet and its vast network of technological communication and info in mind when He said this. However, just think of it for a moment; hadn’t it been for things like videos and audio podcasts we would never have been able to hear world leaders delivering their speeches and pastors delivering their sermons without having to be there in their presence at that particular moment. Nowadays, with the click of a mouse button, you can easily tune into the media library of most churches who have their own websites and in the leisure of your own home listen to the sermons pastors have delivered in the privacy of their churches. Indeed, nothing is hidden any longer. The only snag is that the emergent pastors are no longer ashamed of broadcasting their own idolatry while they boldly and paradoxically speak out against idolatry. They impudently point out the idolatrous habits of other people while the golden calf firmly rests on a pedestal smack bang in front of their pulpits. “Now you’ve gone too far” some of you may want to say to me at this stage, but hear me out before you accuse me of being too rash.

In a sermon delivered on March 13 (which you can listen to here) in the Mosaïek Church in Fairland, Johannesburg, Trevor Hudson made a  plea that the members of their church should “Let God be God” by taking a stand against idolatry. He took his Scripture reading from Matthew 22:34-40 where a Pharisee asked Jesus the question “which of the commandments are the greatest” to which He answered that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind, and that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves. His second reading came from Acts 17: 22-31 where Paul delivered his famous sermon on the Grecian Areopagus in Athens and introduced them to the unknown God for whom they erected an altar. Before I take you on a journey of discovery with me into Trevor Hudson’s sermon, I would like to draw your attention to Jesus’ words “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Mat 22:37). As you can see I have deliberately bolded “with all your mind” because I will be referring to it quite a bit later on in my comment. So please bear with me while we look at Trevor Hudson’s sermon in the light of Scripture. Let me say from the very outset: There are many things Trevor Hudson says with which I agree. His definition of idolatry when he says that all of us tend to treasure something more than anything else, all of us have something which we put first in our lives, all of us love something or someone more than anything else  . . . but the greatest tragedy of human history and of our lives is that usually it is not God, is quite right. It reminded me of what the author of the two books of Samuel said to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:23: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” The word for “stubbornness” is “patsar” and conveys the meaning of someone whose mind is set on things contrary to the will of God. He deliberately and pigheadedly withstands and avoids God’s will in many ways. He follows his own mind which is completely at variance with God’s will that we should love Him with all our mind. This state of mind is as good as bowing down to an idol or dancing around a golden calf. There is no difference. God makes no distinction between rebellion and witchcraft and stubbornness and idolatry. Remember the wise proverb “For as he thinks within himself, so is he?”

Trevor Hudson continues by drawing the attention of his audience to an overhead screen displaying four places where most people often pay a visit. Although the audio version of his sermon does not visibly lend itself to pictures, his description of the four places is so vivid that you can hardly miss out on what he was talking about, i.e. a bank, a mall or shopping center, a gym and a theatre or movies. These places, he said, can easily become places or temples of worship where the objects of worship are materialism, consumerism and pleasure. Here, I must once again agree with Trevor Hudson. Materialism, especially in the West, has become one of the strongest driving forces behind the Western Mind’s love and affection for Mammon. Like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus who were lovers of money (Luke 16:14) and believed that material affluence is a sign of God’s favor, the post modern Pharisees in the prosperity cult believe the very same thing. I’m sure you’ve heard the Pharisee, Benny Hinn, saying pharisaic things like “Poverty is from the devil and  . . . God wants all Christians prosperous,” “Where in the Bible does it say I have to drive a Honda?” and “God will begin to prosper you, for money always follows righteousness.” Are the redeemed poor not righteous or do they receive another kind of righteousness when they are saved? The golden calf is no longer a golden calf but a diamond studded one with dollars sticking out of its ears, mouth and backside which is there for the taking so that you may turn your Honda in for a Rolls Royce. Be that as it may, the question I would like to ask, is: Why does Trevor Hudson draw our attention to the idolatry of materialism, consumerism and pleasure and not to the idolatry of Contemplative Spirituality? “Wow, now you’ve really gone completely bonkers,” is what some of you might want to accuse me of. “How can you say that Contemplative Spirituality is idolatry?” I dare say that I have the fullest right to call it idolatry because it bears all the characteristics, features and qualities of idolatry — the shutting off or shutting out of the conscious mind which is totally at variance with the command to love the Lord our God with all our mind (Matthew 22:34-40), and the notion that God is unknowable and incomprehensible (Acts 17:22-31).

The  reason, I believe, Trevor Hudson makes such a big spiel about materialism and consumerism is because it hampers the contemplative pilgrim on his spiritual journey and in his contemplative practices. Allow me to explain. Contemplative Spirituality which has its roots in Eastern mysticism cannot grow to maturity in the lives of contemplative pilgrims when their minds are preoccupied with mundane things such as money, possessions and pleasure. For them the achievement of the higher consciousness (the “Atman”or “the true self” in Hinduism and Buddhism) rests entirely on your detachment or separation from those things. Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha’s spiritual pilgrimage is a perfect example. His father who allegedly was King Suddhodana and the leader of the Shakya clan wanted to shield his son from the religious beliefs prevalent in their time and especially the knowledge of human suffering. Despite all his efforts he could not prevent his son from an eventual encounter with both religion and suffering. When he turned 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account, she gave birth to a son, named Rahula. Siddhartha is then said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life’s ultimate goal. (Wikipedia).

At the age of 29, Siddhartha abandoned his palace, his wife and his son on a quest to find the truth about suffering. He later teamed up with five companions with whom he decided to live an austere life of asceticism. They believed they could reach enlightenment through deprivation of worldly goods, including food and through acts of self-mortification. Before I continue, I would like to say something about self-mortification. Self-mortification is entirely a biblical doctrine but please do take care because there are many demoniacal counterfeits in our midst. When Jesus commanded his disciples to take up their cross daily, He meant for them to die continually to their corrupt “self.” (Luke 9:23). This has nothing to do with the Buddhist concept of the false self that needs to be mortified so that you may find your true self (“Enlightenment,” “Nirvana,” “Higher Consciousness, “divinity”). It simply means that you should relinquish every vestige of the “self” to Christ’s cross so that the life of His Spirit may have full sway in your life. The un-crucified “self” quenches the Spirit of God and hampers his work of sanctification in the lives of Jesus’ followers. It is not something you can achieve through physical means such as the denial of sustenance and the practice of certain so-called spiritual disciplines such as meditation, contemplative prayer or centering prayer. It is rather silly to think that we can achieve what God alone can do. In fact, this very notion that man is able to do what God alone is capable of doing, is the very essence and core of idolatry. Indeed, Contemplative Spirituality and its various spiritual practices form the bedrock, the foundation of the Emergent Church’s idolatry.

When Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha and his companions realized that their severe deprivation of food quite naturally leads to death (the Buddha’s consumption of a leaf or a nut per day nearly caused his death), they resorted to the Buddhist Middle Way, a path that allowed them to lead a more moderate way of self-mortification. Wikipedia notes:

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree – now known as the Bodhi tree – in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth. . .

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the “Four Noble Truths,” which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that’s free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states, or “defilements” (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the “end of the world,” in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha. ((Emphasis added).

I wouldn’t be surprised if you asked me what in the world the Buddha has to do with a sermon by Trevor Hudson. Well, if you care to follow me throughout my comment you will eventually realize that the Emergent Church and in particular the Mosaïek Church in Fairland, Johannesburg are way over their heads in idolatry despite their preaching on Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection. In the following few paragraphs you will see why Stephan Joubert, a very good friend of Trevor Hudson and Johan Geyser at Mosaïek, has repeatedly said that truth can be found in other religions such as Buddhism, why they unashamedly display pictures of the Buddha on their overhead screen during church services and why they sound a Buddhist rin gong or the singing bowl before and after their meditation sessions. Here is an example of what the rin gong sounds like. You can find more information on the rin gong here.

It is interesting to note that many of Eckhart Tolle’s YouTube videos begin with the ringing of the rin gong. By the way, the echurch gang just adore Eckhart Tolle.

The Emergent Church is prone to the inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth, here and now. How do they propose to do it? I can assure you that it is not by means of the preaching of repentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). It is true that they mention the need for repentance in their sermons but they have given the word a complete new meaning. Metanoia (to repent), they say, is to get a bigger mind and to go beyond your present frame of mind. The bigger mind is nothing else than their bigger picture of an inclusive spirituality where every conceivable religious persuasion may find a niche to perch their particular idol/s. To do this they must of necessity strip the word ”repent” of its connection to a desperate need for an escape from the jaws of hell. Scripture’s warning in Hebrews 2: 2 and 3 “For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” must be taken very seriously. Negligence on the part of a lost sinner to repent and be saved is equal to negligence of the escape route from hell God has provided through his Son Jesus Christ. And yet, contrary to what the Word of God teaches, Trevor Hudson says that we’ve made the word “repent” a terrible word. Listen to the following clip from his sermon.

Well, there you have it: “Repent” has become such bad news that the emergents have deliberately stripped it of its connection to a desperate need for an escape from hell. In stead, “repent” now means that God must receive your permission to again be what He has been all along since the beginning of time and even before the foundation of the earth. “Ok God, for Your sake I will repent, not of my sins and my lost status so that I may escape your righteous judgments in hell and receive eternal life, but to let you be God again in my life and for Jesus Christ to be my Lord. I don’t care much about your doctrines but I am quite prepared for you to be God again.” Would Trevor Hudson consider Jesus’ words in John 8:24 to be the “turn and burn” rambling on of a fire and brimstone preacher in a long overcoat? Or would He rather prefer that Jesus will never say the words: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23). What about John 3:16? Does it not contain the elements of a message that warns people to repent (“turn” from their unbelief) lest they should perish (“burn” in hell)? “Repent” is not a threat nor is it an invitation; it is a command to be obeyed.

If a biblically founded repentance (or the bad news kind of repentance) is not the prerequisite for entering the Kingdom of God, what is? I have already posed the question “How do they propose to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on earth, here and now?” To find an answer, we briefly need to go back to the Buddha and his philosophy about materialism. You may recall that I mentioned how he lived a very austere ascetic life but due to the dangers of this kind of life decided to opt for a more moderate Middle Way as it is called in Buddhism. I have also briefly mentioned the Mosaïek Church’s preoccupation with Buddhism which seems to have a great deal of influence on their own perception of materialism and consumerism. As a matter of interest, Trevor Hudson’s affinities with Buddhism are not only evident through his association with contemplative spirituality which I will discuss with you later on, but also through his working relationship with Morton Kelsey with whom he has written a book called “Journey of the Spirit.”

Perhaps this is enough for now. I tend to write protracted comments which seems to be one of my weaknesses. Nevertheless, I think it best to end here and continue this topic in a follow-up when I will discuss with you how the Emergent Church wants to bring in the Kingdom of God here and now through the cessation of human suffering.

Stephan Joubert’s Unchurhly Censures of Paul

Stephan Joubert is constantly criticizing the Church. In his newest blog commentary on echurch he says that the Church needs simple Simons to cure the Church. Cure the Church of what and to which Church is he actually referring?  — the Roman Catholic Church, the Dutch Reformed Church, the “Gereformeerde Kerk,” the “Hervormde Kerk,” the Lutheran Church, the Church of England, the Methodist Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Charismatic Church, the Church of God, the Pentecostal Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Community Church, the Baptist Church, etc. etc. etc.? Or is he referring to one of the following churches in South Africa? (See list here). He seems to be leveling his criticism at all these churches and yet most of his censures are very shallow in the sense that he never criticizes them for their dogmatic errors but only for their program and power driven agendas as well as their strong affinity for propositional matters. Joubert’s main concern is the hierarchical structures in the Church and the control they exert over their flocks. I am not implying that these authoritative structures are necessarily always in strict harmony with the Word of God. What I do say is that Stephan Joubert and his Emergent buddies should first remove the beam from their own eyes before they venture to remove the mote from the other churches’ eyes. Nonetheless, God who is a God of order appointed men in authority over the flock, not to lord it over anyone but to lovingly and loyally tend to the sheep and the lambs by giving them the right food and to contend for the faith whenever they are in danger of being lead astray by false apostles and teachers. Even Paul often called upon his divinely given apostolic authority to quash any unruliness and false teachings in the Church.

For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: (2 Corinthians 10:8) (Emphasis added)

These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (Titus 2:15)

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge [command] certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, (1Timothy 1:3)

The  power Paul received from Jesus Christ as an apostle was not given to him to soften up or tone down the demands of the Gospel for holiness and the command to contend earnestly for the faith. Indeed divine power was given him to boldly preach the Gospel for the edification and building up of the church and not its destruction. And yet Stephan Joubert audaciously calls Paul’s divinely ordained power “entrapments of ugly power [that] loomed large in his vicinity.” False apostles and teachers were the exact opposite to what Paul was called to be — they were not appointed by God but were masquerading as appointees of Christ and as pillars of His Truth in the very same way Satan, their father, was masquerading as an angel of light (1 Corinthians 11:13-15). They were trying to tear down and to destroy the work Paul had been doing amongst the Corinthians, and yet Joubert audaciously honors them as “flamboyant preachers  . . . who fared better than he (Paul).” What utter, utter nonsense!

Despite Paul’s emphatic claim to his apostolic authority, Stephan Joubert has found new ways of stripping him of his authority and to interpret his meekness and gentleness as cowardice, spinelessness and faintheartedness. Listen to Joubert’s eisegesis of 2 Corinthians 10 of which I have already quoted verse 8 above.

Well, it even took Paul a prayer or two to come to grips with God’s definition of power. Up ’til that point he was highly successful in his ministry. Undoubtedly the entrapments of ugly power loomed large in his vicinity. But then Paul had a quarrel with a church leader in Corinth. He left the city humiliated and his ego bruised (2 Cor. 2, 7). To add injury to insult flamboyant preachers came to Corinth who fared better than he at that stage. They were show stoppers (2 Cor. 10-13). Paul approached God three times in prayer to remove these afflictions as he tells us in 2 Corinthians 12.

Stephan Joubert assumes that Paul’s thorn in the flesh and therefore his afflictions were caused by the flamboyant preachers who fared much better than he at that stage. Once again, what utter utter nonsense! One of the things Paul had to contend with in his battle for the hearts and minds of his Corinthian brethren, was their inappropriate attraction to false apostles and teachers, Listen to his heartrending plea:

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
(2Corinthians 11:1-4)

The Corinthians had been captivated by the false apostles who claimed to be the proxy of the Twelve Apostles of Christ and therefore superlative to Paul (Super Apostles) . As such they were the bearers and messengers of the true Gospel and not Paul. They boasted that they were the ones who had the right credentials. In dealing with the false assumption that credentials are the decisive litmus test for true apostleship, he reminded them in 2 Corinthians 3: 3 that they were his credentials in the form of a written message, not with ink, but in their hearts with the Spirit of the living God. These apostles also lay claim to fame by the many visions and extra biblical revelations they supposedly had. It is quite evident that Paul had no intention of making known his awesome experience he had when he was caught up into the third heaven but circumstances forced him to put these false apostles in their place. Listen to what he says:

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
(2Co 12:1-9)

Having seen in many churches of our day how false apostles and teachers are puffed up by their alleged visions and revelations, here we encounter a true apostle of God who actually experienced visions and revelations in the third heaven but was given a thorn in the flesh lest he fall into the trap of self exaltation. So you see, Stephan, Paul was given a thorn in the flesh, NOT because he was afflicted by flamboyant false apostles who allegedly had the right credentials and fared better than Paul at that stage. Once again, that’s just plain nonsense.

The fact is that, although Paul was polemical in the preceding chapters (e.g. 2:17; 3:1, 7-18; 4:2-4; 5:12, 16; 6:14), he postponed his frontal attack with the false apostles and teachers until the very last four chapters of his second epistle to the church in Corinth. not because he cringed with injury, insult, humiliation and a bruised ego forcing him to flee the scene, but because he was meek and gentle. Paul was reluctant to take stern action but the serious situation with false apostles demanded it and he did not shrink from his duty to wield his authority. Christ was his model for this. His meekness (Matthew 11:29) was not a weakness but rather a strength of spirit that enabled Him to accept with fortitude the wrongs done to Him and yet to act with a forceful and powerful vengeance on behalf of others (John 2:15 and 16). Meekness exemplifies the inner strength that comes from loving others rather than self.

Let us now discern Joubert’s assertion that Paul left the city (Corinth) humiliated and his ego bruised and that flamboyant preachers who came to Corinth fared better than he at that stage. To substantiate his statement he refers to 2 Corinthians chapters 2 and 7. Paul’s main purpose in writing this letter to the church at Corinth was to counteract and refute insinuations about the authenticity of his apostleship, the propriety of his conduct and the sincerity of his commitment and loyalty to the Christians at Corinth. False apostles were deliberately polluting their minds, not only by sowing doubts about Paul’s alleged commitment to the church but also by introducing a false Gospel (Chapter 11 verses 4 and 13). This sounds familiar, doesn’t it, especially when you take into account Stephan Joubert’s unchurchly criticism of Paul and his so-called misunderstanding of God’s power whilst he (Stephan Joubert) has no qualms whatsoever to be in league with power-hungry individuals such as Brian McLaren who believes that we don’t have the Gospel right yet and need to change everything. Anyone who dares to even think of changing the unalterable, immutable and infallible Word of God to suit our post modern society is nothing else than a power hungry mogul. David G Benner, a clinical psychologist who appeared on the same platform with Johan Geyser, Stephan Joubert, Trevor Hudson and Ron Martoia at their annual Mosaïek Conference last year, apparently agrees with Brian McLaren when he says that Jesus seekers across the world are being prepared to abandon the old way of the written code (biblical doctrines) for the new way of the spirit (experience).¹

If you want some evidence of authoritarian power and its ugly entrapments looming larger than life in the halls, rooms and corridors of the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands Johannesburg, read here how they used their authoritarian power to overrule the laws and the constitution of South Africa. And Joubert has the audacity to say that Paul was a power hungry apostle who needed to be humiliated before he could understand the real meaning of godly power. Authoritarian domination is often the modus operandi of false apostles and their own kingdom they serve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15); it was not the way of Christ (Luke 22:25-27) nor of those who are his genuine followers (1 Peter 5:3).

Let me say this with unfailing certainty: Paul did not leave Corinth a humiliated man with a bruised ego. However, I might just yet agree with Joubert on his assertion that flamboyant preachers fared better than he at that stage. He calls them “flamboyant preachers; I call them false apostles and teachers because that’s exactly what they were. False apostles and teachers have always fared better than the apostles of God if you believe that large numbers are a fare barometer for success. And yet huge numbers of people cannot be regarded as a fare barometer of success because the Bible teaches that most people are going to land up in hell. In fact, Paul says that the false apostles and teachers are going to be a “roaring success” in the end times because most people will gather unto themselves preachers and teachers who proclaim the things they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3). Someone once said “True success is determined by the number of people who look up to you for guidance and the enchantment or heightening of their senses and their potential.” The emergent spirituality in particular is a religion for the senses and the experiential heightening or awakening of their potential (divinity) so that you and every other person may experience the fact that they have a divine spark in their innermost being. This is pure Gnosticism reawakened.

But let us now return to Paul and his alleged humiliation in Corinth. The question is: Why did Paul defer his visit to Corinth after he had already planned his itinerary? His original plan was to visit them twice: first from Ephesus to Corinth and then on to Macedonia. His love for them prompted him to visit them as often as he could. But he changed his plans which immediately gave the false apostles and teachers an opportunity to castigate him for his alleged vacillation. His indecisiveness, they concurred, was a sign not only of his unreliability as an apostle but also of the untrustworthiness of his message. Paul’s main concern for the moment was not to defend himself and his change of plans – that he would do in due course – but to first refute the accusation that his message was unreliable. His message, he said, was never one of yes and no. That would amount to a lie of which Satan is the father from the very beginning. No! says Paul, his message has always been yes and amen in the Lord, never a yes and a no. And so too his plans to visit them should not be seen as first a yes and then a no. His change of plans was neither a sign of vacillation nor did he make them in a worldly fashion. The main reason for the deferment of his visits was out of serious concern for his Corinthian brethren. Although he had great authority and power to employ very strict disciplinary actions (2 Corinthians 10:2-8; 1 Corinthians 5: 4 and 5; 1 Timothy 1:20) he was not so keen to wield it. He decided against it and preferred to write them a letter.

Several irregularities were rampant in the Corinthian Church which caused Paul much pain and spiritual discomfort and discontent. They can be summed up as follows:

• The contentions among themselves with regards to whose example they should follow — Paul’s, Apollos’, Cephas’ or Christ’s? (1 Corinthians, Chapter 1)

• They were carnal and immature in their discernment of the deep spiritual things of God (Chapter 2).

• Their carnality caused most of the dissensions in their church (Chapter 3).

• Their pride stood out like a sore toe compared to the humility and the authority (power) of the apostles (Chapter 4) .

• They tolerated some of the worst fornicators in their church (Chapter 5).

• They sought legal advice with unbelievers in stead of with the saints who are going to judge the world. (Chapter 6).

• They were ignorant of the work of the Spirit in the dissemination of spiritual gifts, especially the gift of tongues. (Chapter 12).

• They were in serious error with regard to the resurrection of the dead (Chapter 15).

• They began to lean heavily upon the teachings of false apostles rather than on the Gospel they received from Paul.

Paul patiently and lovingly dealt with all these problems, not in a spirit of lording it over his brethren at Corinth, but in meekness and gentleness although he had the authority to deal with them very harshly. The notion that he had to learn how to relinquish the entrapments of ugly power through the humiliating experience he had in Corinth, is just not true. Stephan Joubert is doing what he has been doing all along. He is superimposing his own ideas on to the Bible to achieve the Emergent Church’s agendas and that is, as David G Benner said, to abandon the old ways of the written code (biblical doctrines which have become power tools in the hands of the hierarchy) to embrace the new way of the spirit (experiential spirituality through the practice of contemplative prayer and other emergent disciplines). Brian McLaren who Stephan Jounert frequently quotes in his prizewinning book Jesus, a Radical Leap summed it up very well when he said:

The postmodern transition is well underway, but it’s still in process. The early deconstructive phase of the postmodern transition is evolving into a more constructive and creative phase, exemplified (for me) by thinkers and writers like Wendell Berry and Ken Wilber in the culture at large, plus a number of us writing specifically for the Christian community. (Of course, some folks are still fighting against the earliest phases, not realizing that the “battle lines” keep moving. But I shouldn’t use battle imagery, because I don’t see it that way.) For all the work we’ve done and all the progress we’ve made, we still have so far to go.

I’m worried that many of us think we’ve arrived: we’ve crossed the Jordan River and now we’re in the Promised Land. If we’ve made a crossing, it’s the Red Sea (or whatever), which does put Egypt behind us. But we’ve got a wide wilderness ahead of us, wilderness where our character will be tested and many of us will be tempted to go back to Egypt. We’re still quite a way from the Jordan River. We’ve made a beginning, but we’ve got a long way to go. And of course, once we get to the Jordan River, that’s an ending, but it’s also another beginning, you know? I just want to make sure we learn what we need to learn crossing the wilderness.

Stephan Joubert is clearly in the deconstructive business when he unashamedly misrepresents Paul’s dealings with the brethren at Corinth and uses him as an example of an ugly power driven mogul who had to learn humility the hard way whilst flamboyant false apostles and teachers were waving their victory flag. Instead of exposing the false apostles with whom Paul had to deal, Stephan Joubert attacks him by implying that the had a false sense of power. May God have mercy on their pitiful souls.

---

⁽¹⁾ David G. Benner, Sacred Companions: The Gift of Spiritual Friendship & Direction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 9

Totally Bad

They have now, with a little help from Michael Jackson, established with certainty that the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity (the “T” in the acronym TULIP) IS IN FACT TRUE.

 

So the best thing you can do when you find out that you are totally bad, is to laugh. Hallelujah! What I would like to know, is why the word “saints” appear 95 times in the Bible – 34 times in the Old Testament and 61 rimes in the New? By the way, the word “saint” means morally blameless. What you must realize is this: The elect are bad but they will never be debarred from heaven because they are the elected bad. The non-elected bad will never see heaven because their total badness debars them from heaven. The elect are bad in Christ while the non-elect are bad outside of Christ.

The Emergent-100%-Money-Back-Guaranteed-Church

The “money-back-guarantee” promise usually applies when you have already received a manufacturer’s product but you’re not satisfied with it and demand your money back. The Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg, has a new kind of money back guarantee. They refund your money even before you’ve received their products because they don’t like you.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Would you mind if I asked you a question? What would you do if you walked into a Christian bookstore, let’s say CUM Books for example, to buy Stephan Joubert’s newest and much acclaimed book “Jesus a Radical Leap” and the shop assistant told you that they don’t have it in stock but that they can order it for you if you so desired. “That would be nice, thank you. I am so keen to read it that I am prepared to pay the full price now. Can I do that?” “Sure,” says the shop assistant., “just write down your name, address and phone number here and we will let you know as soon as it has arrived. Here’s your receipt.” And off you go, waiting in great anticipation for the day when you will have Stephan Joubert’s newest book in your hands to read about this Jesus who leaps and jumps in radical ways.

A week later the shop assistant phones to tell you that a new batch of books have arrived but he would first like to have a little chat (conversation) with you because there’s a slight hitch to overcome first. On your arrival, he immediately asks you whether you are Tom Lessing, the Tom Lessing who hosts the blog “Waak en Bid/Watch and Pray?” “Yes, Why?” “Well sir,” says the assistant “I can’t sell his book to you.” “What?” I immediately reacted with dismay, “Can’t sell it to me?” “Yes sir, I’m afraid we can’t,” the shop assistant repeated. “You see, the book is so popular, we couldn’t find it and eventually phoned the author to ask him whether he knew of any ready available books for us to sell. We told him about this guy who just couldn’t wait to read his book. He wanted to know who it was and we told him. His reaction was rather explosive.” “What! Tom Lessing?  I forbid you to sell my book to that . . . that. . . .that . . . guy. Under no circumstances whatsoever, are you to sell my book to him. Capiche?

The shop assistant turns his head to one side, like a little puppy who tries very hard to understand my predicament, but very bravely and assertively says: “Here’s your money back, sir. I’m sorry but there’s nothing I can do.”  “But I don’t want my money back, This is South Africa where the freedom of speech and individual rights are entrenched in the constitution. Not even Stephan Joubert can prevent me from buying the products that I want. He’s breaking the law. Not only that, he is dishonoring the name of the Jesus whom he claims to be following. In fact, he is doing it with radical leaps and bounds. I demand my book. Why would he want to withhold his book from me? If everything he has written in his book is the truth, then there’s nothing to be ashamed of, is there?” Didn’t Paul say that we shouldn’t be ashamed of the Gospel and anyone who is ashamed will have to bear the brunt of his shame for them. You know the verse, don’t you?” “Yes sir” the assistant nods “”But here is your money back. I am only doing my duty to the author.”

This little story, my story I may add, is typical of the journey I have been travelling with the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg these last few years. The story I’ve told you is fictitious. It never happened, but the next one I am going to tell you, a similar one to the one above, happened recently. It is the truth and nothing but he truth. It’s a real shocker, a humdinger. Capiche?

It all started in September last year when I attended one of Mosaïek Church’s annual contemplative events called “Mosaïek Conversations 2010.” Illustrious keynote speakers, amongst whom were Johan Geyser, Ron Martoia, Trevor Hudson and guest speaker Dr. David G Benner, author, spiritual teacher and consultant in personal transformation took the podium and presented their philosophies with gusto. As usual high quality DVD’s and audio CD’s were recorded on the occasion for its dissemination amongst  their church members, visitors and the broader public later on. Like all the others we paid the full amount for the entire series of DVD’s and CD’s. They gave us our receipt, and then . . . the waiting started. Nearly seven months later, accompanied by many phone calls and excuses that they were having technical problems, the bomb finally exploded in our faces.

At first, when I phoned Mr. Etienne Booysen on Friday, 4 March, he assured me that the technical problems had been sorted out and that the entire package of DVD’s and CD’s would be ready for collection on Monday, 7 March. He said that they would confirm it by SMS. But then, when the following Monday dawned in glorious retrospect of our experience with Mosaïek, we were told that the speakers had decided NOT to supply us with any of their material, despite the fact that we had paid the full amount. Wow! This is incredible, I thought! What kind of testimony is this in behalf of the One whom they claim to love, respect, and follow? He Himself once said: “I have said nothing in secret.” (John 18:20), implying that He never withheld his eternal truths from anyone. If the Emergent fraternity are so certain that they are proclaiming Jesus and his immutable truths — of the One who said He has nothing to hide — then they should be overzealously keen to proclaim his Truth from the tops of mountains. Yep, they should even be prepared to supply their “truths” to their worst enemies, realizing that if they should then be criticized and persecuted they should rather jump up with joy for it is only when they suffer and are persecuted for His sake and for the sake of his Truth that they will receive a reward (Luke 6:22, 23). They cannot reap His rewards when they willfully and stubbornly withhold his Truth. Nevertheless, if they are not proclaiming His Truth and withholding their teachings because their covert practices do not harmonize with Scripture, they have every reason to withhold their material from people who are exposing their damnable heresies.

I recorded the following conversation I had with one of the ladies in their admin office on 15 March. Please bear in mind that she only said what she was told to say and was merely doing the dirty work her masters were supposed to do. Isn’t that just so kosher of the men to push the women into the frontline of their battles while they smugly like little buggies rest in their ruggies? Where are the real men in our post-modern chaotic society who are not afraid to take responsibility for everything they say in public?

And then I phoned again.

For those of you who do not understand Afrikaans, she basically said that the speakers unilaterally decided not to supply us with their DVD’s and CD’s and that they would refund us in full.

I paid a little visit to my lawyer and related our entire story to her. Her verdict was that they cannot withhold the material from us, the reason being that they made themselves guilty of false or misleading advertising. Before the speakers were given the opportunity to deliver their papers, it was announced that DVD’s and CD’s were being made and that those who were interested in buying the series were welcome to pay at a table nearby. Well, that’s exactly what we did. They took our money and gave us a receipt without any objection to the fact that my friend and I attended their so-called conversations. Both of us had easy readable name tags pinned to our shirts. Why didn’t they tell us then that they refused to sell us their DVD’s and CD’s? They called their congress “Mosaïek Conversations 2010.” Surely any civilized conversation consists of two or more people chatting, giving their opinions and even refuting one another when it is necessary, especially when the conversation relates to eternal matters. Forget it! These guys’ conversation is a one way “conversation” — they haughtily speak like gurus and you must silently sit at their feet and listen.

I would like to suggest they do the following at their next conventions, congresses or conferences. Put up a big sign over the entrance to your venue which says the following.

Here are the speakers who refused to sell us their products.

No, No, this never happened in Communist China, the Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, or any other country. It happened here, in South Africa, the country with one of the best constitutions in the world, where media freedom and freedom of speech are firmly entrenched in the constitution. But, the best of all is, it happened in a “Christian”Church that is NOT “ashamed” of the “Gospel.” In fact, their church is a 100%-money–back-guaranteed-church. When Paul preached the Gospel, he never prohibited anyone to listen to him or to repeat to others what he had said. He was not ashamed of the Gospel. But then again, these guys do NOT preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore they have something to be ashamed of and should not disseminate their heresies.

Contemplative Spirituality: The Throne of Satan

The followers of the Emergent Jesus are completely enamored, captivated, bewitched, besotted, and smitten by hidden secrets, so much so that they are continually boasting that they have found this or that new hidden secret or message, allegedly of Jesus of Nazareth. Books like “The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything” (Brian McLaren) have navigated the emergent conversationalists and coffee drinkers onto a path where they are relentlessly seeking for a truth that blatantly contradicts and even replaces the Truth. Shades and colors of the New Age are increasingly emerging to the surface, much like a painting of which the top layer is removed to reveal the original, hidden underneath layers and layers of paint. Masterpieces of deceit are emerging at an alarming rate from websites such and e-church and velocity culture. Consider the following from the paint brush of Dries Cronjé, one of the masters in the e-fold of the e-church. In reference to Paul’s statement “to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” in Colossians, he comes to this amazing conclusion.

In a nutshell, here’s the mystery:
“Christ is in you, and therefore you can look forward to sharing in God’s glory.” — Colossians 1:27b (The Message).
This is huge.
The implications are enormous. Let’s consider some of them:

• Christ is in you. Instead of looking for God out there, you need to start looking inside of you. (How do you look inside of you? Well, that’s easy! You do a litle silence here, a little solitude there; you walk the labyrinth at Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesbutg or you do a little contemplative or centering prayer here and a little Yoga there and voila . . . there’s Christ, right inside of you. Wow! Enligtenment! . . . the very same enlightenment Jesus of Nazareth experienced when He became the Christ. If He could do it, so can you).   

   

• Christ is also in that other guy, over there…

• The kingdom of God is and has always been an inner reality, in all of us. Of course, Jesus says so in Luke 17 but somehow we just don’t believe Him.

• The peace and joy, and true justice of the kingdom of God (Romans 14:17-18) are actually very real consequences of living from the deeper reality, this previously hidden mystery, of Christ in you. You won’t be happy, since happiness turns into unhappiness real quick. No, you will have deep inner peace and joy — and these have no opposite.

• True love is to live from a place where you realize (make real) this mystery of Christ in you. If Christ is in you, and you know it and feel it constantly, then you will also see and feel Christ in others and in the natural world. This is true love… This is what Jesus meant when He said (speaking from his Christ identity) “whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”That makes perfect sense if you consider Christ is in every human being, right?”

Cronje says: “That makes perfect sense if you consider Christ is in every human being, right?” Consequently It does not matter what their background or religion is. It is not only for Jews, or Christians, but also for everyone else! First of all, Paul did not write his letter to a bunch of unbelievers who reject the cross of Jesus Christ because they regard it as sheer foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18). He wrote it “to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ that are at Colossae.” The faithful brethren are the saints who continue in his Word and his doctrines. Jesus said: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31). You cannot possibly claim to be his follower if you do not continue to be faithful to his word and his doctrines. And yet, contrary to what Jesus taught, Dries Cronje brazenly says that Colossians 1:27b is for everyone. It does not matter what your background or religion is. Even the Muslims who deny that God has a Son and believe that it was Judas who died on the cross instead of Jesus have Jesus living in glorious splendor inside of them. They only need to start looking inside of them to find him . . . and how does Dries Cronje propose this to come to pass. Well, of course, through contemplative practices such as silence, solitude, lectio divina, labyrinths, contemplative prayer, et al. Who needs Jesus when you want “Jesus” to be in everyone regardless of your background or your religion. This “Jesus” who is nothing but a demon is only to happy to accommodate your desire to be inside of you when you discard the truth and the teachings of the real Jesus who once said through his apostle Paul:

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)

Paul would never have written these words if he believed that Christ was already living inside of every single human being, regardless of their religious persuasions. Who is the liar here – Dries Cronjé who wants you to believe that Jesus is in everyone or Jesus Christ who said that whosoever does not have his Spirit, does not belong to Him? What are the consequences of this infamous notion that Jesus is in everyone? The upshot of this is the following.

• It denies the need for the cross of Jesus Christ. Had it been true that Jesus automatically resides in every person, even in those who belong to religions that reject and despise his cross, then his death was a complete farce. Who needs his cross when you can become aware of the Kingdom of God and Jesus inside of you through various contemplative practices?

• It denies God’s requirement for repentance and faith in his Gospel. Throughout the New Testament the requirement for salvation is to repent and believe the Gospel. If the kingdom of God is and always has been an inner reality, in all of us, a biblically founded repentance and faith in the Gospel is pointless. It is imperative to note that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees in Luke 17. Does Dries Cronjé really think He would have told the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was already within them? Jesus never said that the Kingdom of God was within them. It is glaringly obvious that Stephan Joubert, Dries Cronjé, Trevor Hudson and Ron Martoia ⁽¹⁾ do not agree on the “Jesus-is-in-everyone” emergent doctrine. In his prizewinning book “Jesus, a Radical Leap” Joubert quotes Jesus who said: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matthew 23:13). ⁽²⁾ Fancy that! The Kingdom of God is something you need to enter into and Jesus emphatically told the Pharisees that they would not enter his Kingdom and that they were barring it against others, unless they repented of their sins and believed the Gospel. Jesus would have been lying if He first told the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was already within them and then retract his words by telling them they they would not enter the Kingdom of God. Like the Calvinists the Emergent fraternity are very artistic: they know how to paint themselves into a corner.

• It denies the Kingdom of God itself. The Emergent fraternity are adamant to admit that their Kingdom Theology is totally wrong when they aggressively promote the lie that God’s Kingdom is already here and now. If this had been true Jesus would never have given Satan the right to claim that all the kingdoms of the world belonged to him (Matthew 4: 8 and 9). Revelation 11:15 attests to the fact that the kingdoms of this world presently do not belong to God and that they will only become his possession when Christ returns to judge the nations. Another very important waterproof evidence that we are NOT presently in the Kingdom of God, is the fact that echurh and its members have the freedom to spread their heresies. If God’s Kingdom was already a reality on earth, the King would never allow them to proclaim their heresies, particularly their lie that He is in everyone. He would have used his rod of iron to shatter their repugnant heresies (Psalm 2:9).

The lie that Jesus is already in everyone is purely New Age. Here now follow a few quotes from the lips of mystics, esotericists, New Agers and Satanists.

Let’s begin with Alice Bailey. As you may know her spirit guide, a demon called Dwajl Kuhl, inspired her to write her books.

A word now as regards the work of the Ibezhan adepts and Their mysteries; it is necessary here to point out that the whole trend of Their work was in a way different and necessarily so, to that of the adepts at this time. Their objective was to stimulate mysticism and the stimulating of the kingdom of God within the human atom. The nature of Their work is most difficult for the average man of this time to comprehend, owing to the different state of his consciousness. The Ibezhan adepts had to deal with a humanity which was in its infancy, whose polarization was most unstable, and whose coordination was very imperfect. There was very little mentality to be found and men were practically altogether astral; they functioned even more consciously on the astral plane than on the physical, and it was part of the work of these early adepts, working under instruction from Shamballa to develop the energy centers of the human unit, stimulate the brain and make him fully self-conscious on the physical plane. Their objective was to bring about a realization of the kingdom of God within . . . (Alice Bailey) ³ (Emphasis added)

At the Transfiguration, Christ revealed the glory which is innate in all men. The triple lower nature – physical, emotional and mental – is there shown as prostrate before the glory which was revealed. In that moment, wherein Christ Immanent was in the physical form, wherein humanity was represented by the three apostles, a Voice came from the Father’s Home in recognition of the revealed divinity and the Sonship of the Transfigured Christ. On this innate divinity, upon this recognized Sonship, is the brotherhood of all men based – one life, one glory which shall be [605] revealed, and one divine relationship. Today, on a large scale (even when by-passing the implications of divinity) the glory of man and his fundamental relationships are already a fact in the human consciousness. Accompanying those characteristics which as yet remain deplorable and which would appear to negate all claims to divinity, is the wonder of man’s achievement, of his triumph over nature. The glory of scientific attainment and the magnificent evidence of creative art – both modern and ancient – leave no room to question man’s divinity. Here then are the “greater things” of which Christ spoke, and here again is the triumph of the Christ within the human heart. (Alice Bailey) (Emphasis added) ⁴

Because of the magnitude of this theme and the wide extent of the psychological area in which the mass of men now live, I cannot further enlarge. This field of experience and of trial is well known to all aspirants and is the battlefield of millions. The Christ within, as the Controller of the individual life, can bring that battle to [136] an end; the aspirant can emerge clear sighted and unafraid. The appearance of the Christ among men will do the same thing for humanity as a whole, not in any vicarious sense but through the livingness of His Presence, stimulating the Christ principle in every human heart. [137] ⁵ (According to Bailey, the Christ within as the controller of the individual life is presently not known to most people. The aspirant in whom Christ dwells will only emerge clear sighted and unafraid when the world Teacher (with the appearance of the Christ) makes himself known, not in a vicarious sense (as a suffering servant who dies a vicarious death in the behalf of others) but through the livingness of his Presence. He will then stimulate the Christ principle in every human heart. In other words, Antichrist is going to show every human being from every possible religious persuasion that he, the false Christ, lives in their hearts. They are just going to love him to death and he them.)

Thomas Keating holds the same opinion when he says that most people are unaware of the Christ within them.

The first stage in the process of enlightenment is listening with the undivided attention of one who wants to learn from a great teacher. In the Christian scheme of things, Jesus is the enlightened one who lives in the Christian assembly as the glorified Christ, our Teacher. The liturgy juxtaposes texts to awaken us through words and symbols to the divine presence within us and how it operates in our in our personal lives, both in prayer and in action. Prayer, the sacrament and good works are all directed toward one purpose: to awaken us to who who we actually are but do not yet know. ⁶

I can quote to you the views of many other mystics, integral spiritualists, New Agers and occultists on the “Christ within all people” principle but it would take up to much space. In essence it espouses the lie that all men, by becoming aware through contemplative practices that they have Christ or the Christ consciousness within themselves, are themselves gods, as Ron Martoia put it so succinctly: “I am somehow made to be god, or divine . . .” The most alarming thing is that Satanists believe this as well.

Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan said that “The New Age is nothing more than Satanism.” I found the following interview which Oprah Winfrey had with the Satanist, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino of the United States Army, who was a leader in Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan and said to be LaVey’s second-in-command before he broke off to form his own satanic church called The Temple of Set.

Aquino: “We are not servants of some God, we are our own gods!”

Oprah Winfrey appeared to be shocked to find out that this was exactly what she believed as a New Ager, failing to realize that the New Age movement has it roots in Crowleyan Satanism even as Aquino’s Satanism. . . .

Winfrey: “Well, the way you explain this is very the way a lot of people who are into metaphysics now and the New Age movement and New Age thinking, they say the very same thing. Are you saying that it’s the same?”

Aquino: “Yes, except that I would say we [Satanists] have a more precise grasp…We would say that we understand what’s actually happening a little better than many New Agers.”

Are you prepared to rub shoulders with Satan himself by indulging in contemplative practices? Don’t be deceived by its apparent Christian background. If you are caught up in any kind of contemplative spirituality such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, lectio divina, labyrinths, or any other kind of contemplation do not rest until you have been rescued from the clutches of Satan by the Jesus of the Bible (not the emerging Jesus). The way to do it is to repent of your evil ways and ask the Jesus of the Bible to forgive you and to immediately abandon any kind of contemplative spiritual practices. Should you prefer to continue in these practices, you must realize that you are dancing in the shadows of Satan’s throne.

Dries Cronjé is still a member of e-church despite his infamous and Christ-dishonoring heresies. It proves once again that their so-called “conversations” are focused on men and women who have no qualms with their God-dishonoring heresies and who readily agree with their own heresies. Christians who are deeply concerned about the path they are taking are shunned with disdain and not allowed to participate in their converstations. Like the crowd who stopped their ears while they stoned Stephan to death, they too are placing their hands over their ears and shouting: “We don’t want to hear what you have to say.” They would rather tolerate an heretic. 

 

---

⁽¹⁾ Ron Martoia: Spiritual Conversations: Understanding the Cultural Language. When we start with creation and Genesis 1 we instantly enter into a world where every person has been invested with the image of God, with God-like authority and qualities and mandates. Notice, it is everybody, not just Christians filled with God’s Spirit. In the Genesis account all humanity has the very breath of God. Everyone finds resonance here because these are things deep within the human psyche that are incontrovertible. They are intuitive soundings that “I am somehow made to be god, or divine or connected to the divine.” The benefit of this starting point for spiritual conversations is it is as universal as the Fall conversation, but it holds one huge advantage; it is the beginning of the story and it is a positive starting point. Is it any wonder people don’t gravitate toward the “You are heading to hell in a handbasket” conversation but do resonate with a “You have been made as the crowning glory of creation (Psalm 8)” conversation?

⁽²⁾ Stephan Joubert: Jesus ‘n Radikale Sprong, Koninkryk, Kerk en Wêreld: Waar pas ek in? Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy, p 109

⁽³⁾ Alice Bailey: A Treatise on White Magic – Rule Ten – The Founding of the Hierarchy, Paragraph 7

⁽⁴⁾ Alice Bailey: The Externalization of the Hierarchy – Section IV – Stages in the Externalization, Paragraph 3

⁽⁵⁾ Alice Bailey: The Reappearance of the Christ – Chapter V – The Teachings of the Christ

⁽⁶⁾ Thomas Keating: The Divine Indwelling: Centering Prayer and its Development, pp. 5, 6

How NOT to paint yourself into a corner

The answer in a nutshell, is: Don’t meddle with the Westminster Confession of Faith, especially the very first section which deals with God’s eternal decrees.

Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree” begins as follows:

Please listen very carefully how Dr. RC Sproul, a very devout and staunch Calvinist, used the above confession to humiliate 50 Armenian students.

I responded as follows on their Ligounier website feedback page.

Allow me to mimic Dr. RC Sproul’s Lieutenant Columbo routine which he used so wonderfully entertainingly at the 2001 Birmingham Conference “Chosen by God.”

There’s just one thing I don’t understand. Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? If God’s absolute authority and sovereignty, and yes even his very godhood, are constituted by his divine foreordination and decrees of whatsoever comes to pass, then it follows that the 50 students who did not agree with Dr. RC Sproul are Armenians by divine design and predestination (fore-ordination). Therefore Dr. RC Sproul who is supposed to honor and respect God’s sovereign decrees has no right whatsoever to call or change them into atheists. What God has decreed cannot be rescinded, overturned or changed (remember the word “unchangeably” in the Westminster Confession of Faith?).

If Dr. Sproul, a man of dust and ashes who is going to be eaten up by maggots, is able to change God’s decrees then He’s not sovereign over everything that happens and if He’s not sovereign over everything that happens He’s not God. If you can alter whatsoever God ordains to come to pass, you don’t believe in a sovereign God and if you don’t believe in a sovereign God, you don’t believe in God. Its that simple! Do I hear a hint of exasperation? Wouldn’t that make Dr. RC Sproul an atheist? “He just called me an atheist and I’ve always believed that I’m a good Calvinist.” I don’t hear any laughter now! Do you?

Apparently Dr. Sproul doesn’t believe that God decreed the 50 students to be the sinful Armenians that they are and therefore would like to change them into elected Calvinists who are not Atheists. Not even God can do that because if He does He will be overriding his own eternal decrees. Remember the word “unchangeably” in the Westminster Confession of Faith?

Any disregard for God’s sovereignty is blasphemy and yet RC Sproul glibly calls the 50 students atheists whom God Himself has ordained to be Armenians. Shame on you RC. You are not practicing what you’re preaching.

And that, my dear friends, is how you avoid being painted into a corner. Don’t mess with the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is unchangeable because God Himself has decreed it so.

Does God hate sinners?

Please note that the sound in the above video is of a poor quality and the volume needs to be turned up quite a bit.

Before I continue to examine Paul Washer’s sermon in the light of Scripture, I need to remind you what the Calvinists believe in regard to sin and how it originated. Here then, from their own lips, follow the things they have said to vindicate their own interpretation of God’s absolute sovereignty. Please bear in mind the following serious warnings in Scripture before you read these grossly God dishonoring statements.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

First off, let us begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith which says in Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree:”

God from all eternity, did, from the most wise and holy counsel of his will, freely, and unchangeably ordain everything whatsoever comes to pass.

In his classic book “The Five Points of Calvinism,” Edwin H Palmer writes (page 100)

To emphasize the sovereignty of God even more, it is necessary to point out that everything is foreordained by God. Not only is God omnipotent, so that to him the nations are a drop in the bucket or as a fine coating of dust on weighing scales (Isaiah 40), but he also “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).

It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God. For what action of man is perfectly good? All of history would then be outside of God’s foreordination: the fall of Adam, the crucifixion of Christ, the conquests of the Roman Empire, the battle of Hastings, the Reformation, the French Revolution, Waterloo, the American Revolution, the Civil War, two World Wars, presidential assassinations, racial violence, and the rise and fall of nations.

In two instances the Bible is especially clear in teaching that everything, including sin, is ordained by God: the selling of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ.

Note that he says God foreordained (predetermined) sin and not foreknew/foresaw the sin, which according to James 1:13-15 He did not tempt any man to do. There is a vast difference between foreordain en foreknew. The latter clearly speaks of his awesome omniscience. In Isaiah 48: 3 God says:

I have declared the former things from of old; yea, they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them: suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; therefore I have declared it to thee from of old; before it came to pass I showed it thee; lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. (Isaiah 48:3-5)

It simply means that God in his awesome omniscience foreknew/foresaw from eternities past what every single person would and would not do in his/her lifetime. Furthermore, it was in his sovereign will to use the self-enacted obstinacy, rebellion and sin of some people throughout history to accomplish his own divine purposes. He did not cause or foreordain the sin of those whom he used in this way (e.g. Pharaoh) but foreknew/foresaw their obstinate actions against Him even long before they had done it and used it, as I have said earlier, for his own divine purposes. Not so, says the Calvinist. God, foreknew because He has foreordained things to happen, even the sin of every single human being. They believe that every typing error of a secretary was foreknown by God because He has foreordained her to make those errors. Therefore, she has no jurisdiction, authority or control over her own errors. She not only makes them but she must make them. If she does not make those errors, she has overruled God’s foreordination and that would seriously jeopardize God’s sovereignty. But let us continue with a few more quotes by Calvinists on the divinely foreordained sin of man.

In his Institutes of the Christian Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7 John Calvin wrote:

The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” (Emphasis added)

Arthur Pink says in his book The Sovereignty of God, Chapter 8 “Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

We turn now to ponder,

3. How is it possible for God to DECREE that men SHOULD commit certain sins, hold them RESPONSIBLE in the committal of them, and adjudge them GUILTY because they committed them?

 Let us now consider the extreme case of Judas. We hold that it is clear from Scripture that God decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus. If anyone should challenge this statement we refer him to the prophecy of Zechariah through whom God declared that His Son should be sold for “thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12). As we have said in earlier pages, in prophecy God makes known what will be, and in making known what will be He is but revealing to us what He has ordained shall be. That Judas was the one through whom the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled needs not to be argued. But now the question we have to face is, Was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God? We reply that he was. Responsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of the one committing the act.

The Westminster Confessions state in chapter 3 entitled Of God’s Eternal Decree:

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

It follows that every single sin committed by every single human being who lived in the past, every single sin being committed by those who are now alive, and every single sin that will be committed by those who shall be living in the future were foreordained (decreed) by God and yet He is not the author of sin. Sin did not originate with Him and neither does his decree violate the will of men. The very character of a decree is that it must come to pass. If that which was decreed does not come to pass, the sovereignty of Him who decreed it is flawed and his godhood becomes questionable. Therefore Adam and Eve had no other option than to sin in spite of God’s stern warning that they would die if they took and ate of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. In fact his decree that their sin had to come to pass, was borne out of his hatred for the sinner and his wish that they should die. Shocked? Well, that’s the only conclusion one can come to when you believe that God ordained (decreed) whatsoever comes to pass. Even the Muslims believe in the absolute sovereignty of Allah. Listen to RC Sproul’s argument in this regard and see whether you can catch his subtle suggestion that Allah and the Christian God are one and the same.

Well, at least RC Sproul knows how to entertain his audience and make them laugh but what he says about the God of the Bible is no laughing matter, especially when he places Him on par with Allah. Listen again carefully to what he says.

Of whom is he speaking? — the God of the Bible or Allah? It can’t be Allah because Islam’s sovereign God has no son. To them it is sheer blasphemy to even suggest that Allah has a son. He says in effect that the veracity of the sovereignty of God is determined neither by Calvinism, nor is it corroborated by orthodox Christianity or even the Bible. It is the general agreement on God’s absolute sovereignty between the major religions of the world – Judaism, Islam and classical Christianity – that attest to the sovereignty of God because if He is not sovereign He cannot be God to any of these religions. He then comes to the conclusion that the Armenians whom his students invited to listen to their illustrious professor are atheists because they worship a God who is not sovereign and therefore impotent. What does that tell you? Well, he’s saying that the Armenians do not fall in the same divine category of either one of these religions – Judaism, Islam or classical Christianity because they are atheists.

If God’s absolute authority and sovereignty is constituted by his divine foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass, then it follows that the 50 students who did not agree with RC Sproul are Armenians by divine design and predestination. Therefore RC Sproul who is supposed to honor and respect God’s sovereign decrees (that’s if He really and truly is a full-blooded Calvinist) has no right whatsoever to call them atheists. What God has decreed cannot be rescinded, overturned or changed. Any disregard for God’s sovereignty is blasphemy and yet RC Sproul glibly calls the 50 students atheists whom God Himself has ordained to be Armenians. Shame on you RC. You are not practicing what you’re preaching.

Let us now focus our attention on Paul Washers’ sermon “God hates sinners” against the backdrop of what I have already said about the Calvinists’ view of sin and its origin. The question we need to ask from the very start is why does Paul Washer elaborate on God’s demonstration of his divine love for the lost and immediately after that switches to a discussion about God’s hatred of the sinner? You will recall that he said:

God Himself is just and God is perfect and consistent in all his attributes. In order to pardon the wicked, the justice of God must first be satisfied and the wrath of God appeased. Something must — and this is a very important word, you can look it up in the dictionary — someone must interpose; someone must intervene; someone must do something. And being there’s only two parties, one being God and the other man, we put no hope in man. God Himself must intervene. To satisfy his justice, to appease his wrath and make it possible to express his love in salvation for wicked men.

It is very important to take note of a key phrase in the above quote and that is the phrase “to express his love in salvation for wicked men. Of whom is Paul Washer speaking when he specifically refers to “his love in salvation?” To answer the question we need to look at another video. Here again the sound is poor but fortunately the author supplied some text to it.

To make it easier I have transliterated what is said in the above video here:

Young man: I got a question, I don’t understand, I’ve been raised Southern Baptist my whole life and I’m searching for the Truth really hard in my life right now. I’m in seminary and I want to understand the doctrine of election and things like that. And my roommate’s a Calvinist and he’s been kind of trying to teach me a little bit but I want to know the Truth and they tell me that you’re the guy. You know. Is there any way that you can, you know . . . anything that you can [say to help me understand this more clearly?]

Paul Washer: I can say something but let me . . . if you will go to my pastor’s website “Anchored in Truth” [http://www.anchoredintruth.ord/resources/audio/ephesians]. He has a series of sermons called “Election Plain and Simple” – some of the best you will ever hear. What it all comes down to is this. You have to answer one question: is man radically depraved? That’s the only question you have to ask because if he is, if he is truly dead in his sin, if he truly hates God, if all men are equally evil and they are, then the question is, how are you standing here right now believing God while some of your friends who are more moral than you still hate Him? (Paul Washer’s exegesis of man’s fallen nature is so utterly depraved that he constantly rips God’s Word to pieces. We learn from Acts 10:22 that the Roman Centurion, Cornelius, was an upright and God-fearing man and that he regularly attended the synagogue in Jerusalem. And yet, Cornelius was not a saved man [Acts 11:14] when he sent some of his men to summon Peter to his home. Now that, my dear friends, is the epitomy of hatred. Not even Paul Washer’s description of man’s hatred of God equals Cornelius’ hatred of God.) What happened? If you say you opened up your heart I’ll say, no you didn’t because the Bible said God opened Lydia’s heart. I you say, well I repented, well repentance is an evangelical grace in all the confessions, that means it comes form God as a gift. If you say: “Well I believe Ephesians 2,” it also is a gift.

Young man: I know the Bible says that no man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. I know that well but my question is: Is the offer of salvation for all men or did God sit back in eternity and say: “Its for you, you, you and you. And you, you, you, you are going to go to hell.”

Paul Washer: See, first of all, you’re problem is this. Let’s say there’s no election. None. Ok, let’s just start fresh and say there’s no election. Alright. Now . . . . let’s say men are radically depraved and no man can come to God unless God draws him. So, God comes down to every man and says: Anyone who will bow their knee to me, anyone who will accept my Son as their Savior, will be saved. Since every man is radically depraved, they all hate God. they all blaspheme Him, walk away and go to hell. The whole world goes to hell. Is that God’s fault? Alright, let’s say that really is the reality. Let’s say the Bible is true and that men hate God that much. So who is going to het saved? Absolutely no one! And if God saved no one because everyone is evil and rejects Him, is God wrong in doing that? No, so that is what you’ve got without election – you’ve got the whole world hating God and going to hell. That’s it! And the other option is this. Among these evil people, for his own glory and to demonstrate his own kindness before the foundation of the earth He chooses a group of men out of there to demonstrate his glory in them. Is that wrong? Did he rip the other men off? What did He do? You’ve got two choices. God saves a group of people by his own sovereignty or everybody goes to hell. Everybody because men are that evil. See, your problem . . . see what you need to realize is this. if God, right now, were to throw open the gates of hell and say: Everyone who wants out of hell, the only thing you have to do is bow your knee to me and recognize my lordship, they’ll slam the door and stay in hell. See, what you don’t realize about the humanistic Christianity in America. You don’t realize that men are really evil. They really are evil.

If the rich man in hell (Luke 16:19-31), as evil and depraved as he may have been, would have wanted to slam the gates of hell shut in the face of an invitation to bow the knee before Jesus, he would never have begged Abraham to send someone from the dead to warn his five brothers lest they too should end up in hell. In any case, we read from Philippians 2:9 and 11 that every knee shall bow at the Name of Jesus Christ and every tongue confess that He is Lord. It does not mean that everyone is going to be saved but that everyone shall bow the knee and confess whether they like it or not. No one is going to be given the option to bow or not to bow or to confess or not to confess.

Paul Washer tells us loud and clear who the wicked are to whom God expresses his love in salvation. Yep! you’ve guessed it – THE ELECT ONLY! The obvious conclusion to make is that the sinners whom God hates are the non-elect for they have no hope whatsoever for God to express his love in salvation toward them. Yes! He loves them but not unto salvation because Jesus did not die for them on the cross. Do you remember these blasphemous remarks? They are hopelessly irredeemable because if they had been objects of his love in salvation and therefore redeemable it would have jeopardized God’s absolute sovereignty who decreed before the foundation of the world that they would glorify Him through their eternal destruction in hell. There is only one problem: If God hates sinners, He would have hated even the elect (amongst whom are Paul Washer, John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll etc.). Surely the Bible declares that he who says that he has no sin is a liar and a self-deceiver and the word and the truth is not in him (1 John 1:8 and 9). If the elect are sinners, which they cannot and do not deny, then God must hate them as well.

Undoubtedly scripture after scripture after scripture in the Bible tells us that God’s hatred is manifest against wickedness. I don’t think anyone would be able to argue against that. In fact we don’t have to look any further than the cross of Jesus Christ to realize how much God hates sin and wickedness. Would it be wrong to quote John 3:16 as follows? “For God so hated sin and wickedness, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16). I don’t think Paul Washer would object to my slight alteration of the most famous verse in the Bible. He already said it in so many words in the introduction to his sermon. However, can we in accordance with Washer’s claim that God hates sinners change the same verse to the following? “For God so hated sinners and the wicked that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Now that’s a complete misnomer and yet Paul Washer says with boldness that God hates sinners. In order to substantiate his claim that the well-known maxim “God hates sin but loves the sinner” is wrong, he takes his audience to Psalm 5, but before I get into that I must first draw your attention to the following observation I made.

Paul Washer’s examples are inconsistent with what he says in regard to the maxim “God hates sin but loves the sinner.” He uses three examples – he loves babies but hates abortion; he loves the Jews but hates the holocaust; he loves African Americans but hates slavery. In each of these examples the sins are not committed by the babies, the Jews or the African Americans but by someone else. If he wants to be consistent in his argument and refute the maxim “God hates sin but loves the sinner” he should have said: “he hates abortion but loves the abortionist,” “he hates the holocaust but loves Hitler,” “he hates slavery but loves those who forced African Americans into slavery.” Of course God hates wickedness and iniquity. Nevertheless Paul Washer’s refutation of the maxim “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” cannot be substantiated by “God loves the Jew but hates the holocaust,” “God loves babies but hates abortion,” or “God loves African Americans but hates slavery.” In fact, Paul Washer’s arguments do not refute the maxim “God hates sin but loves the sinner” but confirms it. His refutation of the maxim can only be substantiated when the sin and the sinner are combined in a single entity and not two – the person against whom the sin is perpetrated and an outsider who commits the sin. Yes! again, scripture after scripture after scripture tells us that God hates wickedness (the deed). If it were true that He did not only hate the deed (sin) but also the doer (sinner) Paul  Washer should have said: “Scripture after scripture, after scripture in the Bible tells us that God hates the wicked.” Ah, but he does say it and verifies it from one place in scripture (not with scripture after scripture after scripture in the Bible). And this brings us to his exegesis of Psalm 5 and verse 5: “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.” So you see God does not only hate the sin but also the sinner. That’s what it says, doesn’t it? Well, if you look at the entire Psalm in its proper context, you would understand this verse a little better.

As in many of his other Psalms David laments the unrelenting pursuit of those who sought to kill him. Some of them used deceit and trickery to draw him into their net with an intent to kill him. It was these boastful and presumptuous evildoers whom God found detestable because they would not shrink from murder and deceit. They were in fact habitual murderers and deceivers whose aim it continually was to shed the blood of an innocent man. I continue to marvel at many prominent Calvinists who idolize a murderer who never shrunk from the shedding of blood. In response to the question who his favorite theologian outside of the Bible is, John MacArthur says without any hesitation in this video that John Calvin is one of his primary models in theology. In fact, I don’t think any of the other major proponents of Calvinism would deny that John Calvin is their main man. However, John MacArthur’s real and total hero is Paul of Tarsus. But wasn’t he also a murderer, just like John Calvin? Well yes, whilst he was a non-believer he persecuted many Christians and approved the murder of Stephan but he never shed any blood after his salvation, which can not be said of John Calvin. Paul of Tarsus called himself the chief of sinners because he persecuted the Christians. He showed real remorse for his former life. John Calvin, on the other hand, believed he was doing God a favor when he had many “heretics” burnt at the stake. For those of you who would want to research John Calvin’s murderous activities, I give the following links.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

Paul Washer is correct in saying that God hates sinners but what kind of sinners does He find detestable? Those who do not shrink from shedding the blood of their fellowmen.