tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-267570252024-03-23T10:49:52.347-07:00Zits Emerge Truth AbidesI love making fun of Emergents. So here we go......Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-21214576212261003242007-04-25T13:41:00.001-07:002007-04-26T14:29:53.156-07:00Ah TOWED Ja!Not long ago, I wrote an <a href="http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/2007/03/pot-heads-doing-church.html">article</a> accusing the Emergent of being full of pot heads. I admitted I had no evidence other than the way they acted, talked, and thought (if you can call what they do in their heads "thought"). It was a really spooky thing to do, making an accusation like that without any real evidence other than the sense I got from their manners. So I made sure to make it clear that I was working on a strong impression, not evidence.<br /><br /><em><strong>BUT</strong></em>........just about two days ago, I was gathering information for a friend. He wanted to know what the Emergent was. So I told him that I would get some Emergent websites listed for him and some sites that were anti-Emergent so he could know just what it is I am talking about all the time infiltrating the church. Among the Emergent sites I listed was theooze.com. When I went over there to cut and paste the url onto the email to my friend, I found <a href="http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1517">this article</a> by Gordon Duncan. He was complaining about what ought to be done with all the potheads he knew, including a lot in the "church."<br /><br />Hummmm...<em><strong><strong>TOWED Ja!!!!</strong></strong></em><br /><br />Enjoying the vindication,<br />Phil Perkins. PS--I suppose this explains why no Emergent has come on this blog and denied the accusation.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-25904678122608898212007-04-04T08:49:00.000-07:002007-04-09T12:07:59.188-07:00So Who Are You Calling An Oxymoron?!!This just in: "postmodern intellectual." That's a phrase I just read at another blog. Al Mohler was describing Stanley Fish as a leading "postmodern intellectual."<br /><br />He's right. Fish is an intellectual and he's postmodern. However, it seems absurd to me that those two words go together.<br /><br />A postmodern says that we shouldn't believe much of anything absolutely. Thus, negating the need for any sort of intellectualism at all. It's like buying a bucket of coal to run your electric razor. If nothing much can be known, why be big on knowing?<br /><br />Have to go now......I'm going to the store to get ice for the oven. I'm baking a bin of 3/4 inch, fine-thread hex nuts and a ham with Pinse-sol glaze for Passover.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-46535100648112565172007-03-23T18:40:00.000-07:002007-03-31T22:01:32.798-07:00Barbarian Lies, Part IIIErwin McManus is a superstar Southern Baptist pastor in California, known for his love of Celtic pagan worship mixed with biblical worship and his popularity among Emergent religionists. In this series of <a href="http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/2007/03/barbarian-lies.html">articles</a>, I explore and expose a number of lies he presented in his book, <em><strong>The Barbarian Way</strong></em>. I have done nine individual lies so far. We pick up with number ten.<br /><br />LIE #10. <em><strong>The gospel is not about salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins</strong></em>. Page 32. Specifically, McManus states that the idea of salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins in order to escape God's wrath "results in our domestication." If you have not read the book, the theme is in the title. He exhorts young, male church-goers to live outside the authority of the church and its leaders. He uses buzz words, "domestication" and "civilization" for evil and "barbarian" and "danger" for good. Barbarian includes a disdain for biblical authority. This he calls the Barbarian Way and he says the great men of Scripture were like this, too. Here is what he says: "So what is the good news? The refined and civilized version goes something like this: Jesus died and rose from the dead so that you can live a life of endless comfort, security, and indulgence. But really this is a bit too developed. Usually, it's more like this: if you'll simply confess that you're a sinner and believe in Jesus, you'll be saved from the torment of eternal hellfire, then go to heaven when you die. Either case results in our domestication."<br /><br />The deception is really thick here. First, notice he equates the health-and-wealth gospel with the real gospel. Why? The believe-in-Jesus-and-get-rich-and-healed message never was the gospel of orthodox Christianity and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins has always been the gospel. So why mention both as though they are of the same weight? The former is a modern invention of the televangelist thieves. The latter is the gospel of historical Christianity.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of to do this is to relate the true to the obviously false so that both will be rejected. He doesn't really define the gospel, but he does go on to indicate it involves being dangerous and barbarian. It can't be seperated from those things. In this way, he plants in the minds of his readers the idea that rebelling against authority is really good. The authorities are evil.<br /><br />LIE #11. <em><strong>Jesus' mission was not to seek and save the lost.</strong></em> Page 31. McManus writes, "Even then Jesus understood His mission was to save us not from pain and suffering, but from meaninglessness." Interestingly, embedded with the main lie is another even more hideous. Notice the "Even then Jesus understood..." So it seems Jesus caught onto something earlier than Erwin might expect.<br /><br />NEWS FLASH FOR ERWIN: Jesus is God. He doesn't catch on to anything, because He knows all things. <br /><br />McManus, here, is trying to redirect our attention. The main reason Jesus came was to be the Lamb of God Who takes away our sins. McManus wants us to believe otherwise. He wants us to forget that and concentrate on the personal fulfillment we can get. If that is the point of Christianity, why not be a Communist. Many have found that added meaning to their lives. Or a Buddhist, or a Shriner, or a Republican, or a Muslim, or...<br /><br />LIE #12. <strong><em>"Sacrifice and servanthood" are part of unruliness and rebellion.</em></strong> Page 34. This is really just an example of the double talk so common in Emergent writings. On the one hand, McManus calls the young to be barbarians. On the other, one has to sound vaguely Christian to sell books through the local "Christian" book store. So put in something like this: "The bargarian way is about love expressed through sacrifice and servant hood." Yeah, that ought to do it.<br /><br />LIE #13. <em><strong>Jesus called Peter (and by extension all the other disciples and you too, Boopy) to be a barbarian.</strong></em> Page 35. Look at the illogic Erwin asks his readers to embrace: "Peter found himself being called to the barbarian way." He then recites John 21:18-19 as proof. (The book has "17-19." An editorial mistake, since the quote begins with verse 18.) That passage contains Jesus' prophecy that Peter would die at a very old age and in an infirm condition and it calls for Peter to submit to His will. How that leads to a barbaric way of life, I don't know. I'm sure Erwin doesn't know either. But he bet most of his readers wouldn't catch on to the nonsense. In this day and age he is right.<br /><br />LIE #14. <strong><em>You should ignore good rules of hermeneutics and teach the young by example to be sloppy in their interpretation.</em></strong> Page 45. Okay, he didn't actually say it. Instead, he modeled it. This is the kind of hermeneutics a first or second year Bible school student taking his first biblical interpretation course would get an F for if he did it. He said, "...the biblical word for <em>witness</em> is actually the word for <em>martyr</em>." <br /><br />Put on your thinking caps here. Hermeneutics is just the fancy word for biblical interpretation, in case you're wondering. McManus committed two hermeneutical errors not fitting for a first year bible college student. First, he cited the New Testament word for "witness" as "the biblical word" for it. How about the other 70% of the Bible, Erwin? The Old Testament is in Hebrew, not Greek. Do you suppose it uses a word or two for "witness?" In fact, it did use several words, but when making a point pick your data and lie as if the rest of the data doesn't exist. Try that in court and see if you win many cases. Or even if you're still a member of the bar. Try that in science and see how many papers you get published. And get ready to teach at a back water school that couldn't get anyone else. Is Erwin, the real life communication wizard that he actually is, that stupid or is he lying?<br /><br />The second hermeneutical mistake is even worse if you can imagine. It's called the time-frame fallacy. It is a fallacy often committed by Evangelical preachers that are uneducated, sloppy, or don't care about anything more than whipping up the folks and getting complements. This book is put out by Nelson Books, an old and respected Christian publishing house which has lost its integrity as most have. I hold them responsible as well. They knew better at one time. <br /><br />The time-frame fallacy works like this: To make a dramatic pint in a sermon (or book) I can take a dramatic word in the English, find its Greek origin, if it has one, and tie it to my text to make the sermon more exciting. <br /><br />The problem with that is two fold. First, it starts with human wants and the ego or employment aspirations of the preacher/writer, instead of the text of the Word of God. Second, it's often wrong in its conclusions because the meaning of a word in its historical, cultural context is what counts, not how the word came to mean what it means or what it or its cognates will mean in the future. The origins of a word are its etymology. A common example of this fallacy is the English word "dynamite." Often preachers will use that word to juice up a sermon about the power of God, the power of the Spirit, or the power of the Christian. The Greek word for the power to do something is "dunamis." (There is another Greek word that has to do with the power of authority.) From "dunamis" Mr. Nobel made the word for his invention of nitroglycerin mixed with sawdust, "dynamite." No New Testament author had the idea of "dynamite" in his mind when he wrote "dunamis." Here's the proof: They had never heard of dynamite becaue it hadn't been invented yet. So to read history backwards and say that Paul meant an explosive substance or anything like it is simply wrong. He meant "dunamis," not "dynamite."<br /><br />Erwin did that same thing. The Greek word for "testify" is "martureo." The noun "witness" (one who testifies, not one who sees) is "martur." As history unfolded those that died for the faith were called God's witness. As such, the Greek word provided the root of the English word "martyr" for one who died or suffered for a cause. That was not in the mind of the writers of the New Testament. They meant one who testifies whether they suffered as a result or not. (But it really jazzes up Mr. McManus' point, and selling books, not accuracy to the Word of God is his main point, I think.)<br /><br />Now I ask again, is Erwin that stupid or is he lying. I'm not asking this just to make the point that McManus is no good. (I've made that clear from the beginning.) However, I ask it for this reason: If he's lying, he's unfit as a Christian leader on moral grounds. If he's that stupid, he's unfit to teach because he doesn't adequately comprehend the subject or even how to study the primary texts.<br /><br />You don't need to decide. Either possibility makes it imperative that the body of Christ discard him as a teacher until he changes.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-45239562970581709432007-03-23T08:52:00.000-07:002007-03-31T21:12:12.849-07:00Barbarian Lies, Part IIThis is the second installment of my <a href="http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/2007/03/barbarian-lies.html">article</a> started on the mistakes, lies, biblical misrepresentations, and general false teachings by Erwin McManus in his book, <em>The Barbarian Way</em>. I want to make clear just what I am NOT doing. I am not spoofing him to make a point that he's stupid. He's an ingenious communicator. I am refuting him because he's lying. And his lies are subtle. The first time I read through the book, I was uncomfortable because it seemed so sloppy in the quotes and biblical conclusions drawn. I knew there were some outright lies, but for the most part it felt like the usual pop-Evangelical, anti-intellectual palaver so common in books, sermons, and the radio and TV--Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, etc. The logic seemed silly and stilted. The second time through it was obvious to me he was not sloppy. He was slanting things toward a goal. He was building an integrated lie.<br /><br />This installment will deal primarily with a particular lie he tells about John the Baptist and its ancillary sub-lies. The theme lie is that John the Baptist was a "barbarian" (That's good.) and all the bad guys in the New Testament were "domesticated" and "civilized." (That's bad.) Just like your mom told you, one lie leads to another. In order to support this lie, some more have to be spun so the reader will think he knows all about John from reading Erwin. Like all false teachers, McManus depends heavily on the fact that most church goers are biblically ignorant. One read through any one of the gospels would tell the reader McManus is rewriting history.<br /><br />LIE #6. <em><strong>John the Baptist preached the avoidance of God's wrath through repentance to only the religious class. The "irreligious" are, evidently, just fine and don't need that message.</strong></em> Page 22. Here our misguide to hysterical Christianity writes, "...his (John the Baptist) fire-and-brimstone message was entirely directed toward the religious, not the irreligious...He had no patience for domesticated religionists who were drowning in their own self-righteousness." (Notice the self-righteous tone of the author here!) Yes, in Erwinland only the irreligious are righteous. The rest of you are just on the way to hell, unless you repent of your repentance. <br /><br />The slight of keyboard here is accomplished by equating the corrupt religious authorities of John's time with ALL religious authorities today--well, except for Erwin, of course. The point is, don't trust or submit to your dad or your pastor or your church or your denomination. They are bad, like the Pharisees. McManus and you are righteous, like John, Moses, and Paul. Your dad and your pastor are self-righteous. You and Erwin are not self-righteous. How do we know that? Well, because Erwin says so.<br /><br />McManus simply lied about the whole thing. John preached the whole gospel to the whole crowd--Pharisees, Sadducees, and commoners. Read what the Spirit says in Luke 3:7-9: "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, 'You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham for our father," for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'" <br /><br />The truth is that he did not even begin in Jerusalem. He started in the wilderness and the people of Jerusalem came out to hear him while he was still out there in the country of the Jordan.<br /><br />LIE #7. <em><strong>John the Baptist was not an ascetic like we all thought for lo these past 2000 years. No, every Christian, Christian cleric, Christian theologian, pastor, priest, nun, pew-sitting believer or non-believer, and each and every choir member who ever existed from Pentecost until the advent of Erwin McManus has been seriously wrong. John was a law-flaunting, uncivilized, mouth-foaming, uneducated, out-of-control barbarian</strong></em>. Page 22. Erwin prattles, "He (John) was a barbarian in the midst of civilization. And frankly the civilization made him sick." This is truly a monument to the biblical illiteracy and spiritual laziness of the typical Evangelical. Anyone who can swallow a line like this is obviously due for a scriptural tune up. Such a person doesn't read the Bible much. McManus made a bet that a lot of young, naive, church-going males would be stupid enough to by his book. And his story. He won the bet.<br /><br />Where in Scripture is there any indication that civilization made John the Baptist sick? No where. Where in Scripture is there any indication that civilization as a concept or a practice is evil apart from the effects of the fall? No where. One must be reminded that God told man to go out and multiply--hence, civilization is mandated by God Himself.<br /><br />To further this ridiculous idea, Erwin says King Herod was "civilized" and John was a "barbarian" in Chapter 2. Herod, you might recall, had taken his brother's wife. John preached against this barbarity and Herod jailed him for it. Yet, in Erwinland, the sexually uncontrolled drunk is civilized and the tea-totalling, mostly vegetarian preacher is the barbarian. Just what sort of glasses did Erwin use to read the New Covenant anyway? Or did he bother?<br /><br />LIE #8. <em><strong>Education bad. Ignorance good. That is, according to the example of John the Baptist.</strong></em> Page 22. Far from the biblical standard of studying to show oneself approved, the fictious John the Baptist of Erwinland, is into eating locusts and watching MTV as sermon prep. Again, where in Scripture are we told John had no formal training of any kind? While it's possible, it's not to be assumed. He probably did have formal training, since he was the son of a priest, Zacharias. Arguing by silence, he must not have had kidneys since they are never mentioned in Scripture.<br /><br />LIE #9. <strong><em>No one could have anticipated that an austere man like John the Baptist would introduce the Messiah.</em></strong> Page 22. "To say the least, he was not the person whom anyone was expecting to prepare the way for the Messiah." That's right. In Erwinland, they don't have the books of Isaiah and Malachi. In fact, no Israelite ever had any notion of just how austere the prophets could be in Erwinland.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-14646003767382203122007-03-20T04:52:00.000-07:002007-03-31T21:18:56.302-07:00Barbarian Lies, Part IMark Johnson, a friend of mine, recently asked me about Erwin McManus. Apparently, some of his friends are currently getting into McManus and Mark wants some answers. Well, here are some thoughts out of McManus' book, <em>The Barbarian Way</em>.<br /><br />LIE #1. <em><strong>Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu prayer are the same and addressed to the same God.</strong></em> Page 14. We read, "Every devout believer--in fact, any person of faith from any religious persuasion, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever--believes in prayer, but we all know prayer is supposed to be us talking to God." Actually, no. Christians do not believe in prayer. Biblically informed Christians believe in God. Since they believe in God, they pray to Him. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims do not pray to the same God as Christians. Some pray to Allah and some to ancestors and some to various gods in the Hindu pantheon. Those are the gods they believe in. And, yes, many pagans believe in some sort of magical power in prayer. Some that call themselves Christians do as well. However, biblically informed Christians do not practice any sort of witchcraft or sorcery. They simply speak to their Father. The power is in Him, not in their prayer or some formula for speaking to a deity. Even the act called "prayer" in other religions is different than Christian prayer. Further discussion of this can be found <a href="http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-i-dont-believe-in-power-of-prayer.html">here</a>.<br /><br />This man is a Southern Baptist pastor. Why is he equating Christian prayer to that of other religions that don't even acknowledge the Christian God?<br /><br />LIE #2. <em><strong>There are other sources of truth beside the Scripture</strong></em>. Page 14. Pastor McManus has found out that another source of spiritual knowledge has emerged. How does he know this? Because he watched the movie "Braveheart." Well, there you go! He writes, "One of my favorite characters in <em>Braveheart</em> was the Irish guy who joined William Wallace in his crusade. Remember him, the crazy guy who talked to God?" McManus then relates that this character said God had told him that Wallace's fight was to be "fashionable." This is then seen to indicate to McManus that the fight he is calling the readers to is "fashionable" and only the "finest people" will involve themselves. Obviously a flattery to enlist the naive. At any rate, he calls the young and naive to listen to God for information they will not get from the Bible on pages 14-15.<br /><br />LIE #3. <em><strong>We are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self</strong></em>. Page 14 again. At the top we read, "You have been recreated to live in a raw and primal spirituality." This is a lie on three levels. First on the level of the individual believer, the Spirit says in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." This is in contrast to McManus' vision of barbariansim for the young Christian. Second, as to God's ultimate purpose, His glory is the reason for our salvation. I Chronicles 22:10 says this about the salvific work of Christ: "He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." Isaiah 43:6-7 says, <br /> "I will say to the north, <br /> 'Give them up!'<br /> And to the south, 'Do not hold them back '<br /> Bring My sons from afar<br /> And My daughters from the ends of the earth, <br /> Everyone who is called by My name,<br /> And whom I have created for My glory,<br /> Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."<br /><br />Third, on the level of how God and His saints relate to the rest of the world, Malachi tells us that the point of salvation in God's plan for the nations is the glory of His name. "'For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,' says the LORD of hosts." <br /><br />LIE #4. <strong><em>Christians who exhibit discipline, self-control, and submission to proper authorities in the church don't really love and obey Jesus.</em></strong> Page 15. McManus writes, "Barbarians (folks of whom McManus approves) are not welcome among the civilized (church) and are feared by the domesticated (folks of whom McManus does not approve.) The way of Jesus is far to savage (good to McManus) for their sensibilities." Parentheticals added for clarity based on the content of the entire book. Notice the three-fold drive-by smear against real Christians. First, obedient Christians are weak--"domesticated" in McManus' terms. Second, obedient Christians are fearful. They are scared of the "barbarian." Third, obedient Christians don't obey Christ. Instead, they think He is savage.<br /><br />LIE #5. <em><strong>Jesus was a "savage" Who lacked self-control and obedience.</strong></em> Page 15 again, and see the same quote as point four. Jesus' obedience and self control are on display throughout the gospels. Even at His clearing of the temple, He did not show uncontrolled anger. He started by taking the time to make a whip, beat the dickens out of enough of the phonies inside to scare everyone else out of the temple and gave the a short lesson on the theology of worship, complete with at least one biblical quote while doing so. In addition, He constantly told all who listened that He did only what the Father told Him to do. This exhibits both self-control and obedience, not savagery or barbarianism.<br /><br />I will continue this article in segments.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-48796249460929423582007-03-02T10:10:00.000-08:002007-03-02T12:22:57.015-08:00Rob Auld's Objections AnsweredI'm overdue on this. I recently had an Emergent get really mad at me for the <a href="http://zitsemerge.blogspot.com/2007/01/two-questions-postmoderns-cant-answer.html">evangelization tips </a>I published for witnessing to Emergents. His name was Rob Auld. I had to censor him because his remarks were at times just insults and not arguments. I gave him a lot of chances. The only comment I censored had a number of good objections that I would like to answer. So I promised Rob I would. I want to answer these objections because they are substantial. Christians ought to have an answer for them and Emergents ought to have these objections to historical orthodoxy answered in order for them to come to the truth, as well. So here are his objections sans a number of schoolyard insults:<br /><br />ROB: I'm arguing that the Bible is to be believed, perhaps not literally in all cases (Genesis, Abraham's boosom (sic) Jonah, Job etc)...<br /><br />ANSWER: What in Genesis is not true? Moses presented all of it as true. He did not say, "Here is a parable. In the Beginning God created..."<br /><br />Logic 101--There are only three possibilities for the veracity of a statement proposed as true by the speaker/writer. It is a mistake. It is a lie. It is true.<br /><br />There are no other possibilities. Moses presented Genesis as true. If your position is true and Moses is wrong, he was either a deluded fool or a liar. Paul used the Genesis account as the reason for gender roles. If creation is wrong, so are the epistles. Check out his use of the rib-to-Eve story and the story of the fall. He took them as literal. Jesus used the same stories to justify the permanency of marriage. If you do not take Genesis literally as true, you deny Christ.<br /><br />ROB: ...but hyperbole and story is the way God has chosen to communicate.<br /><br />ANSWER: God uses a number of literary genre, forms, and devices, including hyperbole and story. However, you miss four important things here. <br /><br />First is the simple fact that we Christians are aware of that. Since I was old enough to understand language, I knew what a parable was. Assuming Christians don't know this almost seems as though you are purposely making a straw man. In fact, I have never known anyone who read the Bible at all who did not realize this.<br /><br />Second, you mention "story." You are making another wrong assumption here. Narrative in Scripture is meant to give real history. It is not an imagined story. Every writer of Scripture has recognized this. As I pointed out, the writers of the Pentateuch, the Chronicles, Samuel, the Kings, Esther, Ruth, the Gospels, etc. do not say, "This is just a story." They are relating what really happened. Hence the geographical references and the genealogies. The contemporaries of the writers realized this, too. Ask yourself this question: "If I follow Jesus and Jesus is told of in the Gospels and if I do not believe the Gospels, what do I really know of this Jesus and how can I follow Him Whom I cannot surely know?" Your assertion that you are a follower of Christ is now meaningless, because the terms of your own views render such a claim untestable. That is to say your doctrine and behavior could be anything and still fit the claim. In a word "Repent!" is now meaningless because you cannot tell what doctrines and behaviors are approved or disapproved of by your "Jesus," whoever he may be.<br /><br />Third, while God has used hyperbole and parable, these forms do not stand alone. Entire books of the New Testament are doctrinal theses--Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews for starters. Hence, to simply wave your hand and erase all we can know of God on the basis that the Scripture has these two forms ignores the rest of Scripture, even if one concedes (and I don't) that we cannot know much through these two forms.<br /><br />Fourth, even with the literary devices of hyperbole and story, communication is accomplished. "I could eat a horse." That's hyperbole. Yet it communicates a truth.<br />And only ONE TRUTH. It is not up to interpretation. It communicates with clarity. No one will ask, "Are you hungry?" They already know that. And no one will think "I could eat a horse" means "I can't hear." Everyone knows it means "I'm hungry."<br /><br />So appealing to hyperbole, even in those passages where it is used, it is not an excuse.<br /><br />ROB: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK, <br /><br />ANSWER: No one I know has ever said it is. It has little to say about science. However, it is not in error, either. If it errs in science, it is not the word of God. Read Deuteronomy 18.<br /><br />ROB: ...AND (the Bible) IS A VERY ONE-SIDED HISTORY BOOK.(This is where the nuance and thinking comes in).<br /><br />ANSWER: Bias is quite a flaw. Obviously, it is not accurate in your view. That goes far beyond nuance. To really answer this in a more specific way, you will have to tell me exactly what the bias is. At any rate its views are suspect in your schema.<br /><br />ROB: The Bible tells us about the Character of God. It also tells us about the original plan God had for His creation. <br /><br />ANSWER: Well, that's nice, but as I have already said, since the Bible is flawed, what is the key by which we ascertain the true and the false? If you cannot give us the key, the Bible is useless. It tell us nothing, especially since it's biased.<br /><br />ROB: It (the Bible) tells us that we are sinful and need God. God wanted to reconcile and sent his Son as a Perfect example. To die for humanity so we didn't have to reap the consequences of our choices. Did we need to know more to be a Christian?<br /><br />ANSWER: Yes. A lot. For starters, Jesus did not come primarily as an example, but as the Lamb of God. And it is not what we know alone. Jesus said, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."<br /><br />ROB: It may be helpful to know what specific issues people writing the book were dealing with. Otherwise, you can completely misinterpret what God is saying. <br /><br />ANSWER: This is basic hermeneutics. We Christians use this method. The goal is to ascertain the intent of the author. Assuming we don't know this is wrong. In fact, Emergents like Robert Webber, John H. Armstrong, and Brian McLaren deny this method. And liberals like Karl Barth deny it also. So you're pointing the wrong direction on this one.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-17766556096438501902007-03-02T09:32:00.000-08:002007-03-02T11:29:03.012-08:00Pot Heads Doing Church?I'm not saying I know I'm right on this, but I have a suspicion. And it's just a suspicion. I want you to consider it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />I have for a long time thought that drugs and the Emergent went together. I say that for two reasons. For one thing, the Emergent has outlets that look like a head shop. John O'Keefe's old site used to sell t-shirts with drug themes and communist themes. Go look at theooze.com and see if it doesn't remind you of a copy of High Times Magazine. The other reason I have long suspected that many Emergents are religionists who won't kick the drug habit is their manner at times. Watch this <a href="http://www.current.tv/watch/21674856">video</a> and see what I mean.<br /><br />Vulgarity seems a hallmark of the Emergent heresy, too. For instance, as you listen to this video you will hear some of that, too. It all shows the spiritual bankruptcy of the Emergent. These folks are not Christians. They kid themselves.<br /><br />I'm just saying what I see.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-17797854223816333522007-03-02T09:11:00.000-08:002007-03-02T12:47:45.128-08:00The Emergent: Ignorance With A PurposeIf you wonder why Emergents have discovered the new understanding that no one can understand the Scripture inspite of the fact Jesus said we could, here is a little 5-minute excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon. Go <a href="http://www.wqbc.net/corley.php">here</a> and scroll down. Look to the right hand column. Find "Mentioned On The Air." Click the "John MacArthur: Emerging Church" link and take a listen. (Hint: It's because they love their sin.)<br /><br />Sorry for the nearly-two-week hiatus. I have been writing a lot at <a href="http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/">Al Tosap</a>.<br /><br />In Christ, <br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-8032438629658987522007-02-17T09:08:00.001-08:002007-02-17T09:47:18.665-08:00Nudists and PostmodernsLeonard Ravenhill had something interesting to say in his sermon, "Hell Has No Exits" and it applies quite well to the Emergent.<br /><br />As you know, if you've become familiar with the Emergent heresy, the BIG REASON the Emergents say it is okay to be postmodern in your thought life is that we have to "be like 'em to reach 'em," a heresy common in the Evangelical church. Well, Ravenhill took up the subject of immodest dress in the church. Naturally, he got the usual excuse, "We have to dress like them to reach them." <br /><br />To which he said, "I suppose some of you boys are praying you'll get called to a nudist colony."<br /><br />Just thinking,<br />Phil Perkins. PS--Hear Ravenhill's sermons at <a href="http://sermonaudio.com/main.asp">sermonaudio.com.</a>Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-45697312667873841542007-02-14T08:05:00.000-08:002007-02-14T08:36:52.917-08:00Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences IIIOh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?<br /><br />1. Emergents claim to be loving and tolerant, but call you "Fundie," "pig," "hypocrit," "moronic," or worse if you simply ask them to obey the God of the Bible.<br /><br />2. Okay, the challenge was for three sentences and this is only two.<br /><br />3. So, here's the other one.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-89294501223967975632007-02-14T07:47:00.000-08:002007-02-14T08:15:07.596-08:00A New Category, An Old StrategyOne of the things I decided to do at the very first of this blog was to draw Emergents out to show their real character. I can't recall right now who I first read who said one of the hallmarks of the Emergent is anger. A good book to read by an Emergent is <em>The Barbarian Way</em> by Erwin McManus. He seeks, seemingly, to attempt to channel the anger of young church going males and sanctify it. The theme of the book is a refusal to become self-controlled in the area of anger and rebellion. Of course, he doesn't say it in those words, that would be too obvious. Instead, he speaks of not allowing yourself to be "domesticated." <br /><br />In spite of their constant drum beat of tolerance and love, the real Emergent face is one of severe anger toward God, the Bible, and those who love both. So, if you want a little taste of the true character of the Emergent, click on the "Emergent Anger" label in the category box. I just added that category--I don't know why I didn't do so earlier.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins. PS--Okay, I DO know why. I'm old and I can't remember...stuff.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-2683509709447800552007-02-14T07:11:00.000-08:002007-02-14T08:22:12.317-08:00The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part III--Something He Wants To Say PubiclyRob insists that this be made public. I have footnoted answers. Here it is:<br /><br />Phil<br />I think you're a coward for removing that comment and want to say so publically. <br /><br />The comment stands as written and you're a coward for removing it.(1) I'm not interested in censorship of any kind.(2) This is so typical of you fundies. Make substantive arguments and they censor you. (3)<br /><br />Good luck with your message and once again Congrats on your promotion to god. I'm sure you've got some great advice for him. (4) <br /><br />Btw, I was wrong you are a welder. My question was what gives a welder the education necessary to teach at a bible college? (5) I don't claim to be a scholar. You do. Defend yourself. <br /><br />Rob <br /><br />1. Actually, I've let you get away with many more gratuitous insults than most would.<br /><br />2. I find that hard to believe since your first communication to me was, "Phil, You sound like a pig. Rob." Isn't that insult lingo for "Shut up. I hate you?"<br /><br />3. This is one reason you're censored, Rob. You know I offered to republish the comment if you edit out the gratuitous insults and fabrications. This is an example of just such a fabrication. And that offer still stands. <br /><br />4. And that's the other reason. Gratuitous insults. If you have an opinion, say it and support it. That sort of talk is just an ejaculation of perturbation. <br /><br />5. A masters degree from one of the better evangelical seminaries in the country at that particular time, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, now called Western Seminary.<br /><br />I will put up one more thing from Rob. The comment I deleted had substantive issues worth answering. If he resubmits his comment without the gratuitous insults I will publish it as an article. If not, I will glean the actual arguments, publish them, and answer them some time in the next few days. They're worth answering for the edification of others. Beyond that, I want to move on to other topics. And I'm sure most of my three readers would like that, too.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-28302425255474490692007-02-13T10:57:00.000-08:002007-02-14T07:41:46.818-08:00Email To Rob AuldHere is an email I just sent to Rob Auld:<br /><br />Rob,<br />I published your last comment on The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld. I did so because there are substantive issues worth dealing with. However, after giving it some thought, I deleted it because of the gratuitous insults. If you would like to edit it and be more polite, I will be glad to publish it. Here are two examples of what I mean:<br /> <br />1. You accused me of lying when I held you accountable for misrepresenting my requests for politeness as threats. You said I was hiding the fact I was going to censor you if you did not add real arguments to buttress your evaluations. This is a moderated site. And the only way you could have known that I expressed any intention of censoring you was if I said so publicly. And I did so in the comment threads publicly published here, not taken down since the beginning of our interaction.<br /> <br />2. You again called me "mentally unbalanced." That sort of remark is not made with any sort of intent but to hurt.<br /> <br />So, if you think me wrong, stupid, a pig, or a plumber, say so with an argument that is logical and biblical. Then I will not censor you.<br /> <br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins. PS--Here is your comment in case you have not saved it in some form:Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-81285065293685690222007-02-13T08:08:00.000-08:002007-02-14T07:42:12.512-08:00The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part IIRob Auld is not unusual. He is a typical Emergent. He goes into circles of believers. He pretends to believe the Scripture by saying so. When examined closely he denies the authority of the Scriptures. If you want to read all his comments on this site go back to EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS Part I and work your way forward in time. You will see that I am not stretching the truth here. At one point I shared the gospel of repentance with him and edited some of the articles and to make him feel welcome here. (He is still welcome to comment here. I just wanted to get him to open up more.) After being asked to repent and follow Jesus whole-heartedly in doctrine and behavior, he refused, so I undid most of the editing I did for his comfort because it is important for the church to know Emergents are not believers and it is even more important for Emergents to know that so they can set it right with God. <br /><br />So here is more from Rob as an example of what Emergent doctrine does to the heart and mind. His words with a few explanatory parentheses are in italics. Mine are not:<br /><br /><em>closed mindedness...(and)...a mentally unbalanced state</em>. (Things Rob accuses non-Emergents of having.)<br /><br /><em>I'm a liberal and believe that this is what God wants of me. <br /><br />This is the most idiotic, condescending post I've ever read. Do some research, then come talk to me.<br /><br />The Bible is our norming norm in the community of God.</em> (as opposed to the non-norming norm?)<br /><br /><em>1. I'd like to sell my eldest daughter into slavery, what would be a fair price?<br />2. The Bible claims the plants were created before the sun. Plants use photosynthesis to survive, how exactly did this work?<br />3. The Bible says that my hands shouldn't come into contact with Pig Skin. What about the Superbowl today?</em> (Questions to prove the Bible is bunk and not to be obeyed, even though he had already admitted that it had the right to tell him how to think--and getting really angry at me for asking if it did. It should be noted that these remarks were written immediately after the paragraph in which he said it was our "norming norm." Is there any logic in Emergent World?)<br /><br /><em>...do I think it's inerrant, infalliable (sic) etc. The answer there is no. <br /><br />If your (sic) looking for literal answers...</em> (No, Rob. Speak only in symbols. I prefer it that way. With actual answers we can't be as confused as we'd like. In fact, burn every book ever written that isn't at least 90% figurative. No one needs math, logic, history, medicine, physics, biology, mechanical engineering, architecture, electrical engineering, or the Bible anyway. Let's go back to hunting and gathering. Let's see now...where is that figurative deer to kill symbolically so that my family can be clothed allegorically and fed non-literally...I hope my arrow flies straight in a figurative sort of way...)<br /><br /><em>It (the Bible) is profitable for Doctrine, reproof etc.</em> Okay, so the "norming norm," though having numerous errors and entire concepts that are bogus, according to Rob Auld, is good for "Doctirne." Which ones, Rob? Is there a key you have in mind to tell which ones are good and which ones are stupid? We'll need that key.<br /><br /><em>Don't threaten me.</em> This was Rob Auld's response when I asked him to be polite enough to explain <em><strong>why </strong></em>believers are "moronic" or "pig(s)" or "plumbers" or some such insulting thing. <br /><br /><em>All you need is the scripture.</em> This was in sarcasm, denying the authority of Scripture.<br /><br /><em>Frankly, your responses are typically Fundamentalist.</em> This was meant as a smear. Notice, there is no supporting argument--only the insult.<br /><br /><em>You know more then anyone and you have the Absolute Truth because the Bible's on your side.</em> This was in sarcasm, ridiculing those who rely on Scripture.<br /><br /><em>Don't worry about context and nuance (of Scripture) because you're right.</em> Well, Rob, if you do not trust Scripture, what difference does its context or nuance make?<br /><br /><em>I'll thank you not to pronounce judgement over my final destination and whether I know Jesus or not.</em> Actually, you have said you will not obey Scripture and given examples. Jesus said if we are ashamed of Him and His words, He will be ashamed of us. And He gave us two tests of whether or not we are His. One is whether or not we obey Him. Find that in John 10. The other is whether or not we obey the Father. Find that in I and II John. It is a theme of both books. Then decide for yourself.<br /><br />Did you notice the haughty attitude for "plumbers?" Why did he feel he had to say such a thing? If Rob is an electrical engineer or a brain surgeon, his anscestors were blue collar. One might remind Rob, that he claims to follow (but actually doesn't) a <em><strong>carpenter</strong></em>. He is simply smarter than pretty much everyone else, I guess.<br /><br />Which brings up this question: Since Emergents claim to know (believe) so little why do they look down on the intelligence of others so much? They sit in judgment on the apostles and prophets, deciding if what they wrote can be believed. Peter walked, ate, and evangelized with Jesus for three years, but Rob and other Emergents will decide if what Peter wrote is true?! Paul was commandeered by Jesus after having become a biblical scholar with one of the highest ranks in Israel. Then he actually corrected Peter. And Emergents decide if we can believe Paul?! And men like Brian McLaren or John Armstrong call believers arrogant?!<br /><br />So take this as an example of the typical Emergent. They are not believers and they hate those who are because they hate the God of Scripture.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-73499124703368907982007-02-11T20:52:00.000-08:002007-02-14T07:42:38.982-08:00The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob AuldHere are a few new comments receieved today from "Rob." He is an Emergent with some very pointed things to say.<br /><br /><em>Phil, You sound like a pig.<br />Rob <br /><br />Phil, You are absolutely moronic in your analysis. <br />Rob <br /><br />Phil,You are absolutely moronic in your analysis. <br />Rob <br /><br />Phil, Don't threaten me. Censor away, I submit you've censored quite a bit in your life. How can I leave Emergent? What is there to leave? We don't have to define ourselves along your sad denominational lines. We look to include and focus on those issues. You look to exclude and divide. We'll see whose 'more right' in the end I suppose. In the meantime, how does a plumber qualify to teach in a Bible school?<br /><br />Rob</em><br /><br />Ah there. Can't you just feel the Emergent love?<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins, non-plumber. PS--Wonder if he hates carpenters, too.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-65727859460842731532007-02-09T13:04:00.000-08:002007-02-09T13:03:33.398-08:00Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences IIOh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?<br /><br />1. Emergents call themselves believers.<br /><br />2. Emergents follow folks like Brian McLaren who says you really can't be certain of anything, Donald Miller who says we don't have to believe the gospel and if you say we do you're a heretic, and John H. Armstrong who says certitude is an idol.<br /><br />3. The challenge was for three sentences, so here's another one. :)<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-18101025445946340822007-02-09T12:55:00.000-08:002007-02-09T13:09:42.701-08:00Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences IOh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?<br /><br />1. Emergents talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and whine and whine and whine and moan and moan and moan about how mean Christians are to sodomites for saying that sodomy is wrong.<br /><br />2. Christians all over the western world, including America, are now going to jail for saying sodomy is a sin.<br /><br />3. Emergents don't say anything in the defense of pastors and grandmothers jailed in this way for their faith.<br /><br />Ta Da. That was easy. I'll have to do this more often.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-13480320163793915692007-02-08T07:18:00.000-08:002007-02-08T08:38:56.884-08:00Big Silva Lining In Emergent Cloud!THE CLOUD<br /><br />Ken Silva at Apprising ministries made a rather depressing point the other day in this <a href="http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/02/is_donald_mille.html">article</a> about Emergents that are now denying they are Emergent. Obviously, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, and Donald Miller are Emergent in doctrine, whether they admit it or not.<br /><br />As soon as I read the article, I thought, "Oh great! Another pack of Emerfibs to deconstruct; it never ends." Mark Driscoll seemed to start that particular trend. After being Emergent for years he said he was Emergent no longer. In less than a year, he is the star of Evangelicalism appearing with good men like John Piper. (As good as Piper's preaching and doctrine are, I am shocked at his lack of discernment.) What has Driscoll done? Well, he still has the jazz of something new, without the stigma of the Emergent. Suddenly he's doubly famous. <br /><br />I suppose other Emergents are seeing his success and want some of that pie for themselves. This is disingenuous. (That means they're lying, for those of you in Rio Linda.) It's an Emerfib for two reasons:<br /><br />1. Bell, McManus, Miller, and the rest know that their doctrine is Emergent.<br /><br />2. Bell, McManus, Miller, and the rest know that their fame has been built by catering to the Emergent.<br /><br />As Pastor Silva, points out, if it walks like a.......well...you know the rest.<br /><br />Even Brian McLaren has gotten into the act. While he hasn't decided to no longer be Emergent, he has obviously lost the absolute truth debate. Now he is redefining the debate in terms of certainty. The argument is like this: "Okay there is absolute truth, but if you say you know what any of it is, you're stupid." And like the absolute truth argument, it fails. All one has to do is ask if Brian is all that certain that we cannot be certain. Two good articles on this are found <a href="http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/18930.htm">here</a> and <a href="http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/12/brian_mclaren_a_10.html">here</a>.<br /><br />THE SILVER LINING<br /><br />About three minutes after I read the article, though, a smile came to my ugly, going-to-turn-50-years-old-tomorrow face. Here's why: <em><strong>THEY HAVE TO LIE ABOUT WHO THEY ARE!</strong></em> They're squirming! Lying about their doctrine, changing how they state their doctrine because they are tired of loosing the debate--all this points not to their success, but to their failure. Otherwise, why change? Why not stay with a successful formula? The enemy has blinked.<br /><br />It means folks like Pastor Silva, the Christian Research Network, thinkerup.blogspot.com., and others are having an effect. To all the pastors out there who have been vigilant and told their folks about the Emergent heresy, and to all the folks out there that have spoken to their pastors about the Emergent heresy, keep on fighting the good fight. Readjust your gunsights for this new tactic, but for now...<br /><br />...this is a thanksgiving moment.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-86824208073892179602007-02-06T18:46:00.000-08:002007-02-07T06:59:39.781-08:00Come And Die!COME AND DIE!<br />Come and join a Billings street preaching team. We will concentrate in Billings going to parks, bars, and all sorts of public spaces. You can sharpen your gospel preaching skills. Learn to preach the law and the gospel as God’s tools for saving souls. We will also be preaching repentance at church parking lots all over town to church-goers.<br /><br />Requirements:<br />1. Prayer and fasting. You will be expected to do both the day before an event.<br />2. Holiness of life. You will be expected to confess all sin and get rid of it before an event.<br />3. Preach and witness at least once a week. Week days and Saturdays we will go to the skateboard park, other parks, bars, gathering places, etc. There we will preach repentance and grace to unbelievers with boldness. On Sundays we will preach repentance to church goers in the parking lots of Billings churches.<br /><br />Opportunities:<br />1. Preach repentance and grace in Billings and surrounding towns.<br />2. Sing for the Lord.<br />3. See folks saved.<br />4. Be mocked as He was mocked.<br /><br />Needed:<br />1. Musicians.<br />2. Preachers. <br />3. Witnessers.<br />4. Prayer warriors to pray during events.<br /><br />Contact: Phil Perkins 406-672-7450.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-5583244084601300322007-02-05T06:38:00.000-08:002007-02-05T07:18:16.473-08:00A Living Example/WarningInterestingly, the main feedback to my three part article on Evangelizing Emergents is from angry Emergents.<br /><br />I predicated the articles on the fact that Emergents, if truly trusting in Emergent doctrines, are not Christian believers at all. Rather, they are self-deceived and need to be confronted with this fact. And that's the best-case scenario. The worst case is that they are knowingly attempting to deceive others. I started with two questions that Emergents can't answer. 1. Is there such a thing as a right answer? 2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think? <br /><br />This weekend a very angry Emergent ripped into me. His name is Rob. He answered both questions "yes." However, as the conversation went on it became obvious Rob does not obey Scripture at all. Was he lying? I think yes and no. If you read the comment threads on the first and second parts of "Evangelizing Emergents" and look for Rob, you will probably find that he is convinced of his position. He thought he was obeying Scripture. But read on. You will find he has no intention of giving the Bible full trust and obedience at all. Instead, he comes fully equipped with a list of reasons to impugn the Scripture and those that put too much stock in it.<br /><br />So why is this important? Two reasons. First, it's a warning to Christians. If your church is looking for a youth leader and a fellow like Rob emerges from your congregation or moves in from outside, you can easily expose your kids to a very hideous false teaching. When questioned if he will obey Scriptures he might very well answer "yes." If not examined further, you can imagine the sort of havoc he could bring to your church and the split it could cause when it's discovered what you have on your hands. At worst some of your kids will be messed up and the church will split. At best, you will have to tell your kids, "Gee, sorry. Disregard what your youth leader has said for the last two years. And sorry for wasting your time coming here every Wednesday to listen to him. He's a heretic."<br /><br />Second, it's a warning to Emergents or those considering the Emergent. Look at where you're <em><strong>really</strong></em> headed. It's a deceptive movement. They claim to be Christian. Rob even claimed to be mentally obedient to Scripture. Rob was not. And the Emergent is not. In fact, the whole point of the Emergent is to be postmodern--to <em><strong>not</strong></em> believe. This cannot be reconciled to a religion with a gospel that says "Repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins." "Repent" means to reshape your thinking. Stop thinking the old way and start thinking the new way--the biblical way. Postmodernism is an ideology that says, "Don't believe anything. Think any way you wish and that will be true for you."<br /><br />Please take this warning if you are an Emergent or not.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-48537099033017292242007-01-30T19:40:00.000-08:002007-02-02T08:13:43.651-08:00Separate And UnequalIn my last three articles, I stressed the importance of confronting Emergents with their need for salvation. They are not Christians. They pass themselves off as Christians and some think they are. In the Emergent we see the approval of all sorts of sin, the denial of the substitutionary atonement, the denial of God's creation order expressed in gender roles, etc. But the initial doctrinal problem from which all these other things flow is the denial of biblical doctrine and truth.<br /><br />Another problem with which real believers need to come to grips is how we ought to relate to Emergents. Currently, the Evangelical church is sinning greatly in that we include Emergents in our numbers. We have no business doing that. It poisons our people and deludes the naive among the Emergents into thinking they aren't under the wrath of God.<br /><br />Read what God says about unbelievers in the assembly of believers:<br /><br />14Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? <br /><br />15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? <br /><br />16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,<br /> "I WILL (AS)DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;<br /> AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. <br /><br /> 17"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord.<br /> "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;<br /> And I will welcome you. <br /><br /> 18"And I will be a father to you,<br /> And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,"<br /> Says the Lord Almighty. <br /> II Cor 6:14-18.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil PerkinsPhil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-22994657870263783722007-01-29T07:19:00.000-08:002007-01-31T07:25:10.089-08:00EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part III (of III)HERE'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.<br /><br />In the first two parts of this series on evanglizing Emergents, we started with two questions aimed at pointing out the differences between normal, logical thinking and Emergent thinking and between Bible-based thinking and Emergent thinking. <br /><br />The first question was "Is there such a thing as a right answer?" This question is designed to point to the basic fallacy of Emergent thought. Pretend you're an Emergent and your car develops bad brakes. Stopping is a problem. While thinking about your car you realize there is something wrong with your car. This implies your car could be right and when you take it to your mechanic, you expect to pay him hundreds of dollars to find out what is wrong. You want him to find the right answers to the questions "What is wrong with my brakes?" and "What has to be done to fix them?" However, as an Emergent, when you stop thinking about your car, and begin to think about world view questions it is like a switch is flipped. You have to stop thinking rationally and begin to think in terms that exclude right (rational) answers. Obviously, this is a trick we all pull on ourselves from time to time to avoid dealing with spiritual realities. When asked the first question, the Emergent and your hearers have a chance to realize just how stupid it is to think that way. And I'm not being mean here when I call it "stupid." It's really stupid. Even if the Emergents dares to answer "no" he's claiming there's a right answer to that question.<br /><br />The second question is "Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?" Keep the "you" in there. This is to be applied personally. The main point of this question is the stop the Emergent or your hearers from excusing themselves from the truth claims of Scripture. If the Emergent admits "yes" he is in your hands. If he says "no," then you have just short circuited one of his main debate weapons. An Emergent will often quote Scripture to make a point against a believer, but will deflect Scriptural points of argument with the excuse that the Scripture is not all that propositional, inerrant, or authoritive. This takes that argument away from him either way he answers. If "yes," his excuses are gone. If "no," he can no longer legitimately argue anything from Scripture because if it is not binding on him, it is not binding on you. And your hearers will be alerted to what an Emergent really thinks.<br /><br />In the second part we discussed the necessity to confront the Emergent with the fact that he is not a believer and with the reality of the gospel. This is extremely important for your hearers to hear and understand, too, since the Emergents always pretend to be Christians, and some think they are. If you can establish that, you can present the gospel, if not to the Emergent, to your hearers.<br /><br />In this third article I want to go into some easy reasoning aimed at establishing the fact that the Emergent is not a believer. This will help you in your confrontation with the fact that he is not a believer and with the presentation of the gospel as something that really is true and something he has to deal with. Even if he is a believing Type III Emergent (see Part II) assume he is not saved for his sake and for the sake of your hearers. I cannot emphasize the importance of truthful confrontation enough. It will be very shocking to the Emergent and many, if not all, of your hearers to hear you say the Emergent is not a believer. However, the Emergent quotes I will give you in this article will help you establish just that fact. This is so important that when an Emergent calls me a brother, I gently tell him we are not brothers, because we believe very different things. I'm a believer in the gospel and he is not. Don't be arrogant, but don't shy about this, either. First, it is the truth. Second, it is just shocking enough to many that the debate will begin in earnest. He will not leave until some resolution is reached or until he or you have to go for other considerations. He will argue with you all the way home that evening in his head. He may even lose sleep. Pray for his conviction.<br /><br />To establish the difference between Emergent thinking and biblical faith, you will need to be able to quote a number of Emergent leaders. Their own words will expose them when contrasted to Scripture. <br /><br />One of my favorite quotes from Emergents is Donald Miller's "If we hold that Jesus wanted us to 'believe' certain ideas or 'do' certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy." Then quote John 3:16. Ask who is right, Jesus or Miller. According to Miller, are we supposed to believe anything to be Christians? According to Jesus, are we supposed to believe anything to be Christians? Would you say that someone who doesn't believe anything is a believer? Ask these questions and let the Emergent slowly work through them. Even if he is stubborn and simply tries to double talk his way around it, he will demonstrate to all your hearers that he is lying to get out of the facts. And you will be laying the ground work for presenting the gospel to them. <br /><br />Here are some other quotes that you may use in a similar way and a suggested question or two to follow up:<br /><br />1. "Emergent doesn't have a position on absolute truth, or on anything for that matter." --Tony Jones, director of Emergent Village(1). According to John 3:16, would Jesus ask His followers to take a position on some things? According to Tony Jones, does the Emergent take a position on anything? Then is the Emergent believing what Jesus told us to believe? Then, since they are not following Christ, are they Christian?<br /><br />2. "If we hold that Jesus wanted us to 'believe' certain ideas or 'do' certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy." --Donald Miller, popular Emergent author(2). Did Jesus ask Nicodemus in John 3:16 to "believe certain things?" Who's right? Miller or Jesus?<br /><br />3. "...if you’ll simply confess you that you’re a sinner and believe in Jesus you’ll be saved from the torment of eternal hellfire, then go to heaven when you die..." is a statement that Erwin McManus actually makes fun of. Erwin McManus --popular Emergent author, speaker, and pastor(3). Do you think the Bible wants us to believe that Jesus died to save us from hell? Who's right, God or McManus?<br /><br />I hope this helps in your efforts to work with these people.<br /><br />In any case, remember to start with the two questions, confront them with the truth of the gospel, and confront them with the contrast between the truth and the Emergent.<br /><br />ONE LAST REMINDER: Confront, but confront gently as you are no better than an Emergent. You're just saved.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.<br /><br />(1)See http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2005/11/national-youth-workers-convention.html<br />(2)See http://www.donaldmillerwords.com/searching.php<br />(3)McManus, Erwin; The Barbarian Way; Nelson Books; Nashville, TN; 2005; ISBN 0-7852-6432-9; page 32.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-83771485612994688982007-01-19T14:29:00.000-08:002007-01-29T09:32:45.403-08:00EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part II (OF III)CONFRONTATIONS WITH TRUTH.<br /><br />In my last post I pointed out two very quick questions to ask an Emergent. These are not trick questions. They are designed to get rid of the clutter of the debate/conversation and get right to the point. And remember these questions may be more for those listening around you than for the Emergent himself.<br /><br />There are three different types of Emergents as far as I can tell. Type I is the Emergent leader. This is the fellow who has begun teaching the Emergent doctrine formally or informally. He will be very unlikely to respond to the gospel. Don't be afraid to engage him in debate. Indeed, do so. It will enlighten those around you and sharpen you. Just be ready for LOTS OF ANGER, even threats headed your way.<br /><br />Type II is the unsaved Emergent believer. This is someone who is religious, but not regenerate. He enjoys the Emergent because it allows him to be "Christian," but continue in all sorts of sinful activity or denial of biblical doctrine. He is convinced this is the way to go. Hence, I call him an Emergent believer.<br /><br />Type III is the church goer who has fallen into the Emergent heresy because of a lack of biblical depth. Just as they are shallow in their understanding of Scriptural doctrine, they have never really thought out the ramifications of Emergent thought. It was probably brought into their life by a bad teacher or friend as the latest Christian fad. Currently, the Evangelical church is filled with people who believe God is love and not much else. They are prime candidates for the Emergent Obfuscation. It sounds so good and so tolerant. In fact, it may not sound much different from what they may be hearing from the pulpit on most Sunday mornings. He may or may not be regenerate, but is truly deceived at this point in his life. Asking the two questions really helps this guy. Let them sink in and take their effect. It may take only a few minutes or he may go home and think it over. At this point you may need to quote a few Emergent authors to show the contrast. I will give some examples of Emergent quotes in my next post. Then the gospel can be presented to him.<br /><br />Whatever kind of Emergent you are confronting, use the two questions. The Type I will argue and argue, even refuse to leave you alone sometimes. He will hate the two questions, because he knows the trouble he is in if he answers. Ask them anyway for your hearers. The Type II will just disengage unless the Holy Spirit is convicting him. He has no real ax to grind. He will just leave and go his way. The Type III will be spurred to think.<br /><br />After, the two questions, you must confront the Emergent with the fact that he is not a believer. This will be shocking to him. He may get angry. He has probably never heard anyone tell him that. Do it in a very matter of fact way, not angry. You are only doing this because he needs to know so that he can repent, not to tell him off or win an argument. If you suspect he is a Type III, suggest that perhaps he is not a believer and go over the gospel. At each point of the presentation, ask him if he really believes that point is objectively true. At the end ask for a commitment to repent of all false doctrine and known sin. Either way, if he is saved or not, he needs to repent, get out of the Emergent, and start reading, believing, and obeying the gospel.<br /><br />If the Emergent is a Type II and he has stuck around after the two questions, you can be sure that he is being convicted. Show him that he is not a believer by contrasting Emergent thought with Scriptural demands to believe the gospel. Then go for it. Give him the gospel.<br /><br />If the Emergent is a Type I and still arguing, give the gospel anyway. If you have listeners they will hear. Remember, the Type I will get really mad. Don't you do that. Just remain calm and give the gospel as lovingly as possible. <br /><br />In all three cases, remember to give the gospel and emphasize the objective reality of his sin, his future in hell under the wrath of God, and special emphasis on the objective reality of God's love for him. How real the blood was as it dripped from the cross, down Jesus' beard, and poured out the hole in His side. Remind him that it dried on ground and was walked on. Ask the Emergent if he thinks Jesus really died for him with real blood.<br /><br />In any case, be sure to remember that you, the two questions, and the confrontation with truth won't save anybody. You must rely on the power of God through the gospel. Pray a lot. You will be in hard ground.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-39957254203248725312007-01-16T13:23:00.000-08:002007-01-29T09:33:22.276-08:00EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part I (OF III)TWO QUESTIONS EMERGENTS CAN'T ANSWER.<br /><br />Okay, they <em><strong>can</strong></em> answer these questions. They just don't <strong><em>like</em></strong> to. <br /><br />I started using these two questions with an anonymous commentor that defended Donald Miller. As you may know, Miller says we need not believe anything to be a Christian, and if you think you have to believe something to be a Christian, you're a heretic. (So, I guess you DO have to believe that you DON'T have to believe...? anything?... Right?) After some back-and-forth I finally asked this anonymous commentor these two questions:<br /><br />1. Is there such a thing as a right answer?<br /><br />2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?<br /><br />It took at least three times to get him to answer even one of the questions. And it made him <em><strong>really angry.</strong></em> Recently I have had the chance to ask those questions in a forum where the interaction is recorded. It happened in the comment thread at <a href="http://www.sfpulpit.com/">Pulpit Magazine</a>. To read it, go to the article entitled "Continuing To Fight The War On Error."<br /><br />There I met a fellow who called himself "Whyte Stonne." He's 51. After some goings-on about the authority and inerrancy of Scripture--both things on which Whyte was not big (my Winston Churchill impression there!)--I asked these two questions. And asked. And asked. And asked. Four times already! Not only did he not answer them, he didn't even acknowledge the questions. Never did he even say, "I don't want to answer those questions." It's as if his eyes did not see them on the page. Three of my comments to him had nothing on them except the questions or the request for Whyte to answer the questions. Each time his answer was lengthy and without <em><strong>any mention</strong></em> of the questions. He talked about the kenosis briefly, he cyber-snooped and put together what he <em><strong>thought</strong></em> was my life's story followed by a pop-psychoanalysis of my personality, he talked about his life, he talked about some cattle man he knew from Montana, he talked about being from California, he talked about his education, my education, his financial state of affairs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...<br /><br />Each time I asked, he talked...about everything...but the questions. <br /><br />Here is why a postmodern masquerading as a Christian (an Emergent) cannot answer these questions: Accountability--behavioral, and doctrinal. <br /><br />If there is such a thing as a right answer, an Emergent cannot fall back on a supposed uncertainty to use like we used Xies when we were kids. And if an Emergent has to follow the Scripture instead of use it as a proof texting source for arguing with a believer, he/she will have to obey it. They aren't into that sort of thing. But I have found these two questions and ones like them break open the eyes so that listeners to the conversation, and sometimes even the Emergent himself, can realize just what the issue really is.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26757025.post-43660800702247987102007-01-11T09:42:00.000-08:002007-01-11T09:43:34.034-08:00Working On A CurriculumJust in case all three of my readers think I died, I didn't. Just busy out of my head. I am working on a curriculum for Just The Bible Academy. It will be three years and very intensive with the sole purpose of equipping men to preach and serve. It will be at least two years of Greek and two years of Hebrew. The first year the student will take Hebrew. The second year he will take Greek as well. The third year, the student will finish Greek.<br /><br />After the first year, all work in specific Bible passages will not be done in English--only the originals!!!! More time will be spent in the OT than the NT, roughly in proportion to the volume of the two testaments.<br /><br />Practicals will include weekly witnessing and street preaching. (You will be expected to work in the vineyard, not just drink the wine.) <br /><br />Other than the languages, primary focus will be on Bible survey, exegesis, and hermeneutics. There will also be training in systematic theology and apologetics. The apologetics courses will include an introduction to Western philosophy and a complete biblical epistemology.<br /><br />Pray for good teachers and accountability for me.<br /><br />Here are some considerations if you want to consider Just The Bible Academy:<br /><br />If you want to preach like Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, join us.<br /><br />If you are tired of being told to shut up about doctrine, join us.<br /><br />If you are tired of being told to shut up about false teachers, join us.<br /><br />If you are tired of being told it is impolite to directly confront false teaching, join us.<br /><br />If you want to be a fool for Christ, join us.<br /><br />If you want to be holy as He is holy, join us.<br /><br />If you know you're a filthy sinner, join us.<br /><br />If you are a man between the ages of 14 and 120, join us.<br /><br />If you are sure the Bible is all you need to serve God, join us.<br /><br />If you want to sacrifice for Christ, join us.<br /><br />If you want to take part in the fellowship of His suffering, join us.<br /><br />If you want to see folks get saved, join us.<br /><br />If you are sick of the compromise in the church, join us.<br /><br />If you want to think biblically, join us.<br /><br />If you constantly wish, "I don't ever want to be this sinful again," join us.<br /><br />If you will take correction, join us.<br /><br />If you will give correction when it may end in your own disgrace, join us.<br /><br />If you are willing to work your brains out, join us.<br /><br />If you don't care about the things of this world, join us.<br /><br />If you think every day about what you will lay at Jesus' feet when you meet Him, join us.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />Phil Perkins.Phil Perkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02171222033284405914noreply@blogger.com0