Ah TOWED Ja!

Not long ago, I wrote an article 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.

BUT........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 this article by Gordon Duncan. He was complaining about what ought to be done with all the potheads he knew, including a lot in the "church."

Hummmm...TOWED Ja!!!!

Enjoying the vindication,
Phil Perkins. PS--I suppose this explains why no Emergent has come on this blog and denied the accusation.

So 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."

He's right. Fish is an intellectual and he's postmodern. However, it seems absurd to me that those two words go together.

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?

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.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part III

Erwin 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 articles, I explore and expose a number of lies he presented in his book, The Barbarian Way. I have done nine individual lies so far. We pick up with number ten.

LIE #10. The gospel is not about salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins. 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."

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.

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.

LIE #11. Jesus' mission was not to seek and save the lost. 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.

NEWS FLASH FOR ERWIN: Jesus is God. He doesn't catch on to anything, because He knows all things.

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...

LIE #12. "Sacrifice and servanthood" are part of unruliness and rebellion. 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.

LIE #13. Jesus called Peter (and by extension all the other disciples and you too, Boopy) to be a barbarian. 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.

LIE #14. You should ignore good rules of hermeneutics and teach the young by example to be sloppy in their interpretation. 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 witness is actually the word for martyr."

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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.

You don't need to decide. Either possibility makes it imperative that the body of Christ discard him as a teacher until he changes.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part II

This is the second installment of my article started on the mistakes, lies, biblical misrepresentations, and general false teachings by Erwin McManus in his book, The Barbarian Way. 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.

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.

LIE #6. 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. 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.

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.

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.'"

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.

LIE #7. 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. 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.

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.

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?

LIE #8. Education bad. Ignorance good. That is, according to the example of John the Baptist. 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.

LIE #9. No one could have anticipated that an austere man like John the Baptist would introduce the Messiah. 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.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part I

Mark 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, The Barbarian Way.

LIE #1. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu prayer are the same and addressed to the same God. 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 here.

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?

LIE #2. There are other sources of truth beside the Scripture. 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 Braveheart 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.

LIE #3. We are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self. 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,
"I will say to the north,
'Give them up!'
And to the south, 'Do not hold them back '
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."

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."

LIE #4. Christians who exhibit discipline, self-control, and submission to proper authorities in the church don't really love and obey Jesus. 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.

LIE #5. Jesus was a "savage" Who lacked self-control and obedience. 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.

I will continue this article in segments.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Rob Auld's Objections Answered

I'm overdue on this. I recently had an Emergent get really mad at me for the evangelization tips 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:

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)...

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..."

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.

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.

ROB: ...but hyperbole and story is the way God has chosen to communicate.

ANSWER: God uses a number of literary genre, forms, and devices, including hyperbole and story. However, you miss four important things here.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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."

So appealing to hyperbole, even in those passages where it is used, it is not an excuse.

ROB: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK,

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.

ROB: ...AND (the Bible) IS A VERY ONE-SIDED HISTORY BOOK.(This is where the nuance and thinking comes in).

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.

ROB: The Bible tells us about the Character of God. It also tells us about the original plan God had for His creation.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Pot 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.

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 video and see what I mean.

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.

I'm just saying what I see.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Emergent: Ignorance With A Purpose

If 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 here 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.)

Sorry for the nearly-two-week hiatus. I have been writing a lot at Al Tosap.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Nudists and Postmoderns

Leonard Ravenhill had something interesting to say in his sermon, "Hell Has No Exits" and it applies quite well to the Emergent.

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."

To which he said, "I suppose some of you boys are praying you'll get called to a nudist colony."

Just thinking,
Phil Perkins. PS--Hear Ravenhill's sermons at sermonaudio.com.

Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences III

Oh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?

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.

2. Okay, the challenge was for three sentences and this is only two.

3. So, here's the other one.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

A New Category, An Old Strategy

One 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 The Barbarian Way 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."

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.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--Okay, I DO know why. I'm old and I can't remember...stuff.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part III--Something He Wants To Say Pubicly

Rob insists that this be made public. I have footnoted answers. Here it is:

Phil
I think you're a coward for removing that comment and want to say so publically.

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)

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)

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.

Rob

1. Actually, I've let you get away with many more gratuitous insults than most would.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.