The "New" Den of Robbers?

"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of fthe money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21:12,13


God is slowly stripping away, our securities in man and institutions, just as He has done with Israel. The old guards, of our political systems and institutions, who once protected our precious freedoms and rights, are practically all gone now. The same goes for our religious leaders and watchmen of truth. All that we are left with now is, marketing gurus, building multimillion dollar complexes and empires, to house their fans so they can be worshiped as rock stars. With multimillion bank accounts that they have accumulated by the peddling of their ideas and assumptions, in the replacement of the word of God as to How To's... You don't have to bring God's Word into these venues anymore, because it will be shown, throughout the multi million dollar giant screens. But you best bring their books as reference, to really understand as to what they really mean and how to really live that perfect life in Christ Jesus. And don't worry, if you didn't bring one of their books, you'll get a chance as you walk in or out of their million dollar conglomerate. They will all be waiting for you, all setup in a nice table, with someone with a big smile waiting to take your money.

Also, no need for worry, about learning of the complexity and mystery of this God in the "errancy of His manual". You'll have a chance to know truth, not only through their seminars, books and CD's, but also as you enroll in one of their 12 week courses. All this, while humankind falls through the spiral staircase of sin, unbelief, hunger, war, injustice, false doctrine, under our very noses. While they sleep comfortably under the blanket of freedom, next to their god of mammon.

"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, AND THOSE WHO FIND IT ARE FEW". Matthew 7:14

"And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able". Luke 13:23,24

Emerging Into What?

The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response. In this case, it is a response by various church leaders to the current era of post-modernism. Although post-modernism began in the 1950s, the church didn't really seek to conform to its tenets until the 1990s. Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity."

The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way.

The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture. This movement is still fairly new, though, so there is not yet a standard method of "doing" church amongst the groups choosing to take a post-modern mindset. In fact, the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology.



For example, because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. Relativism opens up all kinds of problems, as it destroys the standard that the Bible contains absolute truth, negating the belief that biblical truth can be absolute. If the Bible is not our source for absolute truth, and personal experience is allowed to define and interpret what truth actually is, a saving faith in Jesus Christ is rendered meaningless.



Another area where the emerging / emergent church movement has become anti-biblical is its focus on ecumenism. Unity among people coming from different religious and ethnic backgrounds and diversity in the expression of corporate worship are a strong focus of the emergent church movement. Being ecumenical means that compromise is taking place, and this results in a watering down of Scripture in favor of not offending an apostate. This is in direct opposition to passages such as Revelation 2:14-17, Jesus' letter to the church of Pergamum, in which the Church is warned against tolerating those who teach false doctrine.



doctrine seems to abound within the emerging / emergent church movement, though, as stated previously, not within every group espousing emerging / emergent church beliefs. Because of this, care must be taken when deciding whether or not to become involved with an emergent church group. We all need to take heed of Matthew 7:15-20, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

While seeking new ways to witness to a changing culture is admirable, utilizing ways which compromise the Truth of the Gospel in any way is nothing more than promoting false doctrine and leading others away from Christ instead of to Him.

The Cross and the Crown

Many churches have embraced the strategies of twenty-first century evangelical entrepreneurs. In doing so, they have traded in the old rugged cross that once adorned the sanctuary’s chancel for a high-definition movie screen so that the congregation can watch commercials for the church’s mid-week programs between segments in the service. “But,” many will surely retort, “isn’t that what attracts people to go to church? And if people go to church, isn’t that a good thing?” Indeed, going to church is a good thing; hearing the testimony of a Christian football coach is a good thing; even watching commercials about the church’s programs is a good thing. However, not one of these things can be considered good if it is not centered on the fundamental reason for the church’s very existence, namely, the finished work of the crucified and risen Christ.

Perhaps never before in the history of the church have the people of God been so apathetic to the reality of the resurrection, ascension, intercession, and second coming of Christ. Nevertheless, we are called to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and intercession, and we are called to proclaim boldly His second coming, not merely through a personal testimony, but by the preaching of the Good News of Jesus Christ so that the lost might believe and so that we might rightly live, before the face of God.

For God So Loved the World

Every Christian believes in limited atonement. That may sound ludicrous to my Arminian friends because it has long been assumed that only Calvinists hold to the dreaded “L” in TULIP. But if the death of Jesus Christ is recognized as an actual atonement (and not merely a potential one), then the question of limitation cannot be escaped, unless you believe the lie of universalism.

It is the recognition that Christ’s death actually atoned for sins that governs our interpretation of those wonderful texts that speak of the great breadth of His saving work. For example, John writes that Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). The choice here is not between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is between Calvinism and universalism. If “world” means “each and every person who ever lived or will live” then everyone will be saved because of the objective nature of propitiation. No sin would be left unpaid for — including the sin of unbelief.

No one who takes seriously the Bible’s teachings on hell and judgment would ever affirm universalism, which means that John uses “world” here to mean something other than each and every person who will ever live (as he often does; see John 14:19; 16:8; 18:20; 1 John 2:15,). John’s concern is to assert that Jesus is the only Savior the world has. His death redeems people not just from among the Jews or Americans or from any one group, but from among the whole world.

Calvinism protects from the heresy of universalism on the one hand and the error of reducing the objective nature of the atonement on the other. The Calvinist recognizes that the death of Jesus saves everyone for whom it was designed. In other words, the atonement is viewed as limited in its scope and purpose. All for whom Christ died will be saved.

Arminianism, however, cannot successfully guard against such mistakes. The Arminian claims that the death of Jesus was designed to save each and every person in history without actually doing so. As such, the atonement did not save everyone for whom it was intended. In other words, the Arminian view, while claiming that the atonement is unlimited in its extent, is forced to conclude that it is limited in its efficacy. It failed to accomplish its universal purpose.

The difference between these two views is like the difference between a narrow bridge that extends all the way across a valley and a wider one that only goes halfway. Who cares how broad it is if it does not get you to the other side?

This difference is what made Charles Spurgeon argue that Arminianism, much more than Calvinism, limits the atonement of Christ. The Arminian says, “‘Christ has died that any man may be saved if’ — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sire, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it” (Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. 4, p. 228).

Well, what is “our” view of the atonement that Spurgeon so passionately defended? Specifically, it is the understanding that Jesus actually redeemed everyone He intended to redeem when He shed His blood on the cross. Just as the high priest under the old covenant wore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate when he performed his sacrificial service, so our great High Priest under the new covenant had the names of His people inscribed on His heart as He offered up Himself as a sacrifice for their sins.

In John 10, Jesus clearly announces the particular focus of His atoning death. He calls Himself the “Good Shepherd” who “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Shortly after this, He describes His sheep as those who have been given to Him by His Father. Furthermore, He bluntly declares to some unbelieving Israelites, “you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep” (John 10:26–29 NKJV).

Our Lord’s high priestly prayer in John 17 shows the same kind of limited scope. As He braces for His sacrificial death for His people, He prays specifically — indeed, exclusively — for them. They are the ones whom the Father had given Him out of the world (v. 6). Consequently, His priestly intercession was limited to them: “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (v. 9). It is inconceivable that Jesus would fail to pray for those for whom He was about to die as a substitutionary sacrifice. The ones for whom He prayed are the same ones for whom He died.

The doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, does not suggest any inadequacy in the death of Christ. Because of who it is that suffered, the death of Jesus is of infinite worth. The Canons of Dort go to great lengths to establish this point and declare plainly that “the death of the Son of God … is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (2.3).

The limitation in the atonement stems from the intention and purpose of God in sending Jesus to the cross. Christ’s redemptive work was designed to be a particular atonement for His own people — those whom the Father had given Him. His death was intended to save the elect.

Jesus teaches that His whole redemptive ministry was carried out in fulfillment of a divinely prearranged plan. This is what He means in John 6:38–39: “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”

Theologians refer to this arrangement as the covenant of redemption in which, before history began, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit pledged to bring about the salvation of fallen people. Out of sheer mercy and grace, the Father chose individuals to be saved (Rom. 9:11–13; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13). These chosen ones He gave to His Son (John 6:37, 39; 17:6, 9, 24) who committed Himself to accomplish their salvation through His incarnate, redemptive mission (Mark 10:45; John 10:11). In keeping with this divine agenda, the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father and the Son (John 15:26; 16:5–15) to apply the work of Christ to those whom the Father gave the Son and for whom the Son died.

This view of the atonement guarantees the success of evangelism. God has a people who will be saved infallibly through the preaching of the Gospel. He has chosen them. Christ has died for them. And the Spirit will regenerate them through the message of salvation. This truth kept Paul going in the face of discouragement at Corinth (Acts 18:9–10), and it will keep us going on in our evangelistic efforts today — not only locally, but globally (Rev. 5:9).

A Corrupt Church For A Corrupt Age

Laodicea Revelation 3:17 "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

Of the Churches of Asia, Laodicea stands alone. She is absolutely unique. She bears no suffering or persecution. There is no hunger or tribulation. Yet she is the most disgusting Church of the Ages. It is the ONLY Church of the ages to which the Lord has absolutely NOTHING good to say. What a repulsive thought! She is the product of her mother Babylon, who proudly stands among the nations and declares "I am a queen and have need of nothing" (Rev.18). She boasts her wealth as a sign of God's approval. She stoops to giving her miserly contributions to her sibling Churches in poor nations and slaps herself on the back for her bland effort. While her brothers and sisters dig for roots to eat in equatorial Africa, she entertains her lofty attendees. She is GRAND indeed. She is the expression of Babylon the Great----the Mother of Harlots. She is the Church of America. Yet, in God's eyes, she is the poorest of all. She is destitute in values. She is corrupted by her own wealth and beauty. Her days are spent looking in the mirror and seeing only her own loveliness. She is institutionally incestuous. She is narcissistic, blind and deaf. Her dainty odours veil the rotting of her flesh. At the same time, she is INSANE. Her doctrines are corrupted with deceit. Her master is that same Crowning Cherub who served as Heaven's Minister of Music. Only the strong medication of DESTRUCTION and POVERTY can return her to a right mind".

Why is it that we put our government under such a microscope (as we should) and yet we don't do the same as to our spiritual leaders? We hang on every word at every news conference that our political leaders hold. Search and research all day long, newspapers, internet, FB, Twitter, social media... as to what is being done and what is being said. We are extremely knowledgeable in the world's politics and affairs, but novices in the Kingdom of God. We haven't the slightest inkling, as to what or why things are being said by our representatives of God, our shepherds, our spiritual leaders, where it matters the most.

the Church (The Bride of Christ) less important? Can we say as it was once said in a state of the union. "I'm pleased to announce the condition of our nation is strong and without falter?" Can we say the same of our Church in general? Are they no longer wolves, false teachers...within our midsts? Are the Scriptures in error in warning us as to the last days, in the light of (2 Peter 2.1) If we would spend half the time in trying to warn everyone as to what our government is doing, instead as to what is going on in our own backyards, we wouldn't be experiencing such confusion and chaos as to doctrine, false teaching... We already know who the players are in our government and we also know the playbook like the back of our hands. And we should exercise our freedoms by voting them out, as our only alternative in changing candidates as elected officials and changing policy. But when it comes to our house of worship we can't tell you who said what and where, when it comes to our "Spiritual leaders" within Christendom. We are clueless as to what false message or gospel is being taught in our pulpits. We have a tendency to let others find out and keep us informed as to what they are doing or saying, and that also has been far and in between.

We are Saints, Soldiers in an army in obedience and under the authority of a King. Why are we in this army and what are we protecting? Are we defenders of Truth? Or are we Saints and Soldiers in name only? We are so apt in enjoying the benefits and blessings of this Kingdom, but the enemy has made us afraid of fighting for truth and never wanting to confront or speak out. We are afraid of attacking the Teflon Don's of our churches, afraid of the repercussions. Truth is to be fought for at ALL cost, and everywhere where it is misrepresented, not when it's convenient. Wolves and false teachers are to be exposed and ousted at every level within the body of Christ, His Bride. There should be no exemptions to the rule, under the authority of this Kingdom and its King.

The Gospel Message, Doctrine of Man?

Before we had Ruth Westheimer (Dr. Ruth, sex therapist) and now we have our new sex guru in the post-modern world and his name is Mark Driscoll in his book, "Real Marriage". "Emerging" as the healer of marriages and the healthier sex life as Christians. He has come to save our institutions, in explaining to us, in vivid details (porn), as to how it should be behind close doors in the privacy of our bedrooms. Really? We haven't been able to figure this out for thousands of years until Mark came along? Once again as I have said many times throughout the years, controversy will always follow this man. He thrives for attention and can't live without it. The complete narcissist.

I don't know what's worst, a pastor depicting scripture in a form of ungodliness (world, fowl language) or degrading the Gospel message, women, sex..., as a representative of God. Is this what our great commission is to look and sound like? Is this what God had in mind, when He spoke those words, Go out into the world and preach the Gospel of salvation"? Where has the reverence of God gone? Should the message of God be an R rated message that needs to be parental controlled?

One critic of the book wrote; "It’s not difficult to imagine how this brash sloganeering has angered both conservative and liberal evangelicals. The Driscolls’ new book falls into that predictable divide, drawing fire from critics who dislike Driscoll’s aggressively “complementarian” view of gender roles (i.e., female submission), and from conservatives who think maybe the church just shouldn’t talk about anal sex. It has something to offend everyone, including a chapter titled “The Respectful Wife,” and another titled “Can We _____?” that gives qualified approval to oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, and other common evangelical taboos, as long as they’re in the context of heterosexual marriage

This is what the Emerging Church is all about and the dangers it poses to the church. Here is where we say, "The devil is in the details" What a disgrace for Driscoll to call himself a "Calvinist." "Reformer" and give REAL Calvinist, reformers, and John Calvin a black eye to his theology and conduct.

Blogger David Moore of Fuller Theological, who wrote several posts on the book, said that even though he’s “not much of a feminist,” Driscoll’s dramatic overreaction to his wife’s high-school affair struck him as another example of the guy’s view of his wife as his sexual servant. Moore picks out numerous passages from Real Marriage that seem to show Driscoll primarily concerned with the sexual needs of men. “This book is an astoundingly unbelievable work of disrespect for women,” Moore wrote.
“Grace is often cast as the damaged and sinful wife who withholds sex from her deserving husband, Mark the hero who is justified in leaving his wife but instead comes along to rescue her,” wrote Rachel Held Evans, a popular evangelical blogger and author, discussing the dream episode. “The amount of guilt and shame that pervades this part of the book makes me so sad.”

This really tells you where we are in the church today. How this supposedly "representative of God, could stand up there and spew this garbage out of his mouth, and the masses take it all in and embrace it, as if it was a message from God in our so called post-modern world, with open arms like a rock star, is beyond comprehension. If anyone does not think that we are in the last days, just take a good of one of the best examples within the church.

"In the last days, men will be lovers of themselves"
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world".

Romans 16:17-18 "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive".

Attack on The Work of Christ?

We have become debased sheep. Our commitment is not to our shepherd (Jesus), but to whomever is famous and popular at the moment.

Do we dare question pastors, who are propagating a false condition of grace, within the body of Christ, His Bride, His Church? Are some given a pass, because of their popularity with a certain segment of the congregation, as long as they're preaching Christ?

This movement is, in principle, a redis-covery of the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation, within Evangelical Churches. To all appearances, the proponents of this Neolegalist theology intend to stay in Pro-testant churches and, in effect, transform them into theological colonies of Rome.

John Piper says; "future grace" is conditional, and it is we personally, not Christ, who must meet those conditions."

Piper denies justification by faith alone while professing to accept Biblical soteriology—which makes his work all the more dangerous. The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology.

We partly know where Piper came up with this doctrine, as we look briefly at his main mentor, Daniel Fuller. Fuller, Pro-fessor at Fuller Theological Seminary in California, a liberal institution whose faculty denies the inerrancy of Scripture, is one of the most influential propo-nents of Neolegalism. His two books, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? and The Unity of the Bible: Un-folding God’s Plan for Humanity, have deeply influenced Piper and others. Fuller specially thanks Piper for his help in producing The Unity of the Bible, and Piper acknowledges his profound debt to Fuller in Future Grace. In his Foreword to The Unity of the Bible, Piper wrote:
"No book besides the Bible has had a greater influence on my life than Daniel Fuller’s The Unity of the Bible. When I first read it as a classroom syllabus over twenty years ago, everything began to change…. God’s law stopped being at odds with the gospel. It stopped being a job description for earning wages under a so-called covenant of works (which I never could find in the Bible)…."

“How many conditions are there, in order for us to receive this "future grace?” Piper has actually enumerated 11 conditions we must meet if we want any “future grace”:

1.loving God,
2.being humble
3.drawing near to God
4.crying out to God from the heart
5.fearing God
6.delighting in God
7.hoping in God
8.taking refuge in God
9.waiting for God
10.trusting in God
11.and keeping God’s covenant, which he says is the summary of the first 10.

Do not get me wrong these are all great things for us to follow and remember. But are they new laws or commandments to keep, in receiving "future grace?"

John Piper proclaims: “I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation.”

"Martin Luther, in his commentary on Galatians, says that to add any religious work to the gospel of grace seems to be a trivial matter, but “it does more damage than human reason can imagine. Not only does it mar and obscure the knowledge of grace but it also removes Christ and all of his blessings and it completely overthrows the gospel.” Kangas Commune

There are many people with some desire to be religious, but not enough desire to dig in to read and study the Bible. Many of these just find a man, a preacher, and trust him. Whatever he says, they depend upon; he is their "man of God," in a sense beyond the biblical. They believe what he says; trust his answers to every question, resting the salvation of their souls in him. They still read and study the Bible some, but always take his word.

Not a good idea because no man is infallible. Regardless of how much you love someone, that affection does not make them infallible. Men may prove themselves to be educated, eloquent, charming and able to fill buildings with people. Yet they remain fallible, capable of error.

Those in Berea searched the Scriptures daily, to see if what they were hearing was true to God's Word (Acts 17:11).
John and Peter both warned of false teachers, and Jesus said they may come to us in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15); (1 John 4:1); (2 Pet. 2:1)). John said our duty is to "test the spirits," and Paul said: "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thess. 5:21)).

Why is it that we put our government under such a microscope (as we should) and yet we don't do the same as to our spiritual leaders? Is the Church (The Bride of Christ) less important? Can we say as it was once said in a state of the union. "I'm pleased to announce the condition of our nation is strong and without falter?" Can we say the same of our houses of worship and the Church in general? Are they no longer wolves, false teachers...within our midsts? We are Saints, Soldiers in an army in obedience and under the authority of a King. Why are we in this army and what are we protecting? Are we defenders of truth or are we Saints and Soldiers in name only? We are so apt in enjoying the benefits and blessings of this Kingdom, but we are not willing to fight for it. The enemy has made us indifferent, unconcerned in this battle that is constantly being fought, until our King returns.

There is one body of religious instruction that should govern all that we believe, teach and practice. That is, the Word of God. Nothing should be accepted as true; nothing should be practiced or recommended – unless it is taught in the Word of God. Each individual must take this obligation seriously.