Adrian Warnock has caused a stir over at his blog with his post on the substitutionary penalty paid by Christ on the cross.Because he commented that - "The bible is very very clear, we are saved by Christ from the wrath of God. If you cannot accept that, I am not convinced that you are definitely saved and I would be concerned that you might fall short of the test that we will all undergo on that final day. This issue really is that important."Some of the comments have been a little reactionary, rather than reading what he actually said, they have zeroed in on the doubt of salvation comment, but apparently ignoring his opening statement of the paragraph above.I mean, come on, if you don't accept that Christ paid the price of our sins by God pouring out His wrath on Christ on the cross, then just what is your hope?If they were not paid for on the cross they haven't been paid for and we are to be pitied.How can you be sure of your salvation if you don't believe that Christ died for you on the cross and that in so doing absorbed the penalty for your sins?
Upcoming review of next C J book
Hello to one and all, (it's okay, I know virtually no one reads this blog at the moment)I have been given the privilege of reviewing an ARC of C J Mahaney's next book 'Living the Cross Centered Life', which is due out at the end of February/beginning of March '06 from Multnomah Publisher's.I will be putting up my review sometime towards the end of January when it will be more relevant to the publication date
Lack of discernment in strange places!!
It never ceases to amaze me how some people, who are otherwise spot on in their walk with God, can display a lack of critical discernment over the oddest things.I know a Pastor (not one of my own) who has an excellent ministry and serves God faithfully and is respected not only in this country but overseas as well, yet seems to miss something in the occasional book that he will enthusiastically recommend.An example would be 'Wild at Heart'. He thinks it is an excellent book for men and yet the author clearly states that God takes risks?????? God....risks, I'm sorry, but that is an impossibility and does not match the God I find in the Bible.The book also makes for a very 'self' oriented approach.One of my Elders took the men in our church through some of the book and it was a deeply unsatisfactory experience.A book I can recommend for men which would be very fruitful for any man to go through either on his own or in a group is 'Disciplines of a Godly Man' by R. Kent Hughes and published by Crossway Books.Now I am not trying to knock the guy because he made a mistake about 'Wild at Heart', the point I am trying to make is that considering his experience of many years, that he should make such a blatant error about something so fundamental.I would recommend his preaching to anyone and his pastoral experience is an example to all. (No I am not going to name him)I think that sometimes Elders can forget that just because they have the experience to sort the chiff from the chaff as they read, the people they recommend something to might not have the same innate ability and therefore could be led down blind alleys which could easily have been avoided.
Sad news about the downward spiral of A Of C Rowan & Tony Campolo
I have copied this from the current column by Gene Edward Veith in World Magazine.The reference to Rowan and Campolo is towards the end of the article and it is so sad.Have these people lost all contact with reality? Apparently so."As evangelicals debate the inclusive-language Today's New International Version (TNIV), many liberal mainline churches have slipped far down the slippery slope in what they have done to the Bible.
In 1990, the National Council of Churches published the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), an inclusive-language rendition of the well-accepted Revised Standard Version (RSV). This translation keeps masculine references to God and to Jesus, but changes them for human beings, getting rid of the generic "man," putting "brothers and sisters" where the original just has "brothers," and using awkward plurals and repetitions to avoid the generic "he." Never mind that the messianic title "Son of Man" is now "a human being." What the NRSV did to the RSV is pretty much what the TNIV did to the NIV.
But that much inclusive language was not enough for many mainline churches. An Inclusive Language Lectionary, a rendition of Scripture texts read during the worship service, takes the next step of changing the gendered language for God. Today, the congregations who use this lectionary in Sunday worship pray to "our Father-Mother." Jesus is not the Son of God, but the "child of God." The pronoun "he" is not even used for the man Jesus, replaced with ungrammatical constructions: "Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us" becomes "Jesus Christ, who gave self for us" (Titus 2:13-14). But that much tinkering proved not to be enough either. In 1995, Oxford University Press published the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. This revision of the NRSV not only uses gender-inclusive language for God and Jesus ("God our father-mother"), it also eliminates, in the words of the introduction, "all pejorative references to race, color, or religion, and all identifications of persons by their physical disability." In avoiding all "offensive language," "darkness" is changed to "night," lest it offend black people, and "the right hand of God" is changed to "the mighty hand of God," lest it offend left-handed people.
But that does not go far enough. The liberal Catholic group Priests for Equality published in 2004 the Inclusive Bible. "Kingdom" is both sexist and authoritarian, so the priests made up a new word, "kindom." Adam is not a "man," he is an "earth creature." And to avoid offending homosexuals or others in nontraditional relationships, the words "husband" and "wife" are changed to "partner."
But since radical theology depends on demonizing the "patriarchy" of the Bible, the Inclusive Bible includes footnotes admitting that "the actual Hebrew is even more brutal" and chastising the apostle Paul for his retrograde attitudes. Then the translators just change the text to something more suitable.
But the Inclusive Bible does not go far enough either. The Bible version Good as New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures uses what its introduction calls "cultural translation." Not only is it inclusive, it translates ancient terms into their modern-day equivalent. Thus, "demon possession" becomes "mental illness." Even names are changed: Peter, Nicodemus, and Bethsaida become "Rocky," "Ray," and "Fishtown." Religious terminology is eliminated, as not being in accord with our culture: "Baptize" is changed to "dip"; "salvation" is changed to "completeness."
The translation describes itself as "women, gay and sinner friendly." Thus, when Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn, the Inclusive Bible says, "If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated." The Inclusive Bible follows the higher critics in leaving out the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation, and it follows The Da Vinci Code in including instead the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. This translation is endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the evangelical leader Tony Campolo.But does any of this matter, as long as people are exposed to the Bible? Yes, it does. The bisexual deity "Father-Mother" is not the true God, nor is this made-up religion Christianity. These translations are not the Word of God. Just the Word of Man."Copyright © 2005 WORLD MagazineOctober 22, 2005, Vol. 20, No. 41
Yet another book from C J, Praise God
No sooner have I taken on board the new release from C J than I glean from 'GirlTalk' that he has another new book at the proof reading stage called 'Living the Cross Centered Life'.One of his daughters, called Nichole Whitacre, refers to it in a blog entry on the 27th September.Apparently it is due out in a couple of months, so maybe before Christmas!I look forward to adding it to his other books on my library shelves.
This article at the Times Online shows that the RC leadership has completely lost the plot.It's official folks, if you are a Catholic you get to pick and choose which bits of the Bible you want to believe and which you would rather leave out.They confuse two different descriptions of one event as two different events. They have decided that although the Bible is Gods word He couldn't get the creation bit right and had to borrow it from the myths of others.Oh dear, God got it wrong again. NOTWhen is the Roman Catholic Church going to wake up and realise that the Bible is really the word of God and not something they can pick at.The blindness demonstrated by this latest absurdity is almost beyond belief.Roman Catholicism needs evangelising as much as Hindus. At least the Hindus have an excuse.