Letter of Marque

God in a Box or God As He's Revealed Himself?

Today, if you happen to be conversing with a group of CHRISTIANS and you boldly, confidently, and succinctly talk about God and His characteristics, attributes and what He has done you are very likely to be accused of "putting God in a box"?

One of these Christians might even throw a Rob Bell quote or two in your face and tell you that you need to not be so arrogant and should adopt a more humble hermeneutic. According to Bell, "The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up." (Velvet Elvis, Page 25)

Poppycock!

In the scriptures we have God's revelation of Himself and that divine self-revelation gives us some very hard neat lines and clean definitions about who God is, what He is like, what He has done and what true worship of Him entails. Those neat lines about God do not have their origin in the human imagination. Instead, their origin is God Himself (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21) . In other words, God wants us to know who He is and what He has done so that we will worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. But, we must always be careful to not allow our imaginations to go beyond what God has revealed about Himself in his word. That which God has not revealed about himself is still mystery.

Ambrose said it this way:

“The things which God wishes to be hidden are not to be examined; and the things which He has made manifest are not to be rejected, lest we as ingrates be improperly curious toward the former and damnably ungrateful for the latter.” (De Vocatione Gentium, Bk. 17)

The Apostle Paul put it like this:

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I KNOW in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12).

Notice that Paul didn't say that we "can't know" but that we only KNOW IN PART. But, that part that we do know is sure and certain and has neat lines and clear definitions. Here are just some of those neat lines and clear definitions that we glean directly from God's Holy Word about the One and Only True God, The Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Spirt of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sits at the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the livign and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the Prophets: And I believe one Christian and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come.

Amen.

This confession about God contains neat lines and clear definitions. Yet, none of it pertains to a 'god' that we've made up or a God whom we have imposed limitations on by sticking Him "in a box". Instead, it richly, beautifully and poetically summarizes the God who has revealed Himself to us in the Holy Scriptures.

It is not God who needs to be released from the box. Instead, it is we who need to be released and set free from sin death and the devil. Holding fast to what God has revealed about Himself in the scriptures is neither bad nor arrogant, nor does it limit God. Instead, it sets us free from the bondage (box) of darkness, deception and speculation and brings us into a correct understanding of the One True Good.

“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–33)

Examining the Claims That You Can "Experience God" by Practicing Certain Disciplines & Spiritual Practices

Spiritual Disciplines and Spiritual Practices are all the rage in postmodern, seeker-driven churches. The popular books and products of Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, John Ortberg and Pete Scazzero all promise the buyer that if they master the practices taught in their books and DVD's they will not only grow spiritually but will also be able to have direct mystical experiences of the divine. Yet, what these men are not telling the public is that these practices and disciplines were originally developed in Roman Catholic monasteries by men who were mystics and rejected the Biblical Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ's work alone. (That means that these mystical monks were not Christians. Instead, they were heretics who were trying to earn God's favor and salvation through their monkery.) These practices which were developed by these Roman Catholic Monks are now being repackaged and sold to Protestant pastors and laymen without any consideration as to whether or not they are even compatible with the Historic Christian Faith.

Despite what these men may tell you in their sales pitches, these practices are not found in the Bible and were not practiced or taught by Jesus nor His disciples. As you'll hear in my interview with former mystic Christine Pack of the Solasisters, these practices not only contradict the scriptures by teaching that we can experience God apart from Christ and His Cross they may in fact connect you with the demonic realm.

Click on the Menu button on the player above and you can embed this radio segment on your blog or website.

Where Does it Say That We Can "Practice the Presence of God"?

Seeker-driven church leaders and many in the Emergent movement openly dabble in and promote Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism. In fact, one could argue that Roman Catholic Mysticism is today's postmodern version of Pentecostalism. The Lectio Divina, the Prayer Examen and Practicing the Presence of God are all the rage for those who are seeking to 'experience God'. There's only one BIG problem with all these Roman Catholic mystical practices... just like prayers to the saints, praying to and worshipping the virgin Mary, purgatory, the continual re-sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, and claiming the Pope is the infallible head of the church, not one of these mystical or contemplative practices are taught either in full or in part in the scriptures. Even worse there are no practices given in the scriptures whereby if a person performed the right steps with the right attitude of the heart that they could climb the ladder into heaven and then God would grant that person a subjective 'experience' of the divine.

In other words, all of these Roman Catholic Mystical Practices are nothing more that mystical snake oil and if one would apply just a little bit of Biblical discernment they could see through the packaging and realize their being sold counterfeit mystical experiences.

Seriously, think about it. The Bible nowhere teaches that you can "practice the presence of God". What does that phrase even mean? What's next practicing the sovereignty of God? How about practicing the omniscience of God or practicing the Trinity of God? The whole concept is utter poppycock.

The bottom line is that there is a postmodern cultural assumption and expectation that we can have a direct mystical experience with God. This assumption is not rooted in the Bible. It's rooted in pagan idolatry. The God of the Bible nowhere in His revealed word promises that if you do X, Y or Z that He will respond by giving you a subjective mystical experience. Anyone who tells you otherwise IS SELLING YOU SOMETHING and not telling you the truth.

Turn your brain back on and open your Bible and read it to understand it. Go to church and receive the Lord's supper, pray the Lord's prayer and offer up prayers and petitions to God. These are the humble ways that God has chosen for us to experience Him on this side of Christ's return and these are sufficient and profound. To seek to go beyond these humble means is idolatrous and often time spiritually disastrous.

• For a more in depth critique of Brother Lawrence's Practicing the Presence of God I highly recommend that you read the fine article written by Bob DeWaay entitled What Shall We Practice? Click Here to Read it.

Emergent Polytheism?

Are postmodern emergents beginning to embrace polytheism? One of the newer voices in Emergent Church circles is George Elerick. George is a prolific blogger, writer, poet and contributor to the Huffington Post. I am not sure where George studied theology but one thing is certain, he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he should stop writing on the topic of religion before he hurts himself and others.

A perfect example of George’s mishandling of the Bible and the Hebrew language can be found in his May 31st, 2010 blog post entitled “the jesus-daddy: another look at the word abba”. In this post George, like and untrained swordsman tries to wield the Word of God in order to see what happens when he begins playing around with the meanings of different Hebrew words in an attempt to discover postmodern “spiritual insights”. The conclusions drawn by George’s mishandling of the Hebrew language are truly sad and should cause us to pause and pray for George and those listening to him because he is twisting God’s word to his own destruction (2Pet. 3:16).

Below is a prime example of George’s mishandling of God’s Word and the Hebrew language. Said Elerick regarding the Hebrew word Ehad [sic],

Ehad [sic] is the Hebrew phrase for one. It is defined as several components or parts coming together to be one.  Typically, this is spoken of in terms of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (the three in one); Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. However, if you look at this information historically, this could also be referring to the ancient pantheon of Gods that were  borrowed by the Jews from the neighbouring/warring Canaanites. The Elohim (“we”) refers to El who is the God of Gods, or sometimes referred to in the Torah (Old Testament) as the “Lord of Lords”. Yahweh was one of the gods along with Baal who were situated under the rule of El. So, the idea of Ehad [sic] being the word used for Jesus’ claim for unity with God comes from the same idea of God (El) claiming unity with the Divine Council. Ehad [sic] is the idea of pluralism becoming one, all the while maintaining its pluralistic identity. Something I think we could learn to do better. [Emphasis Added]

Where do I begin? This quote is a veritable quagmire of convoluted absurdity that doesn’t make historical, Biblical or linguistic sense?

1. The Hebrew word in question is Echad not Ehad. There is a difference between the Hebrew letters He and Het. If George knew the Hebrew language I seriously doubt he’d have made such a basic mistake. (The Hebrew alphabet is usually taught on the first day of Hebrew 101.)

2. Jews are monotheists not polytheists. The Hebrew Old Testament is replete with examples of the Jews abandoning the one true God (YHWH) and engaging in syncretism by disobediently mixing Judaism with the idolatrous pagan religions of the Canaanites. Not once were these syncretistic practices ever looked on favorably in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, YHWH regularly describes those who’ve abandoned the exclusive worship of Him as spiritual whores (Ezek. 16:1-63). Why? Because there is no other God but YHWH.

Elerick’s spurious polytheistic claim that YHWH was a member of a “council of gods” and an equal colleague of Baal under the rule of El is not taught in the Hebrew Old Testament and is easily debunked with just a cursory understanding of the Hebrew Old Testament.

For instance, in Isaiah 46:8-9, YHWH is speaking, and in that passage YHWH states:

“Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,”

When you read it in the Hebrew you discover that YHWH says:

Let me point out the key phrase in this passage. It is:


This phrase is roughly pronounced “anoki EL” and it means “I am God”. In other words, YHWH, who is the one speaking in this passage says I AM EL (God) and there is NO OTHER EL (God). To make sure that there is no confusion regarding the fact that there are no other 'gods' YHWH goes on to state in this same passage that He is also ELOHIM.

Elerick has erroneously concluded that the Hebrew word Echad implies that YHWH was a member of a plurality of gods (Elohim) in council under the chief God (El). Yet if he would just read what YHWH has revealed about Himself, rather than trying to play postmodern word games with a Hebrew lexicon that he obviously has no clue how to use, then he’d learn that YHWH has revealed that He alone is EL and ELOHIM (God) and there is no council or plurality of gods that YHWH is an equal member of.

Further passages in the Old Testament bear this out even clearer. Here is just a small sampling of what YHWH has revealed on this matter.



“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD (YHWH), “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god (EL) was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD (YHWH), and besides me there is no savior.” (Isaiah 43:10–11)

“Thus says the LORD (YHWH), the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god (ELOHIM). Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God (ELOAH) besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”” (Isaiah 44:6–8)

“I am the LORD (YHWH), and there is no other, besides me there is no God (ELOHIM);” (Isaiah 45:5)

“Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD (YHWH)? And there is no other god (ELOHIM) besides me, a righteous God (EL) and a Savior; there is none besides me.” (Isaiah 45:21)

It is unmistakably clear from these passages and many others that YHWH claims that He is God and God alone and that there are no other ‘gods’ that exist except for Him. This is precisely why the first commandment states, “You shall have no other gods”. This also explain why YHWH punishes those who worship other ‘gods’ and those who engage in syncretism and religious pluralism (2 Kings 22:1-23:30)

George Elerick and other postmoderns like him are playing with and toying with God’s Word. To say that he and others like him are playing with fire would be a supreme understatement. We need to pray that YHWH opens their eyes to their errors and idolatries and grants them repentance and forgiveness for these grievous sins they are committing against YHWH and His Word.

You’re Just a Bible Literalist!!

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of conversing with or verbally sparring with a theological liberal of either the modern or postmodern variety, chances are you’ve been accused of being a “Bible literalist”. I’ve been accused of this more times than I can count. Each time the accusation was spoken, the liberal I’ve been talking with has acted like her charge that I was a "Bible literalist" was supposed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was the intellectual equivalent of a one toothed, redneck fresh from the turnip truck. Fact is, merely claiming someone is a "Bible literalist" doesn’t really prove anything because even liberals take some parts of the Bible literally.

So, how should you respond when you’re accused of being a (cue dramatic music) “Bible literalist”? Here is some practical advice and a few things to keep in mind regarding Bible literalism.

1. Explain to the person with whom you are speaking that you don’t approach the scriptures with a “one size fits all” literalistic view. Instead, you pay careful attention to the genre of the Bible passage in question and allow the author’s original intent to govern how a passage should be understood. For example in Matthew 23:37 Jesus says these words:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

If you were to take a “one-size fits all” literalistic approach to all of scripture then you would have no choice but to conclude that Jesus was in reality a big chicken man and probably moonlighted as the mascot for El Pollo Loco. That’s not what Jesus was trying to say. Therefore, you can reasonably conclude that Jesus was speaking figuratively just like everyone else speaks figuratively from time to time. The fact that there are no ancient depictions of Jesus as a big chicken also prove that even the early Christians, despite the fact that they didn’t have access to modern science and the internet were more than capable of discerning the fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this passage.

That being said, it is important to also note that the overall genre of the Gospel of Matthew is historical biography. Therefore, we must understand that Matthew intended to convey literal history about the life of Jesus and meant for us to literally believe that Jesus did in fact say these words.

2. Point out the fact that many liberals and emergents take Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount literally and believe that Jesus’ command to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is to be understood literally. After you point that out, ask them, “Would it be fair of me to disparage you and dismiss what you are saying because you are a literalist regarding those sections of scripture?”

3. The authors intent, not our presuppositions determine whether a passage of scripture is to be understood literally or figuratively. The Bible contains many different writing genre’s. A good rule of thumb is to consider the genre of the passage in question to help determine whether it is to be understood literally or figuratively.

Historical Narrative is to be understood as literal history, miracles and all. 


Poetry provides poetic language that many times reveals literal truth regarding the One True God. Pay close attention to the word picture that is being painted by the author.

Parables convey eternal truths but they are clothed in symbolic story. Many times the key to understanding them lies in a proper distinction of Law and Gospel and salvation as a free gift from God by grace and faith alone. In other words, the good news of the free forgiveness of sins won by Christ’s death on the cross is the single most important interpretive key to the scriptures and many of Christ’s parables.

Apocalyptic Literature is very difficult to unravel. This is intentional. Oftentimes, the truth that is revealed in these sections of scripture are locked up in highly symbolic language. Good scholarly commentaries are often useful. But, it is generally a good idea to avoid any books written by “end of the world” prognosticators who claim to have unraveled the “secrets” of that section of scripture.

When in doubt, adopt the view of the passage that Jesus had. Jesus believed that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel was literal history. Jesus believed that the story of Noah and the world wide flood was literal history. Jesus believed that the story of Jonah and the big fish was literal history.

In short, you should strive to have no opinion of scripture that contradicts or conflicts with Jesus’ view of scripture. When you adopt that position you’ll be in good company. That was exactly the same view of scripture that Jesus’ disciples who later became the Apostles took. As you read their letters in the New Testament over and again you will see that they never attacked or criticized the scriptures nor expressed skepticism or contempt for the miraculous stories in either the Old Testament or their own biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. Time after time after time the Apostles refer back to the historical narratives of the Old Testament and treat them as literal history. So determine now that you will take no view of scripture that conflicts with the view that Jesus and His Apostles held and you will be well on your way toward properly understanding the Bible and avoiding the silly charge that you are just an unintelligent backwoods hick ‘Bible Literalist’.

For more reading on this subject I recommend these articles:

Jesus Christ and the Authority of the Word of God Part 1

Jesus Christ and the Authority of the Word of God Part 2

The Greatest Expert on the Scriptures Who Ever Lived And His View of the Bible

Believing in a “Third Way” Between the Religious Right and Left Is like Believing TV Wrestling is Real

This post is the first in a short series of posts that I am writing that will challenge the thoughts and ideas put forward in the new book Jesus Manifesto by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola. Despite the books correct contention that the church is focusing on too many distracting ideas rather than on the person of Jesus Christ, I strongly believe that the book is seductively deceptive and chock full of very serious unBiblical ideas, philosophies, errors and false doctrines that must be challenged, debated and answered. With that preface in mind, I will begin with my first thoughts on the book.

--

Right out of the chute, Lenoard Sweet and Frank Viola in their new book Jesus Manifesto engage in the same anti-rational anti-thought rhetoric and tactics that have permeated the culture and the church for the last few decades. Said Sweet & Viola:

The body of Christ is at a crossroads right now. The two common alternatives are to move to either the left or the right. It’s our observation, however, that we are living in a unique time, when people are frozen as they look in either of those directions. When they look to the left, they decide that they cannot venture there. When they look to the right, they feel the same.

Whether they realize it or not, people are looking for a fresh alternative—a third way.

Sweet and Viola reiterate this idea in a blog post that lays out the 10 reasons why they wrote the book. Reason number ten states:

To offer a third path that’s not part of the left vs. right/conservative vs. liberal debate that has brought so many members of the body of Christ to a grinding halt spiritually.

This type of rhetoric is completely irrational and doesn’t make a bit of sense! The time has come to challenge these ideas and assumptions and expose them as fraudulent ways of thinking.

Understanding the Primary Differences That Divide Right and Left Reveals There Is No Viable "Third Way"

If you take the time to compare what has historically been the dividing faultline between the theological right and theological left—the primary dividing line being how the Bible is to be understood and applied in the church, then you will understand that believing that a third way exists is like believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that TV Wrestling and TV Magic are actually real rather than theatrical illusion.

Below is a brief list of the radical differences between Right and Left.[1]

The Bible

Right: The Bible is the inerrant, inspired and authoritative Word of God. 2Tim. 3:16, John 14:23, John 15:3, John 17:17, 2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Pet. 1:22, 2 Sam. 7:28, Ps. 119:160

Left: The Bible is NOT inerrant, inspired and authoritative. The Bible is a book of fictional myths and fables that teach eternal moral and spiritual lessons much like Aesop's Fables.

The Virgin Birth

Right: Jesus was truly conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary by the working of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 1:18-23, Luke 1:26-35

Left: Jesus was conceived via natural sexual relations and the story of the virgin conception isn’t literal history, instead it has some allegorical spiritual truth that it is trying to convey.

Jesus' Bodily Resurrection

Right: Jesus rose bodily from the grave on the third day after He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Luke 24:36-39, John 20:27-29

Left: The dead don’t rise so Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual or non-corporeal and the disciples experienced some kind of spiritual encounter with the ‘risen’ spirit of Christ.

Christ’s Death on the Cross

Right: Jesus death on the cross was a propitiatory, atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Rom. 3:21-25, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 15:3-7, John 1:29, Eph. 1:7, Eph. 2:13 , Col. 1:19-20, 1 Pet. 2:24, Isa. 53:1-12, Heb. 2:17 , Heb. 9:12-14, Heb. 9:22, Heb. 13:11-12

Left: Christ’s death has no atoning aspect to it (the idea of a blood sacrifice of the Son of God is barbaric and borders on cosmic child abuse). Instead, Jesus' crucifixion was done to expose and lay bare the evils of the Imperial System of Caesar or to show us that we were "worth it" or other such nonsensical speculations that DO NOT appear in ANY of the Bible's own explanations of the Cross.

Jesus' Second Coming

Right: Jesus, as He said, will someday visibly return in glory to judge the living and the dead. Those who persist in sin and unbelief will be sentenced to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Those who repent and trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins will enjoy eternal life with a face to face relationship with their creator who on the last day will create a new heavens and a new earth. Matt 25:14-30, Matt 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, 2 Pet. 3:10-13, Isa. 65:17, Isa. 66:22, Rev. 21:1, Rev. 21:27, Rev. 21:8

Left: There is no judgement and no hell and God doesn’t care about sin or about which religion you subscribe to. So we need to build the Kingdom of God here on Earth by striving to achieve global social justice.

In a nutshell you can rightly meta-categorize the Biblical divide between right and left as:

the Right is Belief
the Left is Unbelief

the Right is Trust
the Left is Doubt

That being the case, how on Earth can anyone claim that they’re offering a third way alternative to the left and right? That is simply absurd!

Either the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative Word of God or it isn’t. There is no viable "third way" between those two positions.

Either Jesus Christ was truly and miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary as the scriptures tell us or he was conceived through natural human sexual relations. There is NO viable "third way".

Either Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was a propitiatory, atoning sacrifice for sins, as the Biblical text tells us or it wasn’t. There is no viable Hegelian synthesis (third way) of these two positions!

Either Jesus Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead as He stated that he would. And He will sentence those who’ve persisted in their rebellion against God to an eternal hell and grant eternal life to those who’ve repented and received the forgiveness of their sins won by Him on the cross or Jesus is not going to return as He said. There is no third alternative that is either logically or Biblically viable.

Now some of those who are steeped in postmodern irrationalism may be tempted to protest and accuse me a of being a binary thinker or an artifact of modernity. They may be tempted to say something like “It doesn’t matter if Jesus was literally conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. We believe the truthfulness of the story goes "way beyond" the limits of such cold literalistic modernist calculations.” Such statements only reveal that the person making them is a lazy and sloppy thinker. Saying that you believe in a truth that lies “beyond” the literal would be like me saying that I believe in the truth that is just “East of the Bronx” or “West of the Sky”. All such sentences are pure gobbledygook and tell us no real information about real reality. They are the grammatical equivalent of smoke and mirrors.

Its time for the church to stop fooling itself with these asinine and irrational postmodern word games. Either God’s Word can be trusted and the doctrines in them are true or they are not. Either we can trust that Jesus Christ is God of God, light of light, very God of very God who was born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised bodily from the grave on the third day and is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead OR ALL OF IT is religious fiction and not worth listening to.

There is no viable third alternative.

---

[1] It is important to note that not all of these views are universally held by everyone on the left side of the theological spectrum. However, these are common positions that have been promoted and defended by top liberal theological icons and luminaries for more than a century.

Dangers of Monastic Mystic Meditation Practices

Why on earth are Roman Catholic Mysticism and practices developed in monasteries by men who rejected the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ's work alone being promoted in supposedly Protestant churches?

Here are a few notable examples:

Rick Warren has invited Pete Scazzero to teach Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism at the upcoming Radicalis Conference.

Rob Bell and Shane Hipps of Mars Hill Bible Church promote the use of Lectio Divina, the so-called "Discipline of Silence" as well as the Prayer Examen which was developed by one of the arch enemies of the Reformation, Ignatius Loyola.

Scott Hodge of The Orchard is an up and coming innovative leader in the seeker-driven ranks who also promotes and practices Monastic Mysticism.

And the list of supposedly Protestant pastors who are teaching and practicing various forms of contemplative monastic mysticism is growing and growing. Fact is, Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism is becoming all the rage in today's post-modern, cutting edge, innovative market-driven churches.

But, despite what these men may tell you, these practices are not Biblical, were not practiced by Jesus or any of His disciples and rather than connecting you with the Holy Spirit of the Bible, will instead connect you with the demonic realm.

But even worse, as you'll hear in my interview with Christine Pack of the Solasisters, these practices contradict the scriptures by teaching that we can experience God apart from Christ and His Cross. If the claims of those promoting these Roman Catholic practices were true then Jesus was lying when he said that no one can come to the father except through him. (John 14:6).

Truth be told, I know exactly why Rick Warren and others in the Purpose-Driven community as well as the Willow Creek Association are promoting and adopting the use of these Roman Catholic Monastic practices. However, I will save that answer for a forth coming post.

First, I would like for you to hear from someone that Christ rescued out of the mire of mysticism. Here is my interview with Christine Pack from yesterday's edition of Fighting for the Faith.

A Fair & Provocative Question: Since these pastors have so little Biblical discernment as demonstrated by their promotion of these Roman Catholic Monastic practices, how long will it be before Rick Warren, Rob Bell, Shane Hipps, Pete Scazzero and others begin promoting prayers TO the Blessed Virgin Mary? [Ironically, the exact same Biblical Doctrines come into play.]

Click on the Menu button on the player above and you can embed this radio segment on your blog or website.

Comparison of the Epistemological Assumptions of Christianity & the "Modernisms"

This chart is based on Phil Johnson's lecture on the basics of Post-Modernism. I will be referring back to this chart frequently.

If you understand what this chart shows us then you'll understand exactly why both Modernism and Post-Modernism are incompatible with Biblical Christianity.

Note: Even though Biblical Christianity is a 'form of' Pre-Modernism it needs to be view as separate and distinct from pre-modernity.

Click on the chart to view it full size.