MisterRichardson.com Rotating Header Image

The New Liberalism (The Theology of Festus)

May 4th, 2013
by misterrichardson.
No comments yet

G. Gresham Machen wrote a book called Christianity and Liberalism back in the 1920′s in which he pointed out that the Liberalism of that day used Christian terminology, but had drastically changed or hidden the meanings of those words in order to dupe churches into believing that the liberals were really okay guys. Nowadays, the New Liberals have decided that we should just forget trying to sound like the church at all and just go ahead and chuck the terminology. This allows them to continue undermining historic, Biblical terminology and supplant it with their own terminology, which is decidedly more simplistic (dumbed down) so as to allow poor, helpless, downtrodden seekers to be able to hold up their heads in proud unbelief, while these new agents of the Holy Spirit ration out salvation to suit their own purposes and build up their own empires.

All you have to do to see this in action is to read this article and then give a good look at the lives, ministries, and teachings of those who are mentioned. Ironically, we have here Mark Driscoll who is finding fault with other preachers because, “If you use too much theologized language you will lose lost people.” This from a guy who threatened to run people over with a bus. The preacher who cusses in his sermons seems to think that using crude language will attract people, but using theological, biblical terms like justification, sanctification, and propitiation will drive them away.

But what seems to be missed by people like Driscoll, is that one of the jobs of a true preacher is to be a teacher of God’s Word. If the text that you’re preaching from has a difficult word, then you explain it. Someone needs to tell Driscoll that it is surely better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

And then we have this gem from Andy Stanley – “We need to give non-church people the permission to not believe and not obey.” Can you possibly imagine George Whitefield getting up in front of a hostile, produce-throwing crowd of “seekers” telling them that today is NOT the day of salvation and they would be better off waiting until later to repent? Or Paul patting King Agrippa on the head and telling him it’s a good thing to be almost persuaded?

Yet, that where the New Liberalism has gotten us. It is the theology of Festus. It was Festus, who in Acts 26 complained that Paul was crazy for his preaching of the Gospel – Much learning has made you mad! Paul must have used some theological terms in his address (like repentance) and Festus knew that this was obviously not culturally relevant. It must have caused him to cuss as much as Mark Driscoll when he realized that Paul was using such theological terms.

But Festus must have been pleased when King Agrippa professed that he had almost been persuaded. Paul had no right to demand that Agrippa believe right then. Not enough time had passed. And Paul had not even given him permission to NOT believe. Why, it’s almost as if Paul expected Agrippa to hear a theology-laden sermon and then repent and believe on the spot! How will Paul ever build a mega-church with that sort of thinking?!?!

The Old Liberalism denied the Word of God. It seems that the New Liberalism denies the work of the Holy Spirit, as well. Using Scriptural language will NEVER be a barrier to someone being called by the Holy Spirit. And that same Word does not give unbelievers permission to continue in their unbelief, but demands men everywhere to repent.

Posted in: Bible, Christianity, Liberalism.
Tagged: ·

S. H. Kellogg on Leviticus 19:28

Apr 8th, 2013
by misterrichardson.
No comments yet

‘Cutting the flesh for the dead’ has been widely practiced by heathen peoples in all ages. Such immoderate and unseemly expressions of grief were prohibited to the Israelite, as unworthy of a people who were in a blessed covenant relation with the God of life and death. Rather,  recognising that death is of God’s ordination, he was to accept in patience and humility the stroke of God’s hand; not, indeed, without sorrow, but yet in meekness and quietness of spirit, trusting in the God of life. The thought is only a less clear expression of the New Testament word (1 Thess 4:13) that the believer “sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope.” Also, probably, in this prohibition, as certainly in the next it is suggested that as the Israelite was to be distinguished from the heathen by full consecration, not only of the soul, but also of the body, to the Lord, he was by that fact inhibited from marring or defacing in any way the integrity of his body.

In general, we may say, then, that the central thought which binds this group of precepts together, is the obligation, not merely to abstain from everything directly idolatrous, but also from all such customs as are, in fact, rooted in or closely associated with idolatry. On the same principle, the Christian is to beware of all fashions and practices, even though they may be in themselves indifferent, which yet, as a matter of fact, are specially characteristic of the worldly and ungodly element in society. The principle assumed in these prohibitions thus imposes upon all who would be holy to the Lord, in all ages, a firm restriction. The thoughtless desire of many, at any risk, to be ‘in the fashion,’ must be unwaveringly denied. The reason which is so often given by professing Christians for indulgences in such cases, that ‘all the world does so,’ may often be the strongest possible reason for declining to follow the fashion. No servant of God should ever be seen in any part of the livery of Satan’s servants. That God does not think of these ‘little things’ always of trifling consequence, we are reminded by the repetition here, for the tenth time in this chapter, of the words, ‘I am the Lord!’

Posted in: Bible, Quotes.
Tagged: ·

Three reasons for marriage according to the Book of Common Prayer

Mar 7th, 2013
by misterrichardson.
No comments yet

First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to praise His holy name.

Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency, might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Posted in: Christianity, History, Quotes.
Tagged: ·

Jesus and evolution: Or, for whom did Jesus die?

Jan 21st, 2013
by misterrichardson.
5 comments

This is the rough draft of something I would like to address more deeply at some time in the future. Most of the time when we talk of those for whom Jesus died, we automatically think of the extent of the atonement. But here I would like to speak of the actual beings for whom Christ died – is it pre=humans, present humans, or post-humans? Surely, this is an important question, particularly for those who claim the name of Christ along with the name of Darwin.

It is alledged by the theistic evolutionists that they have both science and scripture on their side. But for this to occur, some portions of scripture must be altered in some way so that it fits with the science of evolutionary theory. Adam must be figurative or represent a group of people, because the science demands that you can’t just start with one man. Those who support the traditional scriptural view will then contradict this with other scientific evidence and attempt some sort of defense of the clarity of scripture. So far, this has proved to be ineffective, since in most cases both sides have tacitly admitted that liberty is to be maintained on this topic. This gives us the present condition we find ourselves in – the American church crumbling away into cultural irrelevance.

It is my opinion and conviction that this charade of charity must stop. Theistic evolution, or any other evolutionary theory, must be seen to be heresy. Those who believe such or teach such should be disciplined or excommunicated. And the reason for this should be obvious to all – any evolutionary theory denies the purpose and value of the person of Jesus Christ.

So how can I say this in opposition to so many learned, degreed pastors and teachers who maintain otherwise? Truth doesn’t need credentials, it just needs to be believed. Do we believe that Jesus Christ came to save people? People who are sinners? People who need salvation from a holy God? And was not this salvation planned before the foundation of the world? Isn’t the main problem in the world today the problem of sin?

But evolutionists of any stripe will certainly beg to differ. Or at least their theory does. Evolutionary theory says that people only recently evolved into being. It is stated that these people used to be non-people (monkeys, apes, chimps, etc.) and it is assumed that one day these people will yet again become non-people because evolutionary theory maintains that everything is constantly evolving and changing, and that for the better mostly. At some point, a theistic evolutionist must logically believe that people won’t be people any more one day, and therefore cease to need Jesus Christ, since Jesus came only to save people.

When put this way, you see how irrelevant the ministry of Jesus Christ is in the whole of earthly history. His ministry would only be of any value for a very short period of time geologically. And even that value can be minimized because any short-comings we presently have today can be explained away by appealing to our lack of evolution. Because if God is using evolution to bring about His plans, then what we find in scripture must be inadequate at best, or just plain wrong at worst.

The message of scripture paints a wholly different view of the universe. The message of the Bible is that all of creation is from Jesus, through Jesus, and to Jesus. Billions of years of death and destruction to finally get to humans as a product of evolutionary forces does not glorify God. And if evolutionary theory is correct then humans will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs with some newer, better species coming after us. This totally undermines the scriptural view of Jesus Christ as the savior of people and not other animals, past or future.

On the basis of Jesus Christ dying for people, then we must say that any evolutionary theory is heretical because it denies the basic message of scripture and what it says about the purpose of Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Posted in: Christianity.
Tagged:

Practical advice from Thomas Chalmers on being “Radical”

Dec 25th, 2012
by misterrichardson.
No comments yet

Why is it that when modern Christians think of being “radical” it always involves putting people on a guilt trip because they’re not “helping the poor?” I’ve already reviewed David Platt’s book and I just recently came across another article saying basically the same thing – Christians who have something should feel guilty because they’re not helping the poor more. This sound more like the typical guilt of liberal politics than it does Christianity, no matter how many verses they tend to twist out of context. I only remember one of the twelve disciples who stated a concern about wasting wealth and giving it to the poor and I’m pretty sure we don’t want to follow him!

One of the problems we face today is that we don’t know what real poverty looks like any more. In a land of food stamps, welfare, and other government aid, it’s hard to tell who’s really poor. I well remember helping out with a church’s food pantry and being impressed with the nice cars the poor people drove up in to receive hand-outs. They had nicer cars than I did. But I wasn’t in line because I didn’t consider myself to be poor, despite my hovering around the official poverty line at the time. It seems that poverty really is a state of mind in America.

This was really impressed upon me last night as I watched the old, original Waltons movie, The Homecoming. These were people who were poor and lived in the Depression, yet refused to take charity. Now it seems people would rather assert their right to your charity. And I believe this is due, in part, because Christian people have bought the liberal, socialistic line of how to treat the poor – rob them of their dignity so that it will be easier to rob those who work of their money, ensuring that government will need to grow to help those made poor by government policies!

Thomas Chalmers, a man who had witnessed real poverty in the early 1800′s in Scotland, knew how helping the poor could often end up corrupting the poor. It was to this end that he gave the following advice in 1821:

chalmersI think the best school for benevolence is a limited district, which it is competent for any individual to assume as the field in which he chooses to exercise his philanthropy. I would take one of the poorest vicinities in the whole town, and measure off for myself a population of, say fifty or a hundred families, and the topic of introduction I should choose would not be an inquiry into their temporal necessities (for this might call forth a reaction most appalling to the adventurer, and most corrupting to the people whom he means to benefit), but rather an inquiry into the state of health and the education of the young; or the accommodation that there is with respect to schools and churches; or something, in short, that would begin your acquaintance with the people, without exciting any sordid or mercenary expectation. You will not find it so formidable and affair to secure a welcome from the families, among whom you may reiterate as often as you will on the same topics, but never in the ostensible capacity of an almoner, assuming always the higher capacity of a friend to their children, and a zealous advocate or promoter of all that can conduce to the improvement of principle and moral habits among the population. In this way they will not obtrude their necessities so readily upon you; while you, on the other hand, when necessities in any particular way force themselves upon your observation, may secretly and without the knowledge of others relieve them. You will thus find the work of charity a very quiet and manageable process; for, in truth, there won’t be half a dozen families among the hundred who will stand in real need of your money; while, perhaps, one half of the whole would have been the sordid expectants of your generosity had you injudiciously announced yourself as the general almoner of the district you had assumed.

- pgs 296-297, Letters of Thomas Chalmers

I believe this is what is missing from all these talks about being radical – someone who has actually done real work among the poor, and pursued it on a Christian basis, not one of political liberalism.

Posted in: Christianity.
Tagged: ·

← Earlier Posts