Seeker Sensitive Movement

Nick Shubin · October 10, 2006

Seeking, what are your thoughts on the seeker sensitive movement? Is it Biblical?

LTTBT · October 10, 2006

What is this you speak of? For the uninformed, like me.

seeking_truth_1 · October 11, 2006

If you are referring to the "emergent church" I have some real problems with it

The initial target of that "movement" was to bring in the "generation x" types who are "unchurched" with wiz-bang (mtv-esque) entertainment (or other types of entertainment) and a "message"

No Bibles necessary, just come for the "show"

What was ultimately occurring is that the people they were drawing were denominational types who were supposedly "churched" but had never been taught the Bible

They were attracted to the entertainment, the lack of structure and lack of personal responsibility

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 2 Timothy 4:3

Nick Shubin · October 11, 2006

Here's an article on it from John McArthur

The Seeker-Sensitive Movement

by John MacArthur

What exactly is the seeker-sensitive movement? In a nutshell, it's the push within churches across the country to make worship services more "relevant" and therefore more attractive to the world. It's the driving force behind the marketing ploys and high-tech entertainment gimmicks churches use to promote growth.

As you read this, you may be asking, "What's so dangerous about trying to attract unbelievers to your church?" It certainly sounds benign. After all, what's wrong with making church a more inviting place for unbelievers to visit? Where's the danger in spicing up worship services to keep people interested and, more important, coming back?

But the seeker-sensitive movement is anything but benign. In fact, it can be deadly for any church that falls under its influence. Let me share a few reasons.

One of the most common”and most alarming”characteristics of a seeker-sensitive church is in the way it minimizes and downplays the teaching of God's Word. In seeker-sensitive churches, where the goal is to bring people in and keep them there, Bible teaching is cut short or worse, cut out. Why? Because advocates of the movement believe people today are too busy to sit through lengthy expositions of God's Word. Their attention spans are too short to hold them through a long sermon without becoming bored.

Sadly, the content of the message is cut short as well. Visit a seeker-sensitive church and you won't hear a lot about sin or judgment. You won't learn much about the holiness of God or the importance of obedience, either. You're more likely to hear a sermon on human relationships, success in the business world, or how to make your life in this world more satisfying. That's because if a church's primary focus is to encourage unbelievers to attend, it will invariably soften the truth to make it more palatable. It will skirt the hard teaching of Scripture on matters of repentance and the cost of discipleship, choosing instead to focus on God's grace and how easy it is to become a believer.

Another area that suffers when a church adopts a seeker-sensitive approach is the tone of the worship service. To appeal to a broader audience, many church leaders are taking their cues from the world. They're adopting the same entertainment and marketing devices the world employs. Film clips, skits, comedy, pyrotechnics, light shows, and an over indulgence in music are just some of the trappings of the seeker-sensitive church. God is no longer the center of worship”entertainment, "felt needs," and fleshly desires reign supreme.

The effects of seeker-sensitive methodology on the church are tragic because they undermine the very purpose the church is supposed to serve in believers' lives. According to God's Word, when His people gather, it should be to worship Him, hear His Word, and encourage one another. Sunday to Sunday, the meeting of the church is the context in which sin is exposed and forgiveness is found. It's where believers engage in biblical ministry and exercise their spiritual gifts and where Christian men and women form the relationships through which they exhort each other toward greater Christlikeness.

But when churches sacrifice substance for style”when even well meaning pastors soft-pedal the gospel to keep people in the pews”churches stagnate and eventually die. Instead of being a place where men and women grow spiritually by coming under the influence of God's Word, seeker-sensitive churches become mere shells filled with false converts and malnourished Christians. Once a church exchanges its God-ordained mission to preach the Word, which is the only source of spiritual life, for a marketing manifesto to fill pews, it surrenders its claim to divine power along with its effectiveness in the world.

I wish I could tell you that the seeker-sensitive movement has affected only a handful of churches, but the truth is far worse. The movement is currently sweeping through the evangelical landscape, threatening churches in communities around the world. Perhaps you find yourself in a church that's tinkering with it even today. Or maybe you're looking for a church or you know someone who attends a seeker-sensitive church. Whatever your situation, the seeker movement is so pervasive that you're sure to encounter it sooner or later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from a public letter

seeking_truth_1 · October 11, 2006

Why do you ask?

Are you somehow attempting to draw me out into a dialog regarding the "emergent church" so as to draw attention away from, and and validate the condition of, the current molokan "church"?

If you have issues with my response on the other thread, why not address it there?

Nick Shubin · October 12, 2006

Why do you ask?

Are you somehow attempting to draw me out into a dialog regarding the "emergent church" so as to draw attention away from, and and validate the condition of, the current molokan "church"?

If you have issues with my response on the other thread, why not address it there?

Draw you away? LOL! You are like a dog with a bone...i don't think i can do that!

Rather, i am trying to show that along with molokanism fault can be found in even mainstream Christian denominations...

seeking_truth_1 · October 12, 2006

The problems can be summarized fairly easily

Many chuches are not teaching the Bible but rather teaching

1) The traditions of men

or

2) ecumenicalism

or

3) whatever the "lie du jour" is

Those same churches have lost their way willingly or unknowingly, yet the results are the same

The people are not fed the entire Word of God and thereby are spiritually malnourished at best

The Bible is not viewed as authoritative but just another source for a topical teaching like a newspaper could be

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NLT)

I it can all be boiled down to a few simple factors

The people don't know or want truth. Rather they want their ears scratched

3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear.

4 They will reject the truth and follow strange myths. (1Timothy 4:3-4 NLT)

The teachers don't want to teach the Bible because they are operating with a dead conscience and it's easier to give the people what they want

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons.

2 These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead. (1 Timothy 4:1-2 NLT)

The teachers are not leading but drawing men to themselves and leading them astray

26 I have written these things to you because you need to be aware of those who want to lead you astray.

27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don`t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true““it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ. (1 John 2:26-27 NLT)

14 Then, midway through the festival, Jesus went up to the Temple and began to teach.

15 The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. "How does he know so much when he hasn`t studied everything we`ve studied?" they asked.

16 So Jesus told them, "I`m not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me.

17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.

18 Those who present their own ideas are looking for praise for themselves, but those who seek to honor the one who sent them are good and genuine. (John 7:14-18 NLT)

I'm not on a "fault finding" mission nit picking at minor doctrinal differences or distinctives

It's like saying what is going on in some churches today is only a "little" cancer

If the molokan church

1) Taught that Salvation was ONLY obtained by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and not through a hodge-podge of works, lineage, asceticism

2) Advocated the triune nature of God

3) Taught the Bible in its entirety in a language everyone had a mastery of

4) Removed extra books that taught things contrary to the Bible

5) Did not discriminate against people based upon race or ethnic background

the molokan church would be in a whole lot better shape than it is right now

These items I cited are not little issues or minor doctrinal differences but the core of Christianity and cannot be simply dismissed as "everyone has faults"

Why do you ask?

Are you somehow attempting to draw me out into a dialog regarding the "emergent church" so as to draw attention away from, and and validate the condition of, the current molokan "church"?

If you have issues with my response on the other thread, why not address it there?

Draw you away? LOL! You are like a dog with a bone...i don't think i can do that!

Rather, i am trying to show that along with molokanism fault can be found in even mainstream Christian denominations...

Nick Shubin · October 12, 2006

The problems can be summarized fairly easily

Many chuches are not teaching the Bible but rather teaching

1) The traditions of men

or

2) ecumenicalism

or

3) whatever the "lie du jour" is

Those same churches have lost their way willingly or unknowingly, yet the results are the same

The people are not fed the entire Word of God and thereby are spiritually malnourished at best

The Bible is not viewed as authoritative but just another source for a topical teaching like a newspaper could be

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NLT)

I it can all be boiled down to a few simple factors

The people don't know or want truth. Rather they want their ears scratched

3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear.

4 They will reject the truth and follow strange myths. (1Timothy 4:3-4 NLT)

The teachers don't want to teach the Bible because they are operating with a dead conscience and it's easier to give the people what they want

1 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons.

2 These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead. (1 Timothy 4:1-2 NLT)

The teachers are not leading but drawing men to themselves and leading them astray

26 I have written these things to you because you need to be aware of those who want to lead you astray.

27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don`t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true““it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ. (1 John 2:26-27 NLT)

14 Then, midway through the festival, Jesus went up to the Temple and began to teach.

15 The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. "How does he know so much when he hasn`t studied everything we`ve studied?" they asked.

16 So Jesus told them, "I`m not teaching my own ideas, but those of God who sent me.

17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.

18 Those who present their own ideas are looking for praise for themselves, but those who seek to honor the one who sent them are good and genuine. (John 7:14-18 NLT)

I'm not on a "fault finding" mission nit picking at minor doctrinal differences or distinctives

It's like saying what is going on in some churches today is only a "little" cancer

If the molokan church

1) Taught that Salvation was ONLY obtained by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and not through a hodge-podge of works, lineage, asceticism

2) Advocated the triune nature of God

3) Taught the Bible in its entirety in a language everyone had a mastery of

4) Removed extra books that taught things contrary to the Bible

5) Did not discriminate against people based upon race or ethnic background

the molokan church would be in a whole lot better shape than it is right now

These items I cited are not little issues or minor doctrinal differences but the core of Christianity and cannot be simply dismissed as "everyone has faults"

Why do you ask?

Are you somehow attempting to draw me out into a dialog regarding the "emergent church" so as to draw attention away from, and and validate the condition of, the current molokan "church"?

If you have issues with my response on the other thread, why not address it there?

Draw you away? LOL! You are like a dog with a bone...i don't think i can do that!

Rather, i am trying to show that along with molokanism fault can be found in even mainstream Christian denominations...

I agree, as i'm sure many others do. But we as believers have a great responsibility in how we present the word of God. If you can show me in scripture where it is okay to belittle/mock/taunt others, then i will stand corrected. But the passages that i have posted in many of the threads speak differently than the methods that you employ.

Nick Shubin · October 13, 2006

I know that saddleback church has given in to the seeker movement. What about calvary chapel? Are some of the things that go on there trying to cater to the masses?

My next question is this, who is the church for? is it for the believer, or the un-believer?

seeking_truth_1 · October 13, 2006

Saddleback has gone that way and a couple of Calvary Chapels have too

However, in the cases of the CC churches that went "seeker friendly", they are no longer a part of Calvary Chapel group because of they straying from the truth

I know that saddleback church has given in to the seeker movement. What about calvary chapel? Are some of the things that go on there trying to cater to the masses?

My next question is this, who is the church for? is it for the believer, or the un-believer?

Nick Shubin · October 13, 2006

Saddleback has gone that way and a couple of Calvary Chapels have too

However, in the cases of the CC churches that went "seeker friendly", they are no longer a part of Calvary Chapel group because of they straying from the truth

I know that saddleback church has given in to the seeker movement. What about calvary chapel? Are some of the things that go on there trying to cater to the masses?

My next question is this, who is the church for? is it for the believer, or the un-believer?

Thankyou. Who is the church for?

little koshka · October 13, 2006

This is from the LA Times 09/02/06...

COLUMN ONE

Father, Son and Holy Rift

For Pastor Chuck Smith, the big issues are undebatable. For Chuck Smith Jr., also a pastor, it's not so crystal clear. Something had to give.

By Christopher Goffard, Times Staff Writer

September 2, 2006

From his pulpit in Santa Ana, Chuck Smith's voice thunders with certainty. He denounces homosexuality as a "perverted lifestyle," finds divine wrath in earthquakes and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and promises imminent Armageddon in a deep, sure voice.

If his message is grim, the founder of the Jesus People and the Calvary Chapel movement bears the ruddy good cheer of a 79-year-old believer who insists he has never known a day's doubt or despair.

ADVERTISEMENTFrom the pulpit of Capo Beach Calvary, 25 miles south of his father's church, Chuck Smith Jr.'s voice trembles with vulnerability and grapples with ambiguity. Without a trace of fire and brimstone, he speaks of Christianity as a "conversation" rather than a dogma, plumbs such TV shows as "The Simpsons" for messages, and aims to reach "generations of the post-modern age" that distrust blind faith and ironclad authority.

There is a tradition among superstar evangelists like Chuck Smith the elder of bequeathing the pulpit to a son. Billy Graham did it, as did Robert H. Schuller.

However, it has been ages since anyone considered the younger Smith a possible successor to his father's 15,000-congregation ministry, the symbolic center of a network of independently run Calvary churches: about 1,000 across the United States, including two of the three largest non-Roman Catholic churches in California, plus radio and TV ministries.

Instead, critics whispered that the son was a dangerous impostor. Last year, those whispers exploded into a full-blown din. Online protests and fliers distributed at the younger Smith's church demanded that he drop the "Calvary" name because of his increasingly liberal drift on such non-debatable issues as the evil of homosexuality and the promise of hell for unbelievers. "What will it take for Chuck Sr. to stop the nepotism?" blogged Calvary congregant Jackie Alnor, one of the critics leading the charge. "Does his son have to burn incense to Isis and Zeus before he is disfellowshipped from a Bible-believing fellowship of churches?"

By last spring, one thing had become clear to Smith Jr.: Sprawling as it was, the church his father had built ” the place that once embraced a generation of drug-addled hippies and helped change the way many Americans worshipped ” had little room left for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even when I speak, some of what I say is opinion and confusion and error," says Smith Jr., 55, who wears shorts and flip-flops as he welcomes a visitor to his church. "I'm more in a place of learning than I am in a place of certainty."

He said he grew up as a true believer in his father's Pentecostal world, a world that could tilt and slide him into hell at any moment, or end with the thunderclap of doom. His earliest memories involve an overpowering sense of sin. "You can never be good enough if you're Pentecostal or if you're fundamentalist," Smith Jr. said. "Jesus may even be upset if you didn't make your bed or brush your teeth."

His mother mostly raised him, because his father was often gone, teaching the Bible, taking outside jobs, shuttling from pulpit to pulpit throughout Southern California. At Newport Harbor High School, Smith Jr. said, he found himself hopelessly estranged from his classmates, who seemed to guarantee their damnation anew every day with sex, drugs and parties.

One day, everyone was buzzing about a band called the Beatles and he was clueless; he had been in church when they appeared on "The Ed Sullivan Show."

When he suffered his first bout of severe depression in his teens, his hearty, ever-upbeat father found the malady so alien he could provide little help. If you're sad all the time, he told his son, you won't have many friends.

Dad, for his part, was reshaping American Christianity. He opened the first nondenominational Calvary Chapel on a Costa Mesa lot with just 25 congregants in 1965. Soon he became famous as the strait-laced pastor who threw open his doors to the ragged counterculture and baptized thousands below the ocean cliffs of Corona del Mar. He became Papa Chuck, the smiling man in the Hawaiian shirt, a staunch-but-benevolent spiritual father to a generation of end-of-their-rope hippies, dropouts and drug casualties.

To his older son, he was more elusive: "He wasn't present emotionally, even if he was present physically. To hear him speak, you just get the impression this is such a warm and intimate person, but the closer you got to him, the more you'd realize he really didn't have those intimacy skills."

When he left high school, Smith Jr. was certain he would not follow his dad to the pulpit. But during his first semester at Orange Coast College, he found himself defending Christianity to his classmates. People kept firing questions, and, because he was Chuck Smith's son, he had answers right on his tongue. About the same time, a pretty coed invited him back to her apartment. Suddenly, he said, his choice seemed vivid. It was between Jesus and being "sucked into the vortex of the evils of the world." He politely declined temptation, dropped out of college and became a pastor, the only one among his parents' four children to do so, and by his mid-20s had founded two churches of his own.

Theologically, father and son were on roughly the same page. They preached damnation for the unsaved, the wickedness of homosexuality, and what the son, looking back later, would call "a general hopelessness about the world," one salved only by the promise of an imminent, cataclysmic Second Coming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was no shattering epiphany, no Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment. It was a slow drift from his father's booming certainties to a universe of questions with murky answers.

About the time he opened a church in Dana Point in 1975, Smith Jr. began reading widely, making friends with Christians of different backgrounds. He began to consider that when Jesus spoke of the kingdom of heaven, he was referring to the rewards of a selfless life, here and now ” that the Gospels' core message was real-world compassion, not preparation for the afterlife.

For years, Smith Jr. said, he had preached about hell uncomfortably, half-apologetically, because he couldn't understand why a loving God would consign his children to eternal flames. It felt like blackmail for a pastor to threaten people with hell-scapes from the Middle Ages to induce piety.

Now, he came to believe that the biblical images used to depict hell's torments ” such as the "lake of fire" and the "worm that does not die" ” were intended to evoke a feeling rather than a literal place.

He also grew disillusioned with the Rapture, the notion that believers in Jesus will be whisked to God's side during Armageddon. His father had predicted the end of the world would arrive in the 1980s, based on his reading of the Book of Revelation. He has continued, year after year, to announce its imminence with absolute confidence.

The father: "Every year I believe this could be the year. We're one year closer than we were."

The son: "To use [the Book of Revelation] for prognostication, to me, is just ridiculous¦. I knew of a guy who was racking up debt because he just assumed he was going to get raptured and wouldn't have to pay for it."

During the 1980s, as an AIDS pandemic exploded, Smith Jr. embraced members of the gay community from nearby Laguna Beach.

The father on homosexuality: "It is the final affront against God."

The son: "I met homosexuals who were trying to live celibate lives or be heterosexual, and I heard all about their struggles, and I never wanted to exacerbate that. My heart went out to them. Listening convinced me that homosexual orientation is not something people chose."

One by one they fell away, the doctrinal pillars of the house his father built. Yet Smith Jr. remained under the Calvary Chapel roof, not wanting to embarrass dad by leaving.

Donald E. Miller, a USC professor of religion and author of a book on American evangelism, calls the elder Smith a pioneer of "new-paradigm Christianity" ” one who championed contemporary music and casual dress in church, jettisoned traditional church symbols and rituals, deemphasized theological sophistication and paved the way for the modern megachurch. But he remained an old-school biblical literalist, he said, and the contrast with his son is probably fueled by generational differences.

"While Chuck Smith was very much a culturally savvy guy in the 1960s, nevertheless he came out of the Depression period, whereas his son grew up in a completely different era," Miller said.

For Smith Jr.'s part, he believed he was carrying on the work of radical outreach his father started in the 1960s. Since its early days as "the culturally relevant, rock-n-roll worship, hippie church," he believed, Calvary Chapel had regressed into a "hunker-down mentality ” ride out the vagaries of this evil world until Jesus comes to the rescue."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was also, theology aside, the question of the son's temperament. He hardly fit the mold of the Christian soldier championed by his father in his book "Harvest," in which he spoke of "the ideal of a biblical man who is strong and not vacillating or weak" and denounced "the new touchy/feely men."

Smith Jr. weeps before his congregation, making no secret of his ongoing battle with depression that took him to the brink of suicide after his 1993 divorce. At the time, he stood before his congregation explaining that his wife of 18 years, the mother of his five children, was leaving him despite his effort to save the marriage.

"In my mind," he wrote in his book "Frequently Avoided Questions," "divorce was an alien behavior that could not touch true Christians, let alone a minister."

A friend got him a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist got him antidepressants. A local pastor called for his resignation, but his congregation sent hundreds of letters of support.

"My vulnerability allowed them to love me in need," he said.

Still, his condition alienated him further from his father's church, where depression is widely viewed as a spiritual problem bespeaking flawed faith.

William Alnor, a longtime Calvary congregant and former pastor, expressed the view in stark terms: "I don't believe any Christian leader should be flirting with depression."

Fundamentalists have also been troubled in recent years by gestures they see as a throwback to paganism, such as Smith Jr. giving the sign of the cross at services and hanging his sanctuary with paintings of Jesus in the iconic Byzantine style. In 2005, to make matters worse, he took several extended retreats to a Catholic monastery in Big Sur.

One of his most vocal detractors, William Alnor's wife, Jackie, denounced his "decline into Catholic contemplative mystical religion" and protested outside his church. "I could sense the darkness around that place," she wrote on her Apostasy Alert webpage.

The squall intensified with the 2005 publication of the elder Smith's book "When Storms Come," which Smith Jr. edited. Among many additions Smith Jr. made was a quote from a priest, Anthony de Mello, whose Jesuit affiliation alarmed evangelicals. And on Page 103, Smith Jr. inserted the suggestion that breathing exercises might put one in a spiritually receptive state.

This seemed, in the eyes of some, dangerously close to endorsing a Buddhist practice.

As complaints mounted, the elder Smith announced that the offending passages had not been his work and ordered the book revised. Then, in May, the younger Smith got a visit from his father's brother, Paul. As Smith Jr. recalled, his uncle spoke of redefining what it meant to belong to Calvary Chapel. He seemed uncomfortable, seemed to be driving at something, but couldn't quite say it.

"We've had some problems with the book," he finally said, as Smith Jr. recalled.

Smith Jr. knew what was in the air ” his 35-year affiliation with Calvary was at an end. He volunteered to sever his ties. He said his uncle sighed in relief.

In no time, the link to Smith Jr.'s Dana Point church was dropped from Calvary's website. Soon, the elder Smith issued a memo denouncing the use of icons, Eastern influences, "special breathing techniques," tolerance for homosexuality and "the soft peddling of hell as the destiny of those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus Christ."

The memo did not identify his son by name, but Smith Jr. said he read it as a personal attack.

The elder Smith "loves his son," William Alnor said. "I think that's why he held off so long in lowering the boom. I think if it had been anyone else in the Calvary Chapel movement promoting the doctrines Chuck Jr. promoted, he would have been long gone."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In person, the elder Smith, a stocky, rosy-skinned man with kind eyes and snowy hair at the temples, is warmth itself. His office is attached to the low-slung, pavilion-size church at the border of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana where he still preaches to a weekend congregation of 15,000. On his desk: jars of candy for his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. On his shelf: a crown made of ferocious-looking thorns from the Holy Land.

He stresses how much he loves his son, regrets that he didn't spend more time with him as he grew up: "Surely he's not a clone, and I respect and admire him for that. There's nothing shoddy about his ministry at all."

He shrugs off the controversy as the result of critics who "get on and blog their ignorance," adding: "If you don't march to their drumbeat, they begin to pick at you, and once you put on that hypercritical mode, you can find plenty of things to criticize."

Reminded of the memo he issued cracking down on his son's views, the father replies, calmly and amiably, that he and his son are just aiming for different audiences, and he doesn't want to alienate the one he has. He says their relationship is stronger than ever, even deepened by the controversy.

"I don't feel that he's an apostate at all. If he would begin to question that Jesus is the son of God, then I would be concerned."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a recent summer day, the younger Smith sat in the second-floor office of the Dana Point home he shares with his second wife, Barbara, a physical therapist.

The shelves overflowed with books, biblical commentaries fighting for space with Dean Koontz novels, a Bob Dylan scrapbook and texts on neuroscience. In just a few minutes, his conversation can veer energetically from Russian religious painters, to his upcoming visit to African orphanages, to his belief that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

It is no small irony, as he sees it, that his father, the biblical literalist whose chapel bookstore is full of anti-Darwin tracts, ignited his love of science. Equipped with a cheap telescope, Dad took him under the stars as a boy, rapturously pointing out the constellations and the distances between heavenly bodies ” all a reflection, he explained to his awe-struck son, of God's majesty.

"It's sad to me that a man passionate about God's creation should have his education stunted at some level by a narrow vision of creationism," Smith Jr. said. "Because the universe is no less fascinating for being 15 billion years old than being 10,000 years old."

The breakup with Calvary Chapel, as he sees it, was a good and inevitable thing. He wasn't abiding by house rules, so it was only fair he go.

"I knew it was coming," he said. "It was a matter of time."

He had no desire to inherit the sprawling Calvary Chapel from his father anyway, he said, being better suited to a smaller flock. Until recently he preached to a weekend congregation of 1,700 at a church he converted from a bowling alley. He is now taking an extended hiatus from the pulpit, explaining that counseling congregants about their personal crises is emotionally depleting. He is considering whether to open a remote spiritual retreat as a harbor for Christian leaders "who are burned out."

His relationship with his father, he agrees, is tighter than ever. He will even write his dad's biography some day. His challenge, he says, is extricating himself from his dad's fundamentalist evangelical community without traumatizing his parents.

"It's like the parents whose child comes out to them and says, 'I'm gay,' " Smith said. "Hopefully they come around and say, 'You are our son and we will always love you.' My parents are no less loving than that."

Smith Jr. recalls a troubled preacher from Calvary Chapel's early days, Lonnie Frisbee, who was instrumental in helping the elder Smith reach the counterculture. A recent documentary about Frisbee's life makes the case that the church whitewashed Frisbee from church history because it emerged that he was gay.

Though Smith Jr. demurs from that thesis, he appeared in the film, looked at the camera and pointedly asked: If the church shuts its doors to gay people, where are they supposed to find God? It sounded like a direct plea to his father.

Smith says no, he wasn't really speaking to Dad. Then he pauses. "Maybe I was," he says.

seeking_truth_1 · October 13, 2006

My next question is this, who is the church for? is it for the believer, or the un-believer?

What is a "church"?

Is it a Christian Church that teaches Jesus is the ONLY WAY to Heaven and teaches the Bible from cover to cover in a language that everyone understands. Also, they do not teach the traditions of men

If it is a Christian Church, then it is for the following

"11 He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.

12 Their responsibility is to equip God`s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ," (Ephesians 4:11-12 NLT)

So that the equipped people would

"Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere." (Mark 16:15 NLT)

and as empowered by the Holy Spirit they

"But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power and will tell people about me everywhere““in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."" (Acts 1:8 NLT)

So they could go out to reach the Spiritually sick and dying

"9 As Jesus was going down the road, he saw Matthew sitting at his tax“collection booth. "Come, be my disciple," Jesus said to him. So Matthew got up and followed him.

10 That night Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to be his dinner guests, along with his fellow tax collectors and many other notorious sinners.

11 The Pharisees were indignant. "Why does your teacher eat with such scum?" they asked his disciples.

12 When he heard this, Jesus replied, "Healthy people don`t need a doctor““sick people do."" (Matthew 9:9-12 NLT)

Now if it is not a "Christian Church", what is it?

That would indicate the pastor is not a Christian and is not teaching the Bible

You should not have to evangelize your "pastor"

If you are sitting under the teaching of a man who is not a Christian, of what benefit is it?

It's like dating a non-Christian with the hope you'll point them to the Lord

"Don`t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can goodness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14 NLT)

anakainosis · October 16, 2006

I know that saddleback church has given in to the seeker movement. What about calvary chapel? Are some of the things that go on there trying to cater to the masses?

Yes, Pastor Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel) does cater to people. He caters to a humanistic gospel. And it's understandable, for him all he wants is to bring more people to Christ, and that is great. But, biblically he fails at teaching the full sovereignty of God in saving men. He claims it is up to the individual to make the choice for Christ, as where scripture states it is up to the very grace or choice of God to save. Many have a problem with this biblical concept, thinking that it is up to them to make a choice, and that is understandable. But again, scripture states otherwise.

Another concept that Smith promotes is the "rapture" doctrine, which is fairly new to biblical Christianity. Even though there are many books that teach the concept, and many respected pastors and teachers that are behind the movement, there is considerable hermeneutical gymnastics used to prove it as truth; consequently, scripture does not allow the doctrine to hold any relevance. There are many resources out there to prove this.

Most importantly, a humanistic gospel is no gospel at all. When studied to its very end, it is a self-righteous work that saves you from the wrath of God, and that is not biblical.

In a nut shell, this is why I would not go to a Calvary Chapel.

coffee · October 18, 2006

.

Regarding:

He claims it is up to the individual to make the choice for Christ, as where scripture states it is up to the very grace or choice of God to save. Many have a problem with this biblical concept, thinking that it is up to them to make a choice, and that is understandable. But again, scripture states otherwise.

Another concept that Smith promotes is the "rapture" doctrine, which is fairly new to biblical Christianity. Even though there are many books that teach the concept, and many respected pastors and teachers that are behind the movement, there is considerable hermeneutical gymnastics used to prove it as truth; consequently, scripture does not allow the doctrine to hold any relevance. There are many resources out there to prove this.

Anakainosis,

The dictionary description of "brief" - short in duration, extent, or length, concise, curt, abrupt.

As far as I am concerned anyway, that is what your post was. Would you be willing to put a little more time and effort into presenting exactly what you mean when you say that "it is up to the very grace or choice of God to save."

Without some further elaboration, the statement seems very blunt.

Would you also be willing to elaborate on, "....the 'rapture' doctrine, which is fairly new to biblical Christianity. Even though there are many books that teach the concept, and many respected pastors and teachers that are behind the movement, there is considerable hermeneutical gymnastics used to prove it as truth; consequently, scripture does not allow the doctrine to hold any relevance. There are many resources out there to prove this."

Perhaps some of the readers have never done an indepth study of the topic. Some, including yours truly, have never been concerned enough about having a definitive or emphatic opinion on the subject, nor have they ever taken the time to pursue a thorough investigation into what is or is not written in the Bible about "Rapture".

I realize that "time" is precious, but this seems to be a good topic to devote more time to than the brief 15 lines, summarized in 4 short paragraphs (see, I can count too!).

Your comments left me wanting to hear more of what you have to say.

Thank you.

anakainosis · October 19, 2006

.

Regarding:

He claims it is up to the individual to make the choice for Christ, as where scripture states it is up to the very grace or choice of God to save. Many have a problem with this biblical concept, thinking that it is up to them to make a choice, and that is understandable. But again, scripture states otherwise.

Another concept that Smith promotes is the "rapture" doctrine, which is fairly new to biblical Christianity. Even though there are many books that teach the concept, and many respected pastors and teachers that are behind the movement, there is considerable hermeneutical gymnastics used to prove it as truth; consequently, scripture does not allow the doctrine to hold any relevance. There are many resources out there to prove this.

Anakainosis,

The dictionary description of "brief" - short in duration, extent, or length, concise, curt, abrupt.

As far as I am concerned anyway, that is what your post was. Would you be willing to put a little more time and effort into presenting exactly what you mean when you say that "it is up to the very grace or choice of God to save."

Without some further elaboration, the statement seems very blunt.

Would you also be willing to elaborate on, "....the 'rapture' doctrine, which is fairly new to biblical Christianity. Even though there are many books that teach the concept, and many respected pastors and teachers that are behind the movement, there is considerable hermeneutical gymnastics used to prove it as truth; consequently, scripture does not allow the doctrine to hold any relevance. There are many resources out there to prove this."

Perhaps some of the readers have never done an indepth study of the topic. Some, including yours truly, have never been concerned enough about having a definitive or emphatic opinion on the subject, nor have they ever taken the time to pursue a thorough investigation into what is or is not written in the Bible about "Rapture".

I realize that "time" is precious, but this seems to be a good topic to devote more time to than the brief 15 lines, summarized in 4 short paragraphs (see, I can count too!).

Your comments left me wanting to hear more of what you have to say.

Thank you.

I would be glad to expound further on my post. Please be patient, I need to take some time to do so. I will hopefully post a response by the end of the weekend. Thanks.

seeking_truth_1 · May 2, 2007

This was a pretty good thread

What happened?

lastinline · May 27, 2007

This was a pretty good thread

What happened?

I agree! What happened? anakainosis. Is the Saddleback Church mentioned, Pastored by Rick Warren of "Purpose Driven Life" fame?

Wouldn't it be GREAT if the Molokan church would become "seeker sensitive" instead of the way it is "seeker insensitive"? Without the S.&L. of course.

lastinline (where the view is GREAT)

anakainosis · July 4, 2007

This was a pretty good thread

What happened?

I agree! What happened? anakainosis. Is the Saddleback Church mentioned, Pastored by Rick Warren of "Purpose Driven Life" fame?

Wouldn't it be GREAT if the Molokan church would become "seeker sensitive" instead of the way it is "seeker insensitive"? Without the S.&L. of course.

lastinline (where the view is GREAT)

The Saddle Back movement with Rick Warren and his materials are considered "Seeker Sensitive" but I wasn`t refereeing to any of their programs. I was originally writing about Pastor Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Chapel movement.

Regarding the Molokan Church being "seeker insensitive" I disagree, to a point. I believe the Molokan Church as a whole is seeker sensitive in respects as playing on the emotions of the attendees. It seems to me that, when questions in regards to how church was, I hear, ˜oh, it was nice today!` Or, ˜so and so came out, and said the boogieman is coming for our children!` For some I think church is a feel good place for them, and they are conditioned to yearn for more ever week.

Church was nice! What the heck does that mean? Nice, or was it agreeable? Was it thoughtful? Or another one is ˜church was good today`¦ as if church is bad some other days?

Why don`t I hear people saying that they were inspired to read and study the Word of God more? Why don`t I hear people coming together to do some charitable things for people (and I mean any people like nenash too!) in need? Why aren`t people more excited about learning more about Jesus Christ in our churches? Why don`t we ever hear anything about the gospel being taught, instead of hearing we are god`s number one people and watch out for the boogieman?

I do agree with you though in that it would be great if the Church as a whole would man-up to the task of shepherding its people like it should. And yes the S&L should go in the trash where it belongs. We should get back to our Bible believing roots and church services that were conducted before the king and demigod of new Israel changed things.

I`ll post more on Chuck Smith soon!

lastinline · July 5, 2007

I would need some concrete stuff as far as Chuck Smith's ministry. No ministry can be perfect and will have it's detractors in some way no matter how close to the true message of the Gospel it is presenting.

I have been listening to a convert to Christ through Smith, Greg Laurie and find him to be the be a Great listen! 99.9 at 6 a.m. in the Central Valley.

I do agree with some of your observations of the Molokan church, in that there has to be a lot of spiritual activity (supposedly) for there to be GOOD church. Which could not be farther from the TRUTH! At almost ALL prayers where a meal is served and there is a lot of this spiritual activity I have found during the meal, when speeches are made you will not be able even hear the words, unless of course you are ONLY a few feet away from the speaker. There are a few times when the speech is in English and Christ-centered, where the congregation will be listening.

Look forward to hearing from you again.

lastinline (where the view is great)

KevinPolyaNazaroff · June 15, 2009

I have seen first hand some of the "seeker sensitive" churches.

For as much as we see the problems in the molokan church, and do not make any excuses for those problems, we can not ignore the fact that the "seeker sensitive" movement is dangerous, and will pull you off of the narrow path of salvation just like dead works will.

I think the main problem with the seeker sensitive movement is the misconception of the word "believe".

The "seeker sensitive movement" is more concerned with the happiness of the church, rather than the holiness of the church.

Belief, or lack of belief, can determine a souls eternal destination.

test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? 2 Co 13:5 NASB.

I was once deceived by a lie, and that lie is this. That if I agreed with the statement "once saved, always saved", and acknowledged that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then I was eternally saved and going to heaven. Well, that doesn't sound bad, except for the fact that I was living in outright rebellion toward God.

I was in a spiritual delusion. I wanted God, but I also wanted sin, so I tried to keep both in my "christian walk".

The sin thing was a secret of course. I told myself things like "God does not expect me to be perfect. Besides, why was it my fault that Adam and Eve messed up in the garden? Does God really expect me to suffer in hell just because I fall to temptation just like them?"

There are many today that are being deceived about their current status before Jesus Christ.

A mere intellectual acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is the Messiah will not lead to salvation.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Ro 10:9

It may be that we have fallen away from what Jesus and the apostles taught about "believe". We are not to "believe", rather "believe in your heart".

But how does one believe in a heart that is "desperately wicked"?

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? Ro 2:4 NASB

It is more than an acknowledgment. It is more than an agreement. It is more than a belief. It is a life changing experience. It changes your life. Adrian DesPres says that it is like meeting the president of the United States.

If you met the president, wouldn't you remember that meeting for the rest of your life? Wouldn't you consider that meeting one of the most special and memorable moments in your life? What more the creator of the heavens and the earth?

Now I also know that this "meeting" with Jesus can not, not be earned or worked for. It is like a wolf who calls the psychologist and wants to learn how to be a sheep. The wolf tries to baa like a sheep. The wolf tries to run like a sheep. Eat like a sheep, sleep like a sheep and even look like a sheep. This is behavioral modification. It is acting. The wolf has good intentions and knows that he needs to be a sheep. But the wolf is trying to please God by acting and behaving. The wolf is "working" for his salvation. And we know that this type of acting deos not please God.

and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Ro 8:8 NASB

But the wolf can call on God for grace and mercy. He can cry out to God for kindness(repentance). And by God's grace, the wolf can be converted into a sheep.

"There are two extremes in religion, equally false and equally fatal. And there are two classes of hypocrites that occupy these two extremes. The first class make religion to consist altogether in the belief of certain abstract doctrines, or what they call faith, and lay little or no stress on good works. The other class make religion to consist altogether in good works, (I mean, dead works) and lay little or no stress on faith in Jesus Christ, but hope for salvation by their own deeds." Charles Finney

So what do you believe about "believe"?

little koshka · June 15, 2009

I have seen first hand some of the "seeker sensitive" churches.

For as much as we see the problems in the molokan church, and do not make any excuses for those problems, we can not ignore the fact that the "seeker sensitive" movement is dangerous, and will pull you off of the narrow path of salvation just like dead works will.

I think the main problem with the seeker sensitive movement is the misconception of the word "believe".

The "seeker sensitive movement" is more concerned with the happiness of the church, rather than the holiness of the church.

Belief, or lack of belief, can determine a souls eternal destination.

test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? 2 Co 13:5 NASB.

I was once deceived by a lie, and that lie is this. That if I agreed with the statement "once saved, always saved", and acknowledged that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then I was eternally saved and going to heaven. Well, that doesn't sound bad, except for the fact that I was living in outright rebellion toward God.

I was in a spiritual delusion. I wanted God, but I also wanted sin, so I tried to keep both in my "christian walk".

The sin thing was a secret of course. I told myself things like "God does not expect me to be perfect. Besides, why was it my fault that Adam and Eve messed up in the garden? Does God really expect me to suffer in hell just because I fall to temptation just like them?"

There are many today that are being deceived about their current status before Jesus Christ.

A mere intellectual acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is the Messiah will not lead to salvation.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Ro 10:9

It may be that we have fallen away from what Jesus and the apostles taught about "believe". We are not to "believe", rather "believe in your heart".

But how does one believe in a heart that is "desperately wicked"?

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? Ro 2:4 NASB

It is more than an acknowledgment. It is more than an agreement. It is more than a belief. It is a life changing experience. It changes your life. Adrian DesPres says that it is like meeting the president of the United States.

If you met the president, wouldn't you remember that meeting for the rest of your life? Wouldn't you consider that meeting one of the most special and memorable moments in your life? What more the creator of the heavens and the earth?

Now I also know that this "meeting" with Jesus can not, not be earned or worked for. It is like a wolf who calls the psychologist and wants to learn how to be a sheep. The wolf tries to baa like a sheep. The wolf tries to run like a sheep. Eat like a sheep, sleep like a sheep and even look like a sheep. This is behavioral modification. It is acting. The wolf has good intentions and knows that he needs to be a sheep. But the wolf is trying to please God by acting and behaving. The wolf is "working" for his salvation. And we know that this type of acting deos not please God.

and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Ro 8:8 NASB

But the wolf can call on God for grace and mercy. He can cry out to God for kindness(repentance). And by God's grace, the wolf can be converted into a sheep.

"There are two extremes in religion, equally false and equally fatal. And there are two classes of hypocrites that occupy these two extremes. The first class make religion to consist altogether in the belief of certain abstract doctrines, or what they call faith, and lay little or no stress on good works. The other class make religion to consist altogether in good works, (I mean, dead works) and lay little or no stress on faith in Jesus Christ, but hope for salvation by their own deeds." Charles Finney

So what do you believe about "believe"?

Know why and understand why we believe in anything.

If we don't know why we believe something, then what good is it anyway?

Do we really believe in that, or do we just think we believe?

Do we understand why we believe what we believe in?

Have substance and know why we believe the way we do.

Know (understand - have knowledge) what you believe - and why (reasoning) you believe it..

EGK · June 15, 2009

So what do you believe about "believe"?

Know why and understand why we believe in anything.

If we don't know why we believe something, then what good is it anyway?

Do we really believe in that, or do we just think we believe?

Do we understand why we believe what we believe in?

Have substance and know why we believe the way we do.

Know (understand - have knowledge) what you believe - and why (reasoning) you believe it..

LK;

I really liked this and truly believe this to be correct. Too many just follow the herd and do not really read, study and think about what the bible or history teaches. For questioning and wanting to discuss what others believe in I get called a heretic and apostate and much more. I have never asked anyone to believe what I say, only to seek the truth by reading, studying and thinking. I think the real point here is, "Do we understand why we believe what we believe in?"

Thanks, God Bless

EGK

seeking_truth_1 · June 17, 2009

One of the core tenets of the "seeker sensitive" movement or "emergent church" is the idea of "dialog"

The premise is for everyone to discuss their particular views where there are no "right or wrong" answers or doctrine and therefore all viewpoints "equal"

The emphasis is not on core Christian tenets as the benchmark, but the activity of collectively seeking ecumenical unity

EGK likes to "discuss" or "dialog" as an "christian equal" yet, by their own words, they deny who Jesus is

This is the subtle deception the "seeker sensitive" movement is inviting

Let's sit around and talk about it over chi and pishiki and come up with a collective "truth" we call all agree upon

Scripture is not open to "collective truth" through "mutual understanding"

Scripture is quite narrow and specific when it comes to core Christian tenets and no amount of social dialog is going to change that

LK;

I really liked this and truly believe this to be correct. Too many just follow the herd and do not really read, study and think about what the bible or history teaches. For questioning and wanting to discuss what others believe in I get called a heretic and apostate and much more. I have never asked anyone to believe what I say, only to seek the truth by reading, studying and thinking. I think the real point here is, "Do we understand why we believe what we believe in?"

Thanks, God Bless

EGK

anonymous · July 5, 2009

Excellent points, seeking.

And quite interesting indeed is the “tolerance” mask worn by this movement and egk which is so reminiscent of the “all truth is relative” belief held by Unitarians like Samuel Barrett whose list of “biblical statistics” obviously impressed egk enough that he presented it on this forum (Jesus Is God, Post #17) in support of his denial thus rejection of GOD.......THE FATHER, THE SON/WORD, and THE HOLY SPIRIT aka THE TRINITY. Equally obvious is the fact that although egk adamantly advocates presenting the word of GOD aka THE HOLY SCRIPTURES in its “entirety” (complete/full counsel), he repeatedly neglects and fails to do the same.

Just as Samuel Barrett chose to dismiss a r-e-v-e-l-a-t-i-o-n of THE TRINITY in Matthew 28:19-20 as “....some baptismal formula,” as well as deny and exclude from his list of “biblical statistics” certain specific passages which unequivocally and indisputably r-e-v-e-a-l JESUS as GOD/DEITY (e.g., John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8), egk chooses to follow suit.

But this is not surprising as a brief study of the Unitarian belief system (the belief in GOD as one person, not three) reveals that the movement began with denial of basic CHRISTian doctrines/teachings and does so to date --- THE TRINITY, the historical CHRISTian concept of GOD, the DEITY of JESUS, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES’ teaching regarding [original] sin, the inerrancy of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, an afterlife, and the place THE HOLY SCRIPTURES calls “hell,” are some of the major fundamental doctrines/teachings of CHRISTianity which Unitarians chose/choose to deny and reject --- while referring to themselves as “Christians.”

Historically, those who held this “Unitarian” belief (not to be confused with monotheism – belief in ONE GOD) during the first, second, third, fourth, etc., centuries, were viewed as heretics. Why? Again, because the body of CHRIST aka the [early] church adhered to, upheld, and proclaimed the doctrine/teaching transmitted to them by the apostles (monotheists) that JESUS is LORD and SAVIOR, and that the only LORD and SAVIOR is.......GOD/DEITY.......as it is written (Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 43:10, 3; 44:6-8, 24; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 45:9; Jeremiah 10:10a; Hosea 13:4; Habakkuk 1:12).

The flip side of the Unitarian coin are the “Universalists,” who also claim to be “Christians” but believe in “universal salvation,” i.e., they “don’t believe that a loving God could punish anyone to hell for eternity.” Instead, they “believe that everyone will be reconciled with God eventually.” (Obviously they have chosen to deny and reject the truths of GOD’S word aka THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, e.g., Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10.)

Like Unitarians, Universalists have been around since soon after JESUS’ return to Heaven, however, the “faith” didn’t have the opportunity to form into a widespread religious movement until the middle of the fifteen hundreds in Transylvania and the middle of the sixteen hundreds in England. English Universalists came to America in the late 1700s to escape religious persecution. Because of its “loving” and “inclusive” doctrine, Universalism gained popularity in the United States rather quickly. The Universalist denomination, called the Universalist Church of America, was formed by 1793. After growing increasingly close theologically and ethically, the Universalist and Unitarian denominations consolidated in 1961 to form the new religion of “Unitarian Universalism.”

Although there are one or two teachings of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES sprinkled amongst their belief system, e.g., salvation is by grace through faith and not by works in any way, unlike CHRISTianity, which believes THE LORD GOD and HIS word is the final authority on all matters pertaining to life (and one that pleases HIM), e.g., truth and error, right and wrong, Unitarian Universalists believe “Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth” thus subject THE LORD GOD and HIS word to their understanding, feeling, and reason.

The similarities between Unitarian Universalist beliefs and egk’s beliefs are too uncanny for coincidence.

For instance, there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed hence Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths. A clergy person from the Unitarian Universalist Church (Reverend Marta Flanagan) is quoted as saying, “We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith.”

(Remember egk’s hemming and hawing and avoidance in answering when he was asked for his “statement of faith/belief”? – e.g., Answering Questions, Post #9, egk)

The reason Unitarian Universalists “....will not be bound by a statement of belief....” is because their beliefs are always in a state of flux. What they believe to be truth today they may not believe to be truth tomorrow because they believe truth is “relative” (to the times, circumstances, etc.).

Is it any surprise then that Unitarians do not have a high regard for THE HOLY SCRIPTURES? A well-known Unitarian minister, Mr. J. Mendelssohn wrote in his book, “Why I Am A Unitarian” (page 34), “Churches, Bibles and creeds are the creations of men who once exercised their freedom to create.” And on page 125, he gives his Unitarian opinion of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, namely that THEY are “....replete with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and errors.”

Like mgr’s “New Israel jumpers/leapers,” because Unitarian Universalists do not consider THE HOLY SCRIPTURES as the final authority in matters of faith, morality, and life per se, correction based upon the truths of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES is pointless.

Unitarian Universalists pride themselves in the “flexibility” of their “faith” thereby accommodating a wide range of beliefs. And although they claim no creed(s) or statement(s) of faith (like egk), they do, in fact, have creeds and/or statements of beliefs/faith, and have no problem expressing them as seen in the following statements:

God: “A belief in God is welcomed but not required within Unitarian Universalism.”

Afterlife: “Historically, Unitarians believed in a traditional Christian Heaven and Hell, while Universalists believed in Universal Salvation; that is, that everyone will go to Heaven. Today, some Unitarian Universalists believe in Heaven, some in reincarnation, and some in no afterlife at all. Unitarian Universalism is primarily directed towards this life, not the next.”

Sin: “More than 150 years ago our Unitarian forbearers rejected the theological doctrine of original sin. They believed, as we do today, that people are inherently good, and that it is our most precious gift, free will, that allows us sometimes to act wrongly, rather than predestination or external temptation. While the traditional concept of sin is no longer part of Unitarian Universalist theology, a small number of Unitarian Universalists believe that divine consequences attach to all of one’s actions. Others believe in general “karmic” effects or the principle of reciprocity, that all actions have corresponding consequences. Still others find no compelling evidence for any direct, external spiritual repercussions for either good or bad behavior. Despite these variations in beliefs, all Unitarian Universalists share a deep obligation to act with justice and compassion in accordance with Unitarian Universalist values.”

Morality: “Many people ask how we can have religious morals without agreeing on whether heaven, hell, judgment, sin, and damnation exist. Most Unitarian Universalists would probably tell you that their own moral code has little to do with their ideas of the afterlife, and more to do with their actions in this life. Unitarian Universalist morality is grounded in our religious principles and the sources of our faith, as well as in each individual’s beliefs and experiences.”

What we don’t believe: “Though Unitarian Universalism doesn’t tell its members what to believe, not all beliefs are acceptable within our faith. Beliefs that are hateful or go against our principles wouldn’t fit with Unitarian Universalism. As Marshall Hawkins writes: ‘One could not be considered a Unitarian Universalist and believe that subscription to specific doctrines or creeds are necessary for access to God or spirituality or membership in our congregations. Unitarian Universalists could not believe that God favors any group of people based on any inherent qualities, such as skin color, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability etc.---or that any group of people is more worthy of access to opportunities than any other as a result of these qualities. We don’t believe that autocratic, undemocratic or overly hierarchical systems are appropriate methods of organizing our congregations or the larger society. We don’t believe that humanity has the right or moral authority to exploit the environment or other life forms with whom we share this planet.”

So according to their own statement of faith/belief (what they do and don’t believe), “Though Unitarian Universalism doesn’t tell its members what to believe....,” in actuality/truth, it does tell its members what to believe as seen in their statements above. And if one doesn’t adhere to Unitarian Universalism’s “principles” (seven, listed below) one isn’t considered a [true] member of this religion.

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in

our congregations.

4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our

congregations and in society at large.

6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a

part.

While these principles may contain some truth (only that derived from THE HOLY SCRIPTURES) and may sound right(eous), unlike CHRISTianity, which principles are founded and grounded on the firm foundation which is THE ROCK WHO is THE TRUTH and HIS word which is [absolute] truth, they are fraught with humanism (another belief accepted and adhered to by Unitarian Universalists), that is to say, a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms its adherents’ ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. In other words, “we don’t need to believe in THE LORD GOD and HIS instruction/word/wisdom aka THE HOLY SCRIPTURES to be decent, happy individuals who do good to our fellow man; we can do it on our own.” (Another one of many ego-centric/self-centered [and self-reliant] “our, our, our, us, us, us, we, we, we” religions.)

This is because Unitarian Universalism draws its “instruction/word/wisdom” from many sources.

Examples:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves them to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

• Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge them to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

• Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires them in their ethical and spiritual life;

• Jewish and Christian teachings which call them to respond to God’s love by loving their neighbors as themselves;

• Humanist teachings which counsel them to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn them against idolatries of the mind and spirit;

• Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct them to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

These principles and various sources of “faith” are the backbone of their religious community, and coupled with “the Bible and its many interpretations,” has largely shaped their Unitarian Universalist history. Today, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES are used in most Unitarian Universalist congregations as “one of many sources of inspiration and reflection.”

Drawing upon “Jewish and Christian teachings which call them to respond to God’s love by loving their neighbors as themselves,” Unitarian Universalists welcome “all faith or religious traditions” (they include CHRISTians in this category) in “love” and assure them that they can become Unitarian Universalists and still keep their agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, feminist, Hindu, humanist, pagan, transcendentalist, (and CHRISTian) beliefs intact. This acceptance of pluralism however, obviously is not done for the purpose of leading unbelievers to THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE (John 14:6) aka proselytizing as was commissioned by JESUS to HIS disciples, but it is because Unitarian Universalists boast “tolerance” of all beliefs teaching that “all roads lead to God.” Modern day groups that fall under the “Unitarian” umbrella are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, The Way International, etc.

Some Unitarian Universalists are atheists (e.g., Ruth Patrick, national president of the Unitarian Church); others claim they are not atheists and believe in God, however, not the SCRIPTURAL “patriarchal being referred to as God” but a “creative force” they refer to as a “God force.”

(Remember egk’s question “What (not WHO) is God?” – Is Molokanism Christianity?, Post #29, egk; and remember his referral to THE HOLY SPIRIT as “It?” – Is There Biblical Support For Jumping?, Post #13, egk.)

Like the hippies who introduced “free love” in the sixties, because of the “freedom within their faith,” Unitarian Universalists “do their own thing,” and that is how and why they “get along” in “love” with one another. They “live and let live.” “You’re okay, I’m okay, we’re all okay, and life is beautiful” (as they slide down the slippery slope to hell).

(Remember when egk made this statement, “....Molokans have no Pope, Holy Synods, Central councils or groups to prescribe to each member what is accepted and what is not. Each church is free to decide what they wish to adhere to or not. Each member is free to believe how they want....” (What Is A Molokan?, Post #138, egk)

To be sure Unitarian Universalists have been influential in and on society but then again so have homosexuals, pagans, feminists, etc. Ultimately, the question that must be asked is:

What kind/type of an influence have they been and to what end --- for THE LORD GOD and HIS glory, or themselves?

Their own mission statement(s) gives answer:

“Arising from our Principles, the common denominators of Unitarianism Universalist values are compassion, justice, equity, the right of conscience, reason, and respect for others. As Unitarian Universalists, we have a responsibility to give voice to the moral values on which our faith is grounded, not only with a statement of conscience but through acts of conscience that honor the values we espouse.

As individuals, let us:

• Speak out on moral issues with clarity and confidence;

• Listen to people with whom we find ourselves in conflict, recognizing them as our neighbors, our kin;

• Model a religion that embraces liberalism and morality; and

• Apply our moral values to improve society.

As congregations, let us:

• State the moral grounding of our social justice agendas;

• Speak collectively on moral issues;

• Give ourselves clear and accessible language to describe our moral values; and

• Urge our religious leaders to proclaim our moral values in the public square.

As an association of interdependent congregations, let us:

• Speak out forcefully on issues using Unitarian Universalist moral values;

• Articulate Unitarian Universalist values and their application to living with respect and compassion;

• Support civil liberties and the separation of church and state; and

• Work across faith, cultural, and national boundaries to cultivate a Beloved Global Community.

Let us proclaim Unitarian Universalist moral values to our communities and our nation. We will reinvigorate our living tradition so that it is visible, audible, and valued in the public square.”

If their objective or purpose is expansion of THE LORD GOD’S KINGDOM [on earth] their mission statements have more than succeeded in obscuring this as clearly there is no mention whatsoever of THE LORD GOD/HIS NAME nor all of the above for HIS glory. Instead, the cynosure is --- ours, ours, ours, us, us, us, we, we, we (much like egk’s community).

egk and his Unitarian friends should give this some thought --- if THE LORD GOD’S apostles preached and practiced the “good news” of “tolerance” of all religious beliefs/faiths as Unitarian Universalists preach and strive to practice, why were they tortured and killed?

If egk and his Unitarian friends could for a moment, lift the “predisposed” veil from their eyes, and THINK about and through the SCRIPTURAL passages revealing the true identity of IMMANUEL.......GOD with us, they would join the ranks of CHRISTians globally who are united by GOD.......THE HOLY SPIRIT for the objective/purpose of glorifying HIM and HIM alone/only here on earth.......and in Heaven.......forever.

If only....

If only they asked themselves:

WHO spoke the following words and what did HE mean:

“’I AM THE LORD your GOD.... You shall have no other gods before ME.’” (Exodus 20:2-3)

Any student of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES knows and understands that THE LORD GOD spoke these words and meant that worship of anyone or anything other than HIM, THE ONE TRUE GOD, according to HIMSELF/HIS word(s), is......idolatry.

Certainly the angels know this for in the book of Revelation we see an angel prohibiting the apostle John (a created being/creature) from worshipping him (the angel, also a created being/creature), and instead instructing Apostle John to worship only.......GOD (THE CREATOR):

“Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of JESUS. Worship GOD.’ For the testimony of JESUS is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19:10)

Yet in Hebrews we find GOD.......THE FATHER commanding HIS angels to worship THE SON:

“But when HE again brings the firstborn into the world, HE says: ‘Let all the angels of GOD worship HIM.’” (Hebrews 1:6)

Is GOD.......THE FATHER teaching HIS creatures to violate HIS own instruction/law/word(s)?

Doesn’t HE know that worshipping someone other than HIM (GOD/DEITY) is idolatry? Again, wasn’t it HE HIMSELF WHO said:

“You shall have no other gods before ME” (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7)?

Of all people, certainly JESUS, THE SON, would know that.......GOD/DEITY alone/only.......is to be worshipped for HE reiterated the commandment on more than one occasion:

“Then JESUS said to him, ‘Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship THE LORD your GOD and HIM only shall you serve.’” (Matthew 4:10)

“And JESUS answered him, ‘It is written, ‘You shall worship THE LORD your GOD, and HIM only shall you serve.’” (Luke 4:8)

And of all people, certainly JESUS, WHO came not to abolish the law but upheld and fulfilled it perfectly, would know that it would be unlawful (sinful) for anyone except THE LORD.......GOD/DEITY to receive worship yet we see that HE was worshipped and received worship:

1) By the Magi (wise men) from the East when HE was a baby:

“And going into the house they saw the child with Mary HIS mother, and they fell down and worshiped HIM.” (Matthew 2:11)

2) By HIS disciples:

“And those in the boat worshiped HIM, saying, ‘Truly YOU are THE SON OF GOD.’” (Matthew 14:33)

“And behold, JESUS met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of HIS feet and worshiped HIM.” (Matthew 28:9)

“And when they saw HIM they worshiped HIM, but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:17)

“While HE blessed them, HE parted from them and was carried up into Heaven. And they worshiped HIM and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing GOD.” (Luke 24:51-53)

3) By an outcast:

“JESUS heard that they had cast him out, and having found him HE said, ‘Do you believe in THE SON OF MAN?’ He answered, ‘And who is HE, sir, that I may believe in HIM?’ JESUS said to him, ‘You have seen HIM, and it is HE WHO is speaking to you.’ He said, ‘LORD, I believe,’ and he worshiped HIM.” (John 9:35-38)

Knowing that GOD/DEITY alone/only is to be worshipped as evidenced by HIS words in the Matthew and Luke passages, why didn’t JESUS rebuke those who worshipped HIM, especially HIS disciples whom HE taught.......the truth? Again, HE, of all people, was certainly aware of the truth (as HE HIMSELF is.......THE TRUTH – John 14:6) that worship of anyone other than GOD/DEITY is considered by GOD/DEITY to be idolatry.

So why didn’t JESUS rebuke those who worshipped/worship HIM?

It truly/in truth would be idolatry to do so unless and only unless.......JESUS (THE SON) is.......GOD/DEITY.......in the flesh (just as the Apostle John testified - John 1:1), and this is the reason GOD.......THE FATHER instructed the angels to worship HIM, and the reason the wise men from the East worshipped HIM when HE was a babe, and the reason HIS disciples/students worshipped HIM in HIS adulthood, and the reason HE did not rebuke anyone who worshipped HIM. And this is the reason all believers in whom HE HIMSELF dwells worship HIM for HE has revealed to them via HIS SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, THE HOLY SPIRIT, the truth that both THE FATHER and HE, THE SON, are.......GOD/DEITY (John 17:11b).

It is ironic that “free thinking” proponents like Samuel Barrett and his supporters weren’t/aren’t “open-minded” enough to even consider JESUS as GOD/DEITY.

In reviewing Unitarian history, despite their verbalization of such (Unitarian Universalists use many SCRIPTURAL concepts and terms but with un-SCRIPTURAL meanings), it is all too clear that they did/do not believe in the PERSONal GOD of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (because they don’t believe HE is a PERSON as egk asserted in Is Molokanism Christianity?, Post #30, just as he does not believe that THE HOLY SPIRIT is a PERSON per his statements in the same post) thus cannot and do not have an intimate, personal relationship with HIM. And because they do not have an intimate, personal relationship with HIM, they cannot call HIM --- “Abba! Father!” --- “For THE SPIRIT HIMSELF bears witness with our spirit that we are children of GOD...” (Romans 8:15-16). This is evident in their search for [the] truth here, there, and everywhere --- from every source except the only source for right(eousness).......GOD HIMSELF/HIS WORD, and faith/belief in HIS word which is HIS personal testimony and revelation of HIMSELF thereby finding rest for their souls by resting in HIM/HIS word (written and INCARNATE) which is [the] truth.

Quite frankly, the reason egk, orion, the truth fellow/gal and those of their mindset continue to flounder and cannot “see” the r-e-v-e-l-a-t-i-o-n-s regarding GOD.......THE SON, is because of their unbelief in the word of GOD aka THE HOLY SCRIPTURES in which is found GOD.......THE FATHER’S personal testimony of GOD.......THE SON, GOD.......THE SON’S personal testimony of HIMSELF, as well as HIS apostles’ personal testimonies of HIM, and because of their unbelief in GOD’S word(s), they are blinded to GOD.......THE HOLY SPIRIT/THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH'S r-e-v-e-l-a-t-i-o-n of the truth regarding THE TRUTH (John 14:6).

“‘I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA,’ says THE LORD GOD, WHO is and WHO was and WHO is to come, THE ALMIGHTY.’” (Revelation 1:7-8)

“And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from GOD, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of GOD is with man. HE will dwell with them, and they will be HIS people, and GOD HIMSELF will be with them as their GOD. HE will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’

And HE WHO was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ Also HE said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And HE said to me, ‘It is done! I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his GOD and he will be MY son.’” (Revelation 21:2-7)

“’Behold, I am coming soon, bringing MY recompense with ME, to repay everyone for what he has done. I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE BEGINNING AND THE END.’” (Revelation 22:12)

The truth is, JESUS cannot be “GOD” to anyone unless HE is, in truth/truly, GOD/DEITY. If HE wasn’t, GOD’S word (written & INCARNATE) would be a lie.

There is only ONE GOD/DEITY (in three PERSONS).......THE FATHER, THE SON/WORD, THE HOLY SPIRIT, and HIM only are HIS people to worship.

In Romans 1:18-21 Apostle Paul argues that it is a moral matter that people refuse to believe in GOD; it is not a lack of proof but a lack of will/unwillingness that produces unbelief.

BTW, the teaching that GOD/DEITY conferred/confers HIS “titles” (e.g., THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA/THE BEGINNING AND THE END) is how the heretic mgr (and the myriads like him) justified to his own deluded mind his claims of being GOD/DEITY. The truth of the matter is that THE LORD.......GOD’S “titles” are descriptive designations of HIS identity --- WHO HE IS --- thus cannot be “transferred” to HIS creatures for HIS creatures are “created” beings by HIM, and can never, repeat, never, be GOD/DEITY. They may only “partake/take part in/of” HIS DIVINE nature (2 Peter 1:4b).

This is the reason THE WORD, WHO was with GOD, and WHO IS GOD/DEITY.......JESUS.......by WHOM and through WHOM all things, visible and invisible, were created (Colossians 1:16), cannot HIMSELF be a “created being/creature” as Arius postulated and propagandized, and the reason his “new” doctrine/teaching was rejected by the body of CHRIST, the church, as......heresy. Simply put, Arius was preaching “another gospel.”

RE: Credibility (lack of)

Hi Wall;

This to me is not a discussion of what I believe, for that is of no consequence here. I do not ask what others believe or try to change their beliefs. I will not discuss me or anything else pertaining to me, just what scripture says as to the topic at hand. I do not ask for anyone to explain their beliefs but only for scriptures which pertain to the subject at hand.

Thanks for giving me some scripture to study. I will look these up and see what the different translations and translators have written.

EGK (Jesus Is God, Post #35)

LK;

I really liked this and truly believe this to be correct. Too many just follow the herd and do not really read, study and think about what the bible or history teaches. For questioning and wanting to discuss what others believe in I get called a heretic and apostate and much more. I have never asked anyone to believe what I say, only to seek the truth by reading, studying and thinking. I think the real point here is, "Do we understand why we believe what we believe in?"

Thanks, God Bless

EGK (Seeker Sensitive Movement, Post #23)

On the one hand egk claims he doesn’t ask what others believe nor for them to explain their beliefs, and on the other hand he claims he does question and wants to discuss what others believe in.

For egk’s information, what he believes/thinks, says, and does is “who” he is, whenever and wherever (including this forum) --- unless, he believes/thinks one thing and says another, says one thing and does another --- in which case he would be classified by THE HOLY SCRIPTURES as double-minded aka Janus-faced aka hypocritical.

And unfortunately for him, examples of this kind of thinking (thus character traits) can be found in egk’s own words (above and below):

LTTBT

I would have to say yes, when I was younger I did follow blindly but I did also have a hunger to learn more. I expected the older dogs to have wisdom but this does not always prove true.

I do not completely accept their teachings do to the fact that when held up to the light of scripture they do not hold true.

It will be interesting who will step up to bat and to try and answer your question,"Where in the scripture does it say:"

My answer right off the top of my head would be, No it does not say this. I hope and pray their is someone who proves me wrong for all of those who believe there is.

EGK (Jesus Is God, Post #28)

I apologize to you and to all who read what I post in that I do make it more complicated than need be. This is just the way I study scripture. I enjoy tearing writings apart and trying to learn what the author was truly trying to say without all the orthodox dogma telling me what to believe it says. Please question all that I write and prove me wrong, for by doing so you will be giving me the answers I seek.

EGK (Jesus Is God, Post #6)

In his posts, and specifically in response to LTTBT above, egk has, in no uncertain terms, made known his denial thus rejection of JESUS as GOD/DEITY. He also “hedges his bets” by making it appear as though he truly desires correction and/or to be proven in error when in fact his own words prove otherwise:

On June 4 2009, 04:30 PM, Guest_BR549_* posted:

First century Jews who were present when Jesus said "I AM" were going to stone him to death, only by slipping away unseen was Jesus able to escape a premature death. Would first century Jews have killed someone who only claimed to be older than Abraham. I think they just would have thought he was crazy, they wouldn't have taken him seriously. But claiming to be God, now that would get you killed, they would have taken that very seriously. Now this is just my two cents, but this story depicts the actions of actual first century Jews, I've got to think that this sheds some light on how first century Jews understood what Christ was saying. (Jesus Is God, Post #9)

On June 5 2009, 09:17 AM, egk posted:

BR-549 just gave us all a great insightful idea to the true nature of Jesus the Christ. Sometimes it is these little things that can make you say, "Yeah, Thats It. Thank You BR-549 (Jesus Is God, Post #11, egk)

On June 9 2009, 01:24 PM, however, egk apparently forgot his response (or never truly meant it) to BR-549’s “....great insightful idea to the true nature of Jesus the Christ....,” and reverts to:

How do we get to the Father, through Jesus Christ. Jesus says here that he is the only way to God the Father. He is the most complete revelation of what God is like. To know Jesus is to know the Father. Phillip asked to see the Father, if the Father and Jesus are one and the same then why does he not tell him so? Why in the same Book of John does the author say in verse 28; "You heard me say, "I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (Is Molokanism Christianity, Post # 125, egk)

It is obvious from his questions and statements above, that egk lacks an understanding of THE TRINITY. Perhaps this is one of the reasons anakainosis posed the question “In your words can you tell us your understanding of the Trinity? Not the history, but what a trinitarian believes” (Post #50) to egk which BTW he hasn’t yet answered.

And it truly is a sad state of affairs when one must resort to pseudo- and/or anti-CHRISTian sources in one’s [stubborn] efforts to preserve one’s pride (“save face”) publicly. The same was true in the case of mitrovich who preferred to believe and trust in the doctrines/teachings of an atheist named Mark (Is Jesus Dead?, Post #28, mitrovitch – see Mark the Atheist’s web page) rather than yield and submit to the truths of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

It is equally as sad to observe the reaction of individuals who put on the façade of being open to correction, e.g., “....Please question all that I write and prove me wrong....,” and when confronted with SCRIPTURE that does just that, instead, give themselves a pity party whining and complaining of being bashed, judged, condemned, and in doing so continue to be blinded to the truth of GOD’S word:

“...the word of GOD is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from HIS sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of HIM to WHOM we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:12-13)

There is much more that can be said about the Unitarian Universalist belief system but suffice it to say that regrettably (like the seeker sensitive movement)......it isn’t THE GOOD NEWS of THE GOSPEL.

Disciple · July 19, 2009

I believe these powerful words reach to the core of the issue.

Listen Here ... Ten Shekels and a Shirt

lastinline · July 20, 2009

Excellent post from anonymous and referring to this quote, can it not be said that the type of individuals that Paul is alluding to are in open rebellion against the Word of God?

anonymous Posted Jul 5 2009, 01:31 PM
In Romans 1:18-21 Apostle Paul argues that it is a moral matter that people refuse to believe in GOD; it is not a lack of proof but a lack of will/unwillingness that produces unbelief.

I would like to add the following two verses:

Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 (a) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man NKJV

Changing the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth into a mere created being to suit their own refusal to receive the full council of the Word of God.

lastinline (& glad to help)

KevinPolyaNazaroff · June 8, 2010

“I want to be a more serious-minded Christian man, more detached from this world,

more ready for heaven than I have ever been in my whole life.

I want an ear that is sharp to know the voice of the enemy, whether it comes from religion, politics, or philosophy.

I want to know when I’m hearing the soft, soothing voice of Antichrist preparing me psychologically for a takeover.

I would rather stand and have everybody my enemy than to go along with the crowd to destruction.

Do you feel that way?”

A.W. Tozer

Seeker Sensitive Movement

Recommended Posts

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LTTBT 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Nick Shubin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

little koshka 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

anakainosis 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

coffee 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

anakainosis 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seeking_truth_1 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lastinline 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

anakainosis 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

lastinline 0

Share this post