tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post3040393541657349667..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Something You Need to ReadPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51619484896778634302010-11-09T17:46:57.901-08:002010-11-09T17:46:57.901-08:00Halo also said: “This contains a number of things ...Halo also said: “This contains a number of things I do not think are true. <br />First, Third Wave is not Pentecostal - they generally reject the central Pentecostal doctrine of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' instead emphasizing the traditional evangelical view - that all believers get baptized in the Holy Spirit at salvation.”<br /><br />Any documented reference will affirm that The Third Way is Pentecostal in nature, in other words it does not need to be identical with classical Pentecostalism but the main ideology is the same. Check out this credible source: Holiness Pentecostal Tradition-Charismatic movements in the twentieth century by Vinson Synan - 1971, 1997 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.<br /><br />Halo again: “Second, the word 'obsessed' is pejorative - one could easily put that spin on Jesus' ministry and say that He was 'obsessed with demonism' given that he was regularly casting out demons.<br />Third, saying that they see 'all sicknesses related to Satan', well in one sense is that not true? However, I suspect the author means that all sicknesses are due to supernatural demonic oppression, if that is what he means then I am not aware that John Wimber ever taught that. Again, substantiation needed.<br />Fellow Quaker, John Wimber,<br />Using phrases like this is misleading. John Wimber came out of the Quaker's, but this makes it sound like is was still a participating member.” <br /><br />The context is widely different between the time when Christ was on Earth in the 1st century, and when Wimber was active in the 20th century. So your analogy does not work. <br /><br />Wimber and Co. did not explicitly say that all sicknesses are due to demonic activity, but he and his movement acted as if it were so. Although Wimber established his own denomination, he remained a Quaker to the core. Quakers are mystics and have no problem incorporating any heresy, including those of the Pentecostals. <br /><br />Pastor Paul DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38112558786508621642010-11-09T17:28:53.732-08:002010-11-09T17:28:53.732-08:00To Katie: Thank you for your comment.
To Halo: F...To Katie: Thank you for your comment. <br /><br />To Halo: First read this great article: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/laugh.htm: <br /><br />Halo earlier said: "I do not think that John Wimber ever gave his 'blessing' to the Toronto movement, even from the very outset he did not give it his endorsement. I would like to see substantiation for this claim."<br /><br />In a 1997 article in Christianity Today, John Wimber said: <br />"Toronto was changing the definition of renewal in the Vineyard. Our decision was to withdraw endorsement; their decision was to resign. At the Vineyard, we see renewal not only of individuals but of the forms and practice of the church. For instance, when an individual is stirred by God, it will be reflected in a new attitude toward witnessing and cooperating with the work the Lord is doing in his or her life. I don't have any objection to phenomenon per se. I think Jonathan Edwards has adequately addressed the issue of phenomena in revival, and I would generally take his position. However, I think if it's fleshly and brought out by some sort of display, or promoted by somebody on stage, that's abysmal. But if God does something to somebody, that's between them and God.<br />When the Toronto thing first occurred, people were reciting 1 Corinthians 14 regarding orderliness in the service. I thought about it and wrote back saying, 'Whose orderliness?' Our current culture-adapted understanding or order, or the Holy Spirit's order?<br />When babies are born, is that orderly? It's as messy as anything. Blood all over the place. The child comes out all right, but it's not developed. It's not cultured. It's not brought into the world already mature. The norm for God moving among people is a pretty messy thing. If you go back to revival literature, you can say, Wow, that's messy." <br /><br />You can see that Wimber endorsed the movement in the beginning. His statements are sprinkled with other heresies too. <br /><br />Pastor Paul DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-482720827782198272010-11-09T17:28:25.039-08:002010-11-09T17:28:25.039-08:00Thanks so much for posting this Phil, and thank yo...Thanks so much for posting this Phil, and thank you, Pastor Paul, for researching and writing it. I appreciated your comments about pop culture and the various events of the preceding decades in the West a great deal. May the Lord richly bless you and keep you.Jeri Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04344158054147277161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65998732207213922072010-11-09T12:39:10.271-08:002010-11-09T12:39:10.271-08:0010 years ago a woman began teaching 'Centering...10 years ago a woman began teaching 'Centering Prayer' in our small church. I spent from 40 to 60 hours researching the topic, it's roots and history learning much of the information presented in this paper. Our pastor sided with the heretical teacher and eventually the church disintegrated due to this and other issues. Since then we've seen mysticism within every imaginable evangelical group or denomination (R. Warren has endorsed the practices and all things Purpose Driven are saturated with them, so even churches who may think they have their guard up against mysticism have brought the Trojan Horse in through affiliation with PDC materials). It turns my stomach, I've felt like very few are aware or or heeding the dangers. Later I read Yungen's 'A Time of Departing' which is excellent and I find this pastors paper solid. I wish the Church would hold Councils today where such heresies could be exposed and explained to the Church at large.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02742105802768625523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41481439588842587692010-11-07T18:19:07.773-08:002010-11-07T18:19:07.773-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091252260331689705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6411013745477462282010-11-07T18:18:52.168-08:002010-11-07T18:18:52.168-08:00I do not think that John Wimber ever gave his '...<i>I do not think that John Wimber ever gave his 'blessing' to the Toronto movement, even from the very outset he did not give it his endorsement. I would like to see substantiation for this claim.</i><br /><br />I'm going from memory here, but it was pretty well known that many throughout the Vineyard movement (Randy Clark, Todd Hunter, etc.) were fully on board with it. In the book <i>The Chronology of the Toronto Blessing</i>, the October 2, 1994 Sunday Telegraph quotes Wimber: “This recent happening … is as intense as anything we’ve seen, but much more pervasive and rapid. I see it as a quickening – an<br />awakening in the heart of the Church.” Wimber was later quoted in Christianity Today: "Nearly everything we’ve seen, falling, weeping, laughing, shaking – has been seen before, not only in our own memory, but in revivals all over the world."<br /><br />While is true that the Vineyard later disfellowshipped the Airport Vineyard, but that was only after the Airport Vineyard began to stray into the realm of animal sounds and other behavior that could not be tolerated, even by the Vineyard.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091252260331689705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57032979448120167182010-11-07T06:28:07.916-08:002010-11-07T06:28:07.916-08:00As a continuationist, I think a sound warning abou...As a continuationist, I think a sound warning about contemplative prayer/mysticism is very much needed.<br /><br />However, I did think there were a few things in the essay that were factually inaccurate:<br /><br /><i> the Toronto Blessing was a recurrence of the early Quaker “performance”, and received the blessing of John Wimber, the Quaker. Later, pressured by the media to explain the grotesque <br />manifestations of Toronto Blessing, Wimber retracted his endorsement.</i><br /><br />I do not think that John Wimber ever gave his 'blessing' to the Toronto movement, even from the very outset he did not give it his endorsement. I would like to see substantiation for this claim.<br /><br /><i>Wimber ... fathered a <br />heresy called the Third Wave which is extreme Pentecostalism obsessed with demonism. <br />They have a fixation with exorcism wanting to implement it not only for people but <br />geographical regions and whole countries. They see all sicknesses related to Satan...</i><br /><br />This contains a number of things I do not think are true. <br /><br />First, Third Wave is not Pentecostal - they generally reject the central Pentecostal doctrine of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' instead emphasizing the traditional evangelical view - that all believers get baptized in the Holy Spirit at salvation. <br /><br />Second, the word 'obsessed' is pejorative - one could easily put that spin on Jesus' ministry and say that He was 'obsessed with demonism' given that he was regularly casting out demons.<br /><br />Third, saying that they see 'all sicknesses related to Satan', well in one sense is that not true? However, I suspect the author means that all sicknesses are due to supernatural demonic oppression, if that is what he means then I am not aware that John Wimber ever taught that. Again, substantiation needed.<br /><br /><i>Fellow Quaker, John Wimber</i><br /><br />Using phrases like this is misleading. John Wimber came out of the Quaker's, but this makes it sound like is was still a participating member.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39631615501279711692010-11-07T01:21:32.982-08:002010-11-07T01:21:32.982-08:00Part Two:
A reply to Allen Peek: when ministers ...Part Two: <br /><br />A reply to Allen Peek: when ministers in your church preach the Word faithfully, but MIX IT with quotations from mystics, what they do is called “adulterating the Word of God” 2 Cor. 2:17, which is a clear violation of the purity of the Scriptures. You don’t see this practice in Dr. MacArthur’s church. When heretics are mentioned by Dr. MacArthur, it is done in a critical way. Let me review the flow of the text of my essay, and then please refer them to my blog. I make a subjective prediction: they will not change, and you need to leave. <br /><br />In relation to the statement which Rachel made that “Phil's endorsement was unqualified” concerning my essay, I respectfully disagree. The work I did contains comprehensive treatment of neoplatonic philosophy, which is the foundation for contemporary mysticism. Let me just say that neoplatonism is not the simplest philosophy to deal with, and besides, it is occult in nature. So this is the sin of mysticism: it is occult. <br />The essay contains extensive research on Quakerism, revealing who Richard Foster is: a Quaker, the high priest of American mysticism. I also dealt at length with the essential aspect of the role of the mind in connection to mysticism, contrasting the mind of Christ (based on the Scriptures) with the mystical mind. This instance and several others, prove that there is Biblical backing of the essay. I have to stop here because it is a long answer. <br /><br />Thank you all for your patience, and for the challenges. This will help me refine my work even more, for better results. <br /><br />Soli Deo Gloria, <br />Pastor Paul DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1861740370330165752010-11-07T01:19:24.871-08:002010-11-07T01:19:24.871-08:00Dear brothers and sisters,
I wanted to keep my p...Dear brothers and sisters, <br /><br />I wanted to keep my promise and not enter the arena of discussions, but I felt compelled to do it, given the fact that there are some new developments that need to be addressed. I put my reply in two posts since blogger limits the number of characters. <br /><br />Why Pop Culture leads to Mysticism: <br /><br />First I’d like to bring before all of you the issue of pop culture, and why it is part of my argument in relation to mysticism. I did my research, and if you take a closer look at the American history since the 1900s, you will see that after WWI, a mega shift takes place in the American society through what is known as the Roaring Twenties. The Roaring Twenties is the revolt of most of the youth, and especially young ladies, against Christian morals. Public drinking, smoking, blatant immorality, and speakeasies were the norm of the day. <br />The people who brought about this social decadence were the French fashion designers like Coco Chanel and Paul Poiret (whose ideas were brought by American nurses coming home from Europe after WWI) On the other hand, the psychological concepts of sexual pervert Sigmund Freud gave a “scientific” legitimacy to immorality. Nevertheless, the feminist movement had its contribution. <br />The Great Depression and WWII did not erase the decadence, and after WWII wicked people like Alfred Kinsey, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, prepared America for the sexual/hippie revolution. If in the 1920s, the youth rejected Christian morals, in the 60s and 70s, they rejected Christian dogma, embracing Hinduism and other Eastern religions. Mass media became the master manipulator, gradually injecting superficiality, immodesty, occultism, violence, obsession with sex, and so on, in the mind of the average American. The church at large gradually caved in and combined Christianity and this type of neopaganism (although the term has a different meaning). America, after WWII, is America created by the mass media, not America created by the Founding Fathers and the Christian heritage before WWII. <br />Let me give you an example in relation to the evangelistic crusades. D.L. Moody held big crusades in Chicago relative to that era, but the music of the day- ragtime music- did not make it into the church or the crusades to attract people. The Harvest Crusades and Greg Laurie employ the music of our day through groups like Skillet, whose band leader makes Satanic gestures on stage. Ephesians 4:18 says “having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God.” Pop culture is a clear alienation from the life of God. Do we dare to look at the statistics to see where we, as an Evangelical church, stand? The greatest fallacy among Evangelicals in the United States is that combining pop culture and Biblical Christianity, will somehow work. God is not mocked. It doesn’t work. The result is incredible emptiness which drives people to look for spirituality in other places, because this mix of Christianity and pop culture fails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74898695046012218572010-11-06T23:16:51.727-07:002010-11-06T23:16:51.727-07:00Oh man! What in the world happened with my post?
...Oh man! What in the world happened with my post?<br /><br />I tried to post and it wouldn't go through...but it appears that it did multiple times.<br /><br />Can someone please remove my other two unneccessary posts?<br /><br />DOH!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38240635768523197942010-11-06T21:52:13.435-07:002010-11-06T21:52:13.435-07:00Allenpeak:
What Rose said.
Watch, wait...and pra...Allenpeak:<br /><br />What Rose said.<br /><br />Watch, wait...and pray. Pray for them to see the error of their ways, and pray for God to guide you in the way you should walk.<br /><br />That the elders gave you an opportunity to air your concerns is admirable—as is the weekly preaching of the Gospel—but the utter lack of concern in their response is troubling.<br /><br />This is when error is the most seductive: when it is the verisimilitude of the truth. Even Thomas Merton and Mother Theresa said things that are true—but that doesn't negate the error underlying their beliefs.<br /><br />(I've been so dominating this comment thread, that I must apologize for not replying to you earlier: but I didn't feel qualified to respond to your particular situation. Rose answered better than I could.)Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51985543920910711902010-11-06T20:42:57.879-07:002010-11-06T20:42:57.879-07:00Allenpeak:
Did they ever hear of the church at La...Allenpeak:<br /><br />Did they ever hear of the church at Laodicea?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091252260331689705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89007325275917872652010-11-06T18:44:42.009-07:002010-11-06T18:44:42.009-07:00allenpeak,
I can't see where anyone replie...allenpeak, <br /> <br />I can't see where anyone replied to you...so I will give it a try. What you explain about your church leaders troubles me, too. You did the right thing to confront them. I can't say that it is necessarily time to leave that fellowship, but I would certainly have my guard up and be alert for any further drift in the contemplative direction. If that is the way they are intending to go eventually, you will know it! Thankfully, you are informed about contemplative and know what to watch for. This situation you describe is a red flag though so you are right to be concerned. I don't buy their argument that it doesn't matter if they quote apostates as long as what they said was the truth. The leaders are, in effect, training the congregation to trust those individuals as acceptable sources for truth...and that IS a problem IMHO. <br /><br />I left my church of 28 years because of their slide into the seeker-sensitive movement. When it was time to leave, I knew it immediately and had no misgivings about it. I felt compelled to go. God led me out of there. If you are to leave, God will make it very plain and you will be at peace with that decision. <br /><br />Wishing the best!<br /><br />RoseRosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14331931334141702549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51628550645035439852010-11-06T17:21:57.092-07:002010-11-06T17:21:57.092-07:00...Likewise for (for example) seminary professors ......Likewise for (for example) seminary professors (or even bloggers!), whose whole lives revolve around teaching and defending elaborately constructed systematic theologies, that can turn into houses of cards. There is a disconnect between what they know in their heads and how they relate to God in their hearts, and so they are vulnerable to the allure of doctrines and practices that can seduce them away from the Spirit-breathed Word of God. We can all think of famous theologians and professors who appear(ed) to be orthodox, and yet who have some very strange ideas, or have become ensnared in teachings that range from the merely misguided to the completely false.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26554755588482879572010-11-06T17:15:16.563-07:002010-11-06T17:15:16.563-07:00Rachael, you raise a lot of good points.
* The se...Rachael, you raise a lot of good points.<br /><br />* The sense I got about Pastor Dan's critique of pop culture was that we're looking for the spiritual "quick fix," rather than doing the hard work of day-to-day "practical holiness." I've certainly been guilty of that.<br /><br />* But another point that you and I raised yesterday, independently of each other, bears examination, too: if our churches are giving us fluff and not enough substance, then there is going to be a feeling that there's got to be "something more" out there. The search for genuine transcendent experience is going to lead people to places that might range anywhere from small-o orthodox, to totally off the reservation.<br /><br />* And, a couple of points you raised today are also important. We were made for a <i>supernatural</i> relationship with God. The very fact that we believe is, according to the Bible, because we have been born again in the Spirit. Our relationship to God is supernatural to its very core.<br /><br />...But if we practice a form of religion that's all head and no heart, all Word and no Spirit; that downplays the supernatural and empirical aspects of Christianity to such a point that they are denied altogether, and reduces the indwelling Holy Spirit to a philosophical proposition...then there are going to be Christians who turn to the Emergent Church, or Mysticism, or Charismaticism, and be seduced by something that's filling the vacuum that they're not getting in their own churches.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15963675560990005392010-11-06T16:53:43.310-07:002010-11-06T16:53:43.310-07:00mennoknight,
Now that we're moving on to the ...mennoknight,<br /><br />Now that we're moving on to the <i>substance</i> of Pastor Dan's argument :) -<br /><br /><i>I find that a lot of "cult expose" writing does a lot of history, but not a lot of comprehensive biblical exegesis to clearly show how it's an attack upon the truth of scripture.</i><br /><br />I had several other questions in connection with that:<br /><br />- What <i>is</i> the truth of Scripture as it relates to the genuinely supernatural, vs. sinfully mystical? (This presumes those terms have been carefully defined.) Genesis 3 indicates we were created for face to face fellowship with the LORD God, who is Spirit. Romans 8 says that we are children of God if His Spirit dwells within us. The act of regeneration is a miraculous, divinely-initiated act. Our ability to pursue, love, respond to the truth of God's Word, is divinely initiated and enabled. The very act of the immortal, invisible God, speaking to mortal, physical man, in <i>any</i> way is supernatural.<br /><br />- Given that this movement is not new, what is the <i>current</i> cause for this renewed interest in mysticism? Pastor Dan seems to argue that it's pop culture. That is, IMHO, a pretty big leap of logic.<br /><br />- What is the <i>answer</i> to this latest resurgence, specifically? Pastor Dan's premise (built on the earlier one that pop culture is the problem), is the expected: holiness, in the forms of repenting of various sins, dressing right and turning off the T.V.<br /><br />-Would a better answer to the <i>cause</i> of the problem be that, in typical fashion, Satan is working to take a truth about God (that He is Spirit, that we were created for transcendent fellowship with Him, that His Word is spiritual life and food), and <i>twisting</i> it (fellowship with God is mediated through candles and mantras etc., rather than through Christ and His Word, prayer, the Lord's Supper)<br /><br />- Might another, equally dangerous, twisting of this truth about God be that our faith is purely intellectual, that emotions like love for God and joy in God must be tempered/ distrusted, that God's Word is a devotional book of helpful thoughts for living in the here and now? Might we ourselves be guilty of these attitudes? Might any of our pastors be guilty of preaching sermons full of dead law, without life-giving gospel? <br /><br />-Might a <i>different</i> solution be preaching and worship that rejects both of these distortions by proclaiming God's Word in a way that shows it is the way to God, the truth about God, the life in God?<br /><br />-If people began to see God's Word that way, what would be the results, personally and corporately?Rachael Starkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781158372237369417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21254184133258657762010-11-06T16:49:09.655-07:002010-11-06T16:49:09.655-07:00I do hope Pastor Dan will have his thesis looked a...I do hope Pastor Dan will have his thesis looked at as suggested above - it deserves a wider reading.<br />Rachael, can you help?Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360291442816875926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76891518289311244262010-11-06T16:06:49.062-07:002010-11-06T16:06:49.062-07:00Mennoknight:
You make a good point, especially be...Mennoknight:<br /><br />You make a good point, especially because there really can be a very fine line between godly prayer and biblical meditation, and something that veers into what we would call "contemplative spirituality."<br /><br />For example, the Jesus Prayer lies at the heart of much Eastern Orthodox contemplative practice: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."<br /><br />The prayer itself is actually quite biblical, quite proper, and has the added advantage of being short, simple, and to the point. And prayed consciously as a prayer, seems to quite a legitimate prayer.<br /><br />But it is the way in which the prayer is used in contemplative spirituality, that is the problem—as a mantra, as a "breath prayer," to obtain a "higher" state of consciousness, to be repeated hundreds of times for the sake of a supernatural experience, rather than for the sake of confessing one's sinfulness before God.<br /><br />So we need to bring scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 2, Colossians 2, or Matthew 6 to bear, to tease apart the legitimate from the counterfeit.<br /><br />So too with things you mentioned like Mormonism—or the Jehovah's Witnesses. On the <i>surface,</i> they certainly <i>appear</i> to worship the same God as us, and they certainly <i>appear</i> to hold the same Bible in high regard as we hold in high regard. It's only when you start digging below the surface that you start to see the differences: some subtle and some fundamental.<br /><br />...And so too with open theism, higher criticism, mainline liberal theology, and so on!Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47506458254149137592010-11-06T15:45:56.870-07:002010-11-06T15:45:56.870-07:00Well, as the original critic, here's where I w...Well, as the original critic, here's where I was coming from:<br /><br />I have eleven years of experience in helping technically-oriented groups communicate with business groups more effectively. A large part of my time is spent helping these brilliant technologists eliminate sources of "friction" in their communication - poor syntax, poor structure and argument flow, hyperbole, poor hygiene - things that will push your audience away from your goal, instead of draw them toward it.<br /><br />The people I work with are unregenerate; few have anything like a Proverbs 15 attitude about their frustrated superiors paying me to do something <i>they</i> see as inconsequential. When the response from their audience goes from outright offense to signing a big check, they see that sometimes working on "soft skills", like how you present your material, matters.<br /><br />This situation was different, issues of the kingdom being of far great value than bits and bytes. Almost all readers here read our Pyro brothers’ blog posts with an expectant, and critical eye; it seemed logical that we would do the same with an even lengthier work of greater import. Phil's endorsement was unqualified. His own credentials in this area are greater than mine. But my own, different but related, experience led me to a different conclusion I felt had to be offered, again, in the spirit of Proverbs 15.<br /><br />I was taking into consideration not just this audience (many of whom, in my line of work, would be called "insider adovcates" - already in total agreement with a particular view, helpful in persuading others, but biased against reasonable questions or criticisms of their position), but other audiences as well:<br /><br />neutral audiences - unaware or unsure of the issue,<br /><br />passively dissenting audiences - those who are currently dabbling in these practices and are unsure of their appropriateness<br /><br />actively dissenting audiences - those actively advocating for the relevance or necessity of these practices<br /><br />Then there's the question of the scholarly level of the audience - university-level theologian, pastor, well-read layperson, poorly-read layperson, etc.<br /><br />My experience led me to believe that, in its current form, this piece does not yet achieve Pastor Dan’s goal. Now that I have read the piece more fully, I still stand by that assessment, and not just for stylistic reasons – I’d offer the others, but this comment is too long already! The digital format is a non-issue; the content and the way it’s organized are.<br /><br />Like Aaron Snell and the others who’ve been critical, my goal is helpful, productive encouragement. I acknowledge that, for this audience, I didn’t initially achieve that goal. Given the way I may have not heeded my own counsel at first, feel free to take my comments at the same cost as we were charge for our brother's efforts. :)Rachael Starkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781158372237369417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58807894408142858062010-11-06T15:42:39.460-07:002010-11-06T15:42:39.460-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rachael Starkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781158372237369417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25857264197169970312010-11-06T15:40:16.741-07:002010-11-06T15:40:16.741-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rachael Starkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781158372237369417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6744632574177698332010-11-06T14:14:33.191-07:002010-11-06T14:14:33.191-07:00Now that I've scolded those who complain about...Now that I've scolded those who complain about the quality level of free e-books, I'll add something that's a general criticism that I would hope would be taken as an effort to positively refine things.<br /><br />When I read some people's engagement of the contemplative prayer movement, or Mormonism, or any cultic group, I tend to see a whole lot of the following:<br /><br />1. This movement was started by people who were cultists.<br /><br />2. This movement is currently being propogated by cultists.<br /><br />3. Therefore, the beliefs of this movement are cultic.<br /><br />4. Here's 2 verses to prove it.<br /><br />I agree that such arguing is historically informative, and defintiely helpful in understanding the roots of a movement, but it's not ultimately that helpful in combatting a movement.<br /><br />It's one thing to establish that a belief is cultic. It's another thing to establish that a belief is SINFUL. What I mean is that something isn't wrong because it's cultic; something is wrong because it's contra scripture.<br /><br />I find that a lot of "cult expose" writing does a lot of history, but not a lot of comprehensive biblical exegesis to clearly show how it's an attack upon the truth of scripture.<br /><br />To be clear, Pastor Dan provided some great exegetical work, but I was still left with some questions about why contemplative prayer (and the associated ideas) is actually sin, or how exactly someone would repent of it (what do you stop doing and START doing).<br /><br />Just some thoughts from a quick initial read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75286822091834249462010-11-06T14:13:11.292-07:002010-11-06T14:13:11.292-07:00Now that I've scolded those who complain about...Now that I've scolded those who complain about the quality level of free e-books, I'll add something that's a general criticism that I would hope would be taken as an effort to positively refine things.<br /><br />When I read some people's engagement of the contemplative prayer movement, or Mormonism, or any cultic group, I tend to see a whole lot of the following:<br /><br />1. This movement was started by people who were cultists.<br /><br />2. This movement is currently being propogated by cultists.<br /><br />3. Therefore, the beliefs of this movement are cultic.<br /><br />4. Here's 2 verses to prove it.<br /><br />I agree that such arguing is historically informative, and defintiely helpful in understanding the roots of a movement, but it's not ultimately that helpful in combatting a movement.<br /><br />The reason for this is threefold:<br /><br />A. Many modern proponents of a cultic movement are unaware of the cultic origins of their movement and either don't know or outrightly deny the cultic beliefs of their movement, at least in the specific way that the founders did.<br /><br />The shifts in theology of the modern LDS church would be an example of this, for those who are aware of such things.<br /><br />B. Beliefs of cultic groups can and often do change and evolve over time, and some movements looked amazingly different than when they started. The "historic cultists" argument is often rightly tossed aside as a genetic fallacy.<br /><br />For example, I'm an Anabaptist. Conrad Grebel and other early Anabaptists were unquestionably CRAZY in some areas and had some rather unbiblical beliefs. I'm NOT Conrad Grebel or the early Anabaptists.<br /><br />C. The scripture penetrates the heart, not history or philosophy. Much of what we write against cultic groups betrays that belief.<br /><br />It's one thing to establish that a belief is cultic. It's another thing to establish that a belief is SINFUL. What I mean is that something isn't wrong because it's cultic; something is wrong because it's contra scripture.<br /><br />I find that a lot of "cult expose" writing does a lot of history, but not a lot of comprehensive biblical exegesis to clearly show how it's an attack upon the truth of scripture.<br /><br />To be clear, Pastor Dan provided some great exegetical work, but I was still left with some questions about why contemplative prayer (and the associated ideas) is actually sin, or how exactly someone would repent of it (what do you stop doing and START doing).<br /><br />Just some thoughts from a quick initial read.<br /><br />Sorry if I've been too verbose...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60919671917193465082010-11-06T14:11:59.219-07:002010-11-06T14:11:59.219-07:00Now that I've scolded those who complain about...Now that I've scolded those who complain about the quality level of free e-books, I'll add something that's a general criticism that I would hope would be taken as an effort to positively refine things.<br /><br />When I read some people's engagement of the contemplative prayer movement, or Mormonism, or any cultic group, I tend to see a whole lot of the following:<br /><br />1. This movement was started by people who were cultists.<br /><br />2. This movement is currently being propogated by cultists.<br /><br />3. Therefore, the beliefs of this movement are cultic.<br /><br />4. Here's 2 verses to prove it.<br /><br />I agree that such arguing is historically informative, and defintiely helpful in understanding the roots of a movement, but it's not ultimately that helpful in combatting a movement.<br /><br />The reason for this is threefold:<br /><br />A. Many modern proponents of a cultic movement are unaware of the cultic origins of their movement and either don't know or outrightly deny the cultic beliefs of their movement, at least in the specific way that the founders did.<br /><br />The shifts in theology of the modern LDS church would be an example of this, for those who are aware of such things.<br /><br />B. Beliefs of cultic groups can and often do change and evolve over time, and some movements looked amazingly different than when they started. The "historic cultists" argument is often rightly tossed aside as a genetic fallacy.<br /><br />For example, I'm an Anabaptist. Conrad Grebel and other early Anabaptists were unquestionably CRAZY in some areas and had some rather unbiblical beliefs. I'm NOT Conrad Grebel or the early Anabaptists.<br /><br />C. The scripture penetrates the heart, not history or philosophy. Much of what we write against cultic groups betrays that belief.<br /><br />It's one thing to establish that a belief is cultic. It's another thing to establish that a belief is SINFUL. What I mean is that something isn't wrong because it's cultic; something is wrong because it's contra scripture.<br /><br />I find that a lot of "cult expose" writing does a lot of history, but not a lot of comprehensive biblical exegesis to clearly show how it's an attack upon the truth of scripture.<br /><br />To be clear, Pastor Dan provided some great exegetical work, but I was still left with some questions about why contemplative prayer (and the associated ideas) is actually sin, or how exactly someone would repent of it (what do you stop doing and START doing).<br /><br />Just some thoughts from a quick initial read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89526831015149767702010-11-06T13:54:49.051-07:002010-11-06T13:54:49.051-07:00A friend sent me this quote yesterday (he has writ...A friend sent me this quote yesterday (he has written extensively on the topic of mysticism and how it is infusing even the scientific community):<br /><br /><i>How can mystics and technocrats,<br />so long at odds in their vision of the universe,<br />find a common path to the future? …<br />Mystics must give up their insistence<br />on the empirical truth of their metaphysics,<br />and technocrats must stop denying the truth<br />of anything that cannot be proven empirically,<br />for both the mystical experience and technology transcend religious and cultural differences.<br />And it is the transcendent quality of each<br />that will allow them to merge in the<br />‘conscious technology’ of the future.<br />—Jerome Glenn, futurist and author of Future Mind</i><br /><br />For those who love footnotes, the quote above appears in the September-November 2008 Shift: At the Frontiers of ConsciousnessJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02091252260331689705noreply@blogger.com