Arminian Today

A Jesus-Centered Arminian Blog

Posts Tagged ‘True Church

A Rant on Seeker Churches

I listen to a few seeker churches on my iPhone while I drive my truck (I drive an eighteen wheeler for a living).  During long hauls I can listen to two or three sermons depending on the drive.  My wife says that I’m mad for listening to the seeker churches because they often make me cranky and I start ranting (as I’m doing here) about them.  My problems with the seeker churches are too many to post here in a blog post.  I could never willingly be a part of a seeker church for many reasons.  Doctrine is the first and foremost.  The utter lack of doctrine in seeker churches is disturbing to say the least.

I have been listening to one of the seeker churches for the entire year.  Each week their sermons come to my iPhone.  You got to love technology!  I had a friend who started attending this church about 6 years ago.  He still goes there.  He once had a fire for the Lord, was a man of prayer and holiness, and loved to share the gospel with the lost.  Those days are gone.  He is a shell of his former self now that he attends this church.  I place the blame at the feet of my friend but also at this church as well.  They have convinced my friend that evangelism is easy as inviting “the unchurched” to his church.  The church does the rest.  The entire “weekend” is designed to attract the “unchurched” and they are specific that they want the “unchurched” to come and not feel like they are at church.  I have often said that seeker churches remind me of cults in that they get you in before springing the trap and letting you know what they are about.  In this case, get the “unchurched” coming to church and then wait for a few weeks before telling them they must “receive Christ into their hearts” if they want to go deeper.  It’s like an Amway seminar.  Only worst.

The rant here today is not about the seeker church I’ve been listening to this year but a new one I picked up just this week.  I use to be friends with a youth pastor (when I was a youth pastor) and he always seemed to lean this seeker way.  I remember once taking to him about how I wanted to build a youth ministry that revolved around prayer and the Word and he laughed and said that I would never have a large ministry if that was my formula.  I followed him via social media after he moved away and watched him head down this seeker trail.  He bought into the seeker pragmatism hook, line, and sinker.  He begin to tweet a lot of seeker posts and I noticed his preaching was more and more becoming like seeker pastors I knew of.  He ultimately started a church in the Charlotte, NC area and followed the likes of seeker gurus Perry Noble and Steven Furtick.  Despite obvious doctrinal disagreements, this seeker pastor ignored that because “they are growing” and that was the bottom line.

He started his church and now he rolls out “series” sermons like Noble and Furtick complete with the works.  The stage is focused on the series.  The series is pushed though social media and social media is used during the talk.  I sent a few of his talks to Fighting For The Faith and hope they will review them.

Here is my rant.  Theology.  The seeker churches ignore theology.  I have listened to all the sermons from the one church this year and a few from this newer podcast and theology is utterly lacking.  The twisting of Scripture is bad.  For example, one of the seeker pastors preached on “Shake It Off” based on the Taylor Swift song (yes you read that right) and preached from Acts 28 where Paul “shook of the snake” and he in turn turned the snake into problems and other things that we just need to shake off.  What a poor use of Scripture!

Numbers is the focus.  That is the bottom line.  I well remember emailing a seeker pastor back in the early 2000’s and he responded back with “I run 700 people on Sunday morning.  How many do you run?  E-mail me back when you get to that number and I might listen.”  I was emailing him over his poor doctrinal preaching.  His response: pragmatism.

I remember another preacher going to hear modalist T.D. Jakes.  When I questioned him about this he responded by saying that Jakes’ church was huge and he could just feel the anointing on Jakes when he preached.  Never mind that Jakes is a modalist (the Trinity doesn’t matter much).  Never mind that Jakes is a false prosperity preacher.  Never mind that doctrine seems to not matter at all to Jakes.  Jakes’ church is big and that is enough.  Pragmatism.

A crowd does not equal the blessing of God.

I pass the Kingdom Hall’s all the time while working and I can tell you that they are packed.  It seems they are growing and I have my suspicions as to why.  The Jehovah’s Witness are no doubt a cult.  They are doctrinally wrong.  Nothing more than modern day Arians.  Yet they are growing because of the seeker churches in my estimation.  Week after week the seeker churches are packed but doctrine is not to be found.  In fact, doctrine is avoided at all costs.  It amazes me that seeker preachers often will have to point out where a book in the Bible is.  For example, when the above seeker pastor preached from Acts 28, he felt he had to point out where Acts is.  Further, his “background” to Paul and Acts 28 was horrible.  He felt he had to use “cool” language and to be funny throughout his talk to get people focused.  But at the end of the day, he taught nothing.  Nothing.  He didn’t teach false doctrines.  He taught nothing.  And this is true of every seeker sermon I have heard.  Let me repeat that:  I have never heard a seeker sermon yet that has taught me anything.  They are masters at saying nothing.

And thus cults grow.  People do want doctrine.  Contrary to what the seeker churches believe.  Doctrine does matter to folks.  In Acts 2:42 the first thing Luke records that the new disciples of Jesus did was to devote themselves to the apostles’ doctrine.  First thing listed was not “worship” or “small groups” but doctrine.  Cults come and fill the void.  The reason seeker people leave to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses or other cults is because doctrine.

After the seeker churches go off, I turn on John MacArthur and a breath of fresh air comes in.  MacArthur is the opposite of these seeker churches.  He preaches doctrine.  He preaches holiness.  He preaches the Bible and seeks to exegete the text faithfully.  Sometimes, for fun, I will listen to a seeker church and then pull up MacArthur preaching from the same text and its night and day difference.

Over the years I have been out witnessing only to run into a group of people from seeker churches.  Sometimes they will ridicule me for preaching on the streets.  Sometimes they talk to me and I try to reason with them about their “conversion” as 100% of them believe that “saying the sinner’s prayer” is how you get saved.  They are often completely ignorant of church history or theology.  They will say “I just love Jesus” but when I try to find out which Jesus they love, they don’t know.  I can often point out that the Jesus they say they love is the Jesus of their own imaginations and not the Bible.  Paul the Apostle warned about this in 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:6-9.

Am I thankful for seeker churches?  No I am not.  I truly believe that persecution is soon coming to the Christians in the United States and this will probably end the seeker church as we know it.  Most of the seeker churches will either close up or they will complete their compromising by abandoning true faith altogether in favor of the praises (and most important, the money) of men.

Sadly, many godly churches I know of feel the need to imitate these seeker churches.  I remember when Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Church led to the demise of denominational named churches.  Now we just have “Calvary Church” or “Christian Life Church” to avoid the obvious doctrinal distinctive that are there.  Now we have the cool fad among seeker churches to get the coolest name you can find for your church.  Either way, doctrine does not matter.  They would say only Jesus matters but they don’t even know if the Jesus they preach is the Jesus of the Bible.

I highly recommend you to read John MacArthur’s book Ashamed of the Gospel for a truly biblical look at the seeker church.  I pray that many saints of God will love the gospel and love the truths of the Bible (Romans 1:16; 1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 2:1).

My Critical Thoughts on New Spring

This past week we saw the resignation of Perry Noble from New Spring Church.  New Spring is the largest church in South Carolina (where I live) with over 30,000 people on various “campuses” throughout the state.  There is a church near me as I write this.  I am reluctant to call it a church but I will.

It amazed me from the start that people enjoyed Perry Noble.  I was not a fan.  When I first heard of him I took a listen to one of his “sermons” and instantly thought it was shallow, seeker sensitive and lacked biblical truth.  It was clear that Noble was not a theologian and he just proof texted his sermons.  Every single talk I heard from Noble was topical.  Noble was often shown to be a gifted speaker but I found it lacking in many ways.  Noble was more about entertaining the crowd than actually teaching the Word of God which is the duty of the elders of the Lord’s church (1 Timothy 3:2).  Paul’s admonishment in Acts 20:28-32 is worth reading and noticing that most of the seeker guys don’t come close to abiding in this.

New Spring always boasted of reaching “thousands” with the gospel.  I never heard the gospel from them.  I have listened to many, many talks from New Spring but the gospel is missing unless you mean “bow your heads and close your eyes.”  The “sinner’s prayer” is not the gospel.  Getting people to raise a hand and say a prayer is not the gospel.  Just getting people to be baptized is not the gospel.  The gospel is clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. New Spring would proclaim “833 saved in all our campuses this weekend” but the “gospel” was noting more than “bow your head, close your eyes, repeat this prayer.”

Having talked to New Spring people on the streets, I learned early on that these people didn’t have a clue about the gospel.  I would share with them the law of God to convict them of their sins and their eyes would be opened to their need to repent and believe the gospel but in my presence, none did.  They always believed they were right with God because they “said the prayer.”  When I would talk to them about repentance, they didn’t have a clue.  Noble would mention sin but repentance was often lacking in his talks.

I found that New Spring had an idolatrous view of Perry Noble.  He was their superstar.  He was their everything.  People went to hear the “kicking praise band” and the great motivational talk from Noble.  Now that Noble is gone, the void of the superstar will be seen.  I suspect that Clayton King will fill that roll.  While King seemed to be more “biblical” he still has a long way to go to be a true biblical preacher of the gospel.  King shares Noble’s pragmatism, his love of shocking “Christians” and he shares in Noble’s “sinner prayer” salvation methodology.

Having interacted with a few New Spring folks, I found the church to be shallow, prayerless, and lacking the gospel.  Sadly, I knew a few Arminian brothers who thought that New Spring was a great model for churches.  I disagreed with them publicly and was clear that I would never follow Noble nor the New Spring model.  Why not just follow the Bible instead?  Why be pragmatic and always looking for the newest, best model for drawing in money people.

For those who truly did repent because of God’s grace and mercy at New Spring, I often have prayed that they would leave and find a biblical church that is preaching the Word of God faithfully.  Noble often attacked those who loved theology and he ridiculed those who wanted to “go deeper” in their study of the Bible.  New Spring claimed to be “all about souls” and their passion, claimed Noble, was for people to be saved.  Yet week after week, Noble would rise up, give a TED talk, ask people to say a prayer and proclaim by the end of the day via Twitter how many people had “prayed to receive Christ.”

Here is my prayer for New Spring: that the elders would repent and denounce the pragmatism brought to them by their founder Perry Noble.  That Clayton King (if he is the man who takes over) would repent and preach the gospel (and not the sinner’s prayer model).  I pray that holiness would be preached and practiced.  I pray that prayer, revival, passion for the gospel, truth, and sound doctrine would reign over New Spring.  I pray the focus would not be on numbers but on pleasing the Lord.  Faithfulness to God is what matters the most in serving the King (2 Timothy 2:2).

I know these are my own thoughts and I don’t claim to speak for anyone.  I know that I am critical of New Spring and have been since I first heard of them.  When I first heard of them, I heard that people were coming to faith in Christ by the hundreds at a Baptist church in Anderson, SC.  I thought, “Wow, maybe this is a biblical church preaching the gospel.”  How sad I was when I first heard Noble give a talk.  I thought back to 2 Timothy 4:2-3 and realized that Noble was just that.  The “thousands” coming to faith in Christ were nothing more than people saying a magical prayer not found in the Bible.

May the Lord give us all a heart for His truth, to call people to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38).  Jesus alone saves by His grace alone through faith alone for His glory alone.  The crucified Christ is the one we need to preach (2 Corinthians 4:5) and not ourselves.  The Word of God must be preached for sinner’s to hear and be saved (Romans 10:17).  May the Church preach the gospel to all sinners (Luke 24:47).

Arminius on the Catholic Church (Part 2)

We continue to look at what Arminius had to say about the Roman Catholic Church and her pope.

V. God’s Vicar-General, or Universal, is one who administers all things in heaven and on earth in the name, at the command, and by the authority of God. To this individual must necessarily appertain,

(1.) A Power, inferior indeed, by reason of the dispensation, to his who appointed him, yet most closely approaching to it, and dependent on no other power than that of God. (John v, 22, 26, 27.) So that this power may, not undeservedly, be called autocratorical, possessing within itself absolute sovereignty, and pantocratorical, omnipotent or having power over all things. (John xvii, 2, 24.)

(2.) The Knowledge, as well as the Power necessary to administer all things. It cannot be less than divine; for it must be extended to all things generally, and to every thing in particular, and this in an immediate manner if we consider the internal efficacy of government. (1 Cor. xv, 27; Rev. 2 and 3; Phil. iii, 21; Gal. ii, 20.) And this Vicar of God is only Christ, to whom alone these properties belong. But the Roman Pontiff is not Christ. Therefore, he is not God’s Universal Vicar, not even in the church, because the same considerations, apply to her as to the whole universe. In the same way, the Universal Vicar of Christ will be one who pleads the cause of Christ, and who, with a power and wisdom purely divine administers all things in His name and by his authority. (John i, 6-8, 13-15.) And this is the Spirit of Christ, his advocate, the Spirit of wisdom and of the power of God, who, in the name of Christ, appoints apostles, prophets, teachers, and bishops; who leads and governs believers, but who convinces and condemns unbelievers. (Acts xx, 28; xiii, 2; Rom. viii, 14.) The Roman Pontiff is not that Spirit, nor hath he received the Spirit without measure. (Rom. xii, 3.) Neither can the Roman Pontiff, even when his conduct is most exemplary, have any other delegated power under Christ, than that which is particular; because he is not endued with the Spirit, except “according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” (Ephes. iv, 7.) And this is bestowed [on the pontiff] not with regard to Christ as a priest, (for that office does not admit of a vicar, or substitute,) but as he is king and prophet supreme, and only so far as concerns the external administration of some part of Christ’s kingdom and people, either by doctrine or by government, the internal administration in the mean time remaining entirely vested in Christ, as does also his Spirit. (1 Cor. iii, 5-23.)

VI. The Dominion Over Heaven And Earth, or over the whole church, (for these cannot be separated,) appertains by divine gift to Him alone who has said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” (Matt. xi, 27.) “All things which the Father hath, are mine.” (John xvii, 10.) “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” (Matt. xxviii, 18.) “As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him.” (John xvii, 2.) “Whom God hath set at his own right hand in the heavens, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” (Ephes. i, 21.) Who is called the beginning,” or the principle, “the first-born from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.” (Col. i, 18.) In whom the church is “complete; who is the head of all principality and power.” (Col. ii, 10.) “On whose vesture and thigh a name is written KING of Kings, and LORD of Lords.” (Rev. xix, 16.) Christ alone is thus described. But the Roman Pontiff is not Christ. The distinction of plenary power, with regard to spiritual, and temporals, is contrary both to plenitude of power and to the subordination of things spiritual and temporal; and has been fabricated on account of the defect of the capability of which the pontiff is destitute, to subject temporal things to himself, even among those nations over whom he has obtained the power in spiritual matters.

VII. The Prince of bishops, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, is one. (1 Cor. xii, 4, 5, &c.) If it were otherwise, there would be more than a single monarch and dictator in the church, when only one is requisite in a monarchical state and government; but then Duumviri, two governors, would hold the pre-eminence. His properties are these: To institute, sanctify, and set apart to the work of the ministry, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, and all bishops in the church. (Ephes. iv, 5, 6, 11-13.) To prescribe to them what they must say and do. (Matt. xxviii, 18-20.) To furnish them with necessary and sufficient gifts. (Rom. xii, 3; 2 Cor. iii, 5, 6.) To be present with them, in the power of his Spirit and grace, while engaged in the discharge of their functions. (Matt. xxviii, 20.) To give efficacy to their ministrations. (Mark xvi, 20; 1 Cor. iii, 6.) To compel them to render an account. To make a distinction between the acts and omissions of each; and, according to the different mode of their administrations, to adjudge rewards or punishments. (1 Pet. v, 4; Matt. xxv, 19-30.) And these properties belong to Christ alone. But the Roman Pontiff is not Christ. Therefore, he is not the Prince of bishops; but if he have any claim to this office, even when he behaves himself in his best manner, he cannot be called by any other name than that of a bishop, pastor, or teacher, who ought to acknowledge all bishops as his fellow elders, without any disparity of the power which belongs to the essence of the office. (1 Pet. v, 1.)

VIII. Since, therefore, the Roman Pontiff either attributes these most honourable titles of Christ to himself, or willingly suffers them to be ascribed to him; and since he evinces no horror at the blasphemy contained in these titles, and gives no tokens of his displeasure at this ascription of them; it follows, that he puts himself in the place of Christ, and is supremely opposed to Him. There is no excuse in the explanation which is given, that “the head and foundation is ministerial, and that he attributes all these things to himself under Christ, as having been elevated by the grace or favour of God and Christ to that dignity.” For the protestation is directly contrary to the fact; and he is so much the more the bitter enemy of God and Christ, as he the more confidently boasts of being defended by the authority of God and Christ. Such conduct is, in fact, under the semblance of friendship to exercise the deepest enmity, and, under the disguised pretext of a minister of light and of righteousness, to promote the interests of the kingdom of darkness and of unrighteousness. On this very account, therefore, we assert that the disparaging epithets which we laid down in our first Thesis, most justly belong to him; and this we now proceed to show by descending to particulars.

Written by The Seeking Disciple

01/21/2012 at 5:43 PM

%d bloggers like this: