I just have to ask, how can CRN and SoL have any credibility left with outrageous headlines like this one?
"Anton Szandor LaVey on the Original Emerging Church the Church of Satan"
Anton LaVey's philosophy does not mesh with emergent too well. I think the big difference is that Anton is an atheist who believes in human potential and the "Devil" to him is anything that hold back humans from freely expressing themselves as to who they our.
While the emergents believe on Jesus Christ, see the devil and a person who is not out for any one's best interest.
Note also that "Satan" is called the accuser of the brethren, and I see that the is also the father of lies... with that I would have to say the those who accuse the brethren falsely and hate their brothers and think protecting truth with lies... seem to be more in league and have more in common with Anton Levay's church than even the one that the profess...
To further this thought here is the nine Satanic statements:
The Nine Satanic Statements
from The Satanic Bible, ©1969
by
Anton Szandor LaVey
1. Satan represents indulgence instead of
abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual
pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of
hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who
deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents
vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents
responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more
often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine
spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of
all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to
physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best
friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
In contrast here is Brian McLaren's Jesus Creed.
By Brian McLaren
We have confidence in Jesus
Who healed the sick,
the blind, and the paralyzed.
And even raised the dead.
He cast out
evil powers and
Confronted corrupt leaders.
He cleansed the temple.
He favored the poor.
He turned water into wine,
Walked on water,
calmed storms.
He died for the sins of the world,
Rose from the
dead, and ascended to the Father,
Sent the Holy Spirit.
We have confidence in Jesus
Who taught in word and example,
Sign and wonder.
He preached parables of the kingdom of God
On hillsides, from boats, in
the temple, in homes,
At banquets and parties, along the road, on beaches, in towns,
By day and by night.
He taught the way of love for God and
neighbor,
For stranger and enemy, for outcast and alien.
We have confidence in Jesus,
Who called disciples, led them,
Gave them new names and new purpose
And sent them out to preach good news.
He washed their feet as a servant.
He walked with them, ate with them,
Called them friends,
Rebuked them, encouraged them,
Promised to leave and then return,
And promised to be with them always.
He taught them to pray.
He rose early to pray, stole away to desolate places,
Fasted and faced agonizing temptations,
Wept in a garden,And prayed, “Not my will but
your will be done.”
He rejoiced, he sang, he feasted, he wept.
We have confidence in Jesus,
So we follow him, learn his ways,
Seek to obey his teaching and live by his example.
We walk with him, walk in him, abide
in him, As a branch in a vine.
We have not seen him, but we love him.
His words are to us words of life eternal,
And to know him is to
know the true and living God.
We do not see him now, but we have confidence
in Jesus.
Amen.
As I see it some at CRN seem to be preaching a different version of this… and would if honest rewrite it like this.
By The Editor of CRN (as perceived)
We have no confidence in Jesus
Who healed the sick, the blind, and the paralyzed.
And even raised the dead.
This would mean that we would have to believe in the Holy Spirit and
John MacArthur says he doesn't do these things anymore.
He cast out evil powers and
Confronted corrupt leaders.
He cleansed the temple.
He favored the poor.
He turned water into wine,
Walked on water, calmed storms.
That would take too much actual thought so we will ignore all that. Why not give kindness to those who agree with me and deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!"
He died for the sins of the world,
Rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father,
Sent the Holy Spirit. But again John MacArthur says that we don't need that Holy Spirit guy... He is too charismatic and chaotic.
Having no confidence in Jesus
Who taught in word and example,
Sign and wonder.
He preached parables of the kingdom of God
On hillsides, from boats, in the temple, in homes,
At banquets and parties, along the road, on beaches, in towns, By day and by night.
He did not really show the way of love for God and neighbor,
For stranger and enemy,
for outcast and alien.
We have no confidence in Jesus,
Who called disciples, led them,
Gave them new names and new purpose
And sent them
out to preach good news.
He washed their feet as a servant.
He walked with them, ate with them,
Called them friends,
Rebuked them, encouraged them,
Promised to leave and then return,
And promised to be with them
always.
He did not teach them to pray.
He did not rise early to pray, nor stole away to desolate places,
Fasted and faced agonizing temptations,
Wept in a garden,
And prayed, “Let them slander other as long as it is for truth.”
He did not rejoice, or sing, nor feasted, he wept over the different styles and models of churches and worship.
We have no confidence in Jesus,
So we don't follow him, or learn his ways,
Seek to obey his teaching and live by his example.
Other wise we might walk with him, walk in him, abide in him,
As a branch in a vine.
We have not seen him, but we know what we like.
His words are not for us words of life eternal for we must follow rules,
And to know him is to know the true and living God and that would interfere in building our own kingdoms.
We do not see him now, but we have confidence in Jesus take us away as we are so religious and worship according to our own preferences.
Amen.
So it seems that as the editor of CRN follows the way of his master, he has more in common with the Satanic Church than the emerging church ever will or has. Ken Silva needs serious prayer.
If one wants to discuss this more go to
CRN.info's article to see what others are saying about the "editors" assertion that there is a connection. I still see more of a connection with CRN and the Satanic church as they seem to fulfill number four of the Nine Satanic Statements.
"4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on
ingrates!"
Be Blessed,
iggy
5 comments:
You must be wrong - don't you know TeamPyro has CRN as "exceptional"?!?
{caution - the above is meant to be read as sarcasm}
Of course they do! Ken and Ingrid are promoting the same Jonny Mac hate your brother by redefining as not your brother while overlooking that Jesus stated to "love you enemies" non gospel, gospel.
At least that is the rubbish I have encountered by them.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Iggy,
I feel sick. I honestly do.
What someone does, when they make accusations as large as this, is they provide a little something I like to call evidence.
Every accusation I have read on your blog lacks this. I do not mind being corrected for wrong but you should be able to do the same.
First, you accuse of doing to Tony Jones what you yourself did to John MacArthur, even worse so calling him a false teacher (what none of us did to TJ). You do not provide the evidence other than a newspaper article. You do not give him the benefit of the doubt that you would expect.
If people published something untrue of you, would you not expect people to come and ask you what the truth is?
As I would also like to ask where and when Calvin and Augustine ever taught gnostic dualism. It is funny that you ask us to provide the words "absolute truth" in the bible. I will do that when you show me both Augustine and Calvin teaching / admonishing / agreeing with "Gnostic dualism" in explicit terms, in their teaching of Christianity.
A sub-point to this was your comment on my blog: "I am not out to accuse or attack people."
I would like to point out that I have asked you this at least once before (on Tony Jones' blog) and you have yet to answer me.
Secondly on this blog
"By The Editor of CRN (as perceived)" Oh well done. You made quite a nice straw man out of that one. I could smell it burning all the way from South Africa it was so puffed up. I am so glad you qualified it as 'as perceived', but show me references that point to this and I would like to see this for myself.
Now I am not asking for his references to the emerging church. Just because he denies you does not necessarily mean he denies Christ. If he does not deny Christ then you still have an opportunity to reason with him. But to blatantly claim that he "[has] no confidence in Jesus" is not perhaps going too far?
I am trying to discover what it means to be 'emergent.' I cannot find any kind of doctrine other than of posters and comments. I think in Moore's debate he said something of vital importance: "We have met the enemy, and they are partly right."
I am not trying to say that you are the enemy. I think that there are some good things that emergents have to say (the encouragement of communities, for example). But I have to admit that both sides fail in impressing me beyond realizing that we are all human. I do not feel that we should blatantly attack somebody else's religion, you have failed to show me how an emergent is any different from the liberal I was once. And there is no way I intend to go back.
Qjay,
First welcome.
I will address your comments but realize that you are addressing about 3 different posts. I will try my best to give you “evidence” as to my accusation.
First, you accuse of doing to Tony Jones what you yourself did to John MacArthur, even worse so calling him a false teacher (what none of us did to TJ). You do not provide the evidence other than a newspaper article. You do not give him the benefit of the doubt that you would expect.
If you are referring to the article in which John MacArthur state he “does not regret” there is more to this story, here is a partial transcript from a site (I do not agree on all they say btw, but it is a transcript) http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/macarthur/trial.htm
Now about him being a false teacher this is more complicated as JM hide works in his misunderstanding of things like whose fruit one bears. Like in the “converstaion” you referred to Jim W stated very clearly:
“We are not bad trees, iggy. Our fruit isn’t bad, either. Not once we are reborn into the family of Christ. We can still produce bad fruit by failing to do what God commands us to do, but if we are following God’s commands, we will produce good fruit. Examining a person’s fruit is exactly what is commanded in John’s epistles. No matter how much you would like to deny the rest of the Bible, it still applies to us.”
Jim W. is explaining what JM teaches… Though on one hand man is totally depraved, he is not a bad tree. Jim then stated our fruit is not bad either…
Now her qualifies this by saying once we are reborn in the family of Christ, but now, (and this is the crucial point of the error taught), WE MUST PRODUCE GOOD FRUIT BY OUR OWN OBEDIENCE. Read what he states there it is a direct quote. If the bible is clear on one thing it state this.
Romans 3:10 -12 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
No one is righteous… and no one does good… Now, you might say that, “Jim is stating that when we are in Christ Jesus we can produce good fruit… and again that is not true as if we could then the bible is wrong when it states.
Galatians 3: 1-3
“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”
What Jim very accurately tried to teach me is John MacAruther doctrine straight down the line… Jim is saying that we can add our own good works through our own obedience and produce Godly fruit… and that is false teaching. Only God is Good and Jesus stated, and only a Good Tree (God) can produce good fruit… Jesus is the Good Fruit of God, and to us, Jesus is the Good Tree. He is the Vine and we are the branches.
I could go on… but lets go to point…
2. As I would also like to ask where and when Calvin and Augustine ever taught gnostic dualism. It is funny that you ask us to provide the words "absolute truth" in the bible. I will do that when you show me both Augustine and Calvin teaching / admonishing / agreeing with "Gnostic dualism" in explicit terms, in their teaching of Christianity.
As far as your reference to a question on Tony Jone’s Blog that I hve yet to answer, I have looked there for your question and have not found it… but here are a few things for you to look at and think about.
Calvin was heavily influence by Augustine who was heavily influence by Plato who taught Gnosticism…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch25.htm
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1735016.htm
These should be a good start for you to understand the connection is nto somethig I am just making up…
Note the influence of Plato on Valentinus:
“Valentinus was certainly the most overtly Christian of the Gnostic philosophers of his era. We have seen how the thought of Basilides was pervaded by a Stoicizing tendency, and how Marcion felt the need to go beyond scripture to posit an "alien" redeemer God. Valentinus, on the other hand, seems to have been informed, in his speculations, primarily by Jewish and Christian scripture and exegesis, and only secondarily by 'pagan' philosophy, particularly Platonism. This is most pronounced in his particular version of the familiar theological notion of "election" or "pre-destination," in which it is declared (following Paul in Romans 8:29) that God chose certain individuals, before the beginning of time, for salvation. Valentinus writes, in what is probably a remnant of a sermon:
From the beginning you [the "elect" or Gnostic Christians] have been immortal, and you are children of eternal life. And you wanted death to be allocated to yourselves so that you might spend it and use it up, and that death might die in you and through you. For when you nullify the world and are not yourselves annihilated, you are lord over creation and all corruption (Valentinus, Fragment F).” http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm
Now, Plato taught that man has an eternal soul, and this thought is carried into Christianity as taught in Calvinism as the “Elect” are in Christ before creation… yet the scripture states man is not immortal and that Jesus is the only immortal. (1 Timothy 6:16) and that is just one point of reference. Also, as far as the idea of the flesh as evil, it seems many Christians view this as so… if so then Jesus clothed Himself in evil and walked amongst us for He was and is God incarnate.
I could go on but let’s look at point number
3. "By The Editor of CRN (as perceived)" Oh well done. You made quite a nice straw man out of that one. I could smell it burning all the way from South Africa it was so puffed up. I am so glad you qualified it as 'as perceived', but show me references that point to this and I would like to see this for myself.
Note I did error on the link… it is the wrong link to the article… yet, Ken Silva has declared himself the “editor” though not all that post using this “editor” the “editor”.
Yet, as Ken is “The Editor” he is the one who should be responsible for accuracy.
Now I have fixed the link… and as you can see it states “by Editor” .
4. Now I am not asking for his references to the emerging church. Just because he denies you does not necessarily mean he denies Christ. If he does not deny Christ then you still have an opportunity to reason with him. But to blatantly claim that he "[has] no confidence in Jesus" is not perhaps going too far?
If a person takes upon themselves to slander and abuse and lie about others as documented many times at the CRN.info site, I would say they are placing their confidence in their own ability to do those things to protect their idea of said truth… not the “(as preceived) is how they come across… it is not (at least I hope) that they actually believe this way.
Note this post is what I have learned from my dialogs with Ken Silva and those who are under John MacArthurs influence.
http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-i-have-learned-from-my-critics.html
Also, I have written an open letter to John MacArthur of my concerns…
http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2006/12/open-letter-to-john-macarthur.html
Note John MacArthur was calling me, (as an “emergent” which is not even the proper term) a heretic before I had even knew he did not like me! : )
Note again most of this post you are commenting on here is not about John MacArthur… it is about CRN and Ken Silva. The thing I state about John MacArthur is that he is a dispensationalist who believes the gifts of the Spirit (Prophecy/Knowledge/Tongues) have ended when we received the bible… That is what I am referring to.
Blessings,
iggy
Qjay,
I might add i also "feel sick" that one would defend Ken Silva in his plain insinuation that the original "emerging church" was the church of Satan.
Also, if you do not think this was Ken, note in the post that I link to(fixed the link to) he has reference to another post which is from Ken... and note they are pretty much the same in tone and rhetoric.
I hope that the truth of this will help others not be trapped in the sickness of defending truth with lies and slander.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Post a Comment