Founder of SATS debunks Brian McLaren heresy

Dr. Christopher Peppler

Dr. Christopher Peppler wrote a very thought provoking, yet straight analysis of Brian McLaren's heretical book "A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith."

Dr. Peppler takes each of the ten questions that McLaren posed in his book and analyses them for truth and clarity. Peppler shows that while McLaren may have clarity in certain cases, that clarity has nothing to do with Scriptural truth, or at least does not contain the primary nature of the truth of the Scriptures and the gospel. In this blog post by Dr. Peppler, it is also shown how McLaren sets up straw men, just to knock down what does not exist!

In his conclusion, Dr. Peppler writes:

"It is good to ask questions and to seek deep and satisfying answers. It is reasonable to agonise over a Christianity that has so often presented itself as harsh, loveless, and power mad. It is evidence of a tender heart to wonder how a loving God could consign the bulk of humanity to eternal conscious torment. But, it is neither good or reasonable to attempt to recast the biblical narrative, redefine the nature of the Bible, and reformulate the principles of interpretation in order to create answers that the seeker finds acceptable. This is what I think Brian has attempted to do."

To read Dr. Peppler's accurate assessment of McLaren's book read his blog post here.

Benny Hinn's wife files for divorce

Trouble in paradise! Suzanne Hinn filed for divorce in Orange County Superior Court on February 1, citing irreconcilable differences. They have been married for more than 30 years. They separated on 26 January 2010.

Where can this story be found?

USA Today

LA Times

Huffington Post

In a related post for South Africa see Pastor Ray McCauley to divorce... again!

Brian McLaren's A New Kind of 'Heretical' Christianity

I am not going to give a review of Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Reforming the Faith. The problem is not that these ten questions are actually reforming the faith, but that Brian McLaren is doing his darndest to transform the faith into the faith he has concocted in his own mind. The reason I will not be giving a review is that I have enough books to read already.

Anyway, Kevin DeYoung has started a multi-part review of the book with a blog post called Christianity and McLarenism. DeYoung writes:

Pastor Ray McCauley to divorce... again!

I reported back in January 2008 that Ray McCauley and his trophy wife headed for a divorce. Although it did not happen then, it certainly seems like it is going to happen now. Before continuing this post, it would be good to read my January 2008 post first. I still stand by what I said there, so I am not going to say it again.

In my previous post on this issue with McCauley I dealt with the divorce issue. This time I would like to deal with the qualifications of an elder and how they apply to McCauley. I will probably get flack for this, but it needs to be said. It is time for Ray McCauley to resign as pastor!

1 Tim 3:1-7 spell out the qualifications of an elder (pastor) in the church. Verse 2 says: "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach." Zelda McCauley is Ray's second wife, having sent his first wife, Lyndie, packing through divorce. Ray McCauley is clearly in violation of the qualifications for a pastor spelt out in 1 Tim 3.

In my previous post on the matter I dealt with divorce and what I believe is a Biblical divorce. Which means..., having divorced from Lyndie and marrying Zelda he was no longer a "one-woman man!" He therefore is in violation of Biblical principles on divorce and pastor's qualifications, and if he is a man of integrity, he should resign as pastor of Rhema Biblie Church in Randburg.

Liberal theology: the lie

Phil Johnson has written a short series on The Lie of "Liberal" Theology. There is nothing new about liberal theology. It was around in Jesus' time and so is it now.

Read Phil's posts here:
Part 1
Part 2

Musings on the life and death of Oral Roberts

See what was written by Al Mohler and Fred Butler.

How can we eulogize heresy? How can we eulogize the one that preaches heresy?

Updates: (here are some more)
David A. Porter.
John MacArthur
Ted Olsen

Fraudulent gospel of the prosperity preachers – new series by John MacArthur

I have now for years decried the false gospel of the prosperity preachers. People like Kenneth & Gloria Copeland, Jerry Savelle, Paul & Jan Crouch, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyer, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar and many more. To find out about the heresy taught by these people, read my blog series written in 2005, Heresies in the church.

John MacArthur has started a new series of blog posts, with the first post on 6 Dec 2009, highlighting the fraud of these heresy preachers. This series may just become a new call to Reformation in the church.

Read the first two blog posts:
A Colossal Fraud
Unholy Trinity

Churches, by being quiet about the wolves in sheep clothing in our midst, are doing a great disservice to the body of Christ.

Stand up and be part of the New Reformation!
Back to the true gospel!

For whom the Bell tolls, it tolls for 'evanjellycals'

Evanjellycals, they are everywhere. With men like Rob Bell around, the bell is really tolling for 'evanjellycals.' The term 'evangelical' has completely lost its meaning, and Mr. Bell is not helping the situation at all. Phil Johnson has written a short commentary on Bell's latest interview with The Boston Globe, and well, it seems Mr. Bell is a real evanjellycal clown comedian!

Brian McLaren Unmasked

The church is currently standing on the edge of a precipice, and in spite of the dangers it faces, it still listens to teachers of false doctrines and heretics, as if they are brothers of the gospel.

The church has indeed lost its core beliefs, and indeed does not believe that they are that important. If the church believed that its core doctrines were really important, it would have stood its ground against the heretics and false teachers of our day.

James McDonald tackles McLaren in a blog post:

"I do not view Brian as an ‘erring weaker brother,’ worthy of sympathy or olive branches, but rather as a dangerous false teacher who repackages mainline liberal theology. (Have the past 50 years not been adequate to see how liberal theology empties churches and damns souls?)

"More dangerous still is that McLaren packages his false teaching and denials of Scripture as  solutions to some of the excesses currently plaguing evangelicalism—the danger being his winning over of young people who have legitimate complaints about the current church, but who lack the discernment to see that his solutions are often unbiblical even when his critiques are fair."

Read McDonald's post, "The Public Rebuke of False Teachers."

Zuma's visit to Rhema Church

What does Ray McCauley of Rhema Church, South Africa, do when the son of the devil (Jn 8:44) visits his church?

He gives him an opportunity to speak to his flock!

Do you think I am joking? Well, in a sense I am. Yet, it is a serious joke. It is one of life's dilemmas.

McCauley invited Jacob Zuma to speak at his church, during a church service, from the pulpit.

Zuma, being the president of the ANC stands antithetically opposed to everything that Scripture proclaims.

Without making this a political post, such as I have at my other blog (BiblioPolit), it sometimes becomes necessary to touch on the issue when the church becomes involved.

In this case, this post is a simple commentary on the state of the church.

Now, we all know that under the leadership of the ANC, abortion on demand has been legalised, and so has pornography, same-sex marriage and more.

Further, Zuma has 4 wives, had sex with a young woman outside of marriage, and stands on almost 300 corruption charges before the courts.

What his spiritual condition is, I do not know, but I do know that the Bible said that we would know God's disciples by their fruits. Zuma's fruits are completely contrary to the Christian life!

The Bible is clear, "in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (1 Tim 4:1).

Does McCauley even realise that he has allowed the doctrine of demons to fill his pulpit? This is one of McCauley's biggest blunders, maybe as much or greater than when he divorced his wife Lindie and marrying his current wife within months of his divorce. Of course, this move (divorce) disqualified him from being an elder/pastor in the church and in the process he also committed adultery.

As a result, for McCauley to invite Zuma to his pulpit is a slap in the face of God's truly wonderful gospel! The pulpit (speaking metaphorically) is for the preaching of the gospel. To make it the point of proclamation for the evil one is indeed sacrilegious!

Moreover, McCauley called Zuma his brother. The lack of discernment with McCauley simply has no end!

Allowing Zuma to speak in his pulpit, McCauley has shaken his fist at God and mocked Him, telling Him that the gospel is not the only message that should be preach to the Christian church! And, we know that God will not be mocked!

While there are Christian parties like the ACDP and the CDA, McCauley felt it more convenient to invite the ungodly into his pulpit. Maybe this would keep the tithes and offering plates full!

The problem with this move by McCauley, is that it can be interpreted by his congregants, and many other "christians" across South Africa, that the ANC is a possible alternative of parties for Christians to vote for in the South African elections come April 22.

All that McCauley did was to confuse his congregants. Especially in an age where truth has been relativised. With the church's condition as it is, and its lack of knowledge of a solid Biblical worldview, this spells problems for the people of that church and others around the country.

My call to Ray McCauley in this Zuma case would be:

Repent Ray!
And make a public statement to that effect.

Evangelism Highjacked by Closet Theological Liberals

Peter Jones reports back on the National Pastor’s Conference held in San Diego and sponsored by Zondervan and Intervarsity Press (IVP).

Jones writes:

“It is amazing to see how these once faithful publishers of evangelical orthodoxy are now consistently and deliberately launching a massive but subtle attack against the ‘Fundamentals’ for which Evangelicalism stood courageously against liberalism in the past.

“While I am struck by the sincerity of the brilliant public speakers (named below), who still have evangelical piety and passion, their openly-stated theology is turning large swathes of the evangelical church into various new forms of old-fashioned though very cool liberalism.”

In his report he mentions how men like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, speakers at the conference claimed non-orthodox theologians as their heroes. No wonder they believe sola scriptura is nonsense and that the Bible is simply a human product.

In other words, these men are not just closet theological theologians, they are actively spreading false doctrines. These men are heretics!

Continue reading Jones’ Evangelism Highjacked by Closet Theological Liberals.

“The Shack”: What shall we say about it?

Whenever people tell me they read a lot, I always try to find out what they read. What a person reads tells me a lot about them. Obviously, why a person reads what they read is also a dead give away. However, when there is a discernable pattern in the types of books read, then you can discover a lot about people. Further, a person's favourite authors also reveal a lot about that person.

Books are seldom just books. Most books, even novels, have a point to make. So, a book is hardly ever just for entertainment. Even these types of books, under further analysis, present us with some type of worldview or point of view about life.

Your point of view of The Shack will also tell me about you. In fact, my point of view of this book will tell you a lot about me too.So, The Shack! Another review, huh! Yip! Another review! You might want to know why I am doing this review, since there are so many reviews on this book already.

Well, this is my blog and I can write what I want to, right? Actually, both the statement and the question can be answered in the affirmative. But, that is not why I write. In my small way, I think I can add some value to some soul out there. And, I hope I can do the same with this review, even if it says the same as another review.

Title: The Shack
Author: William P. Young
ISBN: 0-9647292-3-7
Publishers: Windblown Media, Newbury Park, CA.
Year of publication: 2007
Book URL: http://www.theshackbook.com

The story of The Shack is really a simple one, and it is easy to follow. Mack's (Mackenzie) daughter, Missy, was kidnapped and murdered while on vacation in the mountains. Missy's body was never found. This event has left Mack with what he calls, The Great Sadness. And indeed, the whole story revolves around Mack's sadness and how he deals with it.

Then one day, while clearing his driveway of snow he finds a note in his mailbox with the following words:

"Mackenzie,

It's been a while. I've missed you.

I'll be at the shack next weekend if you want to get together.

--Papa."

What is so disconcerting to Mack is that no one uses that term but his wife. And, it is her term of endearment for God. Without telling his wife what he is planning, he decides to go up to the shack to meet Papa. Of course, at first he thinks that it may be the killer that is messing around with his mind, and he then takes a gun with him.

The story then unfolds as he meets "god" at the shack in his "trinitarian" form. Through interaction with god over this weekend he comes to deal with his Great Sadness.

The book is a fairly good attempt at dealing with the question, "If there is a God, and He is supposedly good, then why is there so much evil in the world?"

The book flows well as a novel. I can't say that there was a time that I was really bored.

However, and this is the crux of the book, in its theology, the book seriously lacks in presenting a true Biblical picture of God.

One of the first things the book does is to doubt the current interpretation of Biblical doctrine. After receiving the note from Papa, he wonders about the note. According to Mack's own theological training at seminary, God simply did not send notes. God stopped speaking to mankind and we have to live off the pages of a book, "sacred Scripture, properly interpreted… God's voice had been reduced to paper" and only the "intelligentsia" knew the proper interpretation. (p65-66). This passage, and the belief that flows from it lays the foundation for the "revelation" of god later in the book. According to The Shack, and the deep sarcasm in this part of the book, there isn't just one interpretation of the Bible. No "properly interpreted" Scripture is necessary, for god reveals himself in other ways that may or may not coincide with our current beliefs about god. The whole book shows that Mack's seminary training, and its proper interpretation of Scripture could very much have a different meaning after all.

Finally, when god is revealed in the book, you can see why doubt had to be thrown on the "proper interpretation" of the Scriptures. Father God, called Papa, is a large black woman; Jesus, with the same name is a Jew, and the Holy Spirit, called Sarayu, is an Asian woman.

So, what is wrong with that? Well, simply put and to the point: God did NOT reveal Himself like that. What is revealed here is NOT the Trinitarian God of the Bible! God is never revealed in the Bible as a woman. God is revealed in male terms right through the Bible, and to say otherwise is to say what the Bible did NOT say!

Papa, the mother goddess in this book, is a hip-swinging, non-christian-music listening goddess. She actively listens to non-christian music. God certainly hears everything going on on this planet, but does He actively search out non-christian music to listen to on his iPod or MP3 player? Of course, thinking of God as male (as He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible), is "religious conditioning" (p93) according to Papa.

The book also drives the humanity of Jesus too far, portraying Him as a klutz. At one point in the book, they are all in the kitchen, and for some odd reason Jesus drops a large bowl with batter of some kind on the floor. (p104) Jesus is no longer in the normal state of humanity as He was on earth, with the limitations of a human body. Jesus was taken up into heaven with a glorified body, no longer having normal human limitations. To propose that He still drops things like a normal human being is simply nonsense. Jesus is God, and for Him to drop a bowl, would be to diminish His deity, therefore getting rid of His deity. In this same encounter Papa calls Jesus "greasy fingers" as if this would be a normal occurrence.

The Shack portrays all mankind as children of God, and that there is not one person that God is not especially fond of. Mankind only made a mess of things in this book, they didn't really rebel against the Most High God and as a result deserve eternal death and damnation. I suppose Papa did not know of verses like Ps 5:5 that speaks of God's hate for the wicked. According to Papa, mankind's anger at God "is an expression of love all the same. I love the ones I am angry with just as much as those I'm not." (p119). Well, does Papa come across as the Biblical God who judges and destroys those who hate Him? (Ex 20:5, Dt 5:9, Dt 7:10, Dt 32:41, Ps 21:8, Ps 68:1)

The treatment of sin in The Shack is very flimsy. In it, god doesn't "need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment…" (p120) Papa needs to tell that to Adam and Eve. "Sin is its own punishment?" When Adam and Eve sinned, God actively judged them and punished them for that sin (Rom 5:16; Rom 2:2-5; Rom 6:3). God is the judge, and He will judge sinners in the end and they will go to hell. "Sin is [NOT] its own punishment!" A great and terrible punishment awaits sinners who have not been reconciled to God through Christ!

So, when it comes to the representation of God, and that which God has clearly spoken on in the Bible, the only verdict that I can come to is that this book contains undiluted heresy.

Young is portraying a complete perversion of God in his book. Once we touch who God is, and His very clear and precise revelation of Himself in the Bible, we distance ourselves from the God of the Bible and substitute in His place, a god made in our own image. Young's portrayal of God is in no way a reflection of the Biblical God. The god of The Shack is a figment of Young's imagination, a god that does not exist, certainly not the Trinity of true Christianity revealed in the Scriptures.

One of the most disconcerting issues of this book is how well known Christian personalities gush over this book. Michael W. Smith said: "THE SHACK will leave you craving for the presence of God." Which god would that be? The god made in man's image? In other words an idol!

"(3) You shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God," (Exo 20:3-5 ESV)

The author of The Message paraphrase, note that it is NOT a translation, wants us to believe that this "book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!" There is absolutely no comparison between Bunyan's clear Biblical portrayal of a Christian's walk until he leaves this world, and The Shack's heretical portrayal of God!

I think I will stop here. It is possible to write a book about the false and heretical teachings in The Shack. I simply do not have the time or energy to do that. However, I hope that everyone can see how serious the error is in this book.

For more commentary on this book, please read the following:
Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation
Series on The Shack at Herescope
Book Review by Dr. Scott Kaufman: The Shack

Schuller empire crumbling?

It seems dad Schuller and son Schuller could not sit together next to the camp fire. It also seems like the Schuller ministry is in a bit of financial trouble. IMHO, it would be better if this ministry closes. It has taught an enormous amount of false teaching and even heresy, that if it folds, it would probably be a good thing.

Read about the problems in the ministry here.

Joyner's pagan rituals

I don't think I have to say anything about the video you are about to see. It is disturbing to say the least. Pagan rituals in the church?

HT: A little leaven

Kenneth Copeland, Jerry Savelle, et al.

I was getting rid of some stuff I had in my study for some time now. While throwing things in plastic bags I saw some audio tapes and checked them out. Lo and behold! It was a tape of Jerry Savelle. There were some others there too by Kenneth Copeland and others.

You are probably thinking, "Why would you have audio tapes by these guys?" For those who know me and have seen my theological growth will know why I might have had them. However, others may not know why I had them.

I had to think for a moment what I was doing with them... Then it dawned on me.

This is the reason! It was a series of posts I did on Copeland and others.

Snappy quotes that show Biblical illiteracy

I was busy on Facebook, when I discovered the profile of someone I knew some time ago. In her profile I saw that her favourite book is The Shack (also see this review), and that her favourire quote is "Religion seeks to define an infinite God. By definition, it is doomed to failure."

Of course, quotes like these seem very spiritual and they have a sense of mysticism to them, in which the one who quotes it seems to say that God is greater than the boxes we try to put Him in.

Naturally this goes well with that age old saying: "Don't put God in a box!"

Now, what would happen if we discover that God was indeed in a box? Or, rather, God's revelation of Himself is the box within which He wants us to think of Him. Is God, in His person, His grandeur, His glory, His magnificence, His power, His ability, in a box? Never! How can the Infinite be cast within the finite?

Yet, this is not the issue, is it? People who quote or make quotes such as "Religion seeks to define an infinite God. By definition, it is doomed to failure," want to create a sense of greatness about their incredible knowledge about God, that He is so big, that we could not possibly define Him. They want everybody to fall into that illusion that God cannot be defined, therefore, we should not even try!

The problem with this scenario, is that it is a non-Biblical idea. The fact is, God can be defined. He defined Himself in His self-revelation to mankind in the Bible! The fact that God revealed Himself to us, in itself should tell us how important God deemed the fact that He can be defined! However, we do not do the defining of God; He defined Himself in His revelation to us!

I know it is true that "religion" cannot define God, but quotes such as the above hardly ever mean what they say on the face of it! There is usually some assumed meaning that the "quoter" is trying to convey. That is usually the meaning that has no Biblical warrant.

While it is true that religion cannot define God, this quote has that hidden transmission that tries to convey the message that we should put our doctrines aside, because they could not possibly define this infinite God! Yet, the fact is that God revealed Himself in those doctrines we hold so dear.

The problem with quotes like these is that they appear to convey the truth. It catches a lot of people off guard, and because it seems to convey the truth, they accept the message of the quote as truth.

Where will this lead us? This is a one way street that eventually leads to heresy! Since God is not defined, there can be no doctrines that limit what we believe about Him. As a result, we end up no longer believing in God, but 'god.' It is no longer god worthy of a capital letter, since it becomes a creature of our own making! This is no longer the God that revealed Himself to us in the Bible, but an image of our own making that we have carved in our own minds. This, God Himself has prohibited in the 2nd commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." (Exo 20:4-5)

When we start making God in our own image (god), then we have an inferior god that is worthless. This is the kind of god that Elijah mocked the Baal worshippers about: "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."(1 Ki 18:27) That is the kind of god that is created by little quotes like those above.

That is the kind of god we end up with in books like The Shack. It is not the God revealed in the Bible, but a god made in the minds of men. This is a god that has no power or influence outside the mind of the believer. This is NOT the God of the Bible!

Heretical Carlton Pearson loses church

Carlton Pearson, who used to be a top notch word-of-faith preacher with a 6000 member church has lost his church (members and building). This happened after he started preaching an inclusive gospel in which he declared all people will go to heaven.

I wish this would be the route of all heretical churches, but alas, we live in a sinful world! If only they would repent of their gross sin and return to the truth of the gospel!

Western Christianity

Stephen J. Nichols wrote a book called "Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ." The book opens up American, and indeed Western, Christianity, and shows that even while it runs very wide across American society, it actually is only an inch deep.

Collin Hansen wrote a review of the book here.

As a foretaste, here is an excerpt from the review:

"'Today's American evangelicals may be quick to speak of their love for Jesus, even wearing their devotion on their sleeve, literally in the case of WWJD bracelets,' Nichols writes. 'But they may not be so quick to articulate an orthodox view of the object of their devotion. Their devotion is commendable, but the lack of a rigorous theology behind it means that a generation of contemporary evangelicals is living off of borrowed capital.'

"Nichols's declension narrative begins with kind words for the Puritans. He shows how Jonathan Edwards, the Connecticut pastor who preached 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' in 1741, paired deep devotion to Jesus Christ with meticulous theology. He introduces readers to Edward Taylor, another Puritan pastor serving on the colonial American frontier. In between raids by neighboring Native Americans, Taylor wrote breathtaking poetry extolling his love for Christ in rich theological language. As Nichols's story unfolds, Westminster Theological Seminary founder J. Gresham Machen emerges as another hero who defended the historic creeds as they testified to Jesus."

R.C. Sproul has also written an article about the condition of the modern church in America, and of course the whole of the western church.

Sproul wrote:

"I've often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can't answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church.

"Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation-sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia-Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of sola fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone."

You can read Sproul's article, "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church" here.

WHI on Pelagianism

Pelagianism, one of the greatest heretical scourges of the church for one and a half millenia, is the topic for the White Horse Inn this month.

There are some articles related to the Pelagian heresy such as Michael Horton's Pelagianism, and Gerald Bray's The Gospel According to Pelagius.

You can download the MP3 of the radio program this was discussed on, here.

Scientology Dismantled

HT: Doubt Free Living