Faith is more important than Jesus

Posted on August 26, 2006 by Juan Esparza.
Categories: Dangerous Ideas, Ministry Watch, Culture Watch, Religion.

I was already bothered that more people were reading The Purpose Driven Life more than they were the Bible. It was nauseating to see how excited people were about some book, and not The Book, about the words of Warren and not the Word of God. It seemed Purpose was more important that the Gosple. It now seems as if Purpose, or at best faith is more important than Jesus.

At least it seems to be for Rick Warren (I know he give 90% of his income).
I can see it now:
Purpose Driven Mosques
Purpose Driven Mahabodhi Temple
Purpose Driven Wards
Purpose Driven Shrines

And already we have Purpose Driven Synagogues. The purpose isn’t found in Christ. It doesn’t matter if you reject him as Messiah and Savior, as long as you find your purpose… according to Mr. Warren. He went as far to say that there are too many of those individuals that accept and proclaim Christ as The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

“Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters. ”

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=16029

No Tag

Cults Watch | Creciendo en Gracia Interviews

"Ever since that day, I can't learn from anybody and I mean no one," De Jesús recently told Miami New Times, a weekly South Florida newspaper.

Faith News Network/February 27, 2006
By J. Lee Grady

Puerto Rican preacher José Luis De Jesús Miranda says a wondrous thing happened to him in 1976 when he was living in Massachusetts. He claims that two heavenly beings took him to a marble hall where an apparition merged with his body and began to speak inside of him. De Jesus believes that he and Jesus Christ became one and the same in that instant.

"Ever since that day, I can't learn from anybody and I mean no one," De Jesús recently told Miami New Times, a weekly South Florida newspaper.

The voice inside De Jesús' head later told him to move to Miami, where he founded his controversial Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace) church along with a TV studio. He attracts a relatively small following in Miami, only 500 members, but the group has spawned 300 additional congregations with 100,000 members, mostly in Latin countries. Meanwhile his TV program reportedly reaches 2 million.

De Jesús sounds like another David Koresh in the making.

All his followers call him Daddy. Many of them wear T-shirts with De Jesús' face and a bold slogan, "GOD HAS COME." Their cars are adorned with license plates that say: "Creciendo en Gracia: The Government of the Kingdom of God." De Jesus began calling himself El Otro (The Other) in 1999, and then in 2004 he announced that he is Jesus Christ.

His doctrines are bizarre. He tells his followers they can live any way they want to because sin doesn't exist and the devil is dead. He also teaches that Christian churches are led by "ministers of Satan," and he encourages members of his organization to stage protests at church services and Christian events. Creciendo en Gracia members are encouraged to scream at people and carry placard with messages such as "THE DEVIL WAS DESTROYED."

According to New Times reporter Mariah Blake, such protests have grabbed headlines in Miami and throughout Latin America. In Colombia, for example, De Jesús' followers recently staged simultaneous protests in 22 cities.

De Jesús does not hide his intentions. "My purpose is to close down every church so the true church can begin," he told the Miami paper. "You could say I'm leading the greatest reformation that has ever happened."

I guess you could say that. Or you could say that another deceiver is on the loose and this one is targeting the Spanish-speaking world.

De Jesús fits the classic profile of an egotistical religious con man. He lives in a mansion, drives a BMW, wears lots of diamonds and spends $300,000 a year on bodyguards. Meanwhile many of his staff volunteer their time and give up to 80 percent of their income to the church.

One member of Creciendo en Gracia, Miami businessman Alvaro Albarracin, told New Times that his Internet company was divinely blessed because he gave $12,000 a month to the church. After making millions he sold the business to work for De Jesús. Now he buys and sells businesses and gives all the proceeds to the group.

Albarracin said: "I wanted to devote my life to Dad. I truly believe he's my God, my Creator."

The newspaper also reported that Albarracin's involvement in the cult triggered a breakup with his first wife. Interestingly, De Jesús left his own wife in 1999, and he later married a Colombian woman he was living with.

What is most alarming about Creciendo en Gracia is the level of blind loyalty his followers display. The group's Web site proclaims: "We are going to shut the mouths of those dogs [speaking of Christian churches.] We are ready to give our lives for this!"

Sounds vaguely like what the Branch Davidians said of Koresh.

Even though there are unconfirmed reports that a protest in Colombia last December resulted in a stabbing, De Jesús insists that his church is nonviolent. Yet the leader of this bizarre sect also claims that his church will one day rule the world.

and Part 2

For more information on this please download this precise and well dcoumented article (spanish) by Ricardo Becerra from Centro de Investigaciones Religiosas (CIR).

http://www.defensadelafe.org/assets/AC/AC-041.pdf

No Tag

2 comments.

Thomist Spotlight | Domingo Bañez (1528-1604)

Banez

Bañez, Domingo

(Originally and more properly VANEZ and sometimes, but erroneously, IBAÑEZ), DOMINGO, a Spanish Dominican theologian, b. 29 February, 1528, at Medina del Campo, Old Castile; d. there 22 October, 1604. The qualifying Mondragonensis, attached to his name, seems to be a patronymic after his father John Bañez of Mondragon, Guipuscoa. At fifteen he began to study philosophy at the University of Salamanca. Three years later he took the Dominican habit at St. Stephen's Convent, and made his profession 3 May, 1547. During a year's review of the liberal arts and later, he had th afterwards distinguished Bartolomé Medina as a fellow student. Under such professors as Melchior Cano (1548-51), Diego de Chaves (1551), and Pedro Sotomayor (1550-51) he studied theology, laying the foundations of the erudition and acquiring the acumen which later made him eminent as a theologian and an exponent and defender of Thomistic doctrine. He next began teaching, and under Domingo Soto, as prior and regent, he field various professorships for ten years. He was made master of students, explaining the "Summa" to the younger brethren for five years, and incidentally taking the place, with marked success, of professors who were sick, or who for other reasons were absent from their chairs at the university. In the customary, sometimes competitive, examinations before advancement he is said easily to have carried off all honours. He taught at the Dominican University of Avila from 1561 to 1566. About 1567 he was assigned to a chair of theology at Alcalá, the ancient Complutum. It appears that he was at Salamanca again in 1572 and 1573, but during the four scholastic years 1573-71 he was regent of St. Gregory's Dominican College al Valladolid, a house of higher studies where the best students of the Castilian province were prepared for a scholastic career. Elected Prior of Toro, he went instead to Salamanca to compete for the chair of Durandus, left vacant by Medina's promotion to the chief professorship. He occupied this position from 1577 to 1580. After Medina's death (30 December 1580) he appeared again as competitor for the first chair of the university. The outcome was an academic triumph for Bañez and he was duly installed in his new position amid the acclamations of professors and students. There he laboured for nearly twenty years. His name acquired extraordinary authority, and the leading schools of orthodox Spain referred to him as the prclarissimum jubar — "the brightest light" — of their country.

(more…)

No Tag

Some thoughts on Ames, Shank & Predestination

Posted on August 17, 2006 by Ray Ciervo.
Categories: Predestination, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Religion, Theology.

Introduction

Predestination has been debated literally for centuries. The difficulties surrounding the topic has occupied the time of Biblical scholars considerably. The immediate problem of predestination can be stated as this: How do we reconcile the sovereignty of God to save and the free will of man? What is questionable when predestination is discussed is whether God is sovereign or whether man is a free agent. Can the two coexist? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange stated it this way: “How can predestination, which is infallible in its effect, be reconciled with the will to save all mankind, since the salvation of many will not be realized?”[1]

Those of the reformed tradition claim there is not a problem with predestination. God is simply sovereign and man is not free as a sinner. Salvation is of the Lord; man takes no part in it. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Arminian view which says man is a free agent and chooses salvation for himself. These two extremes are stated simply here and will be looked at with greater detail and scrutiny. An examination of Scriptures and relevant authors reveal why the tension exists and why the arguments have prevailed for as long as they have. Perhaps the last question to ask is whether there is danger in holding with of these views?

 The Reformed View

Election and Predestination

In order to look at the Reformed view of predestination, the one of the followers of John Calvin must be perused. William Ames (1576-1655) is one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers and sets out the doctrine of predestination in a straightforward way. Without hesitating Ames states there are two kinds of predestination, election and rejection or reprobation.[2]  “Election is the predestination of certain men so that the glorious grace of God may be shown in them.”[3] For Ames, election is one simple act of the will of God but for our understanding it breaks up into many acts.Ames sites that predestination has existed from eternity.[4] The application of redemption to some men and not to all, existed in God before the creation of the world.[5] He goes on to state that predestination is a decree from God concerning the eternal condition of men which show his special glory.[6] “It is called destination because there is a sure determination of the order of means for the end. Because God determined this order by himself before any actual existence of things, it is called not simply destination but predestination.”[7]

It is called a decree because, according to Ames, it contains a definite sentence to be executed under firm counsel. In the same way it is called a purpose and a counsel, because it sets forth an end to be reached as a result of deliberation. Predestination is according to God’s “greatest wisdom, freedom, firmness, and immutability.”[8] 2 Timothy 2:19 confirms this: “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,. . .’” Ames goes on to say that this verse also means that God not only knows the number of those who will be saved but the names of each of them.

Predestination does not depend on the means or the end. In fact, Ames states that predestination is the cause for the objects of predestination to exist. “Hence it depends on no cause, reason or outward condition, but proceeds purely from the will of him who predestines."[9] Ames goes on to say that there is no previous quality in man which might be considered the formal object in man. Neither is there a condition in any man which determines that another man should be excluded. Man are equal among themselves and simply the object of the decree. Ames clearly says that the condition of predestination does not depend upon man whatsoever, but the differences found in man are the result of the decree.
Because predestination proceeds purely from the from the will of him who predestines there is no prerequisite foreknowledge or presupposed foreknowledge other than the simple intelligence which relates to all things. “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,”[10] and “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him,”[11] are used to support this claim. Simply, predestination is an act of God’s will towards a certain object which determines to bring a specific end by a specific means.

Ames believes in God’s simplicity; He is simply one. Simplicity is the opposite of composed. God is not composed of parts so Ames says,

There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God will the end before the means.[12]

It is here that Ames spells out election of certain people. Although he states all things are simultaneous in God and that God does not think discursively, there are several “acts” in predestination. The first act is to will the glory of his grace in salvation in some men. The second acts is to designate which  men will partake of this salvation. The true meaning of the second act is the “love” expressed to these certain men.[13] This love is specified in selecting some and rejecting or “setting apart” others. The third act of election is the purpose or intention of preparing and direct means by which these certain individuals will be led to salvation.

All the effects of election follow Jesus Christ being sent. He is the means given for the salvation of man. In the third act of election Christ is certainly the cause.

(more…)

No Tag

MTV Celebrity Death Match: Benny Hinn vs. Ravi Zacharias

CDM

Not sure if Mr. Hinn could actually rip Ravi's brains out, but Benny will certainly draw a larger crowd… unfortunately.   (BTW even if Benny did rip Ravi's brains out, he probably wouldn't use them…unfortunately)

I must be out of my mind… or at least not using it.  Why is it that I covet and become even jealous about "all" those who will be in attendance at the upcoming National Conference on Christian Apologetics and at the Contending for the Truth 2007 National Conference Orlando, Florida March 15-17, 2007?  Maybe its because I can't be at all of them at the same time. Yet, you can add those in attendance at both of these conferences and even those of similar nature and in an entire year they will pale in comparison to the amount of people in attendance at just one of these conferences .

This is a sad but true fact.  I have been to various conferences and it never fails; I can never find a seat at some charismatic conference but it shocked people and ended up being a borderline spectacle when I took a group of youth to the Biblical Discernment Conference in St. Louis several years ago.  

Conferences that focus on nourishing and nurturing the mind are so poorly attended and publicized by our churches that they are barely even scheduled, much less conveniently located across the nation.   I currently reside in the Seattle area, and if I don't vomit the next time Casey Treat has another huge gathering, I will at least do a one man boycott. Yet, I took about a dozen teenagers to a Worldview Conference where there were just over a couple hundred people; and that's only because Doug Geivett , Gary Habermas , Greg Koukl and Jason Carson (son of a D.A. Carson not cofounder of the former Supertones) were in attendance. <– I'm sure Jason loves that I have to give that parenthetical statement.

Nevertheless, those at this Worldview conference were thrilled with how many had come out to attend.  I guess I should just give up and think in similar fashion: "Wow, what a great attendance, a whole 200 people;" which I'm sure T.D. Jakes will have more show up for his "Golf with the Bishop " fundraiser this September. 

I recently suggested to our congregation that instead of wearing Shawn Alexander jerseys we should wear Ravi Zacharias ones instead -so far, someone made me a Ravi Zacharias pillow for my office. And even though its a nice start to Ravi 's celebrity status, unfortunately, Benny still has him beat.

No Tag

Quotes from Thomas | On Wrestling

Posted on August 11, 2006 by David Mendez.
Categories: Quotes from Thomas, Thomism, Theology.
Aquinas

 …with the mystery of God

The whole night they wrestled, muscles straining, neither yielding; but at daybreak the angel disappeared, apparently leaving the field clear to his adversary. But Jacob then felt a violent pain in his thigh. He was left wounded and limping. It is thus that the theologian grapples with the mystery when God brings him face to face with it. He is taut, like a bent bow, grappling with human language; he struggles like a wrestler; he even seems to win the mastery. But then he feels a weakness, a weakness at once painful and consoling, for to be thus defeated is in fact the proof that his combat was divine.1 

 1. Quoted by D. Chenu in his Is Theology a Science? (New York: Hawthorn, 1959), p. 47. No direct reference found.

No Tag

Reverend Ike and the god of Mammon

Posted on August 9, 2006 by David Mendez.
Categories: Dangerous Ideas, Spiritually Odd, Things of Interest, Theology.

Matt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mammon–3126  mamonas (mam-o-nas') or mammonas (mam-mo-nas'); of Aramaic origin; wealth, (worldy goods; assets; possessions; material goods; revenue; earnings.) avarice; (acquisitiveness; covetousness; materialism) deified; (valued; honored; well-regarded; esteemed; cherished; prized_.

With that said, as reported by Pulpit Pimps, this left me speechless…

Keywords: Money, Money, Money, Prosperity Doctrine, Mind Control, Vain Repetitions, Ideologies that spiritually bankrupt you, gods, mammon, and spiritually weird. 

Ps. Ring Tones?  <— This is not even funny

No Tag