Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa EMERGENT??

Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model

What is meant by "emergent model" or the phrase "emergent church"? Are they preaching another gospel? If so, what is the message they preach? I have heard this term (emergent church) many times, but am not sure I understand what is meant by it.

God bless,

Patrick Ersig
www.jonahproject.org

Calvary Chapel slips deeper into the emergent model with false fire with it's latest announcement!

I do not understand what this means.

The first statement seems like it is a condemnation and the balance reads like an advertisement.

I must be missing something.

Please explain,
ws

Natan4Jesus wrote:
Sister, just attend to your garden, read your Bible, take care of your chickens and just rest in Christ. . .
much love in Christ, neil

Too fitting! Love it.

Mike

PS Whitestone - my garden is doing well.

I don't understand them calling Calvary Chapel "Emergent". Chuck Smith has denounced and warned his congregation repeatedly against the Emergent trend.

Hi everyone.

I wondered if I could share some thoughts with you all, though [i]not directly[/i] in response to this topic.

I believe that it can be very much valid, honest, righteous, and sincere, to be concerned about how the things of God and the Bible are presented to others.

I believe that the message of the Bible and of the Gospel should be treated as sacred and holy, and with great reverence, and that we should strive to communicate that, and that we hold these things to be so, to those who would hear about it from us.

I have, for about six years now, been sharing the Gospel in the cities that I've lived in, with all different sorts of people. I think that(all honour be to God) it has been possible to communicate the message of the Gospel in plain and simple terms and as an ordinary working person to all different sorts of people from different backgrounds.

I believe that our culture in America is in desperate need of being elevated.

That we are in desperate need of being elevated as a people, to love and to appreciate what is beautiful, and lovely, and pure, and honest and true.

I believe that there is a winning and shining way for us to live in our day.

I believe that the message of the Bible and of the Gospel should be treated as sacred and holy, and with great reverence, and that we should strive to communicate that, and that we hold these things to be so, to those who would hear about it from us.

Hello Chris,

That deserves repeating! Well said.

white stone

Thanks for those thoughts, Chris.

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:

This generation is on some sort of last days [b]opiate spiritually[/b] and without upholding The Truth, expects to see 'revival'.

Revival of what?

We see in His Word, that because they had not the love for The Truth - all they will get is a revival of the dark ages.

Exactly.

Also,

Rom 13:11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to [b]awake out of sleep[/b]*; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.

*hoop'-nos

[b]Edit:[/b]

I suppose the word hypnosis is coming from here also.

I believe what you said "opiate spiritually" is very accurate description of what is going on right now. (2Th 2:3)

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made [b]drunk with the wine[/b] of her fornication.

Rev 18:3 For all nations have[b] drunk of the wine[/b] of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Paul exhorts us:

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Is it possible a christian to be drunk with the babylonian wine?

There is one major characteristic of the drunk, opiate, dreaming and hypnotic man and that's the [b]unreality[/b] of perception of the things in and around them.

Hello all,

I would like to interject my concerns with the difficulty behind the underlying principle of “upholding the Truth.” Everyone who is a real believer assumes that they are upholding “high standards on Truth.” Every man of God (professional or layman) holds to a set of ideals that he believes to be “Truth.” Yet there will always be some man or woman, congregation, apologist or would-be “prophet” and “watchman” who will disagree.

Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the KJV is the only true Word of God. Some people truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there will be no “gathering of the saints” before the period of God’s wrath. Some people think that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that there WILL be a “rapture.” Some churches truly believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they set particular standards for modesty that they believe is clearly spelled out in Scripture (such as women wearing only dresses…or physical head coverings). Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that “once you’re saved, you will always be saved.” Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim an opposite viewpoint. Some people believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. Others believe that they are “upholding the Truth” when they proclaim otherwise regarding tongues.

Do you see the difficulty behind a set definition of “upholding the Truth?” Taking a stand on one or all of these is not necessarily “upholding the Truth.” Rather, it is upholding doctrinal peculiarities. How do I know? Because, a very large percentage of true believers cannot agree on any number of such issues.

I certainly believe in prophets…and defenders of the faith…and watchmen. Yet, it is my experience that many would-be “prophets” and “watchmen” are merely proclaiming doctrinal peculiarities than “Truth.” Far too often, they are willing to point the finger of “heresy” at anyone who disagrees with their particular doctrinal views…with a smugness that comes as though they believe that they are doing their “duty” for Christ. For over five years on SermonIndex, I have noticed that most of the heated disputes occur when one believer proclaims something to be “Truth” in the face of other believers.

One thing that I love about Leonard Ravenhill is that I don’t necessarily know where he “stood” on many of the issues that divide much of the Body of Christ. I don’t know where he stood on “eternal security” or “head coverings.” I don’t know what he thought about music. I don’t know where he stood on many, many issues. Even on those issues that he did have some semblance of a “stand,” I don’t know that I ever saw him “proclaim” such things as “standards” by which he was “upholding the Truth.” This is even interesting in the fact that I met with him in his home when I was a young teenager shortly before he died.

During that meeting, Brother Ravenhill told me that he was going to tell me one of the most important things that he had learned during his life. He didn’t proclaim some supposed “truth” about the coming of the Lord, the extent to which salvation can be lost or not, or whether he felt one translation of the Bible was supreme to all others. He didn’t instruct me about music…or a personal definition about “worldliness.” Rather, Brother Ravenhill simply urged me to “test everything.” He literally told me to not believe anything that I had ever been taught or read…because this is largely the reason why the Church is in the condition that it is in. Believers are too quick to believe something. He explained that the Church is in the condition that it is in because the Church has been operating like it has for a long time. A true revival, he explained, is when each person is consumed with an unquenchable hunger to know and fellowship with Jesus…and where nothing else matters as much.

There are a lot of silly definitions being spread around the Body of Christ regarding what a “revival” will be. Many supposed “watchmen” seem to think that a “real” revival will occur when everyone will embrace and uphold their particular ideas about doctrinal “Truth.” How silly. I seriously doubt that a time will come on this side of Eternity in which all believers will agree upon every last doctrinal detail. Leonard Ravenhill could be considered a “watchman” by some – not because he upheld and proclaimed a particular set of doctrines, but because he stressed the need for mere men to take Christ (and eternity) seriously. Too often, I think, “truth” is lost in the details.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and simple. It is men who complicate it. It is men who create particular standards for “Truth” (which is often what they consider “doctrinal purity”) and then proclaim as much to their listeners. I think that this is what Brother ChrisJD was saying in his post (correct me if I am wrong, brother). I believe part of the reason that the Church needs to be revived is because the Church has left the simplicity of the Gospel and begun focusing upon doctrinal issues and persuasions that divide the Body of Christ. Yet it is possible to have true Biblical unity of the faith without agreeing on every last dot and tittle. Remember, if any person were to stand (even here in SermonIndex) and proclaim EVERYTHING that they believe to be “truth”…quite a few people will stand in opposition.

There are some things that are undeniable foundational truths. These things are spelled out clearly in the Word of God. The most important of these is a deep awareness of our need for the Lord and a longing to have a relationship with Him. I am troubled, however, by those who would choose to proclaim remote doctrinal peculiarities as “upholding the Truth.” Even many of those who would agree on a “need for particular doctrinal clarity” and “obedience” would be surprised to find that many people would agree with the notion but disagree on the definition of “Truth” in regard to such peculiarities.

Please do not make the mistake that I am trying to say that doctrine is not important. We need to uphold what is true. Yet the problem of division comes in the details…in which some men would become confrontational by insisting on a particular set of doctrines that are not largely agreed upon by those people who truly seek Jesus. Thank God that He does not make an exhaustive list of doctrinal “conditions” for becoming a child of God! Many would be prophets walk around with a “victim syndrome” as they complain that some people do not listen to them regarding a peculiarity – and then equate this to a rejection of “Truth.” There is something wrong with this picture…when we can’t distinguish between a peculiar set of doctrinal views and “undeniable truth.”

Anyway, please understand that I am not trying to be discordant about such things. This has been an issue on SermonIndex – and in the Body of Christ – for a long time. If anyone here (including those who believe that they are “watchmen”) were to stand up and proclaim [u]exactly[/u] what they considered to be “Truth” – there will be an dispute or debate (even from their closest brethren). Another very sincere believer (with a jealous love for our Lord) will point to what is being proclaimed and say that it is not “truth.” Will the original proclaimer of that supposed "truth" be so bold and audacious as to proclaim that those with whom they disagree to be in an error or delusion...or will they simply feel that they have a difference of opinion on a particular matter?

Dear Brother Walter...

Well Ccchhhrrriiisss, you definitely never run out of words.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your response is, but it certainly doesn't seem very kind. Whether or not you will have to repent for it is between you and God. Brother, you do not hold a monopoly on "truth." That is the problem with pointing out "truth" -- because there will always be someone around to say that it isn't truth...or to call into question the character of the person who speaks it.

As far as the "emergent church" is concerned: I really do not care. I don't want to know much about it...nor do I want to spend a lot of time and effort learning about it. I prefer to spend my time and effort learning from Christ...rather than dissecting the words of some religious movement. I don't need to know all of the doctrinal views of the Mormon Church to know that it is false. I don't have to exhaust years of study into their doctrinal peculiarities in order to know something that is apparent from the get go -- that the Mormon Church teaches an entirely different gospel.

Yet, brother, I am concerned by the amount of time that you (and others) spend debating other believers about certain differences that we may have. I don't believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the Word of God. Yet you have spent many, many posts proclaiming such a notion as if it were a fact -- a "truth." Thus, it seems that in your posts, it appears that we who use a different version might be in "danger." Brother, there are many people who disagree with you. If you really think that we are in danger of "delusion," there is something very, very wrong.

This is the case with much of what is debated over and over again on SermonIndex, in books and from the pulpits of Churches across the Western World. We debate DOCTRINE. We pride ourselves into be "apologists" who "defend the faith" -- when we are merely arguing about doctrine with other people who profess to be believers.

Wouldn't it be great to harness our time and effort into just seeking God's face? Wouldn't it be great if we used some of that time and effort spent arguing into actually telling someone who is going to Hell about the "good news" of Jesus Christ?

Brother, there are many, many believers who I don't agree with regarding certain issues. In fact, I disagree with many of the fellow brethren that I know. Yet I won't pretend to make such petty issues a matter of "life and death." The important foundations MUST be kept -- but what could be more "foundational" than knowing and seeking our Lord and Savior?

I fear that we might be "in danger" of breaking fellowship with the brethren who simply disagree with certain petty doctrinal issues. So what if I use both the KJV and the NIV? So what if I believe that the Lord may gather His Bride before the time of wrath? So what if I don't believe that a woman must cover her head with a physical piece of cloth each time she is praying. Is someone going to play the role of the Holy Spirit and literally question my relationship with the Lord simply because I disagree with their "findings?"

Such doctrinal differences seem silly. Yet to many would-be "watchmen," such issues are "foundational doctrines" and "indisputable truth." There is a problem when we focus much of our time and effort on matters that deviate us from spending time with Christ Jesus or away from our Hebrews 10:24-25 calling to "encourage" one another! We do not have to agree on every last dot and tittle in order to fellowship and encourage one another in the Lord! If you want to continue using the KJV...praise God! If someone else wants to continue using the NIV...praise God! It is the Holy Spirit who will lead us and guide us into all truth -- and not ccchhhrrriiisss, waltern or some other would-be "prophet" or "watchman."

Out of this great, vast Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, one thing is abundantly clear: We have different ideas, opinions and viewpoints regarding certain matters. Denominations often seperate the Body by such differences of opinion. Is this what God desires for the Body of Christ? Should the Body of Christ be broken by different camps who align themselves with the peculiar babelings of supposed "teachers?" Can the Body of Christ get together without being in 100% agreement about peculiarities?

On the day of Pentecost, the Church was in "one accord." Something tells me that they weren't focused on divisive issues such as opinions about the Lord's return...precise defintions of modesty...or Bible translations. I have a strong feeling that they purely sought God. They didn't care about learning all sorts of doctrines; I think that they cared about being close to our Lord. Isn't this what the Lord instructed them?

Jesus told those who were concerned with times and seasons, "[i]It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power[/i]" (Acts 1:7) and continued by reminding him about what he had said earlier (in Acts 1:4-5) by saying, "[i]But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth[/i]" (Acts 1:8). It was almost as if the Lord was trying to prevent them from getting distracted by such things.

Brother Walter, I am convinced that you long for the Lord. I am convinced many of those who visit this website are longing for the Lord. Isn't this the great condition for salvation? Salvation isn't earned by aligning ourselves with a particular set of doctrines. In fact, most of us were plain doctrinally "stupid" when we first came to Christ. Doctrine didn't matter to us. We just wanted to know Him. I just wish that many of us would return to that simplicity.

To be honest, I grow very tired of doctrinal discussions...especially when there is so much diversity of thought in the Body of Christ regarding such things. I don't mind hearing about the ideas that other people have...but I really do prefer to prayerfully read the Bible for myself and do my best to "learn from" Christ (Matthew 11:28-30). The Church needs a revival. Yet this isn't a revival of doctrine (in the sense of denominational or doctrinal peculiarities). Rather, we need people to seriously seek God. I can gather with brethren of all diverse backgrounds AS LONG AS they are brethren. I don't care if they are calvinists...or KJV-only...or if they wear head coverings. If my mind is consumed by such things (the differences that we might have), then there is something that is VERY wrong with me.

I guess that is ultimately what I am trying to say. There are far too many people who equate their particular persuasions as "truth" and proclaim/present it as such. If someone doesn't agree with them, they feel "persecuted" or even "rejected." How silly! It is just a disagreement about some guy's idea or "truth" rather than a spiritual rejection of the man himself (or the man's spiritual integrity).

To be clear: There are certainly foundational truths that should be clear to all believers and proclaimed and taught. Yet most of the divisions in the Body of Christ are not over "foundational truths." The long debated issues on SermonIndex usually revolve around some guy presenting something that he thinks to be true and some other guy publicly disagreeing with it. Should we be so easily persuaded about the things that we argue to be "truth?"

*EDIT - I just read your post, Natan. I think that you understand what I am trying to say. There have been times that I disagreed with Brother Natan on certain issues...but I have always considered him a brother...and have earnestly desired to esteem him "better than myself" (Philippians 2:2-3). Thank you, brother, for your encouragement.

A true revival, he explained, is when each person is consumed with an unquenchable hunger to know and fellowship with Jesus…and where nothing else matters as much.

There are a lot of silly definitions being spread around the Body of Christ regarding what a “revival” will be. Many supposed “watchmen” seem to think that a “real” revival will occur when everyone will embrace and uphold their particular ideas about doctrinal “Truth.” How silly. I seriously doubt that a time will come on this side of Eternity in which all believers will agree upon every last doctrinal detail. Leonard Ravenhill could be considered a “watchman” by some – not because he upheld and proclaimed a particular set of doctrines, but because he stressed the need for mere men to take Christ (and eternity) seriously. Too often, I think, “truth” is lost in the details.

Good word. That's an interesting statement by Ravenhill. He wasn't one for doctrinal quibbling. He was a Methodist who fellowshipped with everyone from Baptists to Pentecostals and admired George Fox (Quakers). No dogmatist could be that broad-based. But he got burned a few times. He joined the Vineyard/Kansas City Prophets movement for a while because he believed it might be the beginning of the worldwide revival he had been praying for all those years. But when I met him in '92 he said, "I've lost confidence in those guys. They just bounce around from one fad to another. They won't center on the Cross"

And I think that is the first test that should be applied to everything: If it is centered on Christ and Him crucified, it is of God; if it is centered on human performance, a dogma, a system, a program or some exalted leader--if it is man-centered in any way--it is not of God.

The first-generation Fundamentalists had a pretty good standard: If a person believes in the Five Fundamentals--the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, His substitutionary death on the Cross, the resurrection and the second coming--he should be regarded as a brother in Christ, unless his moral conduct identifies him otherwise. 1 Cor. 5:11

And if he is a brother in Christ, the word of Christ is, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12 And that must always remain foremost in our minds as we debate. Ranters who use this forum to shag anyone who disagrees with them are only fooling themselves when they say "I'm upholding the truth in love." They are not fooling anyone else. People who are consumed with rage, bitterness and high-mindedness cannot conceal their true nature because it comes out in their words.

"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18 But some guys are in such a fever to push their doctrinal peculiarities that they can't even be bothered to "love in word." Normal fanatics at least have the good taste to throw in the occasional "dear brother" and "God bless you" as they bight and devour one another.

Last night a KJV-only Independent Baptist handed me a bundle of about 200 tracts to peruse at my leisure. Here is a sampling:

Jack Van Impe, Master of Memory, Minister of Compromise

Why We Cannot Support the Billy Graham Crusade

Apostasy Chart

Martin Luther and Baptismal Regeneration

Signs, Wonders and Rattlesnakes

Is Your Church Going Purpose Driven? How You Can Tell

The Bible Believer and Heretics

Why I Am a Baptist and Not a Seventh Day Adventist

Seven Reasons to Avoid False Doctrine

Harry Potter, Witchcraft and the Bible

List of Heresies

Wanted! True New Testament Independent Baptists

It goes on and on like this. Every tract is an attack on some heretic. There is an important place for refuting error, but when it becomes an obsession, heresiology is an error in itself. It assumes that what God requires of His children is doctrinal purity, that verbally abusing those who disagree with us is the "ministry of the Watchman," that the church does not have revival because it does not universally accept our peculiar doctrines, and the fact that so many people disagrees with our doctrines is proof that we are living in the end times.

It assumes that "loving the brethren" consists mainly in correcting the brethren's doctrinal opinions, because if they disagree with us they are in danger of hell fire. Therefore love compels us to correct their errors whether they want to hear it or not and in the most abusive language allowable.

Consider poor Roger Oakland, who has spent years obsessing over the errors of others and has become so narrow and severe that even Chuck Smith is no longer pure enough for him. Pastor Chuck is 82 years old. He is too old to change. It is Roger who has changed.

Pastor Chuck has been a faithful, Bible-anchored minister for 60 years. There is no reason to believe that he would suddenly go soft in the head and abandon his Bible-based ministry in favor of something as vapid as the Emerging Church fad. He's old but not senile. And we don't know the whole story behind Paul Smith's departure. Maybe he got canned for the same reason Roger Oakland got canned; maybe he's right about the Emerging fad but unproductively pugnacious and dogmatic about it.

Aristotle said that the golden mean of virtue lies between two opposing errors. I willingly run the risk of a beating at the hands of the God Squad for quoting a pagan philosopher because I think that is very often true. Neglect of sound doctrine made the Emergent Church possible, but we will not correct emergent errors by polarizing over into the opposite error, which is dead dogmatism. Sloppy theology and iron-clad theology are both errors to be avoided.