You Can't Handle The Truth

Redeemed

Well-known member
So what is truth?

Here is a simple definition I found from what the Bible teaches: truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. Even more to the point: truth is the self-expression of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth, and it is the definition I'm holding on to and because the definition of truth flows from God, truth is theological. So I'm getting on my theological hat and digging into this.

The truth that flows from God is the way things really are. Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so. Therefore God is the author, source, and final judge of all truth. When Jesus said "and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" he didn't mean you're free to make up your own reality, he meant that you are free to live in his love. The Bible tells us that we are to be doers of the word not hearers only. Jesus also said "if you love me you will keep my commandments",

These “commands” encompass all of Jesus’ words and teachings, which, in truth, are God the Father’s words:
“Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me’” John 14:23-24

Jesus also said that the written Word of God is truth. It does not merely contain nuggets of truth; it is pure, unchangeable, and inviolable truth that (according to Jesus) “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Praying to His heavenly Father on behalf of His disciples, He said this: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). And on top of that, the Word of God is eternal truth “which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).

To suppress this truth is to dishonor God, displace His glory, and incur His wrath and that's exactly where the Emergent Church takes us.
 

Redeemed

Well-known member
The Emergent Church would like us to believe that we’re here not to determine absolute truth, but we’re in a quest for a “reasonable faith.” Reasonable according to whom, and whether what is reasonable for me will be reasonable for anyone else, they don’t say. And whether that same faith will be reasonable for me in the future is not make clear either. To the Emergent Church is all about the journey and not the destination.

The first problem I see with the Emergent Church is this view of journey and how I believe that it undermines the knowability of God. All good theologians understand God's knowability along with his immensity. We know that this side of eternity were not going to know everything about God. God is infinite and our knowledge of him is finite. If anyone ever tells you they have God all figured out don't buy a bridge from of them.

But emergent leaders are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real, accurate knowledge about God in the first place.

I’m sure that emerging Christians know things about God, but their idea of knowledge is so provisional and lacking so much confidence (because the only other kind of knowledge in their minds is cold, linear, and infallible) that it’s hard to imagine actually and accurately knowing God. And yet the Bible says on Ps. 19:1-6:

1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;
4 yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat. Ps. 19:1-6

And in Romans 1:18-32:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.​

The emergent agnosticism about truly knowing and understanding anything about God seems to be blowing smoke. It seems to honor God’s immensity, but it actually undercuts His sovereign power. Postmoderns harbor such distrust for language and disbelieve about God’s ability to communicate truth to human minds when that's clearly what the Bible teaches.

Jesus said, “But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

The Spirit sometimes teaches us personally, but at other times, He uses books or Christian Bible teachers. I don’t know how many times the Lord has awakened me at night and started teaching from passages I had pondered the day before. I prefer to attend day school, but if the teacher wants to enroll me in night school, I am willing to learn. I keep a small lamp on my nightstand, right next to a pen and pad of paper, and I write down what I have learned; if I don’t write it down, it will be forgotten by morning!

Prayer is an essential Spirit-led ministry in the Christian life, for prayer and study go together: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).
 

DrDavidT

Member
I liked what you said and feel that the emerging church is bringing another gospel than the one Jesus and the disciples brought
 

Redeemed

Well-known member
I liked what you said and feel that the emerging church is bringing another gospel than the one Jesus and the disciples brought
No doubt! The popular view is that there are many different ways to God, that the gospel changes with the changing years. But that's hiding the truth.

But The Paul would not would not buy into that. He insists In the book of Galatians that there is only one gospel and that this gospel does not change. Any teaching that claims to be ‘another gospel’ is ‘not another’ ‘You are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel.’ In other words, there are certainly different gospels being preached, but this is what they are—different. There is not another, a second; there is only one. The message of the false teachers is not an alternative gospel; It's a perverted gospel.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
So what is truth?

Here is a simple definition I found from what the Bible teaches: truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. Even more to the point: truth is the self-expression of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth, and it is the definition I'm holding on to and because the definition of truth flows from God, truth is theological. So I'm getting on my theological hat and digging into this.

The truth that flows from God is the way things really are. Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so. Therefore God is the author, source, and final judge of all truth. When Jesus said "and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" he didn't mean you're free to make up your own reality, he meant that you are free to live in his love. The Bible tells us that we are to be doers of the word not hearers only. Jesus also said "if you love me you will keep my commandments",

These “commands” encompass all of Jesus’ words and teachings, which, in truth, are God the Father’s words:
“Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me’” John 14:23-24

Jesus also said that the written Word of God is truth. It does not merely contain nuggets of truth; it is pure, unchangeable, and inviolable truth that (according to Jesus) “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Praying to His heavenly Father on behalf of His disciples, He said this: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). And on top of that, the Word of God is eternal truth “which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).

To suppress this truth is to dishonor God, displace His glory, and incur His wrath and that's exactly where the Emergent Church takes us.
I don't know anything about the emergent church other than what you've posted so far. When you claim that they are more interested in the journey than the destination, I don't really see any problem with that because unless you are on the journey, you will never reach the destination. The journey is essentially "the Way", and one miss step from the way could be disastrous.

Atheists have adopted the same language, and essentially pointed out that theology is what we have to say about God. What we know about these words. See how they spotlight the fact that God doesn't even have to exist for them to talk about him?

They're point is well founded because the Logos doesn't exist without the Pneuma. The Spirit is what animates the Logos. Christ doesn't present a theology. He presents a theophany; a Christophany. His words are alive. Jesus didn't come to teach theology. He didn't come to enlighten our minds. He came to save us from death through sin.

Paul corrects himself when he says, "we know God, or RATHER are known by him...etc." God and his ways are unsearchable, and "beyond all understanding". Whatever you could possibly know, isn't God. They are just words about a term that can have no referent in this created objective world.
 

Redeemed

Well-known member
I don't know anything about the emergent church other than what you've posted so far. When you claim that they are more interested in the journey than the destination, I don't really see any problem with that because unless you are on the journey, you will never reach the destination. The journey is essentially "the Way", and one miss step from the way could be disastrous.

Atheists have adopted the same language, and essentially pointed out that theology is what we have to say about God. What we know about these words. See how they spotlight the fact that God doesn't even have to exist for them to talk about him?

They're point is well founded because the Logos doesn't exist without the Pneuma. The Spirit is what animates the Logos. Christ doesn't present a theology. He presents a theophany; a Christophany. His words are alive. Jesus didn't come to teach theology. He didn't come to enlighten our minds. He came to save us from death through sin.

Paul corrects himself when he says, "we know God, or RATHER are known by him...etc." God and his ways are unsearchable, and "beyond all understanding". Whatever you could possibly know, isn't God. They are just words about a term that can have no referent in this created objective world.
It sounds like you have it all figured out. Watch out for any missteps and enjoy your journey along the way.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I'm not familiar with this so-called "Emerging / Emergent Church Movement."

Based on post #1 in this thread, I have no idea what it is. Are you talking about the many denominations that have been started in the Americas, like Pentecostalism, Charismatics, Mormonism, non-denominational, etc.?
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
I'm not familiar with this so-called "Emerging / Emergent Church Movement."

Based on post #1 in this thread, I have no idea what it is. Are you talking about the many denominations that have been started in the Americas, like Pentecostalism, Charismatics, Mormonism, non-denominational, etc.?

Extract: The Darkest Hour
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

Emergent Causality

Today, even though we may not easily understand it, there is a profound philosophical determinism coming into the church itself, which though it cannot be said to be non-dualist at the present time, it will have the same effect as non- dualism has had on those who have rejected a true knowledge of God, in order to embrace a self-deterministic life. While duality is implicit in the mind of all believers, namely that it is God Himself who created that which was not as though it were, the emphasis on self-fulfillment of this emergent philosophy in the churches, will simply reinforce self-interest, and this will in the end inevitably lead to a denial of God and Christ, even by those who take His name. This will not be a denial of a name, but rather a lifting of the physical attributes of men, bodies and souls, in such a way that duality; of the separateness of God from the things He has created, will be lost in the minds of most men, including the church itself. This will give rise to an irresistible universalist understanding of salvation, as well as help to prepare this world to receive a physical, visible and undoubted mere man, as God. It is the very evidence of the activity of Satan in this world of men, beginning with the very first efforts in the Garden of Eden.This ambition, predicated on the back of a promise can be traced throughout civilisations of every age. It has given rise to conflict and fear, in the hating of men, yet at its heart lays its real power, that of self.

Inside The Church

In my own understanding, I see this philosophical quagmire increasingly evidenced in the teachings of some of the most well-known leaders of the emergent church. What this tells me quite plainly is that a growing number of believers are embracing a complexity of deception which will have only one outcome. It also tells me that an increasing number of believers have no discernment at all. If Truth were a mere matter of intelligence, the smartest man would lead. Unfortunately, those men and women who are leading this emergent church movement are not as well informed as they may believe. In the vanity of their minds, they must think that they can outwit the enemy, by using his instruments of persuasion to motivate and discuss a new more perfect way for men to live and thereby prove their faith in Christ. If they had just a seed of discernment, they would reject the philosophies of this world which they are embracing, and lay hold of the foolishness of the Cross. The lie of Satan is predicated on the words, “For God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4)

We can easily miss the impetus of this deception of Satan. We often say that Adam desired to be independent of God as a response to this promise of Satan. What we miss in this claim is that the Scripture tells us plainly that Adam was not deceived. Yet this promise of Satan holds a grain of truth. This is because the effect of Adam’s disobedience did indeed separate him from God, along with Eve. Independence from God was a separation from God, through sin and death. It is also true that they did come into the knowledge of good and evil. It was to make of man the central agent in deciding what is good and what is evil. The expulsion from the garden was the very evidence of this. If Adam had reached out at that moment and eaten of the tree of life, he would have done so precisely because of this newly acquired knowledge.

Adam received nothing for his disobedience at all, and the only reality, besides spiritual death, was expulsion from the garden of God, and a life of slow decline and eventually physical death. Genesis 3:22 speaks of the immediacy of the false promise of Satan, whereas the fullness of the lie has long been in the making. The Scripture clearly warns us that Satan himself will be cast down from heaven to be present with the Man of Sin and the False Prophet in an end-time reign of terror. To that end, the church is embracing relativism, where dualism; as an acknowledgement that the greater mind of God gives rise to the lesser minds of men, is being replaced by a non-dualistic philosophical embrace, that it is the man himself, who is after all his own god. Not by declaring that God is dead. Rather by asserting that men have become entirely justified as a god in their own lives. If this suits Satan’s ambitions, it is because when men are finally in this mind of complete rebellion towards God, Satan can become the god of mankind.

Post-Modernism & Relativism

In looking at the church in these terms, of a post-modern perspective, we could say that the lifeblood of postmodernism is relativism. The idea behind this concept, so far as the church is concerned, is simply that the knowledge of God cannot be acquired without experience, It must begin with something. The something is the proverbial where you are at, and the starting point is an a posteriori assumption based on experiential sources that we haven’t arrived at wherever it is we are going. This is not a succeeding by a claim of obedience to the leading of the Holy Spirit alone, it is an arriving by means of a conversation, necessitated by the underlying paradigm itself. It may seem too simplistic to write in such terms, but I believe that this philosophical model is the very impetus that is contributing to deception in the churches. This philosophy will necessitate the embrace of all traditions, denominations and cults. It is essentially the character of Satan himself. It is the true meaning of sorcery, regardless of its outworking because it is an intentional deception in order to promote individuality.

The inevitable a priori reality in projection is that a relative understanding of faith in Christ Jesus will mean that knowing God will be proven through time, in a shared conversation about experience and personal meanings. Personal testimony and a good confession of faith will have no value so far as truth is concerned. In such a vacuum of spiritual reality, all behaviour can be justified, and sin set aside. What this means is that philosophical enquiry will replace real revelation of God, not only through the Scriptures themselves, but directly, by being taught by the Holy Spirit. In such a space men are able to learn God by their own shared efforts. It will be a space in which no one will be able to say it is a lie. Everything will have to become true. At its root, therefore, it is the same belief system which is expressed in psychoanalytical Gestalt and Emergent world views.

The emergent church view, of what will constitute truth, as well as a Gestalt and emergent view of humanity, may well be dualistic in their conceptual, philosophical necessity, but in their outworking, they will be individualistic and self-orientated, both physically and psychically. To that, psychology itself and faith in God, are becoming experientially non-dualistic, in that they both prescribe, or will prescribe the same animate confidence in the physical body itself. In the case of the church, this will mean a pressing into mysticism. In the case of Gestalt Emergent theories, it will say psychoanalytic occult thinking dressed up as a reasonable concern, and a shared life experience between the practitioner and the participant.

At the same time neurophysiology through the development of the scientific paradigm; which has focused on neurological and pathological realities, cannot be rejected, nor the benefit that such research has afforded in the development of object-oriented and behavioural psychological schools of thought - more directly through Psychoanalytic thinking and especially Jungian Archetypal Models.
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
Someone likes to use big words and pretend that he knows what they mean.

I could have just said go and read Rob Bell - but I assumed you were asking a serious question. Besides the term emergent church is somewhat of a misnomer because whilst some people do see the term as having a credible group to identify with - people like myself see the term as being more grounded in an historical development and so focus on other things than groups of apostate believers.

Are Anglicans always so verbally abusive?
 
Last edited:

rhomphaeam

Super Member
Someone likes to use big words and pretend that he knows what they mean.

And let me play this game in a way that the liberals seem to favour - when it suits them.

I was subjected to an educational statement in 1969 when I was nine years of age. In todays parlance that means Learning Difficulty. I went to a special needs residential school for seven years between 1969 and 1976. So if I do use big words that I don't understand - then its because I am special. Ok sweetie! 😁
 
Last edited:

rhomphaeam

Super Member
Someone likes to use big words and pretend that he knows what they mean.

And because I am special and need to be recovered I thought that I would post this other small extract from the book I wrote along with a recent video by the therapist dated 2017 whom I studied to write that element of my book in the 1990's. My interest began in the 1980;s when I first attended University to study theoretical psychology. Of course I wouldn't take anything too seriously because I am a Calvinist and so I only tolerate garbage for so long. Just a quirk of being radically converted. Still I found it fascinating to read into this babble for a few years. I assume you do know that all intellect outside a true leading of God produces babble? Right?

Extract: The Darkest Hour
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

In this Western tradition, psychophysiology, as presented through theoretical and clinical psychology, is being given as a neurological and pathological recovery in Buddhist terms. In the same way, preceding this new way of thinking, the traditional Hindu presentation of physical enlightenment of the śaiva paṁtha stand of Hinduism, is prescribed as ordinary, and therefore without a behavioural imperative, By incorporating a Buddhist overlay, or else an animist view of life, psychologists and psychotherapists have taken from psychology those parts that conform to psychophysical reality. In this opinion, as well in Buddhist and Hindu beliefs, there is no such thing as sin and death, in any absolute sense. The only reality is an upward spiral of ascent into a reincorporation with the whole, having been temporarily disadvantaged by reason of the behaviour of others. Only in this context do one’s own actions have any moral relevance. This same shift in emphasis is happening in those churches which one could say are in an emergent position. These churches are looking forward to a new understanding of how to serve Christ, and in that process, a surprising correlation exists between emergent theology and emergent psychology (psycheology).

In emergent conversations, sin is no longer spoken about. As with Eastern traditional belief systems, the body is neither sinful nor aberrant. It is merely set apart from the universal reality of creation that is inherently perfect and only challenged by the activity of men. Thus emergent believers are increasingly likely to view saving the planet from pollution as a legitimate way of serving God. The body itself is no longer an object of temptation so that immodesty or forwardness are no longer a cause of stumbling. Similarly, tattoos, piercings, braiding of the hair and gender neutral clothing are no longer evidence of confusion and vanity, but the very proof of a new liberty which comes from knowing God. The progress of the soul cannot be hindered by outward things, and the body has become liberated from the restraints of the conscience. The body has become a trustworthy source of information and confirmation that God is with us.

Subjectivism is not only necessary but essential in a conversation. Nothing is absolute; everything is relative. Gender has no meaning, save for a sexual expression of one’s true self. And self is the defining reality of life. Eternity is unknowable save for in mystical and subjective experiences of the eyes, ears and the mind. Its meaning, therefore, is become transcendental. Experiencing God is a matter of inward sensations, both emotional and cognitive. Truth is mystical and hidden within. That which was once hidden (occult) is now brought into the open, and the man or the woman has become their own determining agent into eternity with God. Christ has become a mere example and has ceased to be the very instrument of God in His own body by which the Way to Truth and Life are eternally given and revealed. It will no longer be what we are able to believe concerning a real knowledge of God and Christ, by faith, that will bring us to heaven, but what we can do to demonstrate our Christlikeness before men. So imitation and perceptions of Christ will become more meaningful than by confessing what one believes, concerning Christ. The truth is, therefore, personal and subjective, and sound doctrine is an obstacle to unity. In finality, faith will become an acquired commodity, and cease to be the free gift of God.

I thought seeing as you attended a Lutheran Theological Seminary you may want to consider how jumping from the frying pan into the fire may just speed up the cooking process without actually sparing the bacon. The last paragraph herein is simple emergent theology and transports into or else in truth arises from 'psycheology' a useless term that was invented to replace natural philosophy attendant to philosophy and psychology. It just happens to be what occultism really is.


Shalom @HillsboroMom
 
Last edited:

HillsboroMom

Active member
The churches that Chisholm describes are not "emerging." That is the way Christianity has been since its birth -- or at least the way it is supposed to be. That is what Jesus taught.
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
The churches that Chisholm describes are not "emerging." That is the way Christianity has been since its birth -- or at least the way it is supposed to be. That is what Jesus taught.

Then why aren't you a Mormon then? You included the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in your post to which I responded.

I'm not familiar with this so-called "Emerging / Emergent Church Movement."

Based on post #1 in this thread, I have no idea what it is. Are you talking about the many denominations that have been started in the Americas, like Pentecostalism, Charismatics, Mormonism, non-denominational, etc.?

So then when I post an extract from my own work - you tell me:

Someone likes to use big words and pretend that he knows what they mean.

And now you tell us all:

The churches that Chisholm describes are not "emerging." That is the way Christianity has been since its birth -- or at least the way it is supposed to be. That is what Jesus taught.

You're amazing - your Theology degree wasn't wasted was it!?
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
@HillsboroMom

Extract: The Darkest Hour
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

I thought seeing that you are a scientific mind of reason you may wish a few more delirious Calvinist presentations from a former special needs pupil in loco parentis care - now a rank Calvinist and a self evident stupid man. I always knew that educational special needs statement from 1969 was going to come in handy one day. My mother would be proud! :LOL: The following is an extract from page 105 of the source I am posting from and represents another insight that informs emergent theology - something you appear to believe is a normal course for the church.

An Ancient Danger & A Modern Reality

Occult thinking is now finding its fullest outworking in an emergent theology amongst God’s very elect. At the heart of this emergent theology lies a rational and undeniable reality, that is so seductive, that it makes of its adherents a tangible realisation of god-like understanding that resists rebuke, because at the heart of it lies the minds of men and women, and has little if anything to do with demonic activity as was historically understood even thirty years ago. In short men and women are becoming demonic in their inclinations, thereby making demonic activity less visible and more subtle than at any time in history.

Sir Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton is arguably accredited with writing the most important work of modern science, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was first published in 1687. What is not known generally is that like Pythagoras of the ancient world, Isaac Newton was also an occultist. What follows is a partial transcript of a speech made by John Maynard Keynes in 1946 to celebrate the tercentenary of Newton’s birth in 1642.

“I believe that the clue to his mind is to be found in his unusual powers of continuous concentrated introspection. A case can be made out, as it also can with Descartes, for regarding him as an accomplished experimentalist. Nothing can be more charming than the tales of his mechanical contrivances when he was a boy. There are his telescopes and his optical experiments, These were essential accomplishments, part of his unequalled all-around technique, but not, I am sure, his peculiar gift, especially amongst his contemporaries. His peculiar gift was the power of holding continuously in his mind a purely mental problem until he had seen straight through it. I fancy his pre-eminence is due to his muscles of intuition being the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted. Anyone who has ever attempted pure scientific or philosophical thought knows how one can hold a problem momentarily in one’s mind and apply all one’s powers of concentration to piercing through it, and how it will dissolve and escape and you find that what you are surveying is a blank. I believe that Newton could hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret. Then being a supreme mathematical technician he could dress it up, how you will, for purposes of exposition, but it was his intuition which was pre-eminently extraordinary - ‘so happy in his conjectures’, said De Morgan, ‘as to seem to know more than he could possibly have any means of proving’. The proofs, for what they are worth, were, as I have said, dressed up afterwards - they were not the instrument of discovery.” (John Maynard Keynes)

In reading these words, it may not be immediately clear what Keynes is saying of Newton. Although even to a modest rationalist of scientific integrity the clues are there. Science is almost always comprehended by the majority of men and women as an empirical discipline. Science facts are observable and repeatable, even as hypotheses are drawn from these facts, usually mathematically presented. At the end of which testing and retesting, theories are formed. To almost all minds the part which eludes, is that of the mathematical contract (philosophy). It is in this area where intuition plays the greatest part. What Keynes is saying here of Newton is that his [Newton’s] greatest ability was in using his intuition as a pressing instrument until that which cannot be known is forced into the open and thus comprehended [revealed]. This forcing into the open is the very ability which the occultist has and must need have if he is to succeed in his endeavours. Such a mind is worth a city to Satan or an empire. In seeking to have the mind of Christ to his aid, Satan promised the whole world. (Robert Chisholm)

Consider this which Keynes said of Newton by way of plain speech.

“Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty - just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate. He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality. All would be revealed to him if only he could persevere to the end, uninterrupted, by himself, no one coming into the room, reading, copying, testing all by himself, no interruption for God’s sake, no disclosure, no discordant breakings in or criticism, with fear and shrinking as he assailed these half-ordained, half-forbidden things, creeping back into the bosom of the Godhead as into his mother’s womb.”

I cannot think of a more perfect definition of the actual meaning of the occult than are found in this description of Sir Isaac Newton.

In closing on Newton, we could say that despite his extraordinary risk in pressing his mind the way he did for near twenty-five years, he escaped in the end with both his mind and his conscience intact. History remembers both the great scientist and the affable Mr Newton. Yet there was one time the possibility of another kind of man altogether.

In speaking about Newton’s chest of papers which were opened after his death Keynes writes: “Another large section is concerned with all branches of apocalyptic writings from which he sought to deduce the secret truths of the Universe - the measurements of Solomon’s Temple, the Book of David, the Book of Revelations, an enormous volume of work of which some part was published in his later days. Along with this are hundreds of pages of Church History and the like, designed to discover the truth of tradition. A large section, judging by the handwriting amongst the earliest, relates to alchemy - transmutation, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life. The scope and character of these papers have been hushed up, or at least minimised, by nearly all those who have inspected them. About 1650 there was a considerable group in London, round the publisher Cooper, who during the next twenty years revived interest not only in the English alchemists of the fifteenth century but also in translations of the medieval and post- medieval alchemists. There is an unusual number of manuscripts of the early English alchemists in the libraries of Cambridge. It may be that there was some continuous esoteric tradition within the University which sprang into activity again in the twenty years from 1650 to 1670. At any rate, Newton was clearly an unbridled addict. It is this with which he was occupied ‘about 6 weeks at spring and 6 at the fall when the fire in the elaboratory scarcely went out’ at the very years when he was composing the Principia - and about this he told Humphrey Newton not a word. Moreover, he was almost entirely concerned, not in serious experiment, but in trying to read the riddle of tradition, to find meaning in cryptic verses, to imitate the alleged but largely imaginary experiments of the initiates of past centuries. Newton has left behind him a vast mass of records of these studies. I believe that the greater part are translations and copies made by him of existing books and manuscripts. But there are also extensive records of experiments. I have glanced through a great quantity of this at least 100,000 words, I should say. It is utterly impossible to deny that it is wholly magical and wholly devoid of scientific value; and also impossible not to admit that Newton devoted years of work to it.”
 
Last edited:

rhomphaeam

Super Member
@HillsboroMom

Extract: The Darkest Hour
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

This extract is from page 108 from the source material I am using to speak about the Emergent Church. In your original comment which I first responded to you asked a general question to the OP regarding the meaning of the term itself. Your question seemed to imply that the term emergent church was a sense of historical development of the churches, and you utilised the expression in the Americas to define the boundary. And whilst it is true that what is often called emergent church theology is perceived to be geographically located in North America in particular - that is a mistaken understanding of the term itself. Certainly many of the chief visible adherents of the phenomena that underpins emergent theological precepts and church based activities are visible in the NAR, WOF and other significant denominational groups such as AOG and the Charismatic Movement in many house church and non affiliated groups - but the truth is rather more hidden than that. What is called emergent theology and church is really found in Babylonian sources. In fact the oldest biblical visibility of that same spirit and ambition is found in the first king named in the Bible - Nimrod. In building the first city with all the technical expertise that would entail and a tower associated with it - the precise reason God gives for confusing the language of the human population at that time into distinct linguistic groups was to prevent any further material and spiritual association with men as a utility to take heaven by imposition. Now you may wish to laugh at that - but as a former occultist I read about that ambition and saw its meaning long before I read the bible itself. So just to quote what God said regarding the land of Shinar and its meaning.

And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off building the city.

And the key elements are emboldened.

It's of no consequence of course because many who take the name of Christ are not His at all. Just like Simon the Magician - but his believing the Gospel would have been a convincing witness were it not for his eventual ambition. What is called the emergent church with the doctrinal heresies that accompany them is so blasphemous that it is scarcely possible to say it without simply calling it occult sorcery.

Simon the Magician

“Now for some time a man named Simon had practised sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptised. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.” Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” Acts 8:9-24

On reading this passage from the Book of Acts carefully it is not difficult to recognise something truly sobering. For one thing, it reveals something of the occult mind, both with regards to Simon’s own attitude, as well as the effect he had on the Samarian population when he was practising his magical art prior to hearing the Gospel of Christ. “And they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” (v10). This effect is preceded by Simon’s own attitude, in that his intention was to claim to be someone great (v9). Yet when Philip preached Christ in Samaria, it is said that Simon believed, was baptised and continued on with Philip (v13). So we see at once that Simon did believe in Christ, and was baptised. Despite the fact that Simon believed, he clearly continued to have a mind which was contrary to the gospel in its fullness, because when Peter and John came from Jerusalem, Simon exhibited this occult mind by offering to pay for the authority to impart the Holy Spirit himself (v19). If we can accept that this authority is an apostolic authority, we may be able to understand Simons’s true motive for believing the gospel and being baptised.

In such a circumstance as the one presented to us here in Acts chapter eight, one would have to ask how it could be that a new believer, such as Simon, failed to have his heart stirred so as to have a right attitude towards God, and instead continue in his occult mind of understanding; specifically, that the power of God can be purchased. What an extraordinary contradiction of circumstances for a man to have believed the gospel of Christ, but then to have continued in an occult mind, comprehending only personal acquired power for one’s own purposes, and not comprehending the mercy and goodness of God through the giving of His only begotten Son. There are many historical references to Simon after this encounter with Peter, but the most plausible account can be found in Hippolytus’ (Refutatio Heresiarum vi 7-20). As difficult as Simon is to understand fully, it does speak clearly of a man motivated to believe in Christ for reasons of personal gain, and not because he came under a true conviction of sin. If you then add to this idea, an understanding that the gospel which many hear today, is a social gospel, and not the true gospel at all, it is possible to comprehend something of what I am seeking to share in this area of understanding. A social gospel, preached in a time of an unprecedented realisation of the fulfilment of individual rights, carries with it a genuinely profound consequence. This consequence is individuals behaving and believing as though they themselves were an instrument of power. And that is the root meaning of sorcery. It is power invested in the individual, in the charge of the individual, and for the benefit of the individual in defiance of God and to an end of the man becoming a god in his own right. NAR to a tee. WOF to a tee. Increasingly AOG and from the outset the charismatic churches.

And just to be clear about what I am not saying - I am not speaking about charismatic gifts.
 
Last edited:

rhomphaeam

Super Member
So what is truth?

Here is a simple definition I found from what the Bible teaches: truth is that which is consistent with the mind, will, character, glory, and being of God. Even more to the point: truth is the self-expression of God. That is the biblical meaning of truth, and it is the definition I'm holding on to and because the definition of truth flows from God, truth is theological. So I'm getting on my theological hat and digging into this.

The truth that flows from God is the way things really are. Reality is what it is because God declared it so and made it so. Therefore God is the author, source, and final judge of all truth. When Jesus said "and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" he didn't mean you're free to make up your own reality, he meant that you are free to live in his love. The Bible tells us that we are to be doers of the word not hearers only. Jesus also said "if you love me you will keep my commandments",

These “commands” encompass all of Jesus’ words and teachings, which, in truth, are God the Father’s words:
“Jesus replied, ‘Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me’” John 14:23-24

Jesus also said that the written Word of God is truth. It does not merely contain nuggets of truth; it is pure, unchangeable, and inviolable truth that (according to Jesus) “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Praying to His heavenly Father on behalf of His disciples, He said this: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). And on top of that, the Word of God is eternal truth “which lives and abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).

To suppress this truth is to dishonor God, displace His glory, and incur His wrath and that's exactly where the Emergent Church takes us.

No one who isn't elect and walking in the Spirit by grace and in obedience can stand the truth. It's just the way of it. I hope I didn't spoil your OP? ;)
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
Then why aren't you a Mormon then? You included the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in your post to which I responded.
I'm not a Mormon because I don't think they teach the truth.

Same as why I'm not a Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, or Hindu. Or any other of the various religions I've rejected along the way.

Why aren't you?
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
I'm not a Mormon because I don't think they teach the truth.

Same as why I'm not a Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, or Hindu. Or any other of the various religions I've rejected along the way.

Why aren't you?

Because Jesus wanted me for a Sun Beam and the Mormons just wanted 10%. Commitment is everything! I'm so glad I left the Anglican Communion when I did. So glad. You're an exemplar of learning and diligence.
 
Top