More Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

I would like your attention. Some consider the emergent movement as an innocuous attempt to bring the gospel to people with a more modern and effective communication. They rightly assume that emergent teachers are sincere people and they wrongly assume that sincerity translates into truth. I have written about the errors of Peter Rollins and others that make deeds, other than Christ’s, redemptive to sinners. And many suggest that sincere Muslims, Buddhists, and followers of other men can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ. They manipulate the Scriptures with metaphorical fantasies and torured logic while ignoring and rejecting the open meaning of words.

When I was attending Bible college in the mid 70s we learned about “liberals” within the Southern Baptist seminaries that denied the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and even the deity of Jesus Christ. There was no “emergent” church back then, but these liberals may as well have donned that moniker since these emergents are the sons and daughters of the liberal lineage. You are not convinced?

Read this article that was written by an emergent leader named Tony Jones who is a “theologian” who attends the church named “Solomon’s Porch” which is pastured by Doug Pagitt. Both men are friends of Peter Rollins and Rob Bell, and Bell has had Paggit preach at his church. This article was written to question the importance, and in fact the necessity and validity of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. You will find that like many emergents Jones uses the similarities of pagan religions to suggest that the account of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary may be just borrowed from other myths.

This brings into question everything the Scriptures teach. If Jesus didn’t need to be born of a virgin, then maybe He didn’t need to be sinless as well. If God could have accomplished His desire without the virgin birth as Jones suggests, perhaps God could have done what He pleased without any of the other attributes that the Scriptures teach were inherent with the Incarnation. And if we begin to pull one important doctrinal thread, how long will it take until the entire theological sweater disappears into emergent thin air? As I have addressed in a previous post here, this is one more instance of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Jones says, “What you can see in my theological rationale above is that I do not consider Mary’s virginity to be important primarily to preserve the doctrine of Jesus’ sinlessness.”

Notice the words “theological rationale”. That is emergent code speak for unbelief and blasphemy and a general poo pourri of the “what do you think” vehicle for arriving at “Biblical” truth. In fact, it makes the Word of God subservient to Jones’ theological rationale, and it renders God an open and blatant liar. And of course Jones is not content with an open blasphemy of God’s Spirit, he must make this creative and sensationalistic statement,

“Suffice it to say, I think that God is capable of creating and maintaining Jesus and a sinless person without needing a lack of semen to do it.”

I personally have come to the place where I must evaluate all my dealings with brothers and sisters who would give implied, tacit, or open support to men like Jones and all his friends. We are entering a deeper level of apostasy, but I fear God knows that statement could have been written decades ago. Walk in love; walk in grace; walk in humility; walk in personal brokenness; but always walk in truth.

II Jn.4 - I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

HT: Wittenburg Church Door