Brian McLaren, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light…

July 23rd, 2007 | 11 Comments | Church Issues, Discernment, Emergent Church, Media Brian McLaren, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light… |  Facebook

“Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
(Philippians 3:17-21)

“My kingdom is not of this world.”
- Jesus Christ (John18:39)

Bookmark and Share

Related Articles

Brian Mclaren: Emergent Church Leader and Theologian
John MacArthur & the Emergent Attack on Scripture
The Word of God Is Better
Brian McLaren: Welcoming Practicing and Unrepentant Homosexuals as Christians
How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb?


11 Responses to “Brian McLaren, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light…”

  1. Faye says:

    Mr. McLaren’s premise is wrong.
    There is nothing we can do in our own puny strength that can get us to heaven or to bring the kingdom of God to this earth. We are entirely dependent upon the sovereignity of God for our salvation and for the transformation of our evil hearts that enables us to live for God and not for our own selfish desires. Mr McLaren seems to think that if we, humans, can only put enough our own strength into the precious teachings of our LORD and Saviour then we will accomplish the kingdom of heaven here on earth. I am glad and grateful that I am unable to accomplish my own salvation or the transformation of my heart. !st, I’d mess the whole thing up and 2nd, if by some miricle I accomplished it I would be so proud that no one could be around me for long. Knowing that God gives me the ability to have faith in Him and grants me repentance and gives me grace to live for Him and not for myself helps to keep me humble and strengthens the desire to daily drink deeply from His Word and to pray for His will to done in my heart.

  2. Lauri says:

    Does anyone know who compiled the Bible and when? Were there some documents or books considered but not chosen to be included?

  3. Paul says:

    In answer to your question I could have gneo onto a few trusted sites and found outthe details but I would like to approach the question from what I have studyed about the subject already. For a start you must not be fooled into thinking that the scriptures were not distributed and the books we have now accepted as part of the canon till the 3rd or 4th centuries. In the frist few centuries most knew which books were authentic and which were not. Many had books memorized. Many wrote to friends etc and included bible verses with them. Tens of thousands of pottery pieces have been unearthed with bible verses enscribed on them. Funny thing the vast majority of them were verbatim. Exact copies. The rich and the poor people had access somehow to the words of God possibly by coping and memorization from others that did. (They didn’t have TV to dull their brains) So when it came time to put all of the books into one, it was a no brainer. The poor beggar on the street then could have done it, which doesn’t say much for the so-called schollars now. The books that were not included, they knew were not inspired. Even later, the versions like the Sinaticus and Vaticanus were not accepted and were shelved for hundreds of years until unlearned and non-God fearing people came across them and with their lack of faith that God could preserve his word without help, helped. These false corrupt versions have led to all of the modern perversions we have today. With only the KJVaround today, translated from the texts that were accepted by everyone in the first few centuries, except of course, the bible correcters in Alexandria Egypt. So you can trust that the Authorized version, the King James Bible has ALL of Gods words in it and nothing left out.

  4. Lauri,

    We also don’t want to get caught up in this fallacy stated by Paul either: “So you can trust that the Authorized version, the King James Bible has ALL of Gods words in it and nothing left out.” The KJV is NOT inspired in and of itself. Only the autographs (original writings) themselves were inspired. The NASB is an excellent translation as well.

  5. Justin Anderson says:

    Does anyone know who compiled the Bible and when? Were there some documents or books considered but not chosen to be included?

    Being a vast historical subject, it is not possible to give much attention to specifics in this comment. Please feel free to email us with any further specific and we will be glad to help.

    The compilation of the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament were written and accumulated over time by Moses, the prophets and the scribes throughout the history of the Jewish people. They were collected and meticulously preserved by the scribes in both written form and also in exceptional oral tradition. Historically they have been arranged in the cannon into three divisions known as the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and the Writings (Ketuvim), an arrangement recognised by Christ Himself.Though there does naturally exist additional writings in literary forms such as history and poetry throughout these periods, the texts considered to be the canon of Biblical Scripture were generally agreed upon by the Hebrew people though strict criterion.

    Between the third and second centuries BC (c. 250-150 BC), the Alexandrian Jews began to translate the well established Hebrew scriptures into Greek, into what is now know as the Septuagint. The early translations began with the translation of the law – an essential component of synagogue worship for these dispersed Jews in an environment carrying Hellenistic influence.

    As this translation continued in the course of time, the translators of the Septuagint began to include in the compilation other various works along with the Hebrew scriptures, such as a the historical events concerning Judas Maccabaeus (161BC), added in about 50BC. These works are sometimes called the apocrypha.Though these later additions were included in the Greek text as valuable reading literature (e.g. the valuable history of the Maccabees), they were never considered in this period to be authentically Holy Scripture as the established Hebrew text before them. First century Jewish historian Josephus gives a standard listing of the books in the Hebrew Old Testament canon without the inclusion of the Septuagint apocrypha.

    In the findings of the approximately five hundred separate documents found in the Dead sea scrolls in Qumran, about one hundred of them are copies of the books of the Hebrew Bible. In this discovery and subsequently since 1947, the texts have been compared with incredible accuracy to the already existing Hebrew manuscripts of nearly a millennium later. Amazingly, all the books of the Hebrew Bible are represented among then in these documents dating from 2nd century BC to 1st Century AD, with the exception of Esther.

    We are now brought to the New Testament or New Covenant, founded by Jesus Christ, which was promised to us in the Old Testament:

    Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
    “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Jeremiah 31:31-33

    As the history of the New Testament Christian believers developed, there was also a growing prevalence of heretics. Resultantly the wider Christian communities in general likewise had a growing need for the sound recording of various tenants and as always the discussion of doctrines to which they have long held. These sentiments we have recorded for us historically by the representative Christian leadership of their day. This is why we find events such as the Council of Nicaea and Athanasius records for us what was long considered to be the complete listing of the New Testament canon as early as AD367.

    Even though the canon of New Testament Scripture was clearly known and recognizable to us by still remaining historical documents from as early as the fourth century, it is far from when the the cannon was actually compiled.

    Cyprian, who was martyred in AD258 , clearly recognised the canonicity of the four gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters to seven churches, and to Timothy and Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.

    Tertulian AD 196-212 the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles which bear PAul’s name, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation.
    During the time of Tertullian, a group of North Africans from the town of Scillium were martyred for being Christians, and being in possession of the writings of Paul and other books – Which had by this time already been translated in Africa into Latin.

    Irenaeus in Southern Gaul, c. AD 180, quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1& 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, and Revelation.

    Ignatius of Antioch (presumably martyred c. AD 110 in Rome), quoted or gave approval of Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians. Again less than a century before the New Testament was written.

    When it came to understanding what were considered scripture in the New Testament, the authority of the Apostles was very important.

    Far from a conspiratorial system of Church control in councils centuries later to determine the ‘right text fo rthe masses’, within the Bible itself, there is a self recognition of canon, and acknowledgment of apostolic authority, even before all the books were written. The Apostle Peter himself, in the Scripture of 2 Peter 3:15-16, made it quite clear that the writings of “beloved brother Paul” to be on par with “the rest of the scriptures”. And on His part Paul the Apostle makes it clear that the Book of Luke was well regarded as part of the written scripture (cf. 1 Timothy 5:18, Luke 10:7). And in the very short book of Jude, Jude makes quotation from the book of 2 Peter no less than thirteen times.

    In understanding how the New Testament was compiled; it was written at various times during the lifetime of the Apostles, then very quickly copied and distributed to the outer far flun corners of the Roman Empire in a very short period of time. This explosive distribution was to the extent that there was never a time when any one man, or group of men, could gather up all the manuscripts and make extensive changes in the text itself, such as cutting out the deity of Christ. Indeed, by the time centuries later when anyone obtained such great ecclesical power, ancient copies of the text such as Papyrus 66 and 75 were already long buried in the sands of Egypt.

    The majority of Christian writings that occurred just after the New Testament included the epistles of Christian men to various churches and their theological discussions. They were considered to be valuable for Christian reading and edification, but most were generally understood to be subservient to the Scriptures written by the Apostles. Mostly after the period of the Scriptures written by the Apostles, there began to emerge from Gnosticism the Gnostic writings and ‘Gnostic gospels’ for which we so often see so much media hype. Many of the church fathers were not shy to condemn the uncritical use of these non-canonical books, and from here we have the naturally resulting Christian councils and increase in historical mention of the canon, as the issue of what was included became more pressing for the Christian people.

    The thorough criteria for credible canonicity included among other things: Apostolic authority – various aspects that gave a text credence as being part of the Apostolic authority, for example the sylistic aspects of Paul, the passing down by known disciples of the apostles; Antiquity The writing had to be the historical work of an Apostle or of someone closely associated with the apostle belonging to the apostolic age; Orthodoxy The text had to be theologically and doctrinally consistent with the orthodox faith and writings of the Apostles or it was assuredly falsifiable; Catholicity meaning “universal recognition”, Though a few works may have enjoyed minor local recognition, the authentic Apostolic texts of the New Testament were quite immediately widely distributed, and canon were those thus recognised universally, from Italy, to Africa, to Egypt to Israel; Traditional Usage and claims to, and evidence of Inspiration were also considered.

    Again there is just not the space in a comment field to go into specifics at length on this subject. Please feel free to contact us via the contact form should you be interested in further specifics or help in valuable resources on the subject.

    May the Word of God dwell richly in your hearts and bring you life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord. May His grace be with you always.

    Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

  6. Paul says:

    Lauri wrote
    “We also don’t want to get caught up in this fallacy stated by Paul either: “So you can trust that the Authorized version, the King James Bible has ALL of Gods words in it and nothing left out.” The KJV is NOT inspired in and of itself. Only the autographs (original writings) themselves were inspired. The NASB is an excellent translation as well.”

    I did not state that the KJB was inspired. I was just saying that it has translated ALL of Gods’s Words, as the Alexandrian manuscripts have left out many important verses.

    Try to find the best verse describing the Trinity for example.

    In the Aurthorised version: 1 John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    Compare this to NASB’s “For there are three that testify” Even the next verse added to this doesn’t ‘cut the mustard.’ Verse 8 “the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” Good luck trying to convince a JW of the Trinity as their New World Translation has most of the same verses and parts of verses missing as well… Funny that.

    This is just one of many important doctrinal verses left out and even more verses that have been adulterated by Non Believer Bible Correctors. Just look into the history and beliefs of Westcott and Hort. The two translators that had a major influence on the modern versions we have now. Letters sent between these two reveal they are aspostate unbelievers, big time.

    Yes the NASB may be a good translation but a good translation from corrupt manuscripts.

    I pray that others can have the same assurance that I have, that they can have all the words of Creator of the Universe. Not dumbied down for even unbelievers to understand. (If that were possible!) and not full of ‘bottom of the page’ references putting doubt on particular passages and doubts in readers minds.
    No. God has the power to preserve all his words for believers. Man cannot, even with all the modern perversions coming out, prevent this.

    Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” I BELIEVE IT.

  7. Faye says:

    Paul, I’m confused. Are you saying that any references to the trinity in scriptures are from corrupt manuscripts? Have you ever done a simple word study of the original words used to refer to God in both the old and the new testements? There are both plural and singular tenses to refer to God. I did from the KJV that corresponded to Strongs Concordance so am I studing from a corrupt manuscript?

  8. Hi Paul,

    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 KJV)

    It is most likely this sentence was added much later as it does not appear in any Greek manuscripts dated before the 10th century.

  9. Paul says:

    An answer to Faye and Binyamin Davis’ questions.
    No, Faye I am not saying “any references to the trinity in scriptures are from corrupt manuscripts?” In fact I am saying the best verse in scripture, showing the Trinity, has been removed in the modern versions. How do I know it has been removed?

    Here is a timeline of this one verse. Remember Binyamin, people wrote and spoke many different languages other than Greek during the first centuries.

    200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
    250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One” in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians.
    350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
    350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
    350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
    398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
    415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn’t believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
    450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
    A) Vigilius Tapensis in “Three Witnesses in Heaven”
    B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
    C) Fulgentius in “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
    500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol 70. col. 1373.]
    550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
    550 AD The “Speculum” has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
    750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
    800 AD Jerome’s Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
    1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
    1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
    1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
    157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

    Imagine telling the Waldensians a little over one hundred years after Christ, that they had exta verses in their Bible. According to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, the Waldensians received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD.

    The Waldensians gave their lives defending the Word of God from the Catholic invaders who took until the1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Waldensians were successful in preserving God’s words to the days of the Reformation.They not only preserved the Scriptures, (which were different from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which the Reformation era Greek editors believed were doctrinally corrupt texts and which the new versions were based on,) but they showed to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7)

  10. Faye says:

    Wow, Paul. Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion. I’m gonna save this portion and research these references you have cited. I’m going to enlist my son’s aide, he knows how to research history much better than me.Thank you so much again.

  11. Great! Very interesting. Thank you, Paul.

Leave a Reply