Whats wrong with this position III?

 The discussion of the 2006 article The Divine Conspirator continues. We find out the type of reasoning being used by emergents to undermine the Christian Faith and transform it into a world of Christian Liberalism absent Christ.

Talbot School of Theology distinguished professor of philosophy J. P. Moreland says that three of Talbot's five philosophy professors were Willard's students. He says Willard models the integration of philosophy, the life of the spirit, and mature discipleship, and that they are attempting to emulate his approach at Talbot.

All of the more reason to question what the evangelical movement is now pushing. Since the "McChurch" is no longer the bastion of Christianity that it once was. This would of course be the bastion according to "Secular America". To be honest I want to know how superogative Good Works and a Law without Gospel is Good News. This is what the emergents are pushing and it is gradually invading denominational and non denominational Christianity. Instead of worrying about things like numbers perhaps we should worry about doctrine. I have heard that Moreland is an outstanding defender of the faith but it is a little disturbing for a Christian institution such as Talbot and moreland himself thinking what Willard is doing is good. After all Willard made a statement that does not assure that Jesus Christ saved us by his death.

He says he recognized that "even though we want to say salvation is by grace and that anyone can be saved, behaving in certain ways simply is inconsistent with having eternal life."

 Is that so? Apparently he forgot about Romans 7:14-25 and this is from the Apostle Paul.V.14. For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. V.15. For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. V.16. if, then, I do that which I would not, I consent unto the Law that it is good. V.17. Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. .18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. V.19. For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. V.20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. V.21. I find, then, a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. V.22. For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man; v.23. but I see another law in my members, warring against the Law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. V.24. O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? V.25. I thank God through Jesus Christ, our Lord So, then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Mr. Willard, I would like to ask you if Paul who admits being sinful did not inherit the eternal life promised? He definitely did! I cannot tell you how many times I daily perform and live according to God's Law and that is why I need the saving death of Jesus Christ for my sins and to trust in Him for that forgiveness. If Willard does not think that Christ was sufficient for his sins then he is damned.

 Lets add a little Luther from theses 25 of the Disputation Against the Scholastics. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.

How about a little Gospel Encouragement also from Luther. Theses 84 from Disputation Against the Scholastics. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Willard recalls giving his Baptist Sunday school teachers a "very bad time" as a young teenager. He didn't think it made sense that you "got saved" and were "stuck with it."
 He does not understand that you can commit apostasy. As a matter of fact, he already has come close in previous statements. It is not once saved always saved. Faith must be grown.



Willard's influence has sometimes led to radical changes at churches. Oak Hills Church in Folsom, California, was running along smoothly according to the Willow Creek model throughout the 1990s. Senior pastor Kent Carlson says that after a period of rapid growth, the church leadership finally had "time to think." The leaders read a book that essentially said consumerism was a mainstay of American culture, so if the church couldn't beat the culture, it might as well join it. Carlson says, "This was a distasteful concept to us." At the same time, senior co-pastor Mike Lueken was taking a course taught by Willard at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.


 So the growth of this church was really what their church was all about. It was kind of like a Macy's Marketing Strategy and the next gimmick. They had fears that the church ewas no longer going to grow so instead of truly rethinking by trashing the Willow Creek concept and going to Scripture and Confession. We get one step closer to associating with heretical teachings. Not that Bill Hybels does not have issues he definitely does . I believe the Apostle Paul said something about not being taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophy that is dependent on the principles of men rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 states,
Beware lest any man spoil you through false and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,  and not after Christ. I believe Jesus puts it best in Matthew 4:4 Man does not live on bread alone but every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. This is why these current churches are not appealing to anyone because many see what they actually are empty shells without any "transendence".
I will continue with part IV.