January 11, 2009

Was Rogers' God Contemptible?

The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind. A "god" whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt. Arthur W. Pink

Was Pink talking about Adrian Rogers' Jesus.? Well let's see.

1.) Could his Jesus be resisted?

2.) Could his Jesus' designs be frustrated?

3.) Could his Jesus be checkmated?

4.) Could his Jesus possess a title to Deity.

5.) Could his Jesus be worthy of worship?

All five items enlist argument as to whether his Jesus was the logos of John 1:1. Was He the Jesus who was with the Father and was God? Any one item that fails would disqualify Rogers' Jesus of being truly God. My considerations here are extremely radical and leave little room for anything but contempt for Rogers' Jesus. Am I as radical as Arthur W. Pink? You be the judge.

No comments: