A Danger with ‘Emerging’ Thought
While on vacation, I had some time to think while driving and enjoying God’ creation. One of the thoughts that concerns me has been re-impressed on me just in perusing a number of Christian blogs - particular emerging ones and this one - of late.
One of the raps on ‘fundamentalism’, Slice, C?N, AM, etc., is an appearance of inability to discern between what is traditional/external and what is Biblical. It is my concern that ‘emerging’ thought - when it is no longer emerging - will fall into the same set of traps. In some cases, it already has in its treatment of tradition as somehow anti-Biblical. This is just as wrong as the traditional externalist orthopraxy on display with Ingrid, in particular.
We who claim Christ, be we fundamentalist, Calvinist, Arminian, Emerging, Methodist, Reformation Movement, Restoration Movement, Protestant or Catholic, are all part of the Church and I am certain that each of us needs to retain a healthy amount of uncertainty that we ‘have it all right’. As brothers and sisters, we need to keep that in mind as we write here and elsewhere, lest we fall into the sin of purposeful quarreling and divisiveness.Â
In this arena, I would agree that am often the chiefest of sinners - so I write this for myself, first and formost.
I earnestly believe that most of us who write here, who often vehemently disagree with each other, will be spending an eternity together, and as I ‘get back into the groove’ after a long absense (and before another shorter one), I am hoping to try to agree and disagree in a manner that recognizes this…
Maybe this post is really just a reminder for me, but if you think it applies to you, perhaps it does, as well…
June 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Respectful, however vehement, disgreement with a reminder that we should love one another. One of the reasons I comment here is I respect Chris L.’s scholarly fairness, but most of all I need to love people like Joe and others. Sorry, Joe, my brother, I’m sure you feel the same way. Let us be transparent, how can I say I love someone with whom I will not speak?
June 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The blasted weather has me locked up in my cabin this afternoon so I guess I’ll take a crack at this post as well.
Scripture tells us in 1 Cor 13:9 “For we know in part and we prophesy in part”
This is an profound truth. The Christian faith does not claim to know everything about God. In fact, it claims to know only a portion of the whole picture. But, what it does ‘know’ is quite clear and maintaining an ‘healthy amount of uncertainty’ actually contradicts the clear teachings of scripture. Let me take a moment to explain.
1. Scripture teaches that there is One God in Three Persons. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is clear. No need to be uncertain about it. How is it possible for one God to exist in three persons. The text doesn’t say. Maintaining uncertain on this point is wise.
2. Scripture teaches that Jesus is God in human flesh. This is certain. How the incarnation works is not explained to us. Uncertain in explaining how the incarnation works is wise to maintain.
3. Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ death on the cross propitiated God’s wrath and justice. This is VERY clear. Uncertainty on this is not an option.
4. Scripture clearly teaches that unless we believe in Christ alone for our salvation we will die in our sins and face God’s justice. This is obscenely clear in the scriptures. To be uncertain on this doctrine is undermine saving faith itself.
5. Scripture clearly teaches that teaching another gospel other than the Biblical gospel earns a person ‘eternal condemnation’. Again this is insanely clear.
We are to be clear where scripture is clear and Uncertain where scripture is silent. A reversal of this rule lands a person in deep spiritual yogurt.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Parson,
If you promise to stick to these 5 premises I’ll preach next to you anyday.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Martino,
Can you preach to thundering rain clouds over my home? These summer squalls have a bad habit of messing up my fishing fetish.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
LOL, is that an invitation? When do I leave? I’ll come and preach to the clouds. If I fail, well then we can drink some coke and go fishing when the rain passes.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Chris L,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I posted a similar article today at RelevantChristian.com.
(though you are more learned than I)
It amazes me still that there can be such division in the body of Christ over seemingly trivial things.
Val,
Well put…if anyone cannot agree upon those 5 things then they most likely cannot profess to be a Christian.
Peace!
Jimmy
June 26th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Martino,
I’d love to have you.
But, I’m afraid I don’t keep soda’s in my home. But, I have a keg of India Pale Ale I brewed up not too long ago. But, don’t tell anyone. Some of these American Fundamentalists think I’ve gone emergent whenever they hear that I brew my own beers. Being in the American Bible Belt can be oppressive at times. Some of these folks need to wake up and realize Jesus turned water into wine and not that sickeningly sweet welch’s grape juice. That stuff will rot the teeth right out of your head.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
haha! That is so funny. I almost posted, “drink some cold beer” but I was afraid I’d offend you. If we’re going to drink beer we’ll need some good red meat to cook over an open fire. I’m still in.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Joe and Val,
Count me in!
June 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Well, count me…uh…you know.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
When and where?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed, Butthat is atonement at it’s bare minimum and not the full, exhaustive scope of it’s theological implications/function.
To deny penal substitution is unbiblical, to reify it as the only understanding of it is extra-biblical.
4. Certainly.
5. umm…yes…BUT what if a person affirms the above 4, but is accused of preaching another gospel because they want to honor God by taking care of the environment, or care for the poor as a gospel witness IN ACTION? It seems that a persons working out of the gospel in action (if it is considered “leftist”) gets labeled as a man-centered, “other gospel” preacher…even though they affirm their salvation comes by Christ’s grace alone expressed in the work of the Cross.
thoughts?
oh, and as far as beer goes…
wish I could knock a couple back with you all too…
“Bible belt”?
Where are you, Val? I’m moving to the Bible belt soon.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
well said Chris L.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I like Val’s list, and I might add that Alexander Keith’s India Pale Ale is a fine brew for theological gatherings, although Guinness is, of course, in a hallowed class all on its own.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
AN - the difference is between method and message. The things you mentioned are important parts of methodolgy that show the love of Christ through us, but they are not part of the gospel.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
OK…
I was totally going to stay out of this thread then Robbymac went and did it!…
Guinness is the beer God drinks… (that is if He ever does LOL!)
I would many years ago (b.c.) if given a choice over a case of Bud and a single Guinness laugh and take the case of beer…. now I am much more wise and would take that Guinness and enjoy a great beer over much… quality over quantity!
In that one can satisfy me for quite a while.
Blessings,
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Val,
Most of what you have written is pretty good. the thing is if you are of the “in the box” theological party it would be a great fit.
yet, if we are to be a genuine and open community that loves and cares for all regardless to their faith or lack of, we can still disagree and walk with them as they journey in their searching/returning/questioning/ of their faith.
The model you have given leaves many who are seeking or have come to times of questioning of their faith outside. I think the core is Jesus Christ.
Now, before someone goes, “wattabowt da Mormon/JW/Satanist… we are to love them… yet we can never truly fellowship in the same Spirit with them. I have talked to JW’s who where que3stioning their faith and if I rammed down their throat what was all wrong with the Watchtower, they would have began to defend it… and I would have lost them. Yet, to listen and affirm them in their questions, to say “hey it is good to question” and encourage them to do just that brings better results.
Now, I see a weird sort of hierarchical structure of theologians who have it “all figured out” and what trickles down to us is that we take that and put it into practice. The issue is we never truly wrestled with and thought about it ourselves. Without that process we lose actually learning on a deeper level. We only take these points of theological agreement and stay shallow in our viewpoints… our roots grow in a shallow dirt. This leads to disaster in times of real trials and tribulation.
So, on a very superficial level i agree… yet still see that all points are great to “start” with but would take lifetimes to unpack… and will take literally eternity to learn.
Blessings,
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
to the other Nathan,
I am currently residing in a small town about 90 kilometers north of Roanoke Virginia. It is more of a place that I visit than live. I spend most of my time traveling and managing my business affairs. In a day or so I will be traveling to Australia and will be gone through July and most of August.
Regarding the greater theological scope and implications of the atonement: I find your language to be a bit odd. You said “To deny penal substitution is unbiblical, to reify it as the only understanding of it is extra-biblical.”
I am not tracking with your thoughts here. To ‘reify’ something means to take an abstract thought and make it the real thing.
Maybe I should clarify my position first. Then you can help me see what I am missing.
1. The Atonement may be more than just ‘penal substitution’ but is certainly not less than that.
For instance, If I held to Abelard’s Moral Influence view of the atonement but denied the penal substitution view of the atonement then I would have to say that I would be damned for I would probably still be trusting in my own rotten religious works to save me.
But if I held to the Penal Substitution but never heard of the Moral Influence theory of the atonement I’d still be saved. I think that Christus Victor (Ransom) falls under the same category as the Moral Influence theory.
So that you don’t think I am merely trumpeting my own religious notions, I think the Apostle Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 15. In the opening verses of that chapter Paul clearly defines “The Gospel”. Here is what the apostle wrote through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 Â Â For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.”
In other words, penal substitution is pretty much the whole game. There is more to the atonement than that but not much more. The other aspects of the atonement only make cameo appearances and play bit roles. Penal Substitution is however playing the starring role.
As for your environmental efforts and desire to care for the poor, these are noble endeavors and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. You have scripture backing you on this.
Generally though, it is classical liberal theologians who’ve emphasized those civic works and not American Fundamentalists.
If you think that by caring for the poor that you are earning merit badges with God while denying that the Bible is the word of God then you are one sick puppy and all of your good works are nothing more than filthy rags.
If however, you are compelled by the love of Christ shown to you through the gospel to honor Him by being a good steward of His creation then your work is a fruit of the sanctification that the Holy Spirit is working in your life.
If you are compelled by the compassion that Christ has shown you by shedding His blood on the cross for all of your sins and you want to share that compassion with the poor and needy then this is a fruit of the sanctification that the Holy Spirit is working in your life. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Iggy,
I’m not sure which box you think I would fit in. For that matter I’m not sure what the ‘in the box’ theological party is. Is there a new cult of square and boxy theologians running loose on the landscape that no one has told me about? I haven’t been gone for that long have I?
About being a caring community: ramming your religion down someone’s throat is could hardly be called loving or caring. I hope that no one hear is advocating that ‘method’ of evangelism.
The Apostle Paul had a wonderful way of looking at evangelism. He said this in 1 Corinthians 3:6 - 9 “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
Isn’t it amazing that Paul didn’t consider himself to be the lone ranger of evangelism. He describes and evangelism that works out as part of a team and a community. He planted the seeds and another watered them but the whole time they were just God’s fellow workers and it was God who was giving the increase.
The Biblical question that would should be asking ourselves is not how to shove our religion down someone’s throat. But what does it mean to plant and water the seeds of saving faith in other person? Some soil is hard and rocky and needs to be tilled. That could be rather alarming and painful for a person. But it is necessary. Others don’t need that approach. They are ready for the seeds to be planted and watered and all they need is the loving and diligent hands of a believer or three working in their life. God will give the increase.
As for theological systems: not all of them are as you describe. You sound like your describing Calvinistic theologs. I am partial to Classical Lutheran theologians myself (most of the modern lutherans can’t compare) . They don’t try to use their reason to figure everything out. They remain satisfied with unsolved Biblical mysteries and tensions.
—
just a note to all.
I am getting tired and it is close to my bed time. I will try to check in tomorrow morning to see what rotten things you are saying about me.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Val,
The issue is that “systematic theology” assumes to have it all figured out. that is a humanistic assumption that we can figure God out… and rather sad.
I am one who is steadily realizing that there is no box… that if we do not struggle we are like that butterfly who was helped out of his cocoon… the struggle would have strengthened his wings… instead he did not have the fight to push the blood into his wings and was unable to fly… and that is what I see as the issue with many professing Christians today. We take what is given, and swallow it, then regurgitate it all over others expecting them to just accept it.
It does not work that way.
Jesus was expected to come as messiah and drive out Rome as an earthly warrior… yet He died on a Cross and won! We need to recognize that when we have all things figured out, we know less than nothing.
You see, to me I have no issue between Paul and James… many seem to, but I see that both teach the same. I had to struggle and chew and sweat and finally submit to God’s ways which are better than ours…
There is grave danger in thinking we “know” as knowledge puffs one up with pride… yet when one comes to understand… they Grace, Mercy and Love become the focus of our faith and in how we treat others.
Blessings,
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
“to me I have no issue between Paul and James.”
Well, good for you because they were but vesseils through whom God spoke. So it matters not whether one agrees with “Paul” or “James” because God Himself is the Author of Scripture, and He isn’t schizophrenic.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Ken,
Your sarcasm is noted… Luther was probably a greater theologian than you and he was troubled deeply by the book of James…
Many use these two books against each other… or avoid James other than to proof-text some point they are making.
The point you missed though is that you have a small definition of a grand and great subject… and seem to share what you know… which is not a bad thing… but I still think there is much more you could share if you let got of your kingdom and truly sought after God’s.
Blessings,
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
BTW Ken,
It is your theology that has God a bit schizophrenic. He loves the world to send His son… to die for a few, and no one has a choice whether they can be elect or not, but will suffer for being created as vessels of wrath anyway… this God hates mankind because of his sin… yet was willing to die for mankind to save them… Talk about confusing!
God hates/loves everyone/the elect only… forgave us at the Cross but will pour out His wrath on His Son/sinners… and so on… it lifts up a truth then negates it in the next breath!
Blessings
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
iggy,
No thanks. I’m good.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
OK you heard it here… Ken will seek after his own kingdom over Gods Kingdom…
enough said.
Be blessed!
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Anyone else notice that Ken’s stopped making replies with any actual content? Now if we can just get him to do the same on his various blogs it would be absolutely sublime.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Tim,
“Anyone else notice that Ken’s stopped making replies with any actual content?” Just trying to be like the CRN.Info? guys is all.
“Now if we can just get him to do the same on his various blogs it would be absolutely sublime.” Not a chance Tim. I’m only getting started. Wait until you see what’s coming friend…
June 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Ken, we all know what’s coming: Character assassinations, stunning leaps in logic, ginormous straw men, and general maliciousness. Its the worst kept secret on the interwebs. Oh, and we all know what’s not coming: any semblance of the actual gospel. I used to get angry when I’d read your crap, then I dug what used to be my favorite verse out and put it front and center: Galatians 5:12. You’re every bit the Judaizer Paul was writing against.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Tim,
Yep… the Judaizer spread rumors and slander about Paul. Note the Judaizers were beleivers… but they thought all needed to conform to the image of Judaism… and that is the same as the gospel of Ken and Ingrid.
Blessgins,
iggy
June 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Iggy,
I apologize for jumping into the middle of a conversation that is already in progress. But, there are some things that you are saying that are very confusing to me.
It sounds like you are arguing that we really can’t know much about doctrine and theology. You’re epistemology sounds like it is all over the map.
You said:
The Bible is Revealed Truth. We certainly know what it teaches and claims. Scripture itself admonishes pastors to teach what is in accord with “Sound Doctrine”. This implies and assumes that there is a such thing as truth and sound doctrine.
Any Systematic Theology that is worth its salt attempts to organize and order the doctrines and teachings of scripture. Some do this better than others.
But as Val pointed out from God’s word we only KNOW and prophesy in part. We Christians don’t claim to have it all figured out. We claim that we CAN KNOW in part. Where is our source of KNOWING it is God’s Word. But we certainly do know.
The litany of doctrines you poo-pooed; Election, Depravity, the Bondage of the Will, Christ’s Atonement for the sins of the whole world are not the doctrines of men but of scripture. How the tensions between them are resolved or not resolved reveals whether men impose their reasoning on the scriptures or whether they submit their reasoning to scriptures.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Tim,
Ooh, scary. I might remind you that Jesus says don’t judge unless you’re ready to stand the same judgment. You ready to stand my judgment Tim? The same measure you use on me will be measured back to you.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
iggy,
“Note the Judaizers were beleivers.” Note Galatians 1:6-9. They were false believers who were not Christian because they preached that other gospel that God was condemning through Paul’s writings.
The Mormons are “believers” too. So are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So Ingrid and I are false converts, is that what you are saying my friend who “blesses” me? With friends like you I won’t need any enemies.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Chris R,
“Any Systematic Theology that is worth its salt attempts to organize and order the doctrines and teachings of scripture. Some do this better than others.”
the issue you miss is that Christianity is not about “just” doctrine but the Person of Jesus Christ. the other is you are really preaching to the choir here… yet most often I am told I am wrong when i agree with people… which is strange to me.
I was recently speaking to some pretty big names and helping them understand my perspective. I showed that sound doctrine must flow from Christ to us before we can understand the Bible. It is in the bible yet to understand it we must first know Jesus…
I was mocked for that. In fact they put a Spurgeon quote that stated the very thing i was saying and told me i was saying the opposite…
The only basis of this was my association with the emerging conversation and that I had a link to Brian McLaren… (I also have chuck missler, J Vernon Mcgee and many others…) but their sole focus was on that i was an “apostate emergent” who knew nothing… even when I agreed with them on doctrine I was still wrong in their eyes… so tell me about confusion!
I teach that we must seek sound doctrine and people then twist this to mean I am anti doctrine… i am anti man-made doctrine… a big difference.
So if you need to speak to some that have poorly organized doctrine I recommend speaking to Ingrid at SOL and Ken at CRN they both add works righteousness to Grace.
Be Blessed,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Iggy,
I’m sorry that you’ve been treated poorly because of you’re association with the Emergent Conversation. Many times ‘guilt by association’ is the rule of the day.
I want to say this in Ken and Ingrid’s defense. I know them both and I can assure you that neither of them are proponents of Works Righteousness. You’ve mis-judged them if that is your conclusion. Both of them confess that we are saved by Christ’s work alone. Both of them also believe that a person who is saved will have the fruit of the Holy Spirit’s working in their life through repentance from a sinful life and growth in righteousness. They also believe that Pastors and ministers are to exemplify a life of service and submission to Christ; doctrinally and morally. That is not works righteousness.
Just like you want people to see your position correctly, I think you should also see their position correctly.
Just a suggestion.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Chris R.
Thank you for you kind words… though it seems this is how it all starts.
You can say what you want… but I have read what they write and though they confess one thing they teach quite another. In fact I just posted a quote from Ingrid that showed what she does teach.
You see, they and you also teach a version of submission that is not biblical as it is about YOU doing these acts to bear God’s fruit (this is not meant accusatory… but as an observation) We can do nothing to bear God’s fruit. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit… yet that is what is taught by Ken and Ingrid… we being bad trees, being obedient and by submitting then bear God’s fruit… it is subtle but it is works.
Jesus gave HIS LIFE for us to GIVE HIS LIFE to us, to LIVE HIS LIFE through us… Jesus being God and by being filled by the Holy Spirit then by Grace, bear fruit of God as HE WILL and according to HIS PURPOSE… not our own… which is the twist on the submission/obedience.
Submission/obedience in its purity, is out of Love… it is the acknowledgement that we cannot do anything on our own and need to depend totally on Jesus as He depended on the Father.
To turn submission into something that is about us, misses that submission is when we recognize that we are at the end of ourselves and that all that dwells in us is death. In this we exchange our death (some say incorrectly “give my life to Jesus” yet we have no life to give)… and in exchange we receive HIS LIFE ETERNAL. We enter His Kingdom and are His adopted Children.
As far a misjudging others… LOL! Ken has called me every name in the book… from a semi pelagian to not being saved… he has judge my very salvation as if he himself has the Lamb’s book of Life in his home on his coffee table. So, You tell me about “works”….
again, here is Ingrid’s quote from another post…
“I would say that based on Holy Scripture, you’re no Christian if you have X-rated addictions.â€
this is again what I am talking about… she then uses scripture to promote “making oneself pure”… and I ask again, how can we make ourselves more pure than Jesus already has? how can we add to the Holiness of God that He has already declared us? It seems that Ingrid teaches quite the opposite from her confession.
I think that may be enough to make you hate me… so…
Blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hey,
For what it’s worth, I LIKE systematic theology. Strangely enough, Chris P and I like the same systheo text: Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, although I still find myself somewhere between the poles of Wesley and Calvin (but let’s not get into that one again!).
Jesus is so much bigger than any systematic theology, and if we try to nail down every jot and tittle of theology, we’ll end up down-sizing God into something our feeble minds can handle (which would be a false God).
However, let’s not make the opposite error of tossing sys-theo out. It’s a helpful tool, and should be referenced, but kept in its proper place by recognizing that God is so much bigger than even Matthew Henry’s commentaries! I like when Leonard Sweet said (in Aqua Church, I believe, something to the effect of “We won’t get where we want to go in the 21st century by lobotomizing the previous 20 centuries of Christian thought and experience.”
June 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
robbymac,
Uh-oh: 1) “Strangely enough, Chris P and I like the same systheo text: Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, 2) although I still find myself somewhere between the poles of Wesley and Calvin 3)(but let’s not get into that one again!).”
Here’s something even stranger - 1) Me too! 2) Me too! and 3) I heartily concur! Perhaps the End is near - ha.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Anything that is somewhere between the poles of Wesley and Calvin is a form of Arminianism, not Calvinism. Once you loose the moorings of unconditinal election you have left Calvin for good no matter how you attempt to define it.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Rick,
Did you not read what both robbymac and I said about rehashing this ad infinitum, adnauseaum? Your point isn’t even valid because who said anything about about specific “moorings.”
Let it go…please!!!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Ken,
Have you ever read any Maj Ian Thomas?
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Ken - I’m searching for the statement from Chris L. that gives you the authority to reject topics, especially when they sting. Oh yea, he didn’t. Sorry.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Rick,
Save your snide remarks. Many here have asked this discussion happen somewhere else. I was being polite and considerate. You might try it.
And don’t flatter yourself man. You do not sting me because you happen to be ignorant on this topic and have amply demonstrated you do not have a grasp on Calvinism. And for the upteenth time I am not a Calvinist.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:52 am
You are a real riot, Ken. Sometimes you are funny without even trying. And without even trying, I have somehow gotten under the skin of the Calvinist community in the blogasphere, even garnering my own posts on Old Truth.
Such thin skin. As for the polite and considerate, keep up the good work, let this day be the start of a streak!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Rick,
*yawn*
“I have somehow gotten under the skin of the Calvinist community…” Hmm, aren’t you the one normally telling us how humble you are?
My final comment to you on this subject is Philippians 3:15-16. Beyond this I’ll not discuss Calvinism or Arminianism with you.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
“Hmm, aren’t you the one normally telling us how humble you are?”
I believe I am sharing how humble we all SHOULD be. But after evaluating my present humility, I have come to the conclusion that my humility is something to behold and a shining city on a hill. Take notice everyone, but wear sunglasses!
Humbly, Rick
June 27th, 2007 at 9:02 am
” But after evaluating my present humility, I have come to the conclusion that my humility is something to behold and a shining city on a hill. Take notice everyone, but wear sunglasses!”
Priceless…
June 27th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Ken - Can we make every effort to live at peace with everyone?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Matt,
Sure Matt. Um, that is exactly what I was attempting to do with Rick. Perhaps you might speak with him.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Iggy,
If you were trying to get me to hate you then you failed miserably. So far you’ve said nothing that would make me want to toss you to the lions.
Rather than trying to defend Ingrid’s statement because I’m not sure it is possible. Maybe it would be more productive to discuss Christ’s forgiveness in light of gross moral failings by believers.
Let me start by saying that daily I SIN MUCH. My life perfectly mirrors what Paul describes in Romans 7. What little progress I seem to make in moral improvement is hard fought BY the Holy Spirit. I am one ornery and stubborn sinner. If my salvation depended on my moral improvement then I may as well throw in the towel cause I’d be going to hell.
I think the scripture is clear that Christ died for all of my sins. This however doesn’t give me a license to sin. The last thing I’d want to do is turn Christ’s sacrifice into an indulgence.
I’ve noticed that different tribes in Christianity swing between two extremes. One extreme is legalism (can’t drink, smoke, dance or chew). The other extreme is antinomianism (Christ died for me so I can do what ever the hell I please). I think both are very dangerous.
Somewhere in the middle all of this is the very real question regarding a Christian Churchman endorsing the movie ‘Knocked Up’.
Scripture doesn’t list out the movies by name that we should and shouldn’t watch/endorse etc. Therefore, as soon as this topic comes up there is going to be a spectrum of opinions from those who see no problem with any movies to those who never go to a movie or even own a T.V.
I think we need to wrestle with the texts of scriptures that call us to be salt and light and reveal that we are no longer under the slavery of sin (Rom 6). I think the Bible gives us both moral and doctrinal standards that we are to submit to (this is only possible through the working of the Holy Spirit).
When a person in the church runs afoul of these standards they are to be called to repentance in light of the Biblical standard. If they refuse to repent then church discipline is in order.
Ingrid is attempting to bring to light things that she believes are clear infractions of Biblical standards.
If we’re to engage in productive dialogue (even if she doesn’t) then we need to take her points and evaluate and scrutinize them in light of God’s word.
I fear there is too much reacting going on and not enough Biblical dialogue. That is one of the reasons that I rarely comment on Blogs anymore.
What are your thoughts?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Ken,
“Here’s something even stranger - 1) Me too! 2) Me too! and 3) I heartily concur! Perhaps the End is near - ha.”
Dang, you may be on to something! Didn’t we all agree on something a few months back, and we were likewise wondering if the End must be imminent?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hey robbymac,
I believe we did!
June 27th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Chris R. - you say “Somewhere in the middle all of this is the very real question regarding a Christian Churchman endorsing the movie ‘Knocked Up’.”
It is inconceivable that a preacher would go see it, much less endorse it and encourage others to put evil before their eyes. I posted an article last year about a similar girl after I watched a community come together to smugly denounce the opening of a girlie bar. It is possible to communicate mercy and compassion without using vulgarity and nudity.
God’s Word never gives license to these things just because it’s “art”. Whose art? Who draws the line? Even the dialogue about Christian separation has been put to bed. Many now drink, smoke, curse, watch nudity, and many other things that were once at least an outward sign of a witness.
But my post (below) deals with the self righteous attitude of some of those who would never do those things. Even in our separation we should be willing to reach out in mercy and compassion to the world. One of the many things I disagree with on SOL is criticism of the world. They are lost, just like I was. Before I was saved I would have made a splendid post on SOL, a drug selling, violent, motorcycle riding, bank robbing, foul mouthed, immoral, and blasphemous daughter stealer. Yea, I was one big lost piece of work.
I, by God’s gracious power, have left all that behind, but I do not judge the lost person still dead in his sins. And I believe we who know Christ should gladly sacrifice those things, not look for a convenient breach that allows that which is lawful but not convenient. Listen as one person mentions beer in a comment and others come running like high schoolers. Many exercize their freedom in Christ, making sure everyone knows they can and do things that they know others will not. It isn’t even the doing of those things that is most objectionable, it’s the smugness they feel is necessary to prove they are not an old, legalistic, fundamentalist.
Oh well, no matter what you feel is acceptable in your walk with Christ you should do it in humility and respectful of others who see it differently. And those of us who are more restrained, we should not attack our brothers with such aggressive glee and self righteousness. The lost world needs to hear us.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-will-have-mercy.html
June 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Chris R,
My thoughts Hmmm…
Movies mostly are a waste of time. I Can say that only a handful out of the 100’s or more i have seen (My wife was in the motion picture industry) I would say only about 20 are worth one’s time. (pretty harsh huh?)
Now saying that, I waste my time too much.
As far as addictions, I think that a christian who at the very least recognises he is sinning, and is struggling in it is both in a better place and a worse place than one in the world who does not care either way.
1. He is doing better as he recognizes his sin.
2. He is doing worse if he thinks “stopping sinning” is the focus of our faith in Christ Jesus. We won’t stop sinning, but sin no longer has its hold, and is no longer our master.
I think the key is as you said a proper understanding of forgiveness in its relationship to a New Life in Jesus Christ.
Now, in pursuit of holiness, we are to seek Christ Jesus as He IS our Holiness, as well our righteousness and as i believe according to Romans 5:19 our very obedience.
We walk IN the obedience of Christ as we walk in His righteousness. We have no obedience except for that which is of faith in Christ. John states we are to “Love God, and Love one another” as the definition of obedience to the commands of God/Jesus.
Most Christians fail as they wander between Calvin and Arminius and never realize that it is Jesus who saves us not any man-made doctrine. I have debated people from Ken’s side who argue with me about where and how the bible has its authority… it comes solely from God, and was proven by Jesus Christ… if Jesus had not come God’s word would be just nice promises and stories… but unfulfilled and without any true authority. Yet, they argue that the Bible has authority because it says it does… which is circular logic and really gets on no where while talking to those of some intelligence outside the Christian faith.
Now, if I recall right, you are from Australia? Correct me if i am wrong. Regardless, the conversation of the EC is much different in Australia and Europe than it is here in the states. Also, the conversation outside the USA is not as muddled down with “Americanized” fundamentalism which is not a prominent elsewhere…. so culturally and contextually I seem to converse with those outside the USA much more than here in it as the mentality of fundamentalism tends toward “boundary” style models of theology…. meaning keeping the sinners out and making yourself pure and holy by praying and repentance an confession. To me on a personal side too many spend their time worrying about forgiveness and whether they have it than actually walking in faith in that very forgiveness… they are like a person told that a boat will carry them across the river, and they confess they believe it will yet never get into the boat and cross that river. they just keep asking if that boat will get them there or not…
We need to get in that boat and no longer be double minded about forgiveness and move in living the New Life in Christ Jesus.
Again, Chris, I have been condemned over and over for teaching this here in America… especially from a certain camp of people such as CRN and SOL who seem focused on teaching others to live in a shame based faith instead of moving into the Life of Christ and being the New Creation we are in Him.
In fact I have had people from that camp question what I mean and argue that I am wrong about what I teach about being “in Christ”… but I trust you are biblically savvy enough to know what I mean and what Paul teaches on this.
Blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Rick,
So If I read this right your position is that a Christian Churchman should not have viewed and or endorsed the movie ‘Knocked Up’.
But, SOL is wrong because it pointed this out with the wrong attitude.
In other words you agree with Ingrid about the content of her post but disagree with her tone and attitude.
Okay…..that is interesting.
In my opinion a churchman endorsing ‘Knocked Up’ is not an isolated issue. It seems to be a symptom of a bigger problem. The church is becoming very worldly and more and more professing Christians are openly engaging in and endorsing sin. This problem breaks my heart and at times gets my ire up. I feel like saying nothing and doing nothing is not an option.
So the question before is what should we be doing to turn back the tide of worldliness that is infecting the church and how can we salt our efforts with grace and mercy?
June 27th, 2007 at 10:59 am
You are correct in you assessment of my views. Besides me believing Ingrid is acting in a male office, I agree with much of what she observes but not with her caustic and condescending speech.
I agree, the church is a wild donkey who has slipped her reins and spit out her bit. The only course that might turn the tide is unusual prayer and brokenness, and a sacrificial return to God’s Word. A return to the cross must be central, but hours and days of prayer must be our goal. When we hear preachers from all perspectives say they believe in prayer and then see how few prayer meetings our church’s have is transparent.
We don’t need God to intervene. We can blog, and talk, and banter, and write books, and have conferences, and all the rest. And have we called out to God to come in power and do what HE wants? True revival that crucifies our flesh and invites the infusion of the Spirit’s power is the only answer.
And the only reason that you and I agree on some ofthe issues of separation is because Christ has graciously enlightened us. It is all of Him, and yes, we should pray for humility, abject humility, clothed in humility, because that is who God receives.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Chris R,
Again, to me the focus is not on stopping sinning… for we have a natural tendency to steer where we look… if we look at our own sin or others… then we tend to sin… but if we focus on God and His Kingdom… and walk in the forgiveness that comes with New Life in Christ, though we may still fall into sin on occasion we will still have victory by the Blood of the Lamb.
I agree that there is an issue with Christian… I see that they have left their first love and have surrendered to mans teachings and advice against stopping sinning. IN Christ there is no sin. Remember Jesus was sinless? The sin issue is dealt with… it is the death issue that is not. People need to realize they are dead and need life. once there they need to know that while all things are permissible, not all things are beneficial… meaning we no longer need to grow in perversion and depravity but are free to grow in the Grace and Knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ.
In a sense also we need to be careful not to fall into Dualism which is rampant in manys teachings and realize that Jesus has reconciled the profane to the sacred. In that all things are now new, and we need to walk in total dependency and Adam did in the Garden and commune with God to learn what is beneficial.
We will never clean up this world in our own power. We can’t even clean ourselves up… But in the Power of God in Christ, we can become part of the mission of reconciliation and as we live and breath and walk out our new vocation, bring others into God’s Kingdom which will give them a new perspective of this world… instead of seeking after its fleeting pleasures, one will seek after God’s pleasures.
Going to a movie is not sinning… watching even an xxx rated movie does not defile man… it is what comes out of the heart of a man that defiles him. Do these things help ones heart toward others? Does watching a porno movie separate us from the love of God? No… but it makes it harder to love others in purity as we focus on fleshes “evil” desire….
Yet, sin is condemned in man… man is not condemned in Christ. Sin no longer has a job in the life of Christian… it no longer demands its wages as they are paid in full at the Cross… the only “sin” we will dwell in eternal death for is rejection of Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I agree with Rick. It’s her caustic, foaming-at-the-mouth attitude, not her objections themselves, although I think even many of her objections cross the line. Calling gospel music “fanny shaking” music crossed the line.
I gave an example in the comments of “Porn in the Pews”. I discovered someone new to our congregation had an immoral picture on his site. I gently confronted him about it and he took it down. If I had started screaming in his face, posting angry blogs about it, etc, that would not be honoring to Christ.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Iggy,
I apologize my life is far more boring and bland than you may think. I am not from Australia. My friend Valentine (he hates it when I call him that) is from Australia. Beware of him. He’s a doctrinally sound fellow Lutheran, a crack-pot, fishing addict and a vagabond. He is up to no good and I love him for it!
I find your observations regarding ‘boundary’ style models of theology to be accurate.
You talk about swinging between Calvin and Arminius and are proposing a third view. I think the questions you are wrestling with are good ones and I think they are in-part motivated by your dissatisfaction with the answers both tribes have developed.
Being ‘in Christ’ is NOT a typical American Evangelical theme. This however, is a HUGE theme in Lutheranism. Lutherans tie this back to our Baptisms.
The American Evangelical view of Baptism turns it into a work that we do to show the world that we’ve joined the Christian club. The Biblical teaching on baptism is FAR MORE substantive and Christ-Centered.
Check these verses out from Romans 6
I have been accused of being a mystic because I actually believe this passage is to be understood LITERALLY.
When I was baptized, I was baptized into Christ, into His Death and His Resurrection. This reality is a huge comfort for me in times of struggle with my sins and my own doubts. That I am IN Christ, provides a depth to my faith and a mystery to it all that goes far beyond any mere intellectual ascent to a doctrinal statement (but don’t think I’m knocking doctrine. I’m not at all.)
It sounds like you and I have much in common and there are some things we could dialog about and learn from each other.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Chris R.,
Hey, you aren’t the only ones who believe that about baptism!
Being “in Christ” is a huge theme for Vineyardites (at least, the ones I hang around with, anyway).
June 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Chris, there is no swinging, as you put it, between Calvin and anyone else. If you do not believe in unconditional election then you can be a number of Arminian morphs, but you have no kinship to Calvin. His theology is exclusive.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Chris R,
Thanks… I have a few views different from Lutherans… but have been told I have a modified Catholic view… which is still pretty close to Lutheran.
I think Val is the one who misguided me to think you were in Australia… ; ) I think I would like Val a lot as I am addicted to fishing myself… which proves that not all addictions are sin! (though you might not want to ask my wife about that)
Chris, feel free to email me as i too would love to actually dialog with those who care to talk about issues instead of cast stones and judge others… this is my main attraction to the EC and what I have found one of the HUGE values we hold together.
Blessings,
iggy
I am glad to see that you understand being “in Christ” as many in America mouth it… but don’t.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Chris L,
On your post I noticed your concerns… In fact I find it rather funny to hear my EC friends sound just like the fundies do about Rick Warren and the Purpose driven/seeker models… I sort of get a chuckle how much we really have in common… yet I myself do not condemn these models as I see their value in that some plant, some water, but God makes things grow… I do have issue when the answers are over simplified and unrealistic…
So, in all the criticism I do see the main difference is that the EC is trying to find ways (not always new btw) but at least i see with all the criticism they give they also try to give solutions… I do not see this with the fundys…. I see that their solution is to point, mock, condemn, accuse, slander, abuse, judge, and so on others they see are not towing their doctrinal lines… their solution is to declare war and batten down the hatches…
I think God does not want us to live that way as that is how the world fights its battles and deals with things.
Blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
OK, iggy, who do you see me as. The mocking, condemning, etc., I hope doesn’t describe me. But I am a Wesley fundamentalists. So who am I (Les Mis).
June 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I spent a fine morning in one of my local streams and the little buggers skunked me. So I came here looking for a little sport thinking ya’ll were saying rotten things about me and I got skunked again.
I must be doing something wrong.
Iggy you sound like a fine candidate for Lutheranism. But, I will leave the proselytizing to Rosebrough.
Frueh I loved your description of the church as a wild donkey who has spit its bit. I’m going to have to use that one and don’t think for a second that I’m going to give you credit for it. I’ve found that creativity is the art of hiding your source.
Something you may want to consider however is that whenever Israel behaved as a wild donkey the Lord sent prophets to her. They were never really popular fellows and I don’t think the Lord gave them hazard pay here on the Earth.
So, before the church can pray in brokeness it needs to be broken. That is usually the task of a prophet. I don’t think we could say that John The Baptist was a kind and nurturing fellow yet he is the last of the Old Testament prophets and the one that specifically prepared the way for our Lord’s ministry.
You American men seem a bit too feminine for my tastes. I find it rather humorous that a woman like Ingrid has your collective panties in a wad. She is far more like John the Baptist than ya’ll. I say this to your shame.
If you know there is a problem in the church then man-up and speak prophetically to that wild ass and stop leaving the job to the women.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I was raised as a Lutheran, German you know, I went through catacism for three years and was made a church member. Lost, though, very lost. The Lutheran church attempts to take the law and make it New Testament.
The altar, the priestly robes, the infant baptism to mirror circumcision, the candles, the minister sometimes standing with his back toward the congregation as he speaks to God as a mediator. All these things remove the Spirit that is essential for the New Testament, not returning to the beggarly elements.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Matt B,
I ask this sincerely: Wouldn’t your saying this about Ingrid’s, “caustic, foaming-at-the-mouth attitude,” be crossing the same line as you say she did by saying: “fanny-shaking”?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Frueh
I would beg to differ with you. I don’t think you could supply a single Biblical verse that says that the Spirit is removed from a church service when the pastor wears a vestment, lights a candle or speaks to God with his back turned toward you. These clearly fall into the spectrum of Christian liberty. I don’t find these elements to be nearly as distracting as a rock and roll band and a stage performance in church.
As for infant baptism, I recommend this fine paper on the subject
http://www.hope-aurora.org/pages/InfantFaith
pax
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Ken-
No, that’s how I feel about her writings. It’s not usually her morality, it’s her attitude. When she criticized the movie pastor, did she contact him first? It’s not Matthew 18, but it is common courtesy.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I think she was dead wrong with “movie pastor.” That’s between him and his wife. Ingrid has no business being involved in that.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Val - Thank you for the link. I honestly found no Scriptures dealing with infant baptism. It is an attemp to replicate the OT circumcism with infant christining.
Do they immerse the infant as the Greek word implies? Where is the indentifying with the death, burial, and resurrection? And as far as infants having faith, that is more than a stretch. You would think that it would be expounded upon in the Scriptures, would you not? It is a carry over from Rome that Luther, a great instrument of God, could not discard.
Luther also carried con-substantiation because in his understandable position he could not make the leap to the symbolic nature of the Lord’s Supper. Many of the sacramental aspects of Lutheranism were given by Rome. Luther even kept the anti-sematic views he learned from Rome.
It is evident that the liturgical style of worship, and the covenant view of infant baptism, were taken from Rome who took it from the Old Testament. I did not say that the Spirit could not be present, what I meant was the form of the service was taken from the Old Testament and is a shadow of the law.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I am Anglican and Calvinist. I also agree with Val and Chris R that we are baptised into Christ.I think every good Cavinist should believe this.It is the uber-pious refomed baptists that dont want to be called Calvinist because of infant baptism and a few other things.They call it “doctrines of grace” and as far as I am concerned Ken and Ingrid and some other “particular baptists”have taken Calvinism into a whole other direction like “doctrines of super piousness”
Oh, Henry. Please dont think that because you were Lutheren and lost that most others are lost or will be lost in the future. You need to drop some of your anti liturgical bias.
In Christ,Opus
June 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Rick,
i am a former AoG guy… Arminian in my roots… somewhere though I found grace and messed that up. In that i have come to realize that if one is asking the question (as a christian) if they can lose their salvation, they most likely have other issues to deal with.
I relate to you in this way. Being a “former Arminian” I have found a really strange thing. These who some claim do not know grace in its fullness (and to some degree I agree with that) seem to show the most grace to those around them as they seem to be still in touch with the fact they themselves are sinners saved by Grace.
On the other hand I have run into many a Calvinist/OSAS person who is arrogant and prideful and has lost touch that they are sinners saved by grace and must by commandment give that grace away to others.
Now, in both camps I have seen great goodness… and horrific evil.
YOU personally I would rather not say much about here in a public forum as i respect you and would desire to talk to you on things that may not be “on topic” or could be taken wrongly by yourself or others in some way.
But, be assured Rick, I have never thought once you are not saved… that you do not love Jesus, that you are in such grievous error that salvation may be lost or whatever thing one who might have disagreements over. (I do hold to eternal security and free will as I see they fit together perfectly… I see that some have misdefined or placed into these teachings and terms major baggage that would take more than a spiffy quick definition to unpack)
I see you as a friend and brother in Christ Jesus in which minor disagreements may happen…
BTW… there is a difference between Calvinistic Baptist persuasion and Arminian based persuasion fundamentalism… it is subtle and I have touched on it a bit here… but the main difference in in the focus… Arminianism tends toward Kingdom focus (present and future) while other focus on “getting people out of hell”… there is more to this of course… but this is not the time or place.
blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I should have capitals on Refomed Baptists and Particular Baptists.Sorry.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Opus - I cannot judge who is saved or not, and there are some strains of Lutheranism that are indeed conservative (CLC, etc.). But the litergical form of worship is a shadow of the law, even if some modern forms of worship lose all sense of the holiness of God. My point about Calvinism is that if you believe that man has been given a free will and that Christ died for all men, you have no part in Calvinism. That is there foundation.
I respect Calvinists, but many are puffed up about their doctrinal epiphany. Granted Arminians are watering down the gospel today, but so many Calvinists look down on Arminians as a poor doctrinally challeged bunch awaiting enlightenment.
Hey Iggy, we can be friends even if we have major differences. You are somewhat mircurial and sometimes outside any doctrinal normal doctrinal box. Sometimes I feel you are heading toward universalism, and then you retreat. These are the questions that form the foundation for me.
Do you believe that Jesus the Christ was God in the flesh?
Do you believe he is the only path to eternal life?
Do you believe that salvation is by grace through faith and faith alone?
Do you believe that there is eternal life for the saved and eternal hell (in the literal, conscious torment sense) for the lost?
I can build on that from anyone’s other doctrinal accutrements.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Joe,
“That’s between him and his wife.” With all due respect it would have been had he not talked about it with the world via the Internet. Frankly, I wish he hadn’t.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
opus,
“It is the uber-pious refomed baptists that dont want to be called Calvinist because of infant baptism and and a few other things.” A LOT judgmental there aren’t we?
And then you take it further: “They call it ‘doctrines of grace’ and as far as I am concerned Ken and Ingrid and some other ‘particular baptists’…” As a pastor I would caution you when you make this kind of judgment.
You have exactly zero idea what I believe or why. So you’ll be wise to leave me out of your speculations. Thanks.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Ken - And if he hadn’t encouraged others to follow in his hedonistic and careless footsteps.
Let us all take our youth groups to see “Knocked Up” which even the title is demeaning to the birth experience and women in general. We could also start a Sunday School group called the “Knocked Ups” which is for unwed pregnant teenagers. They’ll have to expand that room.
Sad.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
See what I mean about Calvinists (or whatever you wish), thin skinned. And why? Because they consider their view of God and his plan as superior to others. I know, not superior, Biblical.
Thin skinned.
Really don’t mind if you sit this one out
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout.
Ian Anderson, Calvinist
June 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
If I am not mistaken…Movie Pastor was being sarcastic with his remark about “Knocked Up”.
I am in agreement that I don’t care for Ingrids tone or writings. I think she is way out of line in her attack of Movie Pastor.
Tell me though…where it is benificial to attack our fellow Christians on such trivial items? Why does Mr. Silva find it necessary to constantly spew what I view as hatred at AM? Could there not be a more effective manner to bring such things to light(if they indeed exist)?
Chris R. I thought your comment at 11:13 on baptism was great.
Peace!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Henry,
I agree with you about some,in fact many Calvinists are puffed with pride and this I dont understand because we stress that it is all God and none of us should make us tremble not make us snarky ,angry snits. That is why I still am Calvinist but hold the TULIP with less grip than I used to and have become much more catholic in my theology .[notice the small c]I am sorry if I seemed snarky before but I really get piled on by folk who cant stand litergy and church tradition where I am from.
In Christ,
Opus
June 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
No Opus, you are warm and engaging. One of my good friends is a humble Calvinist, and for the most part they are studious and have a love for the Word.
A humble Calvinist is a wonderful brother, a prideful Calvinist is someone to flee!
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Rick,
As far as Universalism i have written on that a few times… here is one postI did.
I will say i am most closely a universal atonement person… yet I do not see all will be “saved” in the end. I see that all were forgiven at the Cross… “once for all” and that being universal in its action.
I see though that when Jesus cried, “Father forgive them”… they were forgiven at that time as well as the past and future of all mankind’s sin. Again, “once for all”.
As far as the last number, about hell… it is not that I do not believe in eternal death as the Bible calls the persons punishment… but I have many good friends who hold also to annihilation of the lost. I am not that convinced but they do hold strong biblical arguments is one actually hears them out. (Now, I know JW’s hold this view… but it is not out of the same reasoning). What I have concluded is that be them in error I give grace as they still say man is dead in their sins and that one who rejects Jesus will experience the Second Death. Yet, the most important thing is not that one suffers eternal torment… but that one never finds out if I am right or my friends are… that we focus on getting people to find Jesus and not have to experience either views. To me… Hell is real enough without the “eternal conscience suffering” that one misses eternity in which Life itself is God.
Blessings,
iggy
June 27th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
The prideful Calvinists will be meeting in Conference Room C, to your left. Refreshments will not be provided.
Don’t really have anything useful to add to the conversation, but the term “prideful Calvinists” just cracked me up for some reason.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Rick,
“See what I mean about Calvinists (or whatever you wish), thin skinned.” I hope this isn’t referencing me because I politely suggested to Joe a reason why it turned out to be unwise for the man to publicly discuss what would have been better left private.
Uh, that would hardly be prideful of me of “thin skinned.” Frankly I am making a concerted effort to make my language as inoffensive as possible. Can you please drop the anti-Calvin rhetoric? Didn’t Chris L. say: “I am hoping to try to agree and disagree in a manner that recognizes this…”?
Yet you keep this up: “And why? Because they consider their view of God and his plan as superior to others. I know, not superior, Biblical.” I know I don’t. I am just man enough to stand where I feel led to stand and say what I feel I am to say. Good, bad or indifferent.
However, isn’t this statement hypocritical on your part if you persist: “And why? Because they consider their view of God and his plan as superior to others. I know, not superior, Biblical.” You yourself keep forcing this agenda into this thread Rick. And now phil joins in.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Pastor Ken,
You really like to throw that title around.I love you anyhow
June 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I wasn’t speaking to you, Ken, I’ll let you know when I am. I am not forcing this issue, Opus, Iggy, and myself were delighting ourselves in the truths of the Word and you seem to want to embrace personally all the references. OK, you’re not a Calvinist, we get it. I’m allowed to discuss it, my wife gave me permission.
See Iggy, you are a little sketchy. Just when I think I have pinned you down to Dante’s hell you squirm out. What will we do? It is a serious issue, and men like Bell are running to reinvent the classic, Biblical view.
Opus, I enjoy conversing with you. See, I love Calvinists. It’s just the porcupine ones that get me. Everday Mommy had a post entitled “The Disagreeable Calvinist” and most of the funny commentors were Calvinists.
I suggested someone should write a post entitled “The Overagreeable Arminian”. An example:
The overagreeable Arminian sneezes and when a stranger says “God bless you!” he pronounces them “saved!”
Anyway Ken has got me talking about Calvinism again. Let it go. I’ll watch for you Opus, keep a short lease on Iggy!
June 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
opus,
Thanks.
Rick,
This is why I asked. And I’ll let your attitude speak for itself. Your first paragraph is quite uncalled for. But I’ve done what I can to be nice.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Rick,
“See Iggy, you are a little sketchy. Just when I think I have pinned you down to Dante’s hell you squirm out. What will we do? It is a serious issue, and men like Bell are running to reinvent the classic, Biblical view.”
I am not sure how I am a little sketchy… I mean if one truly takes time to think of the horror of an eternal hell of torment one should greatly be disturbed.
Also, I might add it seems a little hypocritical for a God to give us forgiveness, then tell us to forgive others… then not forgive all in the end… Jesus said forgive you brother 70×70… meaning completely.
Now… again… I am not fully convinced in annihilation. I see their points and I see that there is enough biblical backing to this view. Remember man is not an immortal being and only Jesus is… and we must be in Christ for us to be immortal. If not we are still be raised in the resurrection but given over to the second death… without Christ we have no immortality… check it out in scripture.
So what is death? Then what is the Second Death? Remember the Lake of Fire was made for immortal creatures and not for mankind.
Yet, I will still add as much as it disturbs me&#