A Question Put Forth
A reader of the Hope In Laodicea (HeIL) site has addressed a question, by all appearances, to the readers/writers of this site. In a recent article, HeIL (incorrectly) identified our site as an “attack site”, and one of the commenters, Faye, asked the following question.
I have wondered about what the emergents say about the Bible not being clear, not being understandable. They profess to love God’s Word but turn around and almost totally discount His Word by saying no one can truely understand it. They seem to be O.K. with all the “love thy neighboor, golden rule†scriptures, but get real fuzzy in their understanding about repentance, submission to God and the wrath of God for rebels (sinners). Haven’t they ever heard of the Holy Spirit and that He will teach us and help us to recall the Truths of scripture when it is needed? Just my observation and I do have an opinion about those who claim that the Bible can not be understand and who still claim to be a christian. We need to pray for those whom God has chosen to be His own to come out from among them.
For those of you new to this conversation, pretty much anyone/everyone in disagreement with the methodology (primarily) and theology (at times) of CR?N/AM/HeIL/OT/Pyro/etc. is labelled “emergent” (which describes, in reality, about 20% of our writers, if you count ‘emerging’ as part of the ‘emergent’ movement). Since no answer of substance from the writers/readers here would be allowed on HeIL, perhaps some of our writers/readers could help Faye understand whether a) she understands who she’s asking a question to; and b) what our response would be to her query/observation.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
First she should read “The Paradise of Paraphrase”.
Then she must realize she has a conundrum when she states, “Haven’t they ever heard of the Holy Spirit and that He will teach us and help us to recall the Truths of scripture when it is needed?”
Even Ingrid and Ken disagree on substantial issues themselves. One says baptism is a symbol another claims it washes away sins. And yet both claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them into all truth. I heard MacManus on television say that we are always so certain and sure about everything.
But it seems when like minded and like enemied people disagree it isn’t a big deal, it just represents that the Holy Spirit has given us the free will to decide what is truth in areas we deem non-essential. But in areas like Christian rock the Bible is CLEAR, but on baptism…fuzzy.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“We need to pray for those whom God has chosen to be His own to come out from among them.”
Don’t worry, they will with or without your prayer.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’m going to give a typical “emergent” answer… though I’m not emergent.
The Bible is both clear and opaque. On essentials, I think you can make a pretty good argument for the deity of Christ, justification by grace through faith, and the trinity. I know that people do dispute these doctrines, but the gymnastics people go through to do so shows that they are distorting the truth. Yes, the truth is out there.
But from another perspective, can you think of another book that is as divisive as the Bible, even amongst people who profess some level of communion? There are literally thousands of denominations that differ on thousands of doctrinal questions.
Do people dwell on this fact? If they do, and they still believe that the Bible is perfectly clear on all matters, it seems as though the implication is that they are right (or their denomination) and the other one billion Christians on this earth are wrong. That may be the case, but where does faith in God’s word stop and pride begin?
And for what it’s worth, it’s a strawman to argue that emergents are actively preaching that repentance is not in the Bible. She’s conflating two, distinct, phenomena.
1.) Emergents do point out the myriad biblical interpretations in arguments for why we need a “chastened” epistemology, and grace for people who differ in non-essentials.
2.) Mega-churches and seeker-sensitive churches do tend to *obscure* the importance of repentance in becoming a believer, but they do not preach against it.
I’m unaware, however, of any true evangelical libertines. If someone is really out there preaching that you believe in Jesus but do whatever the heck you want, I’d be the first to condemn such teaching.
And, about Ingrid and Ken, the difficulty I have is in the sloppy reasoning. It’s everywhere and it’s ceaseless. It brings much shame to our Lord.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
That is essentially what is going on here. They’ve filled in the gaps God deliberately left for his church to fill in with the wisdom and gifts he’s given her, essentially speaking for God where he was silent.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Interstingly as an “emergent” I have brought up the Holy SPirit many times to only be called a “mystic Gnostic” by those who claim I am stating hte bible as “comveluted”.
I see as clear yet also know that we are dealing in other realms in that without the Holy SPirit the bible is really hard to understand. Often I found that the Holy SPirit will teach me history and other things to help filling the gaps so I wonder a bit at those who state things like
1. The only book we need is the bible.
2. The bible is the final “authority”.
Now I agree and disagree with both…
1. I agree that as far as salvaiton is conderned we need read no other book.
2. I think that some miss the bible poinst to Jesus and states Jesus is the final authority.
So I see that without Jesus, we do nto have the life of Light to illumnate the written word of God.
So really I see that I, being labeled am always jsut wrong in these peoples eye… even when I am statign the same thing they are… maybe in another way… but in the same meaning.
Blessings,
iggy
September 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Iggy,
Dude! What id u hve for lunch tody?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
My spelted cheeker is note werkign…
gigy
September 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Well, I would define myself as a “conservative” biblical scholar wantabe, but I would hope I am open to discussion and seeing other’s point of view. M.G. was right-on in many respects. The very ones of us who hold to biblical inerrancy tend to conveniently overlook the fact that there is A LOT of disagreement in our own “camp.”
Rick Frueh: “Regenerational Baptism” let it go . . . . . let it go! Love you man!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Baptism washes away sins = orthodoxy
Baptism doesn’t wash away sins = heresy
or vice versa.
My point using that obvious illustration is that on an important issue same camp dwellers disagree but hold other camp dwellers accountable on non salvidic issues. You cannot fish in the same abyss if you disagree on how to avoid falling in, and then yell at fishers who agree with you on how not to fall in but have different lures. ????
September 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Rick,
I agree 100% Just trying to make a funny that this issue seems to be cropping up in every one of your posts lately. Oh well, so much for my attempts at humor.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
By the way, HJ, have you been baptized and did you know sins were being washed away at the event? See, you’re not even saved!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“Did you know your sins were being washed away”? Yes, and you should have seen the ring they left around the baptistry drain!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Good HJ, the residue of Humor Day lives on!!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think I can understand how frustrating such statements as are in the op can cause–there does seem to be the presupposition that “you are wrong we are right”.
If I may, though, I want to give some specific things some people associated with EC have said, and I’m how all of you here can explain it–whether you agree, disagree, don’t know, or whatever else may be said.
“As in so many issues these days, the problem isn’t the Bible; it’s the assumptions we bring to the Bible about how it is supposed to be interpreted. We make demands of the Biblical writers that we don’t make of any other writers, and I’m not sure our demands are sensible or fair at all. As an analogy, I often refer to the Wizard of Oz in my teaching. Does this mean that I believe Dorothy was a historical figure? No. It means that I accept the story of Oz as being part of our culture, and that I can use it to illustrate truth or provide analogies to truth.â€
Brian McLaren
I admit, I have a hard time accepting that someone would compare the Bible to what is obviously a work of fantasy fiction. Unless there’s something in the context that wasn’t given with that quote, I wonder where the heck he’s going with such thinking.
This next is a page on Bob Hyatt’s blog, where he voices some strong opinions about “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity”. This is one part of a quote he gives from that book, “”Institutional Christians tend to have a very narrow and literal interpretation of the Bible. Christianity is the only way to reach God, certain Christians argue, because the Bible says so. It tells us that Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’… So how do I interpret this particular Scripture?…no one actually recorded Jesus’ words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway… to read this as a literal statement requires that I take the other statements about he makes about himself as literal.”
Please understand, I’m not on the side of the HeIL poster, but in fairness, some EC people have said some thing that can be seen as that poster said. And as fair as I’m trying to be to EC, those quotes above are rather distasteful to me.
For personal interest alone, I’d like to see some opinions on those quotes, or any similar ones that are out there.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I meant to give the address to the page at Hyatt’s blog, it’s here, http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2006/10/oh_spencer_pt_2.html
September 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
And Jazz, now you have brought the Ark into the conversation. How does a person get reconciled to God and all the pertenant issues that go with that. And if no one actually recorded Jesus’s words than how can we be sure of anything?
That is THE issue, not serving doughnuts after church.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
–And Jazz, now you have brought the Ark into the conversation.–
Should that be accompanied by creepy organ music and the voice of Vincent Price (insert uncooperative smiley here).
September 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Jazzact13,
I am neither emerging, emergent, Calvinist nor Arminian. I’m just a member of the body, and I’m going to give my own take on the Bible.
It’s the most scrutinized document in existence. It continues to prove itself correct time and again. There is too much accurately recorded history in it, as borne out by archaeology, and science to be myth.
I can believe what the Bible says because it’s proven itself to be true. It’s not true because I believe it.
I don’t believe the Bible is black and white on all things, which is why we have so many divisions and denominations within the realm of Christianity. But I still go back to Christ’s prayer in Gethsemene; that we may be one. For that reason, I don’t just break fellowship with other believers over matters of personal preference.
Having said that, the Bible is black and white on a number of things. Things having to do with salvational doctrines, a literal hell, the Deity of Christ, etc. If you hold on to those truths, you don’t have to spend a whole lot of time wandering after the deceivers and people who make a career out of muddying the waters and leaving you with more questions than answers (as if that’s a good thing).
September 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I don’t know if it will get posted, but I attached a comment to this article on Ingrid’s site:
September 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
““Finding a good article on Slice is like finding a nickel in a spittoon,†he wrote. Where is the Christ-likeness in that? That’s one of the milder things Rick/Henry has written about me on your site. Not one person came to my defense in your “comment†section, certainly not you, Chris. I don’t know what Christ you follow, but I don’t believe that kind of an attack would have come from His lips.”
I don’t know what Christ you follow. Wow, she can’t help herself. They go right for the implied salvation issue. Thank goodness she follows the “true” Christ. You can’t even have a spirited dialogue without playing the “true Christ” card.
Do you see how Ingrid cannot separate herself personally from an opinion about her site? And not one person came to her defense. And please provide me with a list of things I said about her personally, I don’t recall any.
I wonder how many people have come to Warren’s defense on her site? One thing we can all be assured of, the old Slice is back! It breaks up the monotony. I have yet to see where she disagrees with my writings, maybe she agrees.
I can recall she made reference to the many comments that accompany posts like that one while not as many on devotional posts. Well, behold the fulfillment.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Wow. That’s almost unbelievable. The fact that she can condemn what was written here and condemn it as unChristlike, and not use that same standard to apply to herself is sort of mind blowing.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Here’s my response (which probably won’t be accepted):
Jim,
You wrote:
I have actually been trying to do an evaluation (not naming names) of folks more diametrically opposed to our viewpoints. The one key thing the writers at CRN.info have in common is a desire for more unity within the Body than exists today, and honestly, most of the ODM writers I am familiar with, including yourself, are more concerned with externals and pre-sifting the wheat from the chaff than with Biblical unity.
Ingrid, you asked (and my apology for the delay, as I’ve been out this evenint) about my not correcting Rick when he wrote:
Just to note, later in the same thread, he wrote:
Regardless, it was a comment (hyperbolic, yes) about the general tone of Slice, not about you, specifically. Had he written “finding something positive about Ingrid is like…”, I would not have been the only person correcting him. To my knowledge, no person is the sum total of what they write, and our battle is not against flesh and blood…
As for Rick’s comment, I’d say it was fairly mild compared to the CRN suggestion today that OJ use the copy of PDL he received as toilet paper…
I’m not sure where you got that, Jim, as I don’t recall anything of the sort…
Mob attacks? We were accused of that once last week, and the individual they said was ‘attacked’ later commented that he felt nothing of the sort. Disagreement is not an ‘attack’, and we do allow disagreement - including following up an initial post as many times as needed in order to reach a conclusion. I can point out a number of posters who often do not agree with us, but continue to come back and are not ‘mobbed’.
Actually, I set up the site to defend many of those you were attacking with one hand while simultaneously giving the appearance of (in the comments section) unanimity in belief and response of ‘real Christians’ with the other hand (and moreso Ken’s overblown rhetoric than your concentration on externals). The first group blogger I added was John D, a member of Saddleback and once employee of PDL. [Interestingly, he wrote a complimentary article of you a couple months ago when you (correctly) pointed out Rick Warren's prooftexting of 'laughter' in the Psalms.] I then went out and catalogued a years’ blog-responses to Slice and AM, because I found myself being asked for links from friends/acquaintences in response to articles they had seen on Veggie Tales, Rob Bell and Promise Keepers from your site.
We are all fallen, it is just that we wish to operate in an aboveboard manner, and in a way that repairs the Body, rather than looking for personal reasons to excise parts of it.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Chris L,
Just to warn you Jim will go on and on until he feels he wins… so ignore him and he will go away… you know like that other feller we are told to resist and he will flee…
I am more and more convinced that these guys have no clue that they are running more people off… and I think one day they will account for those souls they abused in Jesus’ Name.
I pray that will not happen but I do not see or hear or sense any godly Love from them… only a unhealthy fixation on the wrath of God at the expense of God’s grace.
I did a series on “the Religionist” and all Jim did was assume it was all about him… a bit of Narcissism if you ask me…
So, resist the devil and he will flee… sounds like sound advice from God’s word to me.
Be Blessed,
iggy
And yes Jim I did associate you with the devil… so confess your sin of lack of love for you brothers and turn to the Lord
James 2:12-13 (now that is not oldtruth… but living truth!)
September 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
A very calm and cojent response, Chris. I honestly do not believe I’ve ever attacked Ingrid personally, I probably have come closer to that with Ken. No names (except humor) but once or twice he’s elicited some sharpness.
I have not seen any claims of moral or spiritual superiority among the contributors, I continue to desire growth in how I interact with brothers and sisiters. Confrontational discussion while still retaining a view of commited brotherhood is difficult. Your post on flesh and blood was very poignant but again difficult.
And finally, to present a loving and patient front is very different than having that same attitude be found fully in our hearts. One of the problems is that so many have so different ideas of what is Christian speech and/or behavior, even in sharp disagreement.
There is only One perfect contributor and it is Him alone that should always proofread our posts. We continue to grow, we all need it.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
[...] Rick Frueh on A Question Put Forth [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Iggy,
Your comment about Jim in regards to fleeing the devil crossed the line I think. True, I too find them unbalanced in regards to truth and love. (A distorted view of God’s sovereignty at the expense of His other attributed will do that). But, from my interactions with Jim and OT there is no question he is a follower of Christ and he seems to be just a pilgram (no pun intented) just like the rest of us. And besides, they have it all figured out. It’s hard to be humble from Olympus, er the New Jerusalem. (But you did cross the line IMHO).
Peace!
September 19th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Sandman,
I think I agree pretty much completely on what you wrote. Your position is very similar to my own.
My question was about what people in the EC think when when EC leaders say or write such things as are given in those quote. Hyatt seems to be pretty solidly EC, but he gets quite upset with a lot of what Spencer wrote in his book.
If EC leaders can say such things, and others in the EC seem to not think anything of it, then does that say anything about EC as a whole? Does that come close to proving the point made in the quote in the OP?
Of course, such thinking on my part may not be fair, either. People who write the books and do the radio and tv shows are going to be the ones who get the most publicity, so their views are going to be the ones most broadly known. There may be many in the EC who disagree, like Hyatt, with McLaren and Spencer and others who talk like that, but who simply don’t have the outlet to make their views known as widely.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Iggy,
I agree with HJ - The correlation crossed the line…
September 19th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Jazz,
I agree with Sandman, as well. While I am not a member of the ECM (my background is with the non-denominational Christian Churches of the Restoration Movements tradition), I try to track what they (and other streams of Christian thought) are saying. With regards to Spencer Burke’s book, I have seen a fairly universal response of disagreement. Granted, the disagreement was not made with the hellfire, brimstone and invective normally delivered by ODM’s, but it was there, nonetheless.
As for the MacLaren quote,
As with many things MacLaren, I agree with the first observation, but I don’t see the congruency of the analogy.
His observation touches on what I see - across the spectrum of Christianity - in the tendency to take scripture (particularly in the New Testament) as being indepenent of the intent and context of its human author.
His analogy, though, as you note, is rather unfortunate in its comparison of Bible account with fictional account. It also does injustice to his thesis in that it makes it no more clear afterward than before. I don’t know where the quote was pulled from, though, so I can’t comment on the broader context and whether it is better resolved in the book/article than in the single paragraph.
Which is part of the problem in evaluating the EC (or any movement) solely on selected paragraphs from prominent authors. 1) Despite the ‘prominence’ of the author, chances are he’s not that well known by the average church member (ex. most EC folks I meet IRL have little-to-no idea who Brian MacLaren is, and I’ve yet to find one who read at least one of his books); and 2) As you possibly suggested, quotes like these can be pulled apart from the context and distorted to mean something different than the author’s intent.
With #2, I would point to Ken Silva’s continued excerpting of a Velvet Elvis quote to suggest that Rob Bell does not believe in the inspiration and authority of scrtipture, when if the section of the chapter is viewed in its entirety, it says nothing of the sort.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Jazzact,
While that method of evaluating what a community thinks might be a generally solid way to go about it, in this case I think it might be a bit problematic. E/E churches tend to be much more locally focused than most churches (a good comparison in this case might be old school Lutheran churches in the upper midwest). As a result the response to books and other things as a body tends to be a bit more muffled than the average community of faith.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I know I’m late to this but it cracks me up how she pulls Ricks statement out as her trump card. “He said he didn’t like my writing!” Wha, wha, wha
September 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am
OK, I crossed the line but the principle still stands. When on IS standing on truth and the other is opposing him, then I still see that this is like when Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me Satan.” As Peter was out to keep Jesus from dying on the Cross…
In that Jesus resisited Peter, I am stating we must resist those who slander others. We must resist those workers who used Satan’s tools of this world to cause division.
I never stated Jim was not saved, but that he is doing the work of Satan in his divisiveness. In that though I apologize if someone takes that wrongly though as far as I can see I am well within biblical grounds for my statement.
So then was Jesus wrong? Yet, did Jesus not love Peter?
James is talking about the proud…
James 4: 1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
4You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
“God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble.”
7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
I see in this passage that we are to resist those who cause fights, slander, and those who use these tools of the world as if they are “friendsâ€â€¦ In that God opposes the proud… So will I by submitting to God.
But again if I have crossed a line that one should not oppose the proud, and resist those who cause fights and slander and such as they are doing the works of Satan… Then I am rebuked.
Be blessed,
iggy
September 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am
[...] iggy on A Question Put Forth [...]
September 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I noticed the comments on that thread is now closed.
Chris L, I noticed your comment in #17 there. To me, it looked like you were talking about you and Rick being able to disagree in a Christlike manner. Several comments later it seems to have been applied in a more general sense.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:12 am
And Jim B. remarked that Chris L. and I are in general agreement about most everything. Check out the dialogue about Rob Bell, that would seem to suggest there is room here for important disagreement without using any invectives.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:00 am
–With regards to Spencer Burke’s book, I have seen a fairly universal response of disagreement. Granted, the disagreement was not made with the hellfire, brimstone and invective normally delivered by ODM’s, but it was there, nonetheless.–
Very well, I’m glad to hear of it. The only thing I’ve seen on it is Hyatt’s view. It’s good that Spencer’s view is being questioned.
–Which is part of the problem in evaluating the EC (or any movement) solely on selected paragraphs from prominent authors. 1) Despite the ‘prominence’ of the author, chances are he’s not that well known by the average church member (ex. most EC folks I meet IRL have little-to-no idea who Brian MacLaren is, and I’ve yet to find one who read at least one of his books); and 2) As you possibly suggested, quotes like these can be pulled apart from the context and distorted to mean something different than the author’s intent.–
I am trying to keep in mind the context of things. I haven’t read that particular quote of McLaren’s anywhere, though there were some things in DKC that raised the eyebrows.
Your idea about not measuring the movement by the words of leaders is fair, too, but I’d like to go a bit the other way for a moment. After all, their books seem to be popular, so someone is buying them. And if buying, then probably reading them and letting other people borrow and read them too.
Those leaders and writers may not represent everyone in the movement, and considering that the movement itself seems to be having it’s own branchings off, they may only represent their own section of that branching. Still, they do seem to be making claims such as “an emerging church must do X” and “this is what sets the emerging churches apart from L, M, N, O, and P”.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Jazz - In some circles the adjective “emerging” morphed into the noun “emergent” which gave it a oneness flavor. Emerging could also be called “refining” or “advancing” or something like that.
There is no organized denomination as such and it might appear as if the conservative wing may eventually more clearly indentify itself with some other or additional term. It still is very new and many people like the ambiguity for different reasons.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think of emerging as more of a mindset then a denomination.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Jazz.
You need to then go and read Scot Mcknights review, I did one also but it was my first one… I was a little soft in my review as I read through and past some of the more controversial things he stated (Spncer is a really nice guy)… I did state what I did not agree on. Interestingly, I think even Spencer thought his book not very well thought out.
Spencer did take a lot of critique and still does. Yet, the most important thing to remember is Spencer Burke is a person who loves Jesus and does hold to more traditional views than he does not. In fact I think that to say he is a “universalist” is a bit miss leading as he does believe in Hell. The point is that he sees that all are saved but one can opt out.
This is why I point out that if you take Luther and Calvin’s view… and realize that they fixed the issue of universal atonement and all it’s implications… with limited atonement. If one takes “atonement” to mean “salvation” you have two choices…
1. Universalism
2. Exclusivism
Which are the two major thoughts we have today if one carries out it all to the biblical logical end.
Yet, if one understands the Gospel is the life, death, burial and resurrection… with the later seal of the Holy Spirit which came at Pentecost, one can then see that the whole gospel is:
1. Jesus life example of a perfect human born of Heaven
2. He died for our sins and that of the whole creation to reconcile it to God (unlimited atonement)
3. He was buried (As all men must return to the ground as that is our sorrow…”He was acquainted with sorrow”)
4. The Resurrection (New Life… the New Creation)
5. The filling and sealing of the Holy Spirit.
I pointed this out as Spencer is caught in the same fallacy that atonement = salvation… he solves it by leaning heavily on God’s Grace being sufficient to save all men, but some will opt to not be saved.
I recently read a Lutheran who stated much the same sort of idea… so I know that Spencer is not as for out there as some thing. “All in unless you opt out”.
I do not agree with that but I do see that one need still make a choice that one must choose or deny Jesus and His finished works.
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 11:54 am
–You need to then go and read Scot Mcknights review, I did one also but it was my first one…–
I probably should have been clearer. I haven’t done a search of reviews on the book, I only meant that Hyatt’s was the only I knew of. Sorry about that.
–Yet, the most important thing to remember is Spencer Burke is a person who loves Jesus and does hold to more traditional views than he does not. In fact I think that to say he is a “universalist†is a bit miss leading as he does believe in Hell.–
I’m really not certain of what his position is, only how it seems to be from the quote given. The quote seems to have more to do with ways to God then universalism–one could maybe say the C.S. Lewis held a position that it is possible for those who have never heard the Gospel to find salvation, while he still quite strongly believed in Hell. Speaking personally, I have read a lot of Lewis, have learned a lot from him, and respect him about as highly as I do anyone.
My main complaint with what Burke said is with things like this, “no one actually recorded Jesus’ words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway… to read this as a literal statement requires that I take the other statements about he makes about himself as literal.â€
This seems to call into question the whole trustworthiness of the Bible. And if we are to question the ‘hard stuff’ Jesus said, why should we not also question the nicer stuff? It strikes me as a way of dismissing something he doesn’t like, while not realizing his argument can be against things he would keep; in fact, against all that is in the Bible.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
If Spencer believes all he has carelessly said, written, and mused about he is an heretic. Pray for him.
And it is not God who is deceiving him.