The Remnant Mentality
Posted by Rick Frueh on Nov 13th, 2007
2007
Nov 13
Some blogs have used the term “remnant†to describe a small group of believers who are dedicated and faithful to Biblical truth. Part of the term is meant to distance this remnant from the different streams of compromise within the evangelical community. If you peruse the internet you might find that there are scores of groups that use the term remnant about themselves, but many of them would not include each other who use that same term as part of the remnant they define. So one remnant people dismisses another remnant people as not part of the remnant that they see as “God’sâ€. The New Testament only uses that term as it applies to the Jewish believers that embrace Christ in the church age, but no where does it use that term to mean a “super faithful†bunch holding down the fort against the onslaught.
I do not believe I’ve ever heard someone use the word “remnant†to describe a small group of faithful followers who didn’t believe that they themselves were a part of that remnant. Interesting. In the Old Testament, where that term was used, it was God Himself who identified that group not the remnant themselves. In this age of grace that term is self serving and leads to an inflated view of ourselves. What is the unscriptural criteria for being part of that so-called remnant? It is not enough for us to be called a sinner saved by God’s glorious grace, we must have more? Paul says he was the chief of all sinners but we are part of God’s elite remnant because of the incredible depth of our life of faith?
November 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Jesus once asked a question, “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith in the earth?” My belief is that he wasn’t asking this question so that we could answer, but rather it was to serve as a caution to make sure we are not removed from the foundation of truth.
When you look around today - a church on every corner, preaching on the airwaves on on TV, the prevalance of Christianity on the web - you may ask, how does this chord with Jesus’ caution?
I believe it is similar to the situation before John the Baptist came on the scene… Walk down the streets of Jerusalem and you would see religion alive and well across all the various movements. But Isaiah describes Christ as a root of out of dry ground. The gospels also say - despite the clamor of preaching - that “there was a man (singular) sent from God, his name was John.” Only a very few were able to receive the truth which is why Christ Himself preached in parables.
So I do believe in a “remnant” - though I don’t believe it is for us to self-proclaim. It is my job to live out my faith in the midst of a crooked and perverse world, speak and live the truth.
Lastly, consider that even in the days of the apostles, almost every epistle written was written with the specific intent (at one point or another) of warding off false teachings of Christ. Imagine - he had only been resurrected 20 years or so and there were false teachings. I wonder what has happened over the last 2,000 yrs!
November 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
In general I agree, Paul. But some consider themselves as a remnant within the evangelical community. But different groups define the remnant differently. Some in the Church of Christ see themselves as the remnant, the KJV only, the Apostolic, the separatists, the Jewish Roots, and many others have invented their own remnant definition.
It is a matter of pride, but your comments are noted, Paul.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
2 aspects - discipleship and truth - are largely overlooked in today’s church, especially in North America. That’s why I believe there is a discord between what the Lord might see and what man sees.
When man looks around, the gospel is surging, 1000s are being swept into the kingdom and the world is being won. When the Lord looks around, is it possible he sees a parched desert? Absolutely. I’m not saying this is the case entirely, but it should give us pause.
Even the disciples had enough sense to ask, “Who then can be saved?” and “Are there many that be saved?”
This betrays their thoughts and concerns about the reality of salvation.
Even Jesus told us that in the end of it all, only a (relatively) few will be saved. So did Peter when he said, “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”
November 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I think I’ve most often heard the word “remnant” used by Christians in small, dying churches as a way to defend themselves. They say something like, “we are but a few faithful remnant that remain”. Nevermind the fact that their stubborness and unloving hearts drove away those that would be part of the congregation.
You’re absolutely right, Rick. I think it is very easy, if not inevitable, to fall into self-righteousness if we start thinking of ourselves as the remnant.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Christians in general ARE the ’small remnant’ (comparitavely speaking), when viewed in context with the rest of the unbelieving world as a whole.
So rejoice my brothers, we’re all part of God’s remnant, His called and elect out of the world! Now lets go find lost sheep to bring in to the fold of this ‘remnant’ we are as the ‘church universal’!!
Joe
PS, I liked this devotional Rick, good job, I agree with your statements brother. You’ve helped me out much in the last few days, actually.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Paul - let’s assume that everything you said was true. What has been missed is that some are consumed with identifying every minute detail of all the falling away while not realizing that they themselves are entrenched and powerless and dripping with self righteousness and many times void of humility.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Sure, some might be overly consumed with this remnant concept that they fail to live the life Christ has called them to. But the pendulum also swings the other way.
I see just as much - if not more - danger in Joe C’s comment: “Christians in general ARE the ’small remnant’”
That is not true and is a dangerous generalization. Someone who takes this stance is an easy target for ecumenism, usually relegates truth to the background and wants to unite with everything with a pulse. This is not what the early church taught, nor did Christ Himself.
Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares?
November 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Dude….you have no idea what you just spoke about me. You don’t know me at ALL. Please be very careful with your generalizations about me and how someone who takes this positions is usually….”relegates truth to the backburner”. How could you possibly know that about everyone?
Absurd. You completely misunderstood what I said just to be able to tear it down.
So, instead of re explaining, I’m going to forgive you for misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth, which you DID do, and just leave it be. Have a good day brother.
Joe
November 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Joe, if I offended you in any way, please clarify how I put words in your mouth when I took your words directly?
My intent wasn’t to tear anything down at all, but to point out the 2 extremes - remnant vs. “we’re all brothers in Christ regardless of what we believe” thinking. I think anyone reading your comment would come to that conclusion.
So if you feel misunderstood, just relax and explain what was misinterpreted… I promise you my words weren’t malicious at all.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Great thoughts guys, I agree with those that say that the remnant concept seems to often times breed a self righteous attitude in people. Their doctrine is more right than the next apostate church or group down the street.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
You said I said: “we’re all brothers in Christ regardless of what we believeâ€
That’s how you put words in my mouth, by insinuation. That little ‘regardless of what we believe’ bit, is not what I believe at all, nor what I said, or intended to even come close to insinuating at all. For example, if someone says they are a brother, but practices stark immorality, willfully, knowing full well the Truth, then I don’t think they are a brother. 1 Cor.5:9-13
Since you asked nicely, I’ll clarify exactly what I meant.
Christians are called out of the world, we’re the remnant out of the world, chosen for God’s purposes. IF anyone is a Christian, and only God knows who are His, then they’re a remnant people for Him out of the KOSMOS.
I was just basically saying “hey, it’s silly to say “I’m a remnant”, because the whole universal Church of Christ is remnant compared to the world. That was ALL I was saying.
To insinuate I am suseptable or open to ecumenism with falsehood, or that I relegate truth to the backburner, or whatever else you said, is a bad assumption about me, and anyone else who would have chose the words I did. You were SO quick to judge what I said, that you did not understand, apparently, what I meant at all.
I love the Truth, the Word of God, and I will die defending it. You don’t know me at all, so I would be careful in the future of accusing me or generalizing things about me, or anyone else for that matter, when you yourself generalized my statement and made me out to be someone I’m not. I’m telling you, you sinned against me, and I’m telling you, it’s okay I forgive you. Whether you care to admit you wronged me or not. I was just hoping to prevent future cases of this misunderstanding among brothers.
I was relaxed, and I’m still relaxed, and I’m happy you’re concerned about that, but please don’t make me out to be someone I’m not. Get to know me first, read my other posts, see if they match up with what you generalized me as.
Thanks brother
Love,
Joe
November 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Great peace have they that love thy law and nothing shall offend them.
Bury it guys and reload, you both have added to the discussion.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I agree, let’s just drop it. I’m sorry I let myself become offended, I’m sure you meant no harm.
Love,
Joe
November 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Joe C - I didn’t make any insinuations in my first comment (see above) and that’s what you called me out on. You picked a line from my second comment after you thought I was wrongly accusing you. Please see the order of comments above. I took a direct quote from your comment - that’s it (1:35pm comment).
I disagree with your view that the whole Christian church is the remnant… I believe that scripture clearly teaches against this as well. That’s what I was questioning - not you as a person. I commented on your comment, not you personally. I think that’s allowed, no?
If you think I sinned against you, I’m honestly a little mystified here.
The bottom line still stands: A careful review of scripture seems to show that there always seemed to be a remnant, even in the days leading up to Christ… And with the comments Christ and other apostles made, it seems this trend would continue.
Why? The devil always tries to mimic (a la Jannes and Jambres) exactly what the Lord is doing, but with a slant. The “field has been sown down with tares.”
November 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Just saw your post after I sent mine - no harm intended. God bless.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Joe, you are now a full blown misunderstood emergent! LOL!
Just kidding!
iggy
November 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
BTW my understaning of the “remnant” is it is those of the Jews God preserved to come to Christ by faith.
Paul speaks of this in Romans 9 I beleive.
iggy
November 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I see that too Iggy.
Paul, I never said the phrase “regardless of what we believe”, so you added to the quote from my post something I didn’t say or imply at all, which shows me that’s how you understood me. But that’s not what I was trying to say at all. I hope that clears that up. And I was more getting on the insinuation, I felt, that I was ecumenical or putting truth on the backburner. Agh, but I said I’d drop this, so okay we’re done with this it’s okay.
So Chris, are you saying that there is a remnant in Christianity? Like, a Christian remnant (of what??) inside a group of Christians? That doesn’t seem to be in Scripture at all. And IF this is what you’re saying, can you supply clear Scripture that there will always be a ‘remnant’ of Christians among Christians?
All I was saying was that we’re like a remnant, all of us, as Christians, out of the world of humans. That’s not biblical? We’re not chosen and called out of the world? Isn’t that what Ecclesia means? “Called out”? That’s ALL I’m saying. How is that not Biblical? Thank you very much for this engaging discussion guys!!
Love, Joe
November 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
What I am saying is that Christianity is not as widespread - in action, lifestyle, commitment and dedication - as it appears, which caused the Lord to pose the question, “Nevertheless, when the Son of man returns, will he find faith in the earth?”
I agree that the church - the called out ones - should truly represent the meaning of the word, but who can deny that this is not the case at all for the most part?
In my view, I would say that the church is almost in the exact same spot it was before Christ’s first coming… lots of religion and knowledge, but when the Lord looks I sometimes wonder if all he sees is “dry ground.” There might be the Annas, the Simeons, the Marys and so on of course.
So yes, as always there is a remnant of “true worshippers”.
How would you answer what Paul stated “that the devil himself is transformed into an angel of light, and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness”?
November 13th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
That is a simple answer, I feel.
They’re false, by definition of association with Satan as his “ministers”. Not Christian. They’re not part of those ‘called out’. It’s that simple.
Yes, there is a remnant of ‘true worshipers’, and those are all the REAL Christians. Those who aren’t ‘true worshipers’, are not Christian, and not called out, they’re still part of the world, and they’re not a ‘remnant’ out of the world, like the true believers are.
I do not think for a second that there are two ‘types’ of Christians. Those who worship truely, and those who don’t. No, the former is Christian, the others aren’t, by definition. You either have the Son, by faith, or you don’t. No middle ground. There is no remnant of Christians among Christians, that makes no sense, and you still haven’t given any support of this brother. All those who are truly Christian, are the remnant out of the world, and those who aren’t but claim to be Christian, are not Christian and not part of the church. Can you see what I’m saying?
I’m not even saying we HAVE to call us a ‘remnant’. Let’s just call us “God’s chosen”, or “God’s Elect”, or “The Body”, or His “Royal Priesthood”, or “A chosen nation”. Whatever floats you know? But this is what I mean by remnant out of the world. Perhaps I’m using the word remnant improperly. But I’m trying to say that, with the whole human population as a whole, the Christians are a group that are called out of that group, as God’s people and elect.
There will always be a chosen people, a remnant out of the world of unbelief, because there will always be a ‘Church’.
What do the other brothers have to say on this matter?
Love,
Joe
November 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Yes, Joe I see what you’re saying… I agree that a true Christian is a Christian. Period. I was not arguing against this.
However, a declarative statement like that is easily made, but not easy to identify. It was not easy to discern deception in the early church and it is not easy now.
Jesus made 3 warnings to his disciples in Matthew 24 alone regarding false teachers and prophets. He also warned about “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Paul spend no end of time warning his churches to beware that they don’t lose the revelation they were given by being warn down by false teachings (Corinthians and Galatians come to mind immediately).
Then, flip over to Revelation and 5 out of the 7 churches were in a fairly bad position. In fact, there is reference made to the seat of Satan within many of them.
So, what am I saying? That there is a remnant within the “church” in the sense that there are both wheat and tares - very clear in scripture. God is the final judge, but not everything with a steeple and not everyone who claims the name of Jesus is a true believer.
When we overlook the tendency to be deceived, we open ourselves up to being easily led astray, which is the reason for all of the apostles’ (Paul, Peter, James, Jude) urging the saints to remain stedfast.
There is an onslaught on the church - especially in the area of truth and discipleship - which many don’t even realize.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I agreew generally with what Paul has said and Joe also. What the word remnant implies is that everyone has departed and a small remnant have remained. What I believe that the church as a whole has moved including those who claim they are a remnant.
We all need a revival, all of us. I also agree, Joe, that the body of Christ has always been in the minority. But as God ahowed Elijah, God always has His witness. As we discuss truths today we must learn to be strong and yet loving and not devouring one another. Even when truw brothers stray we should be as the prodigal’s father, not the executioner.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
A quick question for those of you here.
I believe that many can confess that Jesus is Lord, and pray and read the Bible and go to church, and love people and love God but not go to heaven. Does anyone second this? I’m thinking of Matthew 7 “many shall say to me Lord Lord, ‘did we not do many wonderful works?’ and I will say to them depart from me?”
Does anyone believe this?
November 13th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
inquistor,
interestingly the one thing you left is the one thing that will let one into the Kingdom of God.
That is Jesus knowing you!
In Matthew 7 Jesus states “away from me, I never knew you.”
That is why Lordship Salvation is so dangerous… it leads one to a easy believism of “confessing that Jesus is Lord” but then pushes discipleship… but misses that one must also be known by Jesus…
In John 2: 22-25 Many came to believe in Jesus, but Jesus did not believe in their belief in Him…
So, we can do all the “right” things, but if Jesus does not know you or entrust Himself to you, you are still lost. He knows men’s hearts so can tell if we are sincere or not as far as believing in Him.
The issue is do we believe we can “do” anything on our own… or do we allow Jesus to do it in and through us.
Maj Ian Thomas used to say something that I have taken as my motto or creed.
So, for me to live is Christ to die is gain.
Be blessed,
iggy
November 13th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I agree with what you stated Chris in your most recent post there, I’m glad we’re clear with each other now. Iggy, good point on Jesus knowing us. It doesn’t matter if we know Jesus as much as if He knows us. If He knows us, we MUST know Him, by necessity. It’s like…if 2+2=4 then 4 must = 2+2.
Wow…I don’t like math.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
#1
Phil Miller gets away with murder via his rhetoric.
Small=dying=the ones who misuse the word remnant. How does he know if these churches are “stubborn and unloving”
Gee they couldn’t be accurately defending the Truth because if they were they would be a mega-church. So much for the universalist/inclusivist pov displayed here.
For me this blogsite looses any credibility when it allows statements like this to stand.
#2.
iggy has a knack for making statements that have already been pointed out in the original post. he has done this on other blogs, which means he most likley doesn’t read the posts or the comments made or he is a “wannabe know-it-all” Probably both.
#3.
Jesus’ knowing us has to do with his “publicly” recognizing those whom He is casting away. He did not sanction their efforts, so He doesn’t “know them” Their works are not the works of Eph 2:10 or James 2.
The triune God knows us better than we will ever know ourselves. I don’t “allow” Him to know me, He already does. This is why He can speak judgment against men. he knows who they are, and what they do, i.e. those who are not His.
John 2:23-25
#4.
Finally “the remnant”
Amos 9:
11″In that day I will raise up
the booth of David that is fallen
and repair its breaches,
and raise up its ruins
and rebuild it as in the days of old,
12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations who are called by my name,”
declares the LORD who does this.
Acts 15:
13After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 “‘After this I will return,and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’
Romans 11:
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27″and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
Edom and Adam come from the same root word.
All of Israel is both jew and gentile.
So, yes there is a remnant of jews who will come into the Kingdom, but Israel is both jew and gentile as it was spoken to Abraham. “Israel” has always been both jew and gentile.
According to the above Scriptures, Israel is the “remnant” of all mankind.
The “remnant” of both jew and gentile is most definitely spoken of in the NT.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Ah, the purpose driven drive by.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Chris P.
LOL!
Of course, that good ole cut and pasting scripture… is a classic…
LOL!
You are really something… I am not sure what, but it is really something!
Now, of course , there is a remnant of “all mankind†but in the case of what I was talking about IN CONTEXT in Romans, Paul is talking about the Jews only.
You are taking verses out of context and creating a proof text.
Again, the OT prophecies were to show the Jew that the gentiles also will be saved. In that the roles were reversed as Paul is now stating to the Gentiles that the Jews are a remnant by faith… and again yes all are a remand by faith in Christ. BUT the think you are missing is that there is no such thing of a remnant within the remnant.
BTW sincerely… thanks for adding to the conversation… aside from your put downs.
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I think Chris proved my point about all Christians being a remnant out of the world. Thanks Chris!
Joe
November 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
It seems that everyone here believes that one can “know” Christ without Christ “knowing” him. I believe that we call that the difference between the wheat and the tares.
Now, knowing that there are wheat and tares. Knowing that there are false Christians around us, and false teachers as well, is there anyone here who can name 1 false teacher that they have recognized as such? Any 1 false teacher in America? Please name 1 for me.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Inquistior,
I am not sure where you are going with this… but there is a difference between a false teacher and a heretic.
A person can teach something false but hold to the orthodox view of Jesus… such as the “word of faith” movement.
I can name a bunch of “false teachers” but God only knows if they are tares or not.
Now, some are obvious, like Joseph Smith… or organizations like the Watchtower….
but some mix a lot of things that are true… and preach Jesus.
I see that Benny Hinn (to me is a fraud) but I know people I respect who have no appreciation for Benny who have seen him state that God works in people’s lives in spite of Benny. Is Benny saved? That is for God to work out.
But, as far as false teachers, there are so many that you can name like for example, those who teach Lordship Salvation… it cuts across the grace of God by adding works as to be “obedient” (there is an obedience but it is imputed to us and is Jesus working in and through us and not our own.) Again, are they saved, i will leave that to God.
So you have in your question a deeper question than “name 1 for me”.
Can you name one person that does not teach anything wrong… meaning is there one person that you can name that is not in error in some place in their teaching? If you can, then I will answer your question even more clearer.
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I guess I’m simply asking for you to name someone within the evangelical Christian community who is not truly saved. Jesus did teach that they would be recognizable. So, something that I’ve found is that everyone likes to say that heretics are in the church (2 Peter 2:1-3) but no one seems to be able to name any. I’m just curious, aside from Joseph Smith, I’m talking about those within the evangelical community. I realize that you don’t know where I’m going with this and that’s ok. If you’ll oblige me by being patient then I’ll end up getting to the conclusion. So, still, the question remains, can anyone name just 1? Even in your previous response you said, “Again, are they saved, i will leave that to God.” Which is the typical response.
However, if you look at the parable of the wheat and the tares it’s clear that the tares are identifiable. “Shall we pull them out?” they asked ‘No leave them, for you may accidentally pull out good wheat with them.” Jesus replied.
I’m just asking for 1 to be identified. Only 1.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Do you then contend that a tare can never become a wheat?
Also, are you calling believers angels as in the parable you are speaking of the harvester are angels according the what Jesus states… so can angels look down and see the difference… according to Jesus… but show me a verse where is states a human can see (for sure and for all certainty) that one person is a wheat and another is a tare… in fact Paul states in Romans 2: 1-4
Or Jesus states in John 8 14-16 that He does not even judge people….
We simply are not to judge and if you are going that way and saying we can… then you must be an angel… or have better judgement than Jesus does himself!
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
So again, name one person with perfect doctrine that has not one thing wrong in his teaching… just one… come on humor me also!
LOL!
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Ig,
I’m with you on this one brother. We’re all liars and false teachers, because we’ve all believed incorrect things about God even AFTER being saved, and taught them too. All of us. How many false teachings do you need before you aren’t a Christian anymore, or prove you weren’t one to begin with (depends on what you believe about perseverance)?
The difference is, when we’re shown wrong by God, do we accept this correction?
“Name one person with perfect doctrine that has not one thing wrong in his teaching…”
Jesus.
And since He’s the only One, then He makes and calls the shots. And we should all be VERY humbled knowing we don’t know it all, and get things wrong, and often too. We should be begging God for Wisdom, and trusting in Jesus’ blood and righteousness more and more because of it.
Love,
Joe
November 14th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I think perhaps you’re misunderstanding me. Like Joe said, the only one who never taught anything wrong was Christ. I’m not interested in you naming someone who has been wrong about a theological issue. I’m asking for you to name a tare that is within evangelical circle. 2 Peter 2:1-3 ” there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
So in context we have false teachers who obviously are not saved.
I’m just asking you to name one. That’s all. It just seems strange to me that the Bible teaches that they exist, you agree that they exist, and the Bible teaches that they are identifiable, for if they were not then why warn about them. So if we can see that the Bible teaches that they exist and are identifiable then let’s stop hiding behind the excuse “I’ll let God deal with whether they are saved or not.”
I just want a name. Just one name of someone who is a false teacher. Who as Peter warns who’s “destruction is not asleep.”
Do you get me? I know that no one has perfect teaching, but Peter wasn’t talking about those who were wrong on a particular issue. He was talking about the person who was a ‘false teacher’ there is a difference between being wrong about a particular subject, and being a false teacher, for if there wasn’t then destruction would be awaiting all of us.
So again, this is the last time. Can you name one for me?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Inquisitor,
I would list the UU church as an example of this. What’s your point?
November 14th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
inquisitor,
Ummm apparently you did not read what I stated… we do not know who is wheat and tare… for the “harvesters” are angels… so you are already flawed in your reasoning…
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Chris P,
Vroooooooooooooooooooooooom!
Whine, whine, whine!
Vrooooooooooooooooooooooom!
November 14th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I named at least two or three… how many do you need?
but again I judge as a mere man… and the only one that judges justly is Jesus… so again, what is your point?
Now there are false heresies, but then which ones to you are destructive? Paul’s definition is that one adds works to grace… but it seems you are adding more to that.
am I wrong?
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I wouldn’t consider Joseph Smith to be a part of the evangelical circle. Nor is the UU a name of a person. Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t ask again. So I won’t, but thanks for playing.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Joe,
That is what I beleive, but I guess inquisitor does not want to read the part in the bible that states the harvester are angels and so can see which are of true faith or not… we stand here and judge one man to another.
Now are there men who introduce dangerous heresies? Yes, and I will say that many who teach the prosperity gospel and add works to grace fall into that… now am I bold enough to state for certain that “so and so” is not saved? Or that maybe they are a tare, but God change this tare (me) into wheat so I see God can do that for anyone…
So inquisitor’s question does not make biblical sense to me.
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
inquisitor,
i would say it is better to judge the teaching than the man… for a man can be changed by grace, but a teaching can damage others.
In that we must always give room for God to work and not place ourselves in the way.
But, I am not sure, as you say, “thanks for playing” that judging another in the sense you are stating is “playing” other than “playing God”.
And you never once answered my questions so why would I play along?
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Spong.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Inquisitor - why do you want us to name someone who is going to hell?
November 14th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Judas… Goliath…
That is two…
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I’ve been out of pocket (sorta) for a while, but I can’t resist commenting on this one:
The impression I get from what I’ve read on this site– apparently, Chris L, Tim Reed, Iggy, and other CRN.Info contributors/writers think they fall into that category…especially when it comes to “critiquing” anything written/spoken by Ken Silva or Ingrid Schlueter.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Keith,
You crack me up… I bet I have at least stated twice today I may be wrong… and once even here! LOL!
welcome back. And I am just like you… a commenter… not a contributor or writer. but thanks for the props!
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Keywords “may be.” Good night.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Pointing out with flawless perfection a bare few problems with what they write hardly requires divinity.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Oh and Keith, in the last couple of days I have stated i agreed with Ingrid on something and stated that Ken might be right on another! LOL!
iggy
November 14th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“may be wrong” just means the other guy didn’t have a good enough argument or evidence to show you that you’re wrong yet. “may be wrong” means you’re humble enough and willing to change and admit you’re wrong if you can be shown to be such. The only reason I would say “I may be wrong” is because I’m open to POSSIBLE correction, by God’s grace in my heart. I expect Iggy et al uses the phrase in the same way.
The problem is, no one ever wants to level a rational argument, or rebuke, or correction most of the time. People just like to ‘drive by’ (as y’all put it) and be snide, self righteous, indignant, accusing, and assuming the worst about others.
Thats what I think about being wrong, maybe.
But I could be wrong.
Joe
November 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
First of all, Chris P., you cannot be serious that the Scriptures you listed prove the remnant in the context I wrote about. Those disjointed set of Scriptures are not your best effort and I do not understand your investment in this “remnant” issue.
Now, Inquisitor, false teachers in the classic sense would be those who teach a false gospel. The cults (Mormons, JWs, Christian Science, et. al.) are obvious subjects. To identify some within the evangelical community is difficult and runs the risk of judgment, especially since they are sometimes clothed as angels of light.
I would say that some of the Word of Faith leaders can be considered, men who teach salvation through baptism, Pagitt and MacLaren have my attention, so there I have named some suspects. Now I ask you, why do you ask?
Remember, we must be very careful or we quickly run the risk of becoming careless crusaders as you can see. Additionally we must still have love even when strongly confronting error, and, without humility about our own teachings we become self righteous. The gospel is what separates the false teachers, they either add or subtract from the work of Christ.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Are you saying that Pagitt and McLaren teach a false gospel, and thus would fit the description of 2 Peter CH. 2?
I realize that you would like to know why I am asking for a name, however I cannot say why I’m asking until I get a name. So I really would like a name that fits the description of 2 Peter. I need to clearly know if that’s the answer that I’m getting. Pagitt and Mclaren fit the description?
November 16th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Yes.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Reading all of 2 Peter, I would not say yes or no to McL or Padgitt.
Until you can say why it is important to know names of people “going to hell”, I see no point in your question… Pretty much every teacher is in error on one point or another.
I think the most damnable of heresies in evangelicalism is the idea that following God will make you healthy and wealthy - and this teaching matches spot on with 2 Peter 2. Is this what Peter had in mind? I suspect so, but as he writes, their judgement is up to God in the end. For their sake, I hope not. For their followers who believe this lie, I teach the truth without bad-mouthing the person they got it from (basic 101 evangelism from Paul in Ephesus who didn’t speak out against Artemis, but clearly showed that she was a lie in teaching the truth of God). Calling out someone I would not know from Adam if I bumped into them on the street and telling everyone they’re going to hell doesn’t seem to be the orthopraxy advocated by Jesus, Peter or Paul - all of whom knew those they criticized personally…
November 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I’m not sure where inquisitor is going with his/her question but it brings up an interesting point.
Chris L, I disagree that it was not the practice of Jesus or the apostles to point-blank point out danger when they saw it. Paul makes strong reference to Hymaneus and Philetus, along with Alexander. John points out the danger of Diotrophes. A close look at 2 Peter 2 and Jude will show that they are virtually speaking the same thing - warning about false teachers.
And of course, there’s the example of Jesus. In His letter to the church in Ephesus (Rev 2) He commends them for being able to discern between false and true apostles, using the offensive (at least in our 21st century world) “liars” in describing them.
Condemning people eternally is not our place, but we were told to critically observe before we swallow whole everything served up to us. I don’t propose a witch hunt but much (not all) of what the ODMs bring to light do show the travesty of what the church has become.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Paul,
Here is what I said (with additional emphasis):
Every example you used was a criticism of someone known directly by the person making the criticism. What ODM’s often do is eisogete passages out of context from single books/sermons/articles by a person and then use that eisogesis as a blanket damnation of the individual in question. Not at ALL the same thing…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Chris L - I hear that argument all the time… somehow you have to sit down and have coffee with a person before you draw a conclusion… meanwhile they are broadcast all over TV and the web, proclaiming specifically what they teach and believe.
I don’t think this is what the Bible suggests at all. Paul commented on the TEACHING of Hymaneus and Philetus… whether they had coffee or not is anyone’s guess, but is really not important. Why? Because it was the false teaching that was the target.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to condemn to hell, but it is needful to clearly draw lines and that’s where posters/commenters on this site fall down terribly. Almost everything seems OK, which is why I think you have a problem answering the question.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Which is what we’ve been asked to do by the “inquisitor”, and that’s not our job - any of us.
Please. You’ve either a) not been paying attention, or b) you’ve been drinking CR?N’s kool-aid.
Perhaps it’s just than most of our defenses are of folks being criticized for externals (like Jesus’ disciples being the target of pharisees’ criticism for not washing their hands “correctly”), and that the folks we do choose to defend on deeper issues (like Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Erwin McManus) aren’t the antichrists that the watchdawggies are crying Wolf! over. Personally, what comes from John MacArthur’s, Benny Hinn’s and Joel Osteen’ss pulpits (for different reasons) are far more dangerous than Warren, Bell, McManus and multiple other watchdoggie punching-bags.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Chris L - at last count the only mention of hell (4 times so far) were ALL from you. Who else mentioned it?
You guys sometimes remind me of politicians who automatically are obligated - often entirely outside of reason - to rebut their opponent for no other reason than, well, isn’t that what opponents do?
Now, there’s an idiotic post on likening someone to Hitler, and the poor emergents to the Jews of Nazi Holocaust… come on (I had to stifle a little laugh here).
You still haven’t properly responded to my questions/comments.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Paul,
You asked:
from the “inquisitor” (stated and restated all pretty much asking the same thing:
I am assuming that he is taking the narrow neo-classic definition of “saved” which is a binary yes/no destination in the after-life. As such, he is asking for specific names of people who are bound for hell because of their false teaching.
Were he to use the historical-contextual definition of “saved”, which implies a beginning here and now as part of the Kingdom of God on earth and reaches perfection upon Jesus’ final return and continues into eternity, then my assumption would be incorrect - but from the remainder of his comments, he does not seem like someone who would understand this nuance in Jesus’ teaching.
If we were to bring the eartly realm of ’salvation’ into accont, I could start naming a huge number of people who cry “Lord, Lord” but do not walk in the “Kingdom of God” here on earth. But that’s not what he’s looking for, and even the answer to that question would be misconstrued by the myopic ODM wolves to imply the former.
As for bringing in Nazi’s (I haven’t seen/read it yet), I try to avoid that (taking into account Godwin’s Law) myself, as it’s not helpful…
How so? I can list all sorts of teachings that I (and others here) completely disagree with as being part of Jesus’ intent, and the people who hold to such things - and I have done so. Just because we don’t seek to shut the door to the kingdom in the faces of those wishing to enter in ways that aren’t identical to ours doesn’t mean we don’t believe that there are gates on the kingdom…
November 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Chris L…you totally lost me…
What is “salvation” in your view…..?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
It’s hard to give a short answer on that subject, so maybe I’ll just start a post on the subject… give me a bit…
November 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
While I’m working on it - just a couple questions:
1) What was the #1 subject on which Jesus spoke?
2) How many sermons do you hear on this subject?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“I am the resurrection and the life, He that believes on me shall never die”.
Salvation is receiving by faith the atonement offered on the cross and substantiated in the resurrection. No nuances.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I agree with you Rick. I’ll be interested to see how Chris L changes that or not… No offense Chris. Really.
Joe