I’m not sure who Rob Willmann is – but he’s got a blog and uses it to call out apostates. In this entry he posts an interview featuring Doug Pagitt. In the interest of fairness I thought it should be pointed out that there are things that should be judged as just too vague… too far gone… too – well wrong! Doug Pagitt is just that in this interview. In this case it is good to offer up warnings and sound the alarms as it were.
Unfortunately, that is where the discernment usually stops. As the first four responses indicate, Pagitt is being portrayed as a representative of everything that is Emerging… I’m afraid that this will become even more fodder for the machine. I posted a response expressing pain over Pagitt’s responses – but also encouragement not to assign his lunacy to everyone under the Emerging tent… we’ll see if it gets posted.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
82 Comments(+Add)
I read that transcription a few weeks ago, and there’s one thing that stood out to me more than anything else. I don’t know if it’s intentional, but it sure seems like whoever did the transcription made sure to put in every “uh” and “um” that Pagitt said in the transcription.
I must confess that I don’t make it a regular practice to read transcriptions from radio shows, so I don’t know if that’s standard practice or not. I just found that it makes Pagitt come off as very hesitant compared to the interviewer who doesn’t have one “uh” or “um” recorded.
Phil,
I did not download and listen to the actual interview, so I can only assume they are accurate. I belief it is the standard practice to include such things in a literal transcript.
Neil
Phil – Pagitt was very hesitant and most unable to give clear answers to simple questions.
Question: When a muslim dies where does he go?
Answer: He goes to hell which is why we must tell him about Jesus.
Phil,
I’ve done transcriptions for http://www.castingwords.com via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and their guidelines are to leave out “uhm and uhs” when doing transcriptions…
I listened to the download and; 1) the transcript as posted is very accurate, and 2) the “Uhm’s” and “Uh’s” flow better in speech than on the written page.
Although I completely disagree with Pagitt – he sounded much less evasive and hesitant than it appears in writing.
Neil
Again…here we go…
Attributing Pagitt’s views to anyone who associates with him.
Because if we aren’t showing our righteousness by pointing fingers and throwing relationships out the window at the drop of a hat, then we really aren’t Christians.
You hope your comment will get posted?
Don’t count on it.
What with the allergy to honesty people who are obsessed with winning suffer from…
And if it does get posted…
well, then they’ve found some red meat to feed angry faithful.
I’m sure after they kick you in the shins, poke you in the wine and generally get drunk on WHINE, they’ll figure out how to talk about how vicious YOU are.
Whatever.
No disclaimer on this one…
oooopsss…
that should say “poke you in the EYE”…
I listened to the interview as well. Neil is right, it came across as a normal conversation flow with a few uh’s and um’s as Doug gathered his thoughts.
I emailed Doug the day after I listened to the interview to see if he had any sermons or articles that could help me better see his take on a suddenly-debatable subject matter. He immediately replied (which was pretty cool) saying he didn’t do sermon series on “non-sequiturs.” Those of you who read or listened to the interview will recognize his use of that word.
He suggested I read one of his books to better understand his theology.
I’ve only ever listened to one sermon by the brother, and it was the time he preached at Mars Hill Bible Church when Rob had bronchitis. The sermon was spot-on. He is a gifted teacher. And the gospel shined through the whole message.
Any-hoo, my two cents.
Has anyone read his book “Church Re:imagined”?
I thought there were a few good things in it.
I have to admit though that he puzzles me.
Rick,
Here is the thing… in Platonistic dualism you are right on… yet biblically all will be judged according to what they have done. Jesus stated that, that is what is stated in Rev 20 in the Great White Throne Judgement…
As far as Hell… all are raise from the dead and “hell gave up it’s dead” (Rev 20:13) so literally you are wrong… but in the “common” teachings you are teaching what most rattle off as right.
If all are raised, and hell gives up its dead, then it is NOT truth that all spend eternity in hell.
Also, hell ends. It is tossed in the Lake of Fire and as Paul teaches all the remains is of Christ.
All that is not of Jesus is cast into the fire. (Matthew 13) And if you read the verse in context the wailing and gnashing is not stated to last eternally. In Mark 9:48 the word “worm” is used, yet it is to mean that “maggot” which are a part of death, will not end… so it means simply that death will not end and these will experience the second death.
As far as hell being a place… I am not one that is sold that it is not one now, be it the grave, a department that holds the dead… (though that would mean that man is eternal yet the bible teach he is not and only Jesus is thus the resurrection unto life) or Tartarus which holds the fallen angels.
Now I wonder though if “hell” as most understand will be consumed in the Lake of Fire and since hell is not of Christ… will is as commonly taught remain?
The point is that there is not a cut and dry case against what Doug stated and he never stated that the Muslim was not entering eternal life…
Let’s see what Doug said…
Now did Doug state that a Muslim would not be judge? Did he state he was going to be saved? No, he was interrupted though before he could explain further and then it was assume he stated that when in the actual transcript he stated that being judged is “interaction with God”.
So, to state that he stated a Muslim or Buddhist is saved… is not true.
BTW Todd was very rude in the interview and the “um” and “ah” was thinking and re-filtering the “question framed in a reformed” way that was not in the normal thinking of Doug… it is like saying he had to reinterpret into a different language and then give the correct language. Also, Doug made many good points that Todd totally was lost on which shows that Todd and this group are looking for the “right” answer… but it is the “right” answer with in their own systematic theology and not nessacarly the biblical view.
Again, I think Rick you are working out of a Platonic Dualism model that is not biblical… But I still love ya!
Blessings,
iggy
So what are we to make of it all? A man can do an interview and openly be unable to identify the eternal destiny of a lost person among other things and he is a gifted preacher. He mocked MacArther when he suggested the Word can relieve stress. There is much subjectivity on all sides.
If someone likes Bell and he likes Pagitt then you must like Pagitt to protect Bell. Same thing with Piper, he invites Driscoll and since you like Piper you must justify his reasons. No one can ever be wrong and deserving of correction from the camp you are in, only the camp you do not like.
There are no heretics today, everyone is misunderstood, I am an alarmist, it will all bo OK.
Iggy,
I took Pagitt to be saying that at the judgment, all would be made right. He then applied this to individuals – that they would be made right as well. This is not my understanding of biblical judgment.
Did I misinterpret Pagitt?
And I agree, it appeared Todd was more interested in a fight than exploring any thoughts.
Neil
I like Piper and Driscoll.
Neil
Todd’s intent was to have Pagitt admit his theology which many emergents are loathe to do, hence no creeds. Iggy, you misrepresent the interview, Neil is correct, Pagitt espouses a universalism and denies that heaven and hell are real places. And I have both listened to and read the entire interview.
If you read “Listening to the beliefs of Emerging Churches” you will see how different Pagitt is from Driscoll and Kimball. There were things in that book that Pagitt said that were too extreme (I know this would be a good time for an example, bu I don’t have the book with me).
The point of the post was two: 1) unless I misunderstand Pagitt, he should be pointed out as wrong, and 2) “they” will not bother to discern between the likes of Pagitt and Driscoll.
Neil
Just for the record, I never applied the “U” word – but the thought did cross my mind…
Neil
Neil,
You stated
I would agree with your assessment…of his response and of it’s contradiction with scripture.
It’s kind of interesting that Dan Kimball is preaching on hell this week:
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/11/anthony-and-six.html
and more in depth on why:
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/11/outreach-conven.html
It appears that as our culture shies away from the declaration of absolutes, the temptation is to respond in kind. The reality is that there are absolutes. And I believe that eternal life, for the redeemed and for those who reject Jesus, is a scriptural reality.
Sorry I block-quoted everything. Neil’s quote ends with “…my understanding of biblical judgment.”
What I took away from the interview is it was an discussion between two people dead set on keeping the conversation in their court.
Todd appeard to want his particular systimatic theology repeated in specific terms from Doug and Doug wanted to challenge and adress some basic differences, specifically the Platonic Dualism that works it’s way into our faith and also the language we use in how he was presenting things. So neither seemed to do what the other wanted, and neither accomplished anything constructive in this interview.
But that’s why I hate basing things on interviews. Every time I’ve been interviewed for something, I always start to state something, get cut off or distracted, forget to clarify or finish a previous statement, and I think the same thing happened here, epsecially since it seemed that both sides where dead set on making the other look out of bounds.
Kevin,
I agree.
I hesitate to create a theology based on hypothetical and/or anecdotes – but what biblical hope for the forevermore life can we apply to the Muslim who has died?
Neil
I just want to point out, I enjoy listening to Todd Friel. With that said, I did find the interview a little rough in terms of being graceful to what turned out to be his debate opponent.
Moving on…
When my wife and I heard Pagitt speak throughout this interview, (and his interview with CARM), I dropped my jaw, big time, and in a bad way. This was the first time I had heard Pagitt speak openly on any matters like this, and I had NEVER heard a Christian speak like this before. I’ve seen the term “nailing jello to a wall”, actually I think Todd used the term, and I brokenly agree. It was a pretty confusing conversation.
‘Platonic dualism’ aside, I found what Mr. Pagitt said so far off from the plain reading of the Bible, and disengenuous at that. (The reformers and church fathers would have agreed with him, he says….and I say: no way lol).
Iggy, like I’ve stated before (but you haven’t rebutted, though I have the distinct feeling you can, remembering Proverbs 18:17), the Lake of Fire swallows up hades (hell), true, but the LoF is listed as being Eternal in Revelation, and Jesus makes mention of Everlasting Punishment several times in the Gospel, in addition to the everlasting punnishment in the LoF mentioned in Rev. I, and most others I know, believe the LoF to be the actual future (not necessarily existing now) “hell” and the “hell” that is thrown in to the LoF is ‘death and the grave’, i e the holding place spoken of in 2 Peter 2.
No one can deny that each person will be judged according to their deeds true, but that our deeds are filthy rags and sinful before God, and we are transgressors of his Law, which even to the unknowledgable is written in our hearts and consciences leaving us without excuse, and without Jesus, we’ll stand on our own ‘goodness’ before God. But our own goodness is evil, filled with sin (though not totally), and will damn us before Him. I see this as ultimate justice, as God is ultimately perfect, and demands perfection, and punnishes sin. Hell HAS to exist. And I’m unwilling to move away from the plain-ness (to me) in Scripture of the eternal nature thereof.
I found Pagitt giving the distinct impression without coming out and saying it, of Universalism. He didn’t say it, but I had the strong impression. Now I wasn’t biased against Pagitt before I heard him, because I hadn’t heard much from him before, but after hearing him, I have to say that I am very worried about his soteriology and worried about him having any resemblance to even a ‘generous’ Christian orthodoxy. I’ll pray for him, but he seems pretty made up in his mind. I think this is what happens when we ask too many questions and let it get out of hand in our lives.
Now I understand his views don’t represt Emergent/Emerging as a whole, at all, but this does give me worry since he’s very high profile.
PS, my jaw has never been hanging down so low before (in a bad way lol) while listening to a pastor speak. I was kind of appalled he dipped, dodged, and missed the answers to very simple questions, I felt. And then claimed 2000 years of Christianity had his back. I felt that was basically akin to lying boldfacedly. I’m very sorry if this sounds harsh, but it’s my conviction.
I understand what you’re saying Iggy with the nastiness of the interview in general, but he kind of brought that upon himself with his terrible answers (based on who he was talking to, he was asking for it and I think he knew that going in). If I got the impression of universalism and other bad answers, surely others did too? I’m not saying I’m awesome or anything, but I don’t think I’m the only one who found his interview…less than…-sigh-…Biblical? If he didn’t mean things that way, then he needs to clean his language up, and be more specific to what he believes. I’m not even sure Todd Friel knew what Doug was talking about by the end of the interview lol, and he’s a pretty bright radio guy.
So…that’s my 5 dollars worth….(because it’s a little more than 2 cents.). I’ll probably have more to say once someone starts tearing in to my beliefs on hell, salvation, and sin, and criticism of Pastor Pagitt, lol.
Love,
Joe
We can fool around with hell, sheol, hades, lake of fire, that doesn’t matter. Do people who have not been born again by faith in Christ go to an eternal, conscious, very bad place?
If a person cannot even espouse that he doesn’t believe the Scriptures.
I espouse that. But um…I dont want to marry hell. Oh wait…wrong word…LOL
Joe
Rick does this refer to the Yoga interview?
Yes. He laughed after the interview that MacArthur thought the Word can relieve stress. I am proof it can!
Rick I watched that interview several times plus read the transcript. No where does Doug mock or impugne MacArthur’s statements.
You’re original quote said he “mocked” MacArthur. That’s not true.
I guess if one looks at the Lake of Fire as “just” punishment then it would be hell… and I have not issue with that in the general sense, but biblically the lake of fire is the eternal end. It is also the purging of all that is not “in christ”.
I am not “playing” here… and no one, not even Doug diminsihed the eternal outcome of one not in Chirst… he pointed out that by acknowledging the versue Todd stated in Jude… so to state Doug promoted universalism was a bit off as he acknowledged judgment, eternal death, and so on.
This is really interesting to me as I totally understood Doug… and really saw that Todd was not “getting it” as to where he was just plain off in his biblical view point.
This creation will be re-created in it’s original goodness and more… it will not just be destroyed, but as we are resurrected with our own bodies yet yet imperishable, so this creation will be resurrected impersihable.
So to state that Todd was all right by stating that “where we go” is a “place” misses that we stay here and do not “go” but live here in the New Creation which is an extension of the old. I do not cease to exist at the resurrection, but will continue but in my glorified body. That is why Doug states that he cannot answer “a place” and states:
So is the Kingdom of God a place? When new creation is in its fullness where is it? Can you not see how that is kind of a nonsensicle question in a true biblical view?
Also, Todd does not let Doug even continue with his answer but moves on to ” I’m a good Muslim..”
BTW, as far as ” emergengs not holding the bible in high asteem” did anyone else notice that they do a public reading of scritprue at doug’s church?
In my view Todd is very far off (though one must also interpret this through calvinist eyes)
Todd is stating that Jesus did not die for all peoples sin… and that they Jesus’ blood did not give all men forgivness of sins. This is worse to me than anything Doug stated as it is an offense to the Blood of Jesus. Now all are forgiven but must believe and receive to be saved so do not confuse this with universalsim.
Forgive my spelling as I do not have access to spell check at this moment.
Be blessed,
iggy
Kevin,
I agree!
iggy
Rick,
Doug laughed that JM gave that reading the bible was the only way to reduce stress…
Hmmm, I think taking a walk… spending time with my wife does wonders for me! So JM was way over simplistic in his answer. Yet, the bible sometimes causes stress in my life when the Holy Spirit is taking me to task and teaching me… so to say it is the only way is way out there from reality if you ask me. = )
Funny how little words like “just” and “only” seem to cause so much issue.
iggy
chris – that was a different interview that included MacArthur and Pagitt was recorded later laughing at MacArthur’s suggestion that the Word relieves stress, even if he said “only” which I do not remember. He sounded adolescent.
actually Rick, I recall that also, but I do think that JM was a bit overzealous in that interview to distance himself from Doug… as JM had to back-peddle pretty badly and contradicted what he first stated…
iggy
btw my favorite part is this part… after Doug points to Plato and Dante… and states that Todd go and read them to understand Todd’s own constructs and system Todd states:
And that is the real truth of that interview… Todd never let Doug answer a question but did a ram rod job of “proving” Doug a heretic… in which on the surface may seem so, but if you really look at the dialog and the bible, Doug pointed out more thinks wrong with Todd’s view point and how unbiblical it was than Todd did…
iggy
Iggy: Here is the thing… in Platonistic dualism you are right on…
IGGY! Press “1″ for English!!!!
Who in the world talks like this?
Most early Christian Apologists well before the 16th century… as well as Paul if you read him closely…
Acts 17 Paul quotes Aratus there. He also states “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” which as nothing to do with the Church of Rome when it was written but the Philosophers of Rome such as Plato… Most Reformers read it through the eyes of the 16th century and not in the time it was written.
1 Cor 1 Paul asks, “where are your philosophers?” and notes God has made them foolishness.
Then let’s get into Iraenius… and if you have taken time… even Calvin himself wrote on how Plato influenced him…
So most of the men that were of great influence on scripture talked that way…
So, if that is true… why are you questioning it? = )
iggy
When someone is overly philosophical, or overly evasive, or overly complicated, when asked some fairly Sunday School questions than you can be sure there is something going on. Of course the interviewer had a preconceived notion of what Pagitt was all about and Pagitt provided the evidence.
Don’t forget, Mark Driscoll, no starchy preacher himself, accused Pagitt of being a heretic and he fellowships with him. So this is no shocker, just a continuation. And those who are emergent or emergent sympathizers who desire to show that many are not liberal theologians should lovingly look at people like Pagitt and deal with it openly and without rancor but show others that they are serious about important truths.
Ig,
I think you’re playing with words. Todd was saying if someone doesn’t repent and trust the savior (Biblical) the “forgiveness for all” will not be accredited to them. I don’t think Todd, or WoM is Calvinist at all, by the by. Can YOU answer the question as to what happens to the ‘muslim’ when they die, in words OTHER than “interact with God”. Do they perish like Jesus said or not, judged and found guilty by God? Do they ‘experience’ ‘unquenchable fire’? Punishment? What is “eternal death” to you…? The opposite of Eternal Life? Are you a…what’s the word…like a Jehovah’s Witness….anihilationist? As in, they just get destroyed and don’t exist anymore, no conscience punnishment forever? I find this to be the antithesis of what the Scriptures say though, this isn’t a new ‘view’ to me, I’ve investigated it before. That would clear things up a bit, if this is what you believe, THEN I could see where you’re coming from, and talk to you about it. Right now I’m kinda confused as to what you’re talking about.
So…it’s not universalism. Okay let me repeat what I think you said Ig.
Jesus died for, AND forgave, everyone’s sins, but you have to believe and have faith in that in order to be saved. I think that’s what Todd believes too…but that’s just cos I listen to him all the time. So…misunderstandings on all fronts.
So you believe some are ’saved’, but from what? The consequences of sin which is death? Which is….hell? So what happens to the unsaved? If it’s not universalism, then the same thing doesn’t happen to both ‘groups’ right?
These are some ‘fundamental’ questions I would be asking, if I were emergent, instead of some of the other weird things I see them ask sometimes lol.
What else is the LoF?? Death..punnishment…purging of all not in Christ…eternal end……correct me if I’m crazy iggy, quite possibly btw, but isn’t all of that hell?
I rest my…”case”…har…umm..har.
I’m kinda sleepy. You get the idea though I’m sure.
Joe
Joe,
read the transcript again and note that Doug states that a person will be judged… in fact he agrees with Todd when Todd quotes Jude.
Notice:
1. Doug does not deny damnation.
Is God not going to judge and remove all that is not in Christ?
Hebrews 12: 26. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27. The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain. 28. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29. for our “God is a consuming fire.”
So if something is not of Christ it will be shaken and tossed into the the Fire… and our God is a consuming fire…
2. Yet, also biblical judgment is not just about damnation. that is the flip side to what God is doing in restoring the creation to its original glory and more… to its re-created glory and in that we “must be thankful we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be shaken.”
Also, Todd is not totally wrong, but misses many nuances in his theology (which is at least as Calvinist as one can be without being Calvinist… he is a supporter of John MacArthur)
Joe,
I beleive we are save to something… not JUST from something…
God did not come to live in our little kingdoms of our hearts, He came to give us a new heart and bring us into His Kingdom…the benefits of that is not going to hell which is of course eternal separation from God called the Second Death.
So the question to me is not what I am being saved from, but what am I saved unto? Who am I in this new Kingdom… as a believer I am not focus on my past that is forgiven and paid for.
A person who is not saved, needs to know more than what he is saved “from”.
If you by a new car (this is a rather sad comparison I agree) do you JUST focus on the old cars issues? When you are driving the newly purchased car, do you just think about all the old cars issues you are saved from? Or, do you focus on the cool new things you have gained with the new car?
If one is single and gets married, does one focus on how it was to be single? No, I hope that one dies to that and goes on to live his newly married life!
Now, we are given the ministry of reconciliation… as Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21
We are to tell others of this reconciliation… and yes part of that is to let them know they will be saved from the fires of judgement… but it is not JUST that which is what most Christians focus on… our focus is Jesus Christ and what we are to be in Him in the New Creation that was ushered in at the Resurrection.
Judgement is real… but if all we are doing is telling people that getting saved from hell and that they get to go to heaven is what salvation is… then we are lying and misrepresenting the Gospel.
I see that so much is lost when we just focus on the old creation and not focus on the new creation that is to come.
Blessings,
iggy
Ig,
I agree with you, however, my point in asking those questions was to see the answer you just gave lol. Not to make you think I’m ONLY saved from hell. Or not saved ‘unto’ something.
It is our mandate to preach the Gospel and make Disciples of Jesus Christ. Part of the Gospel is escaping the Judgment (bad kind) of God and entering in to Life. Both need to ‘come out of us’, because as Christians, both are in our hearts. Your car comparison is kind of bad…because it doesn’t match up very well to what we’re talking about. Let me add to it to show you.
Before the person will get in the new car, you have to understand that they love this horrible crappy car they are currently driving with no brakes towards a cliff, and this car WILL kill that person. They need to be told…(very roughly) “Hey, there’s this SAFE car over here, which is wonderful and perfect, and it won’t get you killed, you’ll always be safe in it, safe from the cliff of doomy doom doom”.
After that, you disciple that person, train and teach them, so they don’t stay focused on the past, but press on to being fruitful in the ‘new car’ and driving it effectively.
I understand that metaphors never quite fit, but I think we can agree on this.
People need to be pricked in the heart, turn to God in repentance and Faith, they will be saved (the word ’saved’ implies by nature that they are saved FROM something, and TO something), and then they will grow and become less of the old man in practice and more of the new creation they now are.
Iggy, you have to listen to his CARM radio interview too, I find it to be a lot ‘worse’. You make a lot, A LOT, more sense than Doug Pagitt does. Perhaps he cannot articulate himself properly, but I think he’s a bit bonkers.
Anyways Ig, you have a great turkey day buddy, I’ll talk to you later.
Joe
I’ll repeat my question. What hope would we apply to the Muslim who has died? Pagitt appears to apply the resurrection hope – but I guess maybe I’m not deep enough to follow how. At least I have not figured it out yet.
Neil
“What hope would we apply to the Muslim who has died? ”
None.
2nd that.
This interviewer obviously started with conclusions firmly held.
But Doug just cemented those conclusions even further with evasive or just bizarre answers.
That’s why I haven’t felt that Dougie speaks on behalf of me (or a lot of other emerging/missional types) for quite a while now. This just reconfirms it.
But I am kinda surprised at how quickly people here are defending Doug’s half of the interview. Loaded questions and already-got-my-mind-made up attitude aside, Doug didn’t say anything that sounded remotely orthodox to me.
But maybe I’m more Platonic/dualist than I realized…
Robbymac – You continue to surprise me with your insights and doctrinal applications that seem incongruous with the picture on your blog!
Thanks.
I share your sentiments Robbymac.
Rick,
Which picture? The one where I’m contemplating why there’s so much grey in my beard?
My personal opinion having finally listened to the interview is that Todd came out firing and Doug wasn’t going to play that game.
Quite frankly; Todd sounds like a jerk (at least from what I’ve heard of him). That whole interview sounded like a “bait and switch” from the start.
I’m tiring quickly of this whole “Guess what ___________ said?” and then tearing it apart six ways from Sunday, posting a video on Youtube, then blogging about it for weeks.
Amen.
If Pagitt came out on a interview held by a jerk and openly said “I think everyone will be saved eventually!” would you then feel free to comment. You seem to suggest the demeaner of the interviewer negates any comments made by Pagitt. Perhaps you are more apt to criticize MacArthur than Pagitt which is respecting men’s persons.
Examine the statements apart from the interviewer you despise who by the way did seem somewhat aggressive.
Neil,
Some are raised to eternal life and some to the second death… that is judgement… it happens on both sides… it is like a two sided coin yet is seems most just see it as bad and not good that God brings justice to the world and sets all things right.
To me, the real issue is this use of the word “good” Muslim… it seems to miss a very fundamental teaching of scripture whith seem rampant throughout this group of people. it reminds me of when Jesus was asked, “good rabbi” and he replied, “why do you call me ‘good’ only God is good”… so the question is flawed at the git go… so how does one answer a question that is stating that there is such thing as this imaginary “good” Muslim when no one is good?
Just more food 4 thought,
iggy
Rick,
IF Doug stated, “everyone will be saved eventually” then I would have much to say… but since he did not I see that he is still very orthodox though well outside the 16th century reformers…
iggy
Iggy – that is a verbal puzzle a la Pagitt. Simple answer to a simple question. Anyone can elaborate and present some balance after they’ve honestly answered tjhe question without a verbal obstacle course.
Rick,
But you miss that it is not a simple question… to be answered truly biblical… it is not an honest biblical question that can be answered honestly and biblical… again, the Pharisees asked Jesus easy straight forward questions, but Jesus never answered them how they expected… yet we cannot say Jesus did not answer them honestly and simply… the questions were “simply” wrong and Jesus still gave the answers… though they sounded confusing to the question asked…
So, with all the love in my heart toward you, I disagree that these questions Todd asked, were “good” let alone that he really even knew what he was really asking.
Doug, could have answered…. to the where questions… “here”, but would that have answered it sufficiently or even gave more question? I think the answer he gave is the best one… People will be judged by their own words and standards in comparison to Jesus… either as one who received Jesus, or one that has not.
What God does with that person will still be up to God… Is there a hint of “universalism” maybe, but at least in this interview I did not see it or hear it… in fact I was truly blessed at the things Doug stated. Todd seemed to me to not even know what he was talking about though he was sure he thought he did.
But, to say it was a verbal puzzle… I agree in the sense that often that is the biblical answer… it is simply not the one we expected.
Also, read the transcript as you listen and you will see that every time Doug is asked a question, he is never allowed to give a full answer, it is always, “Pastor, a good Muslim dies will you preach at his funeral?”… I mean what does that even mean? I would preach and a Muslims funeral… and offer them the Grace and Mercy of Christ… and that is what Doug stated… so is that wrong?
Again, this is a p*ss (as used in the KJV) poor interview and was so one-sided in that it was more of an “aha we got ya!”. It was a farce and Todd just sounded like the bully he is. It truly should contempt to the kindness of God.
iggy
blessings,
iggy
Iggy, I disagree. We CAN be clear, we don’t have to give confusing answers. Especially since Jesus’ answers to his disciples were very clear many times. To the religious leaders, not so much. Bad questions, weird but true answers, I can agree with that.
Iggy, you make your viewpoint (or Pagitt’s, w/e) sound utterly superior and completely esoteric, special knowledge, and I disagree and find that sounding like you’re coming from a position of pride and authority. It kind of rubs the wrong way buddy.
You talked about “what happens to a good muslim” and how you found it funny he would ask that question, especially with the biblical definition of ‘good’ in mind. Well Iggy, I’ll inform you, that was exactly why Todd asked it. They’re ‘Way of the Master’, you see lol. A big part of their method is making sure people understand ‘no one is good’. It goes something like this…
“Do you consider yourself to be a good person?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Well, let’s look at the 10 commandments and see if that’s true..”
“etc etc etc…”
“Oh crap I’m guilty, I’m not good at all! …what must I do???”
“Believe on the Lord Jesus…etc..etc”
That’s a quick play by play on how they roll. So they ask the ‘good’ person question to correct someone’s knowledge of what ‘good’ is. If you listened to the WHOLE broadcast, afterwords they had Ray Comfort on, and when Todd was talking to him about the convo with Pagitt, he asked the same question to Ray (who started Way of the Master), and Ray said …”Well the first thing I’d bring up is that there’s no such thing as a ‘good muslim’.”
So…it’s just something you gotta understand about those guys over there. I love their evangelism method, it’s effective if you just bump in to a random stranger and don’t have much time to talk to them and you want to share the Gospel.
Anyways….has anyone considered….
Why would a muslim family want a Christian pastor to preach at their funeral???? LOL
I only bring up your tone, Iggy, is because you told me to let you know if you got snarky. So ….there you go lol.
Love,
Joe
I read the transcript and am pretty confused. By both of them.
My brother made me listen to Friel once. I can’t stand listening to the guy. He thinks he’s funny and uses “dude” and relies on non-funny Evangelical riffs and is brusque and arrogant and cocky and incredibly narrow-minded. Pagitt — don’t know a thing about the guy. Seen his name once or twice. The transcript makes me wonder a bit. Probably not going to read his book for no other reason than I have enough books I haven’t read yet and nothing he said there jumped out at me.
But mainly, the transcript confuses me. It was a pit bull with an eye missing, attacking Jello. Like that. Neither Friel nor Pagitt did anything but make their own Amen Choir sing all the louder.
Incidentally, I attended one of those Christian Worldview Weekends and Comfort spoke there. I really enjoyed his preaching and how he presented the Gospel directly but…gently. He does not have that cocky, arrogant attitude I get from Friel or other people who run these ODM sites and go at people as if all are the enemy.
You may accuse me of falling for method over content — possible. But I was really uplifted and blessed by Comfort’s message and his books and the way he brought the OT elements into being something still valuable. In fact, it was Comfort who got me taking the OT “seriously” and is why I get highly exasperated when people demand examples from scripture but insist that it be NT only, which is what happened repeatedly in an earlier post. I should think that if you would deem the OT law useful in the manner that Comfort uses it, yet would demand only NT scripture for the rest of your theology, something bizarre has happened in your mind and wrongly separated and divvied up the Bible into compartments that God wouldn’t likely want for his inspired word.
A bit of a digression, but something I’ve been thinking about lately, regarding the use of scripture and how some use it in a piecemeal fashion.
Prove he’s arrogant, cocky, and uh in the by-the-way department…aren’t ALL Christians by definition “narrow minded”?
“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
He’s definitely got that radio personality, but unless you’ve heard the man much, I wouldn’t come down so hard on him. Everyone makes mistakes here and there, and can give a bad first impression. I’d give Todd the benefit of the doubt that he was expecting terrible answers from Pagitt, and was flabbergasted when he heard them, and he was reacting emotionally and not very gracefully. Let’s not get in to personality, ad hominem attacks on Todd or Doug in order to discredit them. Julie, you’re better than that.
I do admit though…it was a bit “No I’m more right than you!” ish.
I hope you guys had a good Turkey Day!
Joe
Joe,
Here is the thing… most here go by the Darby scripture sort of like this…
Man born evil and dead, man gets forgiven and goes to heaven… or is raptured and then goes to heaven. I man is not forgiven then he goes to hell….
Now that to me is not what the bible teaches… it sounds like it and is close but it is not what the bible teaches.
Man is born “spiritually” dead in the sense that because he sins, he will die in the second death at judgment by God.
Man goes to be with Jesus who does reign in heaven but also now on earth… (on earth as it is in heaven) and (forget the rapture as that is totally unsupported by scripture, when men die they are judged.
If a man believes on Jesus he will have eternal life that was promised, if a man does not believe then he is judged as Jesus stated by his own words… not even by God according to John 5:20-30 and John 12: 47-50
So for the first thing we are working with two different stories…
Now, I also know very well how WoM works… preach law to created guilt, then preach grace to lead to repentance… but again, this make Todd’s question even more out of place and stupid…
After Todd strings together some scripture to support his doctrinal stance but uses many of those scriptures out of context… this follows.
Now, tell me who is confused? Todd is asking about a “good” Buddhist? Especially when his formula is Law/Grace? How can he even ask that if it is not even in his own narrative?
Now also, I would preach at a Muslim’s funeral… and believe it or not Muslims are people too! They become friends with Christians and some even respect Christians. I know that is hard to believe! LOL!
So, then in your view I am more surprised that Todd would ask this question which is truly vague as preaching at a funeral has nothing to do with the Judgment of the same dead fellow I would be preaching for. How are they even connected? Preaching at a funeral is wrong? How? I am not being snarky to me that is not a clear or even coherent question let alone one that proves anything but the confusion of Todd Freil! LOL!
So, if one asked me as Todd did questions outside of his own narrative of belief why would I be the confused one?
If an atheist asked… “I am a good atheist, will I go to heaven?” is the same sort of question… it makes not sense it is just stupid and is outside of the understanding of even the atheist… so again, how am I snarky and how is Todd sooooo clear and Doug not for having trouble trying to answer a vague and so off of Todd’s own view… that is why Doug states at one point…
So, now you have a none existing “good” Muslim who has did going to a “place” called Heaven… as Todd is trying to get Doug to say… and Doug cannot answer the first part of the question let alone then state that there is a place… for Heaven is not a place, but it is the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Is then the Kingdom of God a place? Can anyone show me it?
I say that Todd does not know what he was asking as the same question was asked of Jesus…
Luke 17: 20-21
So, how am I to go within myself to a place called heaven? Let alone the Kingdom of Heaven/God?
It is not even a biblical question to ask “where”… if one takes time to study what Jesus stated about the Kingdom of Heaven/God.
You see to me THIS is very basic foundational teachings of Scripture and I am not being snarky… I am seeking what the bible really teaches over false teaching.
Be blessed,
iggy
Iggy – it is responses like yours that provide ample proof of intentional vagueness so as to avoid simple questions. When the guys says “good” Muslim he obviously means a sincere and practicing Muslim which what he is getting at is a religious person who does not believe in Jesus.
I believe that heaven and hell are spiritual places or realities, so that is also the crux of his inquiry. All this “God is going to make everything align itself with His kingdom” is just mumbo jumbo that avoids any tangible answers and is much like doctrinal cotton candy. He didn’t have the guts to say “I do not believe in the historical notion of saved people go to heaven and lost people go to hell”.
That would be more honest but many are afraid of persecution. And this “poor little Doug Pagitt” attitude because he was bullied by a big, bad interview-man is disgusting. Let him write his books, build his verbal house of mirrors, and generally keep your cards close to your vest because you do not want to pay the price for stating accurately what you believe and what you reject.
I grow weary of the games.
Julie – There is no church doctrine in the Old Testament. No church offices, no body of Christ, no Bride of Christ, no Lord’s Supper, no marriage teaching, no baptism, no Holy Spirit teaching, and on and on the list goes. So I do not understand what you mean by “piecemeal”. There are different sections of Scripture that must be rightly divided unless you still follow the whole law.
The OT has prophecy, psalms, history, some morality, and other things, but nothing applicable for church doctrine which was hidden until Christ revealed it to the Apostle Paul. That isn’t piecemeal, that is recognizing the accurate intention of the Scriptures. So when we speak of church doctrine it must be the New Testament exclusively.
Rick,
I truly take offense that you call being biblical a game.
And I grow weary of those who claim truth but preach a lame weak wristed gospel that is no gospel… they reduce the Kingdom of God to a selfish ambition of “going to heaven” when the truth is that “going to heaven” is not even a phrase in the bible let alone the aim or goal of our faith… salvation is. Heaven is the very Kingdom of God that was and is and ever will be as we are now place in Him Who is eternal and now become eternal ourselves.
The game is taking great truths of God’s grace and reducing them to mere and shallow teachings that are almost if not an insult to God’s Grace. They take a teaching as turning the Kingdom of Heaven in to a Platonist abstract world that is far removed from the idea of “on earth as in heaven”… which is the reconciliation of the divine and the creation separated by sin.
To me Todd had no real idea what he was stating and Doug made prefect sense… and even more as I ponder on what he stated. Todd takes a “good” Muslim… but has not idea that there is not such think PLAINLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE ITSELF that there is no such thing as a “good” anyone… to say a game is being played it was just that… stating something like that even exists to trap another in some sort of twisted and sick attempt to be able to say “Doug is a sinner apostate” an over look that Todd is a sinner apostate also… for we all are without the very grace of God.
I too tire of the false sense that those who seek religion to cover their sins instead of Jesus’ blood… they claim they believe that, but then point out others faults… I sometimes wonder if that is only because they cannot face their own sins and short comings with the reality that comes with true repentance and reception of a new heart from God.
So, I truly take offense that you too seem at this time to stand on their side and point a wicked finger at another…
I hurt for those that condemn and give no desire for reconciliation and pray that they drop their false religious affections and find the truth that is Christ Jesus.
Blessings,
iggy
One man sees red another see blue. One man hears C major another C minor. Wesley, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Moody, Torrey, and the legion of others would never recognize what is being presented today. I choose to stand with what God used to bring revival in years gone by, not the new and repackaged gospel that is so verbally mercurial it cannot be understood.
What Wesley preached is the gospel, what Pagitt espouses is a lie.
Then I am a liar also…
I would rather be true to the teachings of God’s word than to fall for the religious lie you are stating as truth.
iggy
Rick,
You still need to answer… how can one go to the Kingdom of Heaven, when Jesus states:
How do you “go to heaven” when “the Kingdom of heaven is within you”? Do you then die and go to some place within yourself?
If you can answer that then you can answer the question of “where do you ‘go’ when you die?”
This is not a game… it is of eternal consequence to know if one is part of the Kingdom of God/Heaven… or deceived into going to a “place”. I think that going to some “place” as many believe replaces being in Christ which was the eternal plan of the Father before creation.
The place is here and will be restored… so if we go somewhere… it is here but restored… not some imaginary heaven. It is the New Heaven and New Earth… just as I will am and will be a New Creation in Christ.
iggy
Iggy,
You’re mixing metaphors now, though. “Kingdom of Heaven” only appears in Matthew, and from cross-referencing to the other synoptics and taking the practice of using “heaven” to avoid speaking God’s name (see Luke 15:18), so “Kingdom of Heaven” is analogous to “Kingdom of God” and should not be confused with the concept of afterlife.
Certainly the kingdom has already begun and will be complete upon Jesus’ return. And I even see that it is likely that “new” in “new heavens and new earth” is likely to mean “renewed” (meaning that the physical location in the “world to come” is still this planet, with the difference being that the ‘world’ (the systems of this world, etc.) will be replaced with the kingdom.
Even with all of that in mind, and agreement, Padgitt was purposely vague, when he could have given an answer. Arguing over “place” was silly and only made him look more fringe and off-base than (I think) he already is…
Piecemeal: “I will only let you talk about this subject in specific verses from the NT only. Nothing at all from the OT. Because the OT just doesn’t apply and has nothing to say or add to the discussion in any way.”
Julie: “I disagree. It has value and teaching beyond the obvious subjects. I can learn from the OT as well as the NT. There are things to learn about life and more from the stories and examples of the OT. In fact, the stories of the real people in the old testament serve as extremely useful help in times of trouble or when I need an example of faith or to be able to see how God works in real human lives. Teaching doesn’t just have to be Pauline or in the form of ‘this is teaching’ but can come in the real stories.”
Example: “There’s no marriage teaching in the OT.”
Response: “Must ‘marriage teaching’ be specifically denoted by Paul et. al. as that, prefaced by something obvious like ‘this is teaching on marriage’? Cannot there be something learned about marriage from the OT examples. For example, the story of Hannah. Having more than one wife often leads to strife. Favoring a family member often leads to conflict. Obvious? Yes. Useful? Yes.”
For people who see how story matters in history, in life, in the continual development of God’s great story and work in humanity, the OT is not just some chunk of the Bible with no useful doctrine.
I’m hazarding a guess, here, but I’ve generally found that people who discount the OT in its value as you have in some kind of mild form, Rick, are people who also thumb their nose at the value of things like story and the greater meaning behind fiction, art, and the human experience. Philip Yancy has written a number of books using the stories of the OT people to seriously open my eyes as to how to view what the NT is trying to tell me about life. Sure, the NT is new and is the new covenant. If you think I was saying otherwise, you’ve misunderstood me.
I don’t think that’s even a close summation of how it should be seen. Which, from the way I’m reading the above quote, is that it is fairly secondary. The OT often teaches me by example and is filled with complex layers and motivations, whereas the NT teaches me by telling me it is so. I value both, desire to use both when I feel the topic talks on it, and when someone tells me “NT only!” I say it feels like piecemeal.
Chris L.
The Kingdom of Heaven is the same, but yes the use of Heaven replaces the word God… but this is what we are into and if one has to say, the “place” we are going to… though if one is in Christ they are technically already there now but and will be there then.
I think that is one of the main things that confuses people is the lack of understanding of the Kingdom and what it encompasses. If on understands the Kingdom that the believer enters in Christ, then much of this other stuff become nonsensical.
The “after life” it the continuation of the Kingdom and the physical dwelling that Kingdom, Chris… it is the fulfillment of living with God as our very life… after life.
As far as Doug being vauge, I think that in a conversation one will wait for an answer if a question is asked. Don’t you? Again refer to the transcript and note Doug states he is not being allowed to answer the question… as he is being rudly interupted with “will a good Muslim go to heaven” as he is trying to explain. Todd was like listening to someone with ADD as he was all over the place and gave no time to the questions he asked… if he did not hear the “magic” words… then he assumed Doug was wrong and moved on.
iggy
Exactly…It was a “bait and switch”. Doug specifically asked at the beginning of the “interview” “Is this what this is going to be?”
Speaking of talking plainly…I present Jesus.
I personally don’t believe that the reformed among us are the only “sheep”. Mainly because I don’t find God to be that narrow minded. Oh go ahead jump all over that comment.
Iggy,
I agree that Todd was a – ahem – “less than gracious host” (trying my turn at understatement there), but there were a few points in there where I think that Padgitt, who should have been clued in to the idea that he’d only get one sentence before rebuttal, would have served himself much better to being with an agreement sentence followed by fuller explanation (which would then make the interviewer look like even more of a jerk, and make Padgitt’s point listenable)…
I wonder why Pagitt went on that program — that is Friel’s style, the sort of agressive, interrupting, all-over-the-board kind of “interview.” Why would Pagitt even ask if that’s what it was going to be? That’s how Friel’s show always is. If Pagitt’s answers were his style (I don’t know — don’t know much of Pagitt), I can’t think of any two more clashing styles than Friel and Pagitt.
Not to mention clashing content, beliefs, or theology.
Like I said, it only made each fellow’s Amen Choir further believe in their rightness.
Iggy,
Thanks for the response. I agree that judgment entails raising some to eternal life and others to eternal death… and you are right that in this sense biblical judgment is God making things right by removing what is wrong. His judgment brings justice and sets all things right.
But this is applying “judgment” to all creation – the effect it will have on everything taken as a whole. As far as the individual “pieces” are concerned – that is, individual people – it may not be so good for some of them.
To my ears, it sounded like Pagitt was applying this purging effect, this restoring justice aspect, to the individual…
Your comments are well taken about the “Good Muslim.”
Neil
Pagitt on damnation:
Now, maybe I completely misunderstood Doug, but I thought he was trying to apply this to the individual – that damnation means that the un-Christ-like parts of people will be eliminated – leaving only the good.
Neil
I’ll admit though – it was a rather poor interview from the hosts perspective as well… but I just thought Doug could have sounded more fundamentally solid without being a fundamentalists…
Neil
“Doug could have sounded more fundamentally solid”
A trumpet doesn’t have to try to sound like a trumpet, it is waht it is.
It sounds like Doug might subscribe to some form of annihilationism. (sp?)
It’s not foreign to the Texts…if you subscribe to a particular understanding of the “hell” language in the earlier NT writings, take into account the development of medieval theology, etc. etc. etc.
It’s certainly NOT a thing to say someone is a heretic over.
It just a different way of understanding the texts.
Also…
Anyone can believe in conscious eternal torment.
But it says something really disturbing if that idea gets elevated to a article of faith when there is no mechanism to enforce such a view across the sense of the Church over time…
Does that make sense?
The early church father’s didn’t have a consensus on the nature of hell…and they were taught by the apostles…
so we should allow some diversity on this…IMVHO…
Just my nickel..
The early father’s view is only reflective, not authoritative. But to deny the existance of eternal punishment has other implications. It diminishes the atonement and compromises the fear of God.
It is interesting that the cults sometimes deny hell but espouse heaven. Hell is a place (even if defining that place as a conscious reality) and it is forever. Millions of sinners have come to Christ over the centuries drawn in part by their desire to avoid hell, including my mother-in-law. We won’t have to build any new wings on our sanctuaries to accommodate the throngs that embrace Christ by that method today.
Medieval understandings are irrelevant, only the clear teachings of Scripture. To ascribe words like perish, torment, fire, forever, and gehenna as non-substantiative of any reality is wresting Scripture. The doctrine of hell is important and if removed as an article of faith it then is a precurser to other basic tenents of solid Biblical truth.
Wesley, Spurgeon, Luther, Moody – doctrinal morans.
I don’t Rick.
I hear you…
but take into account the undeniable existential fear of passing into non-existence and the idea of an eternal annihilation is pretty sucky too.
I think words like perish, forever, everlasting, etc. can be ascribed to annihilation too…
Some very faithful, godly people disagree on this issue.
There is real interesting scholarship about the word torment in light of 2nd temple Judaism…
AND…
developments from ancient church articulations of theology to the transition in the medieval period ARE pretty important…
The Fathers ARE NOT merely reflective, IMHO. They are pretty weighty considering our basic articulations of orthodoxy was hammered out by THEM. Not authoritative on par with scripture, but do carry authority. They just have to be…you wanna talk about a slippery slope? Start diminishing the role and teaching of people who gave us our christology and you can start questioning that christology…no matter how much you appeal to Scripture…
to deny that much of our protestant theology is formed out of variations on a core of medieval developments seems rash.
The history of the development of Christian doctrine is critical to understand what we have today…
Also, Augustine would take deep issue with people who “love” God for fear of hell. He would argue that is not loving God…and I think he’s right.
Meister Eckhart says: (paraphrasing)
Some people want to love God the way they love a cow. For its cheese and milk–what they get out of it. They are merely loving their own advantage. They are not loving God correctly.
In light of Augustine, I’d say we could even draw near to being open that it’s possible they aren’t just loving “incorrectly”…they’re not really loving at all.
Just something to chew on…
Again…annihilation is a mode of punishment…in light of what we know about the psyche of human beings…it could be just as potent within the framework you speak of, despite the objections raised above. It doesn’t mean it’s unsubstantive.
I think it’s better to say: Christ will come again and judge the living and the dead. It was good enough for the Church for 2000 years now…As opposed to making a particular “mode” of hell become an article of faith.
And I don’t buy that its a “slippery slope”…the conscious torment vs. annihilationist view is being seriously discussed in biblically committed circles…I don’t know if we can jump that quickly.
It would be something to research, read about and discuss sometime.
anyhoo…
blessings.
And here in lies the rub.
If memory serves me correctly we have had lengthy debate on the merits or lack there of hell being a physical place.
With no resolution mind you.
Recognizing that this was tongue and cheek; I would like to offer that it is quite feasible that they (the aforementioned)over corrected (from what I’m not sure) and got it wrong also.
I’ve listened to the interview again and I still see that Doug was not willing to jump at Todds insistence. I believe that Doug (based on other things he’s said) that he does believe that an unbeliever (non Christ follower) is forever seperated from God.
The more and more I follow this debate (all of them) it is becoming evermore apparent that this debate is more about style than substance.
This morning my daughters (9 and 6 years old) asked me where does Grandpa (muslim) go when he dies. I looked into their sweet, big, brown eyes and said “He’s gonna burn in hell forever unless he turns to Jesus”. Of course I didn’t really say that. But in my mind that’s the equivalent of telling a non-christian “Turn or Burn”. It just smacks of careless, agenda filled, propaganda.
I’ve yet to find anywhere in scripture where Jesus uses anything resembling that.
chris – Of course their are ways to convey unpleasant truths to different age groups and the “turn or burn” is as you say careless and Phelpsesque (except Phelps montra is “Burn period”). I have no problem with sharing different ways to communicate, but Pagitt was evasive, obviously.
There are times when we must speak the truth in love. I do not believe that Pagitt believes that unsaved people will wind up in a place/reality/conscious experience of eternal judgment. Let him say clearly what he believes. If he does believe generally in the “saved go to heaven – lost go to hell” let him quickly say it and return to more emergent verbiage.
If he doesn’t believe that then why is he evasive? Even Driscoll intimates he is a heretic and he knows him better than all of us.
…so, I interpreted Doug as saying biblical judgment/restoration means removing everything that is not not like Christ – from the person. Which leads to the “u” word. Did I misinterpret him? Was he saying that biblical judgment/restoration means removing the people that are not like Christ?
Neil
Neil,
I took it as that if one is not in Christ they are not restored… God interacts with them on the level without Jesus.
Now, I know some in the e/e are into the big U, but most are not. Also, I am not a universalist but am often called when I speak of the saving power of Jesus’ blood… but those are people who miss that there is a difference between forgivness and salvation.
Be blessed,
iggy