Tony Jones posted the latest installment of his “On the Road with Trucker Frank” series today, webisode 5. In this clip Jones talks with two Evangelical pastors about their opinions on church planting, what people want in a church, and going to bars.

YouTube Preview Image

The second pastor in the clip may be familiar to you, as he is none other than Pastorboy, a semi-regular commenter here at CRN.info. As is quite evident, he and Tony Jones don’t quite see eye to eye, especially on what God can and cannot do. Also, Emergent’s lack of statement of faith is a matter of contention. Perhaps one commenter on Jone’s blog sums up the difference in worldviews with this comment:

“Jesus is who the Bible says He is.”- you

“Well lets nail that down…”- other guy

There’s an interesting sentence.

I think there has been enough “nailing down” of Jesus already.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the entire, unedited interview.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, May 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Emergent Church, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

101 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Classic! I wonder if Ken would ever meet on camera w/ Tony…

2   pastorboy    http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com
May 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am

I challenge you, according to your standard, to post the interview in its entirety, unedited.

This cut and paste job made me say things that were not said if you listen in context.

I bet that will not happen, but at least I tried.

Anyhow, my contention with emergent has been, and will continue to be the emergent side (mostly EV types) who question the authority of all of scripture, who raise up doubt above faith, who believe that all people will be saved or make it into the kingdom of God (universalism).

3   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:14 am

PB – is the entire interview available on YouTube? If so, send us the link. We don’t have a ‘copy’ other than the one we linked to.

4   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am

Jones has a link to the unedited interview right on his post. Here’s the link.

5   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am

Ah – I completely missed that. I added it to the bottom of the post in the interest of fairness (as requested by PB)

6   Neil    
May 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am

I bet that will not happen, but at least I tried.

By now I thought you’d know better than this…

7   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am

PB,
I just don’t see the same things you do, I guess, at least not as a whole. Are there people involved in the EC who are Universalists, probably, but I don’t think that’s the norm. As far as the authority of Scripture, I would say that a lot of people who are associated with the movement are trying to distill what is detailed in Scripture verses what is a manmade theological edifice. The answer, “this is the way we’ve always done it” isn’t really an acceptable answer.

I guess your statement about doubt verses faith comes back to what we put our faith in. Do we put into our interpretations of Scripture, or is it the person of Jesus Christ? I think there is room for doubt when it comes to our systematic theologies, but that doesn’t destroy my faith in Christ.

8   Neil    
May 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am

Having watched the whole thing I didn’t like the position from which Tony was arguing… nor the approach used by Pastorboy to oppose him.

Neil

9   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am

–“Jesus is who the Bible says He is.”- you
“Well lets nail that down…”- other guy
There’s an interesting sentence.
I think there has been enough “nailing down” of Jesus already.–

Yeah, because Emergent theology is local, conversational, and temporary. That’s why Emergent churches can have gay members. Can’t have those biblical statements about such things being abominations to God getting in the way or our new PC understanding of morality.

10   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am

That’s why Emergent churches can have gay members.

Well, to be fair, I think there are plenty of traditional Evangelical churches with gay members as well. They’re just better at hiding it.

Anyway, I don’t see how that issue pertains to this post at all.

11   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am

It is now reached saturated redundancy. Nothing new here.

12   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am

–Anyway, I don’t see how that issue pertains to this post at all.–

Why the militant commitment to noncommitment? Why the position that their only statement of faith is that they don’t have a statement of faith? Why the attempt to make “nailing down” what emergents believe synonymous with nailing Chirst to the cross?

13   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am

Jazz,
The whole idea of “nailing down” a concept or idea, seems to me a modernist notion. It’s not that you can’t have any assurance about anything, it’s just that when one operates from the assumption that his beliefs are 100% correct, it is a small jump to thinking he is 100% correct.

I don’t know if the commenter was meaning to imply anything in his comment other than the phrase “nailing down” was on odd/interesting choice of words given the context.

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am

I thought the “nailing down” quip was creative. It is unimportant in the interview.

15   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am

Wow. Such obvious logical issues going on here.

You essentially just stated that you have a higher view of scripture because you adhere to extrabiblical statements of faith, while those who have a lower view of scripture want scripture to be their statement of faith.

Huh?

16   Neil    
May 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am

I see the emergent (as opposed to emerging) church as a corrective agent, and as such they take their correction too far… but it is worth noting that the “nail everything down” of the modern church did need correcting.

Neil

17   Jerry Hillyer    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
May 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I’d rather my next question not turn into an episode of ‘adventures in missing the point’ but, indulge me for a moment.

Assume (dangerous I know) that I am an outsider who has never been to Bible college, doesn’t preach every week, doesn’t study Scripture for a living. Instead, I am the every day, average not-church goer, not Christian. What would it mean to hear someone suggest that it is possible for God to do something that God has clearly said he cannot do, and will not do?

I’m referring, of course, to the section where the host intimates that ’since God can break the rules of physics’ it might be possible for God to break moral law (such as, even though Scripture says ‘It is impossible for God to lie’, maybe God can lie). I don’t understand why he would say that when the Scripture so clearly demonstrates that God cannot. What purpose would it serve God to lie?

How can God’s actions in governing the universe be at all, remotely close the ’stealing secrets during the cold war’? Well, perhaps the host is speaking hyperbolically, but to the lost person, what benefit would it be if God could lie, let alone does? Thanks for indulging me and helping me understand where the host is coming from in that little exchange.

jerry

18   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Jerry,
I’m not saying I agree with Jone’s premise, but I guess he’s coming from the perspective that says if God is omnipotent, that it isn’t logical to say He can’t do something. It’s like the old question can God create a rock so big He can’t lift. It’s an old philosophical/theological debate that goes back to Augustine. I think Augustine actually argued what Jones seems to be arguing – that God is not bound by any law.

The problem with that position is that we still have to comprehend God through logic, so we have to have a representation of God that still fits within the bounds of logic. It wouldn’t make sense for us to say that God can make a square circle for instance. It’s meaningless. So in that case our conception of God is bound by our logic.

You have to remember that Tony Jones is finishing up his PhD in Philosophy, so I think he approaches things from a more esoteric/abstract angle, rather than pastoral one.

19   Neil    
May 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

What would it mean to hear someone suggest that it is possible for God to do something that God has clearly said he cannot do, and will not do?

This was the issue I had with the interview as well. I understand the whole “God is omnipotent” and all, but if his word says he cannot do something, then I suppose he cannot do it… what’s the problem?

Neil

20   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

–The whole idea of “nailing down” a concept or idea, seems to me a modernist notion.–

Meaning that before whenever the era of Modern/Modernism (whathaveyouwhatnot) began, people didn’t care whether they had the truth or facts or not? That, for example, when one of the biblical epistles related how there were so many people, many of whom where still alive, who had seen the risen Christ, that really the issue of whether Christ rose from the dead or was eaten by wild dogs is unimportant?

Or, is saying it’s a modernist notion just a way of attaching a supposedly negative label to it, and dismissing it?

–It’s not that you can’t have any assurance about anything, it’s just that when one operates from the assumption that his beliefs are 100% correct, it is a small jump to thinking he is 100% correct.–

And so, having the assurance that really I’m not sure is suppose to be so much better?

Are you sure of that?

–I don’t know if the commenter was meaning to imply anything in his comment other than the phrase “nailing down” was on odd/interesting choice of words given the context.–

“Nailing down” is a fairly common phrase, and we know what it means. There is nothing odd about it. And I think it is pretty clear that I think there has been enough “nailing down” of Jesus already. is a reference to the nailing of Jesus to the cross. You must excuse me, but I think asking questions and expecting answers is a far cry from crucifying the Savior.

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Philosophy – an intricate and interconnected set of questions, each one upping the ante on the other, all of which culminate with…you guessed it…another question. Ther game is played through the exquisite and always reliable senses of men, which when distilled through their cerebellum, travels so proudly through the vocal cords and lands upon the shores of the tympanic membrane and…you guessed it…is transferred back to the cerebellum to go through the same distillation process.

And usually the tympanic membrane that is genetically related to the vibrating vocal chords receives the greatest exhilaration and gratification knowing that the sensorial information it has just digested came regurgitated from its very own human host. Wow, what an intellect!

No one can come within reach of the Godhead through vain philosophies played out within a worthless game of cerebral badminton. Unless God has revealed Himself, and on our indescribably puny level of understanding, than all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

So you ride yourselves over the fields and
you make all your animal deals and
your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
And the sand-castle virtues are all swept away in
the tidal destruction, the moral melee.
The elastic retreat rings the close of play as the last wave uncovers the newfangled way.

22   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

–I’m referring, of course, to the section where the host intimates that ’since God can break the rules of physics’ it might be possible for God to break moral law (such as, even though Scripture says ‘It is impossible for God to lie’, maybe God can lie).–

This is something I remember C.S. Lewis dealing with to some degree in one of his works. His idea was that we cannot equate things like the laws of physics to moral laws, simply because both have the word “laws” in them. The laws of physics, for example, are simply ways of saying how things work–an atom does what it does, and has no choice in the matter. A moral law, however, is a statement of how things should work, but too often don’t. A person, then, may know the moral law to not steal, but may choose to not follow it and steal anyway.

So, then, the analogy used in video is invalid. There is no equating God’s ability to break laws of physics with His saying that He cannot lie. It a confusing and clouding of the issue.

23   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 20th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Meaning that before whenever the era of Modern/Modernism (whathaveyouwhatnot) began, people didn’t care whether they had the truth or facts or not? That, for example, when one of the biblical epistles related how there were so many people, many of whom where still alive, who had seen the risen Christ, that really the issue of whether Christ rose from the dead or was eaten by wild dogs is unimportant?

No, of course not. That’s not at all what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that a pre-modern person would see the evidence and believe it because he saw it. The modernist would see the evidence, and then try to prove it objectively, outside of himself. This is the issue that people take with the term “certainty”. Trying to remove the truth from our experience of it is ultimately an impossible task.

24   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I would agree that “God can’t lie” and that Jones’ comparison of physical law vs. moral law is a huge stretch.

With that said, though, where I so often hear “God can’t lie” used as an argument is in the defense of theological systems (primarily Calvinism, though not limited to it) where a specific interpretation of a portion of Scripture is taken as “God’s word” (i.e. it’s ‘nailed down’), and anything contrary to that interpretation is therefore invalid, because “God can’t lie”.

This gets back to one of Jones’ earliest point of “why can’t we just accept what Scripture (Truth) says about Jesus without ‘nailing down’ our specific interpretation as being ‘truth’?”

25   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

“This gets back to one of Jones’ earliest point of “why can’t we just accept what Scripture (Truth) says about Jesus without ‘nailing down’ our specific interpretation as being ‘truth’?”

That would be great except that everyone interprets as they read. Suggesting no interpretation is both impossible and reveals a philosophical slant. It is the Rodney King theory of Christianity.

26   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I posted about Tony’s interview with Pastorboy… I even challenged many of Pastorboys assertions made in the interview and found that the one who was “squishy” and “inconsistent” was John himself.

Here is all I have on John http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/search/label/pastorboy

Be sure to go to his blog for his answers and comments.

My conclusion is that John Chisham has set himself as a discerner, yet still has yet to nail down his own theology. Talking to him was like nailing Jello to the wall! LOL!…

iggy

27   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Modernist view is based on empirical evidence.

Jesus stated, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

BTW, Rick, Truth is nailed down to us, it is from which perspective we look at truth that is the issue. From our perspective the bible shows us we do not know what is “right” let alone do it… so how can we know truth on our own. Yet, the remedy is the Person of Jesus who was full of Truth and Grace and was both the incarnation of Grace and Truth in all it’s perfect ballance.

If we detach Jesus from grace and truth, then we have nothing but a “truth” that is relative to our own limited perspectives and knowledge.

iggy

28   JohnD    
May 21st, 2008 at 9:03 am

Talking to him was like nailing Jello to the wall! LOL!…

BTW, Rick, Truth is nailed down to us, it is from which perspective we look at truth that is the issue. From our perspective the bible shows us we do not know what is “right” let alone do it… so how can we know truth on our own.

LOL, Iggy, is it just me, or do you see any similarity here between the substantive consistency of PB’s jello and yours?

29   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 21st, 2008 at 9:07 am

Iggy – All grace is truth but not all truth is grace.

30   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am

JohnD,

I have pointed out that PB and I have many things in common.

the issue is when you listen to John speak, he tends toward very broad statements and assumptions. “God cannot lie” is true, but it needs much more unpacking than he does. It has to do with the very character of God. that though God is God and can “do” whatever he pleases, it is not in His character to lie so He will not. To state as John did “God cannot lie” is not true on the level that if God so chose to lie, He can, for He is God and has a free will. God is not bound by anything other than His own Name. He keeps His word not out of some subservience to the Law, but that He keeps His word.

So, the many nuances that Tony is trying to bring out, seem to go over John’s head. In that John has some very squishy theology.

So as far as my theology being squishy, it seems not as much as John’s and it seems Tony has more depth than John as far as his own theology.

iggy

31   andy    
May 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am

If God knows all things past, present, and future,and He allowed scripture to refer to His honesty,He is surly incapable of lying??

Isn’t God bound by His word?

32   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 21st, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Andy,
I would say you’re basically correct. I think what Jones seems to be getting hung up on is more a language/semantics thing. I think saying God is “bound” or “cannot” do something is a clunky way putting things. I think a better way to avoid confusion to speak of His attributes in the positive – like God is truth, God is omnipotent, etc. He’s not bound by anything outside Himself. He is just exhibiting His character.

33   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Phil,

You said it brilliantly! = )

iggy

34   Dave Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
May 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm

In this clip Jones talks with two Evangelical pastors about their opinions on church planting, what people want in a church, and going to bars.

I say well done Pastorboy for meeting him. These things go far to helping Christians like me (who don’t come from either camp) feel a little more comfortable with the fact that we can all get along.

35   pastorboy    http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am

You guys might want to see the discussion here

36   pastorboy    http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 am

Sorry, missed the link. You might want to see the discussion at http://www.tonyj.net

37   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am

John – I’ve been reading it – the link IS in the first sentence of the OP…

38   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Here’s some thoughts about that, or the earlier interview you had that was shown in its entirety.

1. Notice how Trucker Frank says that it’s about community, how it’s about giving people what they want. “We’re listening to what people want, and they want to have real relationships. That’s the most important thing that I’ve…(next few words I can’t understand)…that they want to have real relationships”

In fact, I didn’t once hear Jones or Frank say that church was about reaching the lost with the Gospel and discipling believers. All I heard was about “real relationships” (whatever those are) and denigrating those not like them.

2. More baseless caricatures of non-emergents as being closed-mined. Yawn, yawn, yawn.

3. “Why must God punish people?” It would be just as well to ask “Why must God forgive people?”

4. The laws of physics are not the same as moral laws.

5. Many differences (not all, but many) in theology are more important then which football teams a couple of people root for.

6. I’ve heard about the controversy over whether women can be preachers or not for years. Sorry, but it’s not new to emergent. And when in the longer video Jones tries to make it into a human rights issue, that should have been a very scary statement from him, because that starts bringing in politics and law–if a woman has the human right to be a pastor, governments and law enforcement should have ther power to force a church to have a woman pastor in spite of their theological position.

39   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Jazz,
Like most people who are vehement opposers of e/e individuals/churches you are responding to it/them as if it were a normal a movement that came out of the ether as a whole church. But its not. Rather it is a movement that is reacting to the environment it formed in. Why is there no mention of the gospel and making disciples? Because most of them grew up in conservative evangelical/fundamentalist churches that had the gospel and put an emphasis on making disciples. What was missing was the gentle spirit and real relationships that they put an emphasis on. That’s why when you read Velvet Elvis the emphasis is on changes, and differences but when you listen to Bell’s sermons the gospel is all through it. You sit there look at the reaction and say, “well, that’s not a systematic theology”. No kidding.

40   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

–Like most people who are vehement opposers of e/e individuals/churches you are responding to it/them as if it were a normal a movement that came out of the ether as a whole church.–

I wonder if you say that to all those who are vehemently supportive of it. Do they not understand it, either? Or is the cry of “YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND!!” reserved only for those who question or are critical of the movement?

–Because most of them grew up in conservative evangelical/fundamentalist churches that had the gospel and put an emphasis on making disciples.–

Oh, and that just makes everything ok, right? A supposed pastor can sit in a truck stop and tell us that the most important thing is to have “real relationships” in a church, and never once make mention (at least in the video above) about how the church is to take the Gospel to the lost and disciple those who believe, and it all ok because they (supposedly) had bad experiences?

–What was missing was the gentle spirit and real relationships that they put an emphasis on.–

Why do I really doubt that? But even if we want to say that they had some bad experiences, 1) does that negate the importance of the message of the Gospel to some kind of secondary status to “real relationships” 2) were their experiences in any way normative for such churches, or are we dealing more with their biases then with problems with their old churches.

– You sit there look at the reaction and say, “well, that’s not a systematic theology”. No kidding.–

No, I sat their listening to the video, wondering “Where is Jesus is any of this stuff Jones and Frank are talking about? He’s not there!! Not at all!!” THAT’S no kidding.

41   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Jazz,
Responding to a single small vignette as if its the whole of the movement probably isn’t a great way to convince me that you do understand and that your vehement opposition comes from a place of complete understanding.

42   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Also something I noticed earlier in John Frame’s work “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”… JESUS ISN’T ANYWHERE IN IT!

Check out the analytical outline. There’s the God the Covenant Lord, the authority and character of God, some stuff about methodology of knowing, and a bunch of junk on ethics, but I don’t see any Jesus.

Are you willing to condemn all of the reformed tradition based on this evaluation of a work which is far more systematic than a single vignette? A work which comes highly recommended within those circles.

I also notice that you’ve not bothered to comment on the posted bits on “So this is heresy?” which directly addresses this issue.

43   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 24th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Jazz,

In fact, I didn’t once hear Jones or Frank say that church was about reaching the lost with the Gospel and discipling believers. All I heard was about “real relationships” (whatever those are) and denigrating those not like them.

Boy did you miss the point! = )

This is ALL about reaching the lost. It is about finding some way (mostly a very human way like giving water to or feeding or listening or helping or…) relate to another person and introduce them to a relationship with Jesus.

That means being flexible enough to accept a person where they are at and walk with them in their search/journey/walk/fear/joy… and whatever a human being is going through at the time.

It is being “Jesus” or walking out the incarnation of Jesus as a part of the Body of Christ to help bring Resurrection to other where ever they are.

So for the “modernist” ears let me define a couple of things,
We do not just “share” the Gospel but “live it” and let it live in us. It being the Good News Jesus rose from the Grave and now lives in us.

Discipleship is walking besides other brothers and sisters who are just finding their way.

A relational community is where this all takes place.

Now go back

iggy

44   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am

–Responding to a single small vignette as if its the whole of the movement probably isn’t a great way to convince me that you do understand and that your vehement opposition comes from a place of complete understanding.–

And yet, who made the vignette, as you call it? Who tried to make some kind of a compare/contrast between Trucker Frank and Pastorboy? Surely if someone spoke positively of it, you would not try to downplay their positiveness in such a way.

–Also something I noticed earlier in John Frame’s work “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”… JESUS ISN’T ANYWHERE IN IT–

Knowing nothing about John Frame, I can’t comment about it this way or that.

–Boy did you miss the point! = )–

Ah, the old emergent standby knee-jerk response to criticisms. I feel better now, knowing it’s come to that.

45   jazzact13    http://jazzact13.blogspot.com/
May 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

–This is ALL about reaching the lost. –

Really? When Jones has to ask “Why must God punish people?”, I think we can wonder if he thinks there are any lost people to be reached.

And considering how much some on emergent seem to pushing some kind of “heaven on earth” idea, well, I think we can wonder how much it’s really about “reaching the lost”, or getting them to back their social programs.

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Really? When Jones has to ask “Why must God punish people?”, I think we can wonder if he thinks there are any lost people to be reached.

No – you only have to recognize that he probably accepts a different atonement theory than PENAL substitutionary atonement (which assumes God must punish people). For instance, he may more agree with Ransom Atonement Theory (which was held by the church for its first many centuries), which says that Jesus’ death paid a ransom for our lives (and that it was Satan’s accusation and punishment we were rescued from), and that we were “bought with a price”.

And considering how much some on emergent seem to pushing some kind of “heaven on earth” idea, well, I think we can wonder how much it’s really about “reaching the lost”, or getting them to back their social programs.

Which is a complete distortion (by you) of the emphasis on the ‘kingdom of God’ as believed by many EC churches and which was taught by Jesus.

All you’re proving right now, Jazz, is that you are a slave to systematic theology – not a slave to the gospel…

47   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

And yet, who made the vignette, as you call it? Who tried to make some kind of a compare/contrast between Trucker Frank and Pastorboy? Surely if someone spoke positively of it, you would not try to downplay their positiveness in such a way.

If they tried to say this vignette was the sum total of positive traits of the E/E churches then I’d correct them, just as I’m correcting you for doing the same with negative traits.

Knowing nothing about John Frame, I can’t comment about it this way or that.

That hasn’t stopped you with e/e churches.

48   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

What the “church” believed in the early centuries is irrelevent and a case may be made that through the centuries the church came into greater and deeper understandings of the original languages and more expansive usages of Biblical reference aids.

Either way, the only valid and authoritative view of the atonement is what the individual interprets the Scriptures as teaching. The priesthood of the believer contains the interpretive responsibility through which we all must answer to God. Famous men, popular and unpopular theologies, the views of church history, and all other accumulations of facts and histories surrounding atonement theologies are meaningless since each person’s prayerfully studied convictions are both paramount and exclusive.

I suggest that what is obvious is usually the truth. The connection to the Passover Lamb in Exodus is key. In that object lesson is held the meaning of Christ’s atonement.

BTW – God does punish people unless the Old Testament and the book of Acts are metaphorical.

49   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I suggest that what is obvious is usually the truth. The connection to the Passover Lamb in Exodus is key. In that object lesson is held the meaning of Christ’s atonement.

Not to point out the obvious here but the Exodus story is far more suited to the Ransom Theory than the Penal Sub. Atonement.

50   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

There is an element of ransom which is borne out in the New Testament. But eventually God parlays the Passover into the Day of Atonement in which the sins are placed upon the goat and that goat is slaughtered as a substitute for the sins of Israel. In that substitutionary atonement the Jews are ransomed from both the devil’s lineage and the justice of God.

Lost sinners are not just held by Satan, they are under the damnation of God. Only the atoning Lamb (Abraham’s ram) will serve as a sacrifice to God. Most converted Jews have no problem in seeing the overt Biblical metaphors as it pertains to Christ.

51   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 6:40 am

–That hasn’t stopped you with e/e churches.–

Except that I do know some things about what the e/e authors say, having read a good bit of their works. So, your attempts at a parallel are invalid.

–If they tried to say this vignette was the sum total of positive traits of the E/E churches then I’d correct them, just as I’m correcting you for doing the same with negative traits.–

Considering that it was only a few minutes long, would it not then be reasonable to think that they put in the things the thought most important to put in? Given that, what did Jones put in? That church is about some nebulous thing called “real relationships”, and of course the usual slams on all other churches that pomos seem to think are true (or at least as true as their definitions of truth can handle).

Again, in the context of what they were talking about, isn’t it odd that the real reason for the church isn’t brought up? Heck, how many cults play the “relationship” card? It’s almost a cliche, that people get into cults because “they started out treating me so nice and kind”.

Throw in Jones’ reluctance to be specific about his beliefs concerning Jesus, and one must pardon me for wondering where this is going. Sorry, but my spider sense is going haywire concern this stuff, and as long as you’re only backing him without wanting real answers, you’re only aiding and abetting.

Frank and Jones claim that other churches are afraid of the questions, which is rubbish. The truth is, Frank and Jones are afraid of the answers. If they weren’t, Jones wouldn’t have written with obvious pride in his book “The New Christians” about emergent churches having members who are living in sexual sin and supporting the rights of people who live in sexual sin.

52   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 6:47 am

–Which is a complete distortion (by you) of the emphasis on the ‘kingdom of God’ as believed by many EC churches and which was taught by Jesus.–

That’s bull, chris. I’ve read them, I know what McLaren is up to. I know what Pagitt and Jones mean when they talk about “Platonic dualism” and how they say it infected the church at an early stage. I know what McLaren and others are doing when they rip into eschatologies that look forward to the return of Christ.

–No – you only have to recognize that he probably accepts a different atonement theory than PENAL substitutionary atonement (which assumes God must punish people). For instance, he may more agree with Ransom Atonement Theory (which was held by the church for its first many centuries), which says that Jesus’ death paid a ransom for our lives (and that it was Satan’s accusation and punishment we were rescued from), and that we were “bought with a price”.–

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. As was pointed out to be by a friend, PSA already has the concept of ransom in it, so that’s argument doesn’t hold water. What we’re dealing with here, though, is whether there really are people who are lost, and if Jones has to wonder why God would punish anyone, then his views on the lostness of unbelievers is brought into question.

53   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 26th, 2008 at 8:04 am

That’s bull, chris. I’ve read them, I know what McLaren is up to. I know what Pagitt and Jones mean when they talk about “Platonic dualism” and how they say it infected the church at an early stage. I know what McLaren and others are doing when they rip into eschatologies that look forward to the return of Christ.

So what are they “up to”?

I don’t know what the issue is with questioning our theology is, really. If we are so certain we are right, than we should welcome closer scrutiny. Sometimes I get the idea that some Christians don’t want to look into things because they’re afraid everything might be debunked, or it will leave them with too many questions.

I don’t think Mclaren, Jones, or Pagitt are right about everything – I don’t think anyone thinks that. I am thankful for their influence in my life, though, just for prodding me to investigate things furhter, and for getting me to question the party line.

54   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 8:38 am

That’s bull, chris. I’ve read them, I know what McLaren is up to. I know what Pagitt and Jones mean when they talk about “Platonic dualism” and how they say it infected the church at an early stage. I know what McLaren and others are doing when they rip into eschatologies that look forward to the return of Christ.

No – you know how to create a paranoid “systematic anti-theology”.
* ‘The Kingdom of God’ is not just something that happens sometime after you die. It arrived with Jesus, and lives on wherever things are as God would want them. When Jesus returns, it will be instituted throughout the entire world. It is not limited to the social gospel, as some like to characterize it (both in support and against).
* ‘Platonic Dualism’ is simply the overarching philosophy in which gnosticism is contained, at the core of which everything that is “spiritual” is good and everything that is “physical” is evil. And, lo and behold, this philosophy is alive and well in the church today. Probably the most obvious usage is in “worldly” vs. “spiritual” (where ‘worldly’ is based upon common culture & physical and ’spiritual’ based on church culture and the invisible) and in the adjectives “Christian” and “secular”.
*Preterism/Partial-Preterism doesn’t necessarily equate with denying the existence of heaven, at all (and it has been the generally accepted eschatology within the church for much longer than dispensationalism, by a degree of magnitude).

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

No – it had everything to do with Jones’ question “Why must God punish people?” The over-obsession with sin in fundamentalism (”if you don’t emphasize sin and hell, you’re doing it wrong”) is a direct product of PSA, which cannot have a concept of ransom in it, otherwise it wouldn’t be penal! With PSA, it is God who must be appeased. With ransom theory, it is Satan who must be appeased (or, to be more accurate, his accusations that must be appeased).

What we’re dealing with here, though, is whether there really are people who are lost, and if Jones has to wonder why God would punish anyone, then his views on the lostness of unbelievers is brought into question.

That depends on whether or not you view salvation as something that is ONLY eternal, or if it is something that begins before death and continues on afterwards. It depends on whether the gospel is ONLY an individual message or whether it is also a communal one. It depends on whether the gospel is just a “get-out-of-hell-free” card, or whether it also has a greater end than just escaping this world to a better place.

55   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 8:46 am

“which cannot have a concept of ransom in it, otherwise it wouldn’t be penal!”

That is a severly limited view of the capacity of the limitless God to provide an atonement which is infinitely layered in its understanding, both metaphorically and in spiritual truth. God has time and time again proven He is capable of expressions of Himself that seem incongruous to our comprehension.

“over obsession”

And if there is a hell (lake of fire, etc.), a substantive place, where lost sinners go forever in indescribable torment, well then, the description “over obsession” would certainly describe it from our side and not God’s.

If there is no such place than the term “over obsession” would be an understatement.

56   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am

How about some of Jones’ own words, from his “The New Christians” book.

p. 78

“Everything we do in the emergent church is surrounded by an envelope of friendship, friendship that is based on lives of reconciliation. And it’s within that envelope that we have all sort of discussions and debates about the atonement and sex trafficking and baptism and AIDS in Africa.”

“A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent: a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure (you) on the other; the chasm between was labeled ‘Sin’, and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergent’s asked “What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God!” Indeed, many emergents will concur that we live in a sinful world…But they will be inclined to attribute this sin not to the distance between human beings and God but to the broken relationships that clutter our lives and our world.”

I think those pretty much explain themselves, but for the record, attributing sin to “broken relationships that clutter our lives and our world” has to be one of the weakest definitions of sin I’ve ever seen.

To give something real after that mess…

2 Corinthians 5:16-21:

“So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

57   pastorboy    http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com
May 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Amen Jazz.

That is why I am the reconciliationist

58   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Ummm… Jazz… that is what Tony is saying in those two paragraphs… that we are reconciled unto God. Read those passages and not that they are not conditioned on one accepting Jesus, but that we are already reconciled. Yet one must accept Jesus to be saved/

Salvation is conditioned on what we do with Jesus. reconciliation/justification was the finished work on the Cross…

iggy

59   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 9:42 am

–That depends on whether or not you view salvation as something that is ONLY eternal, or if it is something that begins before death and continues on afterwards. It depends on whether the gospel is ONLY an individual message or whether it is also a communal one. It depends on whether the gospel is just a “get-out-of-hell-free” card, or whether it also has a greater end than just escaping this world to a better place.–

It is a fiction in the truest sense to even hint that any but the most fringe Christian churches have some kind of a “don’t worry about the world” mindset. What gets emergent’s goats collectively is that those church just aren’t concerned about the same things emergents are.

“Get-out-of-hell free” card. Tell you what, come up with a real argument, and maybe we’ll get somewhere. Until then, such statements only show your scorn and lack of knowledge.

–The over-obsession with sin in fundamentalism–

How can one over-obsess about the thing that keeps people from God, blinding them to His love and justice?

The truth is, sin is THE big human problem. It is the reason Christ sacrificed Himself for us.

60   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am

Tell you what, come up with a real argument, and maybe we’ll get somewhere.

Internet arguing tip #576: If you can’t respond, denigrate the argument as being below you.

61   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am

It is a fiction in the truest sense to even hint that any but the most fringe Christian churches have some kind of a “don’t worry about the world” mindset.

Please, Jazz. When you examine the actions of a huge swath of churches, the gospel is nothing more than a fire insurance policy and “don’t worry about the world” is the mode of operation outside of hawking it as such.

62   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am

jazz,

It is a fiction in the truest sense to even hint that any but the most fringe Christian churches have some kind of a “don’t worry about the world” mindset. What gets emergent’s goats collectively is that those church just aren’t concerned about the same things emergents are.

Nope…. we love to talk about differing views… what gets our goats is that some attack and hate us for doing so… and accepting others where they are at.

iggy

63   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

–Internet arguing tip #576: If you can’t respond, denigrate the argument as being below you.–

And when you have to resort to accusing us of seeing salvation as only a “get out of hell free card”, yeah, that’s an argument that’s below me. And it’s an accusation that should be below you.

–Please, Jazz. When you examine the actions of a huge swath of churches, the gospel is nothing more than a fire insurance policy and “don’t worry about the world” is the mode of operation outside of hawking it as such.–

No, Chris, it isn’t. I’ve been in fundamentalist and evangelical churches all of my life, and have never heard such things. Rather, they have emphasized strong that Christians should live like what they believe, and we should be in the world but be like it.

64   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

correction on the above, that last line should read “we should be in the world but not like it”.

65   jazzact13    
May 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

–Nope…. we love to talk about differing views…–

Pull the other one.

–what gets our goats is that some attack and hate us for doing so–

Yeah, iggy, you’re a real martyr.

66   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Jazz,

Yeah, iggy, you’re a real martyr.

man you should read my hate mail…

yet, I would never claim to be a martyr… so if you see me that way… thanks! = )

yet you should read the ones that are from people who truly appreciate me an my ministry to them…

iggy

67   mandy    
May 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

jazz,
you’ve never been in churches where the gospel has been reduced to fire insurance? really? I am envious of your church going.
i feel most of my growing up years, that is what the gospel was preached as. (You might die tonight! Accept Jesus!) or God is going to punish you (He’s watching you!)

thank God he rescued me from that thinking.

68   amy    
May 26th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

The Kingdom of God’ is not just something that happens sometime after you die. It arrived with Jesus, and lives on wherever things are as God would want them.

Chris,
How does your view of the kingdom as “living on wherever things are as God would want them” agree/conflict with the collective view of the kingdom to be expressed at the “Envision” conference? In light of Jay Baker and Nancy Hardesty’s viewpoints (and maybe others’ speaking there as well) on Christians’ rights to live homosexual lives? In light of the fact that their viewpoints most likely will not be confronted by other speakers?

Generally speaking, do you believe the “Kingdom of God” thrives where anything “good” is going on (such as admonishing people to feed the hungry) even if people are being taught to redefine sin as well as other scriptural concepts? Does “God’s resurrecting power” spoken about on the Envision website not include the power of Christ in helping a believer say no to sin? Does “exploring the Word” mean all of the Word, or just the parts that seem “loving” and don’t cause a person to see their sin as God sees it?

69   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

“The Kingdom of God’ is not just something that happens sometime after you die.”

In a dynamic way it certainly does. Paul says our lives are not here and are hid in Christ with God. Jesus will come one day and set up His kingdom, which cannot really be asserted is even in action within the visible church today. If the Kingdom of God is on the earth today His kingdom isn’t real different. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.

Thank God.

70   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 26th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Generally speaking, do you believe the “Kingdom of God” thrives where anything “good” is going on (such as admonishing people to feed the hungry) even if people are being taught to redefine sin as well as other scriptural concepts?

Generally, I would say the Kingdom of God is anywhere where God’s will is being done, i.e., anywhere God is recognized as King. I don’t think that pagans doing “good works” necessarily is part of the Kingdom in the sense that they might recognize what is going on, but I wouldn’t leave out the possibility that God might be using their efforts for some bigger cause. Certainly the Bible is full of stories where God uses people who are even working against Him for His plans.

The way I see it is that there are both present and not yet aspects of the Kingdom. As Christians, I think we should be working with God to expand the Kingdom in this world. Sometime it may be in a visible way, but other times it may not. When Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, He means it doesn’t operate on the same principles and ideals of the kingdoms of this world. He didn’t mean it wasn’t here at all. Actually, He said it was at hand.

I guess it’s kind of like a radio or TV signal. They’re always there working, but you have to be tuned in to them to see and hear them.

71   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Amy,

There is a verse misused about “church” being where two or more gather.

But read the passage, it is in the context of reconciliation… not necessarily a “church/community”.

Matthew 18:14. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
15. “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
16. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19. “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

This means where there is reconciliation Jesus/the Kingdom is there. Remember Jesus is the King… so where He is is His Kingdom.

That is why I have to smile when PB tells us he is a “reconciliationist” as he tears into people like me and others… I do not see it nor do I see Jesus in any of what he says and does toward me and others.

iggy

72   jazzact13    
May 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am

–i feel most of my growing up years, that is what the gospel was preached as. (You might die tonight! Accept Jesus!) or God is going to punish you (He’s watching you!)–

I have heard those messages, and so far as there is truth in them, I’ve nothing against them. But that was never all that I heard. The churches I have been in at various points in my life have been concerned about how people lived, that they lived in a way consistent with their beliefs. I can point to some problems, and as well there were peole who did fall into sins (like the associate pastor who left his wife and ran off with a church secretary, which really happened despite how cliche it sounds), but that is his sin, not a sin of that particular church.

73   jazzact13    
May 27th, 2008 at 7:03 am

–* ‘The Kingdom of God’ is not just something that happens sometime after you die. It arrived with Jesus, and lives on wherever things are as God would want them. When Jesus returns, it will be instituted throughout the entire world. It is not limited to the social gospel, as some like to characterize it (both in support and against).–

If you’re going to play the “There are various theories of atonement” card, then you’re going to have to accept that there are various theories about the kingdom, too. Perhaps it is an “already/not yet” type of thing, but the New Testament never downplays the ‘after death’ aspect, which McLaren would have us do. Perhaps he does believe in Heaven ‘after death’, but he treats it more as an embarrassment then as a ‘blessed hope’.

–* ‘Platonic Dualism’ is simply the overarching philosophy in which gnosticism is contained, at the core of which everything that is “spiritual” is good and everything that is “physical” is evil. And, lo and behold, this philosophy is alive and well in the church today. Probably the most obvious usage is in “worldly” vs. “spiritual” (where ‘worldly’ is based upon common culture & physical and ’spiritual’ based on church culture and the invisible) and in the adjectives “Christian” and “secular”.–

Except that there is a difference between sacred and secular, and one can see it even in the Old Testament. The family of Levi, the priestly clan, was not like that others–they had no land, their occupation was different from the others. The House of God, whether the tabernacle or the temple, was not like other houses. The things dedicated to the Lord for those Houses were set apart.

No, Chris, listen to them speak and write about those dualisms. Why, recently, did Jones hint that Paul was influence by Platonism when he talked about Heaven?

The church has been against gnosticism for a long time. To say that dualism is only about gnostic ideas does not hold.

–*Preterism/Partial-Preterism doesn’t necessarily equate with denying the existence of heaven, at all (and it has been the generally accepted eschatology within the church for much longer than dispensationalism, by a degree of magnitude).–

I would suggest you read some of the early church fathers, you’ll find their ideas have much more in common with dispensationalism and futurism then with any form or preterism.

I accept that partial preterism is not completely outside of any biblical orthodoxy, though full preterism is. That said, I’ve had interaction with pps before, and have no fondness for the teachings. Is it accidental that it’s the view of choice for the Reconstructionists? And now the pomo Deconstructionists are going that way, too? And that the more I look at them, the more it seems that they’re both simply trying to enter the same house by different doors?

74   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
May 27th, 2008 at 7:04 am

but that is his sin, not a sin of that particular church.

Could you inform the ODM blog sites of that! They seem to get confused about this a lot.

75   jazzact13    
May 27th, 2008 at 7:06 am

–That is why I have to smile when PB tells us he is a “reconciliationist” as he tears into people like me and others–

Pots and kettles, iggy. As someone who does his own share of ripping into people, you don’t have much a leg to stand on making such a statement about others.

76   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
May 27th, 2008 at 7:11 am

Pots and kettles, iggy. As someone who does his own share of ripping into people, you don’t have much a leg to stand on making such a statement about others.

Jazz,
As much as that note gets sounded, its just not true. Check out PB’s rants on the cell phone evangelism thread. On it he accuses everyone here of not caring if people are outside of Christ or not, he accuses Chris L and his wife of lying time and again, and makes statements about who is in and who is out of the kingdom. Where do you see that here, or from Iggy?

77   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 27th, 2008 at 7:16 am

The churches I have been in at various points in my life have been concerned about how people lived, that they lived in a way consistent with their beliefs.

I would say that’s true of my experience, too, but it was always an emphasis on personal morality, and there was always the underpinning of “hell avoidance” there. If not that explicitly, it was about avoiding judgement from God in some way.

It’s not that that’s all wrong, it’s just that if that’s the only side of the story you hear, it’s easy to get some messed up ideas about God. Mainly that God was sitting in heaven just looking for people to mess up, like some sort of cosmic police officer rubbing his hands together waiting to hand out judgement tickets.

78   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 27th, 2008 at 7:21 am

Except that there is a difference between sacred and secular, and one can see it even in the Old Testament. The family of Levi, the priestly clan, was not like that others–they had no land, their occupation was different from the others. The House of God, whether the tabernacle or the temple, was not like other houses. The things dedicated to the Lord for those Houses were set apart.

The thing is the OT covenant is now obsolete, kaput, worthless. There was a reason the veil in the temple was torn in two. It was God demonstrating He was no longer confined to houses made by men’s hands. We are the temple. Wherever we are is holy.

Actually, an argument could be made that the whole tabernacle and temple concept was really God accomodating men rather than the other way around. Think about this. The Israelites were afraid to approach Mt. Sinai, and made Moses go for them. I don’t think this is what God wanted. He has always wanted fellowship with us. We have always rejected that and looked for a vicarious relationship with Him through some sort of holy man. A lot Christians still do this with pastors today.

79   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 27th, 2008 at 7:58 am

Jazz,

Pots and kettles, iggy. As someone who does his own share of ripping into people, you don’t have much a leg to stand on making such a statement about others.

1. As far as “ripping into people” show me an example that I did not state the truth… and also leave my hand out for reconciliation.

2. I have a satire blog that makes fun of everyone involved in the ODM world… to the point I mock myself as I have become an ODM there myself…

I have not hate or animosity against anyone. Judge me and my motives if you want… I do not do that to you.

iggy

80   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 27th, 2008 at 8:11 am

These guys need to repent!

As well as these hateful people!

These guys are actually mean…

And man sin is rampant here…

I am starting to not like humor if this is all sin… I guess I will become a Fundy and just be annoyed and hate everyone evenly.

iggy

81   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am

check the spam filter… I set it off again…

82   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 6:07 am

–Judge me and my motives if you want… I do not do that to you.–

As I said before, pull the other one.

–I have not hate or animosity against anyone. –

Nor do I. I do, however, have some dislike towards ideas and teachings.

–I have a satire blog that makes fun of everyone involved in the ODM world… to the point I mock myself as I have become an ODM there myself…–

And so, because it’s self-deprecation, it’s all ok.

–I am starting to not like humor if this is all sin–

Standard overreaction. Contrary to popular belief, fundy’s are fun people. Thus there is the word “fun” in the name.

–I guess I will become a Fundy and just be annoyed and hate everyone evenly.–

Or you could become a Fundy and love everyone evenly and truly, as sinners and rebels against a God who is rightly angry with them but still loves them in such a way that He has made a way for them to be reconciled to Him.

83   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 6:18 am

–I would say that’s true of my experience, too, but it was always an emphasis on personal morality, and there was always the underpinning of “hell avoidance” there. If not that explicitly, it was about avoiding judgement from God in some way.–

I see nothing particularly wrong with those things. Is personal morality unimportant? But were any of the churches I was in unconcerned about their corporate or church-wide morality? No, I don’t recall that. Were they unconcerned about the moral issues of their locality–town, city, state, or even country? No, I think they were concerned about those things.

–It’s not that that’s all wrong, it’s just that if that’s the only side of the story you hear, it’s easy to get some messed up ideas about God. –

Perhaps, yes.

–Mainly that God was sitting in heaven just looking for people to mess up, like some sort of cosmic police officer rubbing his hands together waiting to hand out judgement tickets.–

For one thing, I’m pretty sure that God doesn’t have to look very hard to find ways in which we mess up.

For another, is this the fault of the church and it’s message that “all have sinned”, or it is a devilish lie that is fed to the people to blind them to the love of God that has made a way for them to be reconciled to God and cleansed of those sins?

84   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 6:51 am

Or you could become a Fundy and love everyone evenly and truly, as sinners and rebels against a God who is rightly angry with them but still loves them in such a way that He has made a way for them to be reconciled to Him.

If I ever do meet one of these, I would be amazed…

BTW the rest of your comment pretty much seals the deal as proof to much I say… so in a very sad way… thanks.

iggy

85   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 6:57 am

“If I ever do meet one of these, I would be amazed…”

Let me introduce myself…

86   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 7:00 am

–Check out PB’s rants on the cell phone evangelism thread. On it he accuses everyone here of not caring if people are outside of Christ or not, he accuses Chris L and his wife of lying time and again, and makes statements about who is in and who is out of the kingdom. Where do you see that here, or from Iggy?–

Read through much of that thread, not all of it, so probably missed some things. Didn’t see where PB accused Chris or his wife of lying, though the discussion did get heated from both directions.

Nor did I see where he made statements about who is in or out of the kingdom, except insofar as he talked about people needing to be converted before being discipled.

87   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am

Your close… but there is still some weirdness about you… which I like of course… but other fundy’s seem to hate… so with that you sort of disqualify yourself… Look at the qualifications again.

Or you could become a Fundy and love everyone evenly and truly, as sinners and rebels against a God who is rightly angry with them but still loves them in such a way that He has made a way for them to be reconciled to Him.

1. Love everyone evenly and truly!
2. Love rebels and sinners against God
3. But still believe God is angry with them (but you still love them?)
4. Believes God Loves/hates mankind that he made a way to reconcile them to himself…

Can you even name a “Fundy” that does #1 let alone does all the rest? And in doing all the rest no wonder people are confused by them…

Now I agree with most of these, but really in all honestly how do you love and hate at the same time? How can one hate sinners and still love them enough to save them?

“Love is sincere, Hate what is evil and cling to what is good.” Romans 12:9… I do nto see anywhere where we are to hate people… I see that Paul even states…

2 Cor 5:14. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

what is the way we once saw others?

Like Peter did… as unclean and clean… The Jew was clean, while us Gentiles were unclean.. but as God revealed the sheet from heaven and said “take and eat” and later Peter was introduced to Cornelius as the first saved Gentile in Christ… we no longer see others as clean or uncleaned… I might be so bold as to say Jesus took away our sins and clenased us.

1 John2:2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

the whole world is not saved, but is reconciled unto God and made clean. Jesus is to be accepted or rejected for our salvation.

Matt 21: 42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

We should not look at others as unclean… or unsaved, but that only they have not heard the message and the “Word of Christ Jesus” and turned to Him for salvation.

Hebrews 9: 27. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28. so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The quesiton is, do we want to face judgement with Christ or without Christ.

iggy

88   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 7:27 am

Hating sinners is one of the most vile sins on earth, especially coming from another sinner who has been forgiven and still sins. And to teach that God hates sinners is blasphemy and provides a conduit for spiritual hubris.

Reference the parable of the man who owed much and would not forgive little.

89   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am

Amen Rick…

90   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 7:57 am

–1. Love everyone evenly and truly!
2. Love rebels and sinners against God
3. But still believe God is angry with them (but you still love them?)
4. Believes God Loves/hates mankind that he made a way to reconcile them to himself…–

You have shown where any of this is either contradictory or unbiblical. Can a parent not be rightly angry with a child and still love that child? Can God not love sinners and still be angry at them? In fact, if God is not angry at their rebellion and does not punish them for their rebellion, all you’re left with is some kind of “grandpa in the sky” who allows everything.

–We should not look at others as unclean… or unsaved, –

Whatever you mean by unclear, I don’t know, but yes we should see others as unsaved if they really are in that condition. Upon what basis am I suppose to consider a Muslim or a Buddhist saved? Or a drug dealer or a pimp?

–The quesiton is, do we want to face judgement with Christ or without Christ.–

You are right, that is the question. As well, do we want to do what we can to help others face judgment with Christ, or to at least make it possible for them to make that choice.

91   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 28th, 2008 at 8:09 am

Can a parent not be rightly angry with a child and still love that child? Can God not love sinners and still be angry at them?

I guess it’s always confused me as to why God would still be angry at sinners. It seems to me that if Jesus didn’t take all that anger upon Himself on the cross, then in a way His work there wasn’t complete. It just has never made sense to me.

I think that a better description of God’s wrath is more of Him just letting people proceed in the natural consequences of their sin. C.S. Lewis described hell as a self-imposed imprisonment. God has shown people the way out, but they refuse to take it. This may feel like the wrath of God being poured out on a person, but really it’s because of a person own refusal to bow to God.

I just don’t see how we can simultaneously tell people that God is angry at them and He wants to reconcile with them. It seems that an ambassador’s job should be letting it known that the party he represents has no ill will toward the people he’s talking to. Those people then have to decide whether to accept or reject this offer of peace.

92   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am

–I just don’t see how we can simultaneously tell people that God is angry at them and He wants to reconcile with them.–

What would be the point of telling people to be reconciled to God if He wasn’t angry with them? Whether it’s an active or passive anger, as you describe above, or most likely some combination of both, that’s still what it is.

But again, we can find places in the Bible where God’s wrath is mentioned, even in the New Testament. Instead of giving some examples, I’ll give the link to this page…

http://classicbst.christianity.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=wrath&section=2&version=niv&language=en

…which gives several verses, and links to where they can be viewed in context.

93   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am

What would be the point of telling people to be reconciled to God if He wasn’t angry with them? Whether it’s an active or passive anger, as you describe above, or most likely some combination of both, that’s still what it is.

1. God caused the curse and cast Adam and Eve out of the garden not just because the sinned… but to keep them from eating from the tree of life.

2. God had a plan to redeem fallen man before man fell… Showing his compassion to man before man even had sin.

3. God chose to send His Son and die for us because He “so love the world”…

You are stating that God hates men… God hated sin. Some men are turn over to depraved minds and are lost in their OWN delusion. Yet, Jesus still died on the Cross for them out of Love for the Father.

There is no hate other than for sin at the Cross. To state that God hates men contradicts the bulk of scripture.

iggy

94   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
May 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am

What would be the point of telling people to be reconciled to God if He wasn’t angry with them?

Well, it gets back to what people’s motivation is for coming to God. Is it to avoid punishment, or our they drawn by His beauty, love, and grace?

I think for one thing saying that God is angry is people and will pour some retribution on them in the future is saying that God is asking us to do something that He Himself will not do. He says we should bless those that curse us and not return evil for evil.

Actually, I think the whole point of the cross was that God took all the pain, suffering, etc. from our actions upon himself. So whether or not we live in that reality or remain trapped is up to us.

95   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am

–You are stating that God hates men–

No, I’m not. Where have I said that God hates men?

I’ve linked to scriptures dealing with God’s wrath towards men. Are those scriptures lying, iggy? Deal with them. Don’t accuse me of saying what I haven’t said.

96   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am

jazz,

I’ve linked to scriptures dealing with God’s wrath towards men. Are those scriptures lying, iggy? Deal with them. Don’t accuse me of saying what I haven’t said.

1. I just did… didn’t you read what I stated?
2. there are about two scriptures that state God “hates” sinners. Yet if you understand it is related to being turned over to their own depravity, then you might begin to grasp that they had to go pretty far down the road to be so identified with their sin that it becomes their identity. In that there is little separation between that sinner and their sin.

3. To set focus just on “hate” which is still not the person, but that sin that took them so far to that point of delusion, is to miss that there are many more scriptures stating God’s kindness, love, compassion, grace, mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, justification, sanctification… and so on.

4. God was satisfied at the cross. To state two OT scriptures as you are, nullifies the work of the Cross. You cannot mix Law and Grace as you are doing. If you do you have a schizophrenic God that Love/hates us as we are all sinners, we are all wrong, (no one is righteous). To state that God so loved the world then state that God hates sinners. Misses that sin is the issue… and that Jesus dealt with the issue on the Cross.

Now deal with that.

iggy

97   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am

–1. I just did… didn’t you read what I stated?–

That you’re saying that I’m saying things that I haven’t said? Yes, you are doing just that. Is that you’re normal more of argument, iggy, or should I just feel special?

–2. there are about two scriptures that state God “hates” sinners.–

Really? And you haven’t referenced those in your explanations of them?

But then, to repeat my again, I’m talking about God’s wrath.

–Now deal with that.–

I get the impression that you’re not going to visit the link in my post above. Very well, then…

Ro 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Ro 2:5
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Joh 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

1Th 1:10
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead–Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Eph 5:6
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

Eph 2:3
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

98   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am

So it looks like in one thread, folks can’t tell the difference between “sarcasm” and “satire”, and in this one we don’t know the difference between “wrath” and “anger”…

I need to call my old Lit prof…

99   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Actually, I think that’s “wrath” and “hate”.

100   jazzact13    
May 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

–The thing is the OT covenant is now obsolete, kaput, worthless. There was a reason the veil in the temple was torn in two. It was God demonstrating He was no longer confined to houses made by men’s hands. We are the temple. Wherever we are is holy.–

My point in bringing it up is to show that the sacred/secular divide far predates any kind of gnosticism. Whether it is necessarily something for today, or used rightly, would be another topic of discussion

101   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am

Actually, I think that’s “wrath” and “hate”.

Which still would be a comparison of two completely different concepts (even further apart than “wrath” and “anger”).

My point in bringing it up is to show that the sacred/secular divide far predates any kind of gnosticism.

Actually, the concept is with certain things as “unclean” and “clean” (which has nothing to do with one being spiritual and one being physical) and with certain things as “holy” and others as “common” (which also has nothing to do with the gnostic categorization of physical/spiritual).

In both of these cases, it should be noted, that it is God who declares certain things “clean”/”holy” and other “unclean”/”common”, not man. And the “clean/holy” set is pretty limited. This is completely different than the modern usage of “sacred” vs. “secular”, which compartmentalizes and categorizes based upon opinion and usage (with a smattering of gnosticism) and not a God-breathed differentiation.

So, I would ask you the same question I asked PB on an earlier thread – which parts of your life are “Christian” and which parts are “secular”?