My friend Ken Silva over at Apprising Ministries was recently interviewed by Ingrid from Slice of Laodicia (both ministries on my blogroll list). Ken was talking about Rob Bell and the emergent church, and how after his studies with the late Dr. Walter Martin and the cults, that he realizes just how cultic the emergent church has become in its theology and practice. I agree with Ken.
If you have 15 minutes to spare, listen to this interview!
Also read Ken’s articles on Rob Bell and his emergent cult and Bell tolls on the Bible
Filed under: Apologetics, Blogroll, Church Life, Emergent Church
Ken does bring up some intriguing possibilities, and yet when challenged specifically about those ideas he is either unable or unwilling to address questions and concerns that others have.
We have had an ongoing discussion thread over at Verum Serum (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529) lasting over two weeks related to Ken’s ideas and have had over 150 comments arguing both sides of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, things are not as black and white/cut and dried as Ken and the rest want to make things seem.
Most of the sins Ken ascribes to Rob Bell, Rick Warren etc. are sins against “reformed theology.” In most of his writings, Ken comes across as someone who thinks Calvinism is necessary for salvation.
But aren’t Methodists and Weslyans traditionally Arminians? Are you personally believers in “prevenient” grace and free will? If so what does Ken think about that? Again, it seems to be one of his main hang ups with Rob Bell.
Yawn. Its simply not true. I’m not sure what else to say. Emergents aren’t these evil people who are trying to destroy God’s church.
*One Year Anniversary of Ken Silva on Crosstalk*
Today marks the one year anniversary of my first appearance with Ingrid on her Crosstalk program where we initially got to know each other. For those who may never have heard this program I post the link for this “Crosstalk…
Tony,
Thank you for the kind words in the Lord and for being willing to stand for the Truth. This also provides opportunity for us to show some typical Emergent/pomo arguments – such as:
1) “when challenged specifically about those ideas [Ken] is either unable or unwilling to address questions and concerns that others have.”
This is always the response you’ll get when argumentation has been presented with which they don’t happen to agree. What s not acknowledged is that this argument can just as easily be reversed.
2) “In most of his writings, Ken comes across as someone who thinks Calvinism is necessary for salvation.”
The now classic straw man attack on the proper historic orthodox Christian faith. The rallying cry: “You are a ‘Calivinist’ “, and suddenly they feel the argument is over. Well, I’m not; and I don’t.
Or you’ll run into 3) “Its simply not true. Emergents aren’t these evil people who are trying to destroy God’s church.”
No argument at all, just good ol’ circular reasoning. It’s not true because I say so. The equivalent of telling your children that vegetables are important for them to eat and hearing them whine: “I don’t care. I’m not eating them because I don’t wannu!” And no one is saying the people are evil, the result of this rebellion against the Bible is.
“Most of the sins Ken ascribes to Rob Bell, Rick Warren etc. are sins against “reformed theology.” In most of his writings, Ken comes across as someone who thinks Calvinism is necessary for salvation.”
Umm . . . . No I think you had better read what he says again. The Emergent Church is not committing sin against Reformed Theology they are sinning against God.
What you seem to miss, is that the Emergent Church is opening the door to idea of there not being any single source of Absolute Truth and the extension from that, of since we are all imprefect beings there is no way for anyone to say they can adequately define or recognize absolute truth.
We can sit here all day and argue back and forth on the minor issues that separate the Emergent Chruch movement from Orthodox Christianity and Traditional Evangelicalism, on such points as the differences in how we frame words and project ourselves to the World as Christians, But the main issue that this would avoid is the one I have stated above.
I have researched the Emergent Church, read Brian McLarens ” A Generous Orthodoxy”, Leonard Sweet’s “Quantum Spirituality” , Brian McLaren & Tony Campolo’s “Adventrues in Missing The Point” and many many other books by Emergent Authors. And their Theology is based on Uncertainty not Certainty of the basic beliefs of Christiantiy and what Jesus taught, Not Reformed Theology.
Leonard Sweet goes even further and justifies eastern religions as valid based on the “Theory” of Quantum Uncertainty. notice I said Theory. Because the Uncertainty in Quantum Uncertainty is not interpreted correctly by Leonard Sweet and he even admits in his Book “Quantum Spirituality” that he is practically illiterate when it comes to Science. He relies on the subjective conclusions of Scientists most of whom do not even believe in God let alone Christianity. And would make any subjective conclusion they could to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion of what Quantum Uncertainty actually said: That in our fallen Physical Condition and world there are limits to what we can physically observe in the unseen and immaterial world.
Ken,
Once again, you assume too much. If you’ve actually read what people have been attempting to discuss with you, you would see that none of the debaters really consider themselves “pomo”. Just because they disagree with certain points of view that you hold, or methods you employ does not make them part of the EC movement. I, for one, have no plans of leaving the Independent Christian Church/Church of Christ (with my local church having been around for 150+ years).
In fact, what the primary issue has come down to is how you have overinflated your view of what “authority” you believe you have. Like with this statement:
Or – when you attempt to use John 7:24 and Matthew 22:29, claiming authority that is only Jesus’ to claim – and using it against people you’ve never met whose only true “sin” is disagreeing with you.
I don’t know how many times I’ve listed specific teachings held in parts of the EC (but not all) – particularly those of McClaren – and said I disagree with them on a solid, scriptural basis – primarily in the area of univeralism. I’ve also written that, while I agree with the Hebrew context of the “Kingdom of God/Heaven” starting with the resurrection of Jesus, I do not agree with McClaren or Bell’s extrapolation to all of Creation being redeemed in a physical manner (supporting environmental activism).
What I have stated, though, is that what I have studied of Bell’s writings, videos and public appearances have not had any appearance of contradicting Scripture (though some have contradicted traditions of men). I have stated, citing multiple scriptural references, that you are off-base slandering Mr. Bell by calling him a cult leader, judging his state of salvation, and using faulty logic & unnecessarily inflammatory language in your tirades against him.
Maybe you should get off your high horse and actually address the questions that have been asked about you instead of attacking the messengers, quoting irrelevant scriptures, imagining hyprocisy and doing your best to never answer the questions asked.
Maybe, you could find a group of men to which to be accountable (including Tony – who seems to be very reasonable in his discussion, and who is able to debate w/o the discussion denigrating into holier-than-thou name-calling), who could review the language you use and the authority you seem to be weilding and give you honest, Godly feedback.
Grace & Peace,
Chris
I am thankful to you Ken and John directly above, for fighting the good fight and contending for the faith. It is not always easy and can be very exhausting. Keep going. God will refresh you.
Your Sister in Christ,
Rachel
Ken,
Maybe if A.W. Tozer (sp?) said that “the pastor is a prophet”, you aught not quote him any more. That seems to be in contradiction to scripture.
/removes tongue from cheek
//just sayin’
To Chris,
I haven’t read any other of your posts but you are a little harsh in this one. If these men above do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture then they are false prophets period.
“Maybe you should get off your high horse and actually address the questions that have been asked about you instead of attacking the messengers, quoting irrelevant scriptures, imagining hyprocisy and doing your best to never answer the questions asked.”
1. O.K. Chris “high horse”? That’s not very nice.
2. “quoting irrelevant scriptures” Which of the scriptures is
irrelevant?
3. “doing your best to never answer questions asked.” If Ken
didn’t answer your questions then why did you say all of the
above? It sounds like he answered and you just don’t like his
answer or didn’t understand his answer. (I am not trying to be
rude to you)
I don’t know you so please have a little grace with me here. Reading your post above calls to mind Pauls’ letter to the Corinthians. He called them carnal Christians, not because they were out living like the world, as some would have us think, but because they were supposed to be following Jesus Christ and instead they were all fighting about who they followed and why and arguing with each other. If you really love Jesus and want to follow him most of all, then just read his word. By reading his word, we will know when someone is a false prophet because they will go against the word. Anyone who says the Bible is innerrant is wrong for sure. I am sure that you agree with me since you mentioned above that you have disagreed with Mclaren on solid scriptural basis. Continue to search the scriptures and pray with a sincere heart, a repentant heart, and the Spirit will lead you in Truth. Thats what I have to do on a daily basis.
With Love in Christ
Rachel
Rachel – my apologies for catching you mid-stream (or late-stream). Probably the easiest thing for you (though it would take awhile) would be to read this thread and accompanying comments.
To summarize, my post above is just one in a long line of multiple peoples’ attempts to engage Ken in substantive conversation on the topic at hand. I agree it may sound a bit testy, but weeks of being deferential and polite have not succeeded in furthering the conversation.
In no way do I consider your question rude. I just completely forgot that I was posting in a new thread that might catch folks cold. Items #1-3 will become apparent if you read the linked thread and other articles on that blog, mine and others.
Where I got pulled into this conversation was when I suggested weeks ago that Ken was unfairly linking Bell’s teachings with McClaren’s, as they are at opposite ends of the EC spectrum (Bell doesn’t even consider himself EC), and Ken immediately assumed I was a pomo anti-intellectual (read my blog and you’ll see such an assumption is wrong).
Where Ken takes issue with Bell is that in Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, he (Bell) states that all too often when people argue on a topic and then say “let’s see what scripture says”, they are bringing a personal bias to what they believe scripture says in many cases. Additionally, Bell understands PaRDeS – a method used by Jewish/Messianic scholars to interpret scripture, encompassing many techniques used by Jesus – in which there are many scriptures which have multiple layers of meaning.
This is not saying that scripture is in error, but that parts of it (and only a small percentage) have multiple levels of meaning (example – Jesus on the cross saying “Father, Father, why have You forsaken me?” is also quoting Ps. 22:1 – a technique of quoting the first to quote the whole. Go read ALL of Psalm 22 and see if this makes sense. It doesn’t change the meaning of what Jesus said, but it gives it a deeper level of meaning and shows the level of trust expressed by Christ in this cry to His Father. So, this scripture can have multiple meanings, but the literal one must NEVER be contradicted by a deeper one.)
Rachel – no offense taken at all, and my apologies for coming off too harsh and forgetting that not everyone has been part of this effort to get Ken to address some simple questions.
grace & peace,
Chris
Rachel,
The other piece I forgot to point out is that Ken posted the link to this post/Slicecast as being an answer to our questions of him. Instead, it was an almost verbatim rehash filled with little substance but lots of supposition and innuendo.
Example: Ingrid makes a remark that it’s sad that Bell’s defenders don’t defend the Bible with such fervor. As I see it, the Bible isn’t under attack here, but a brother in Christ is. In this case, why should I defend what is not being attacked instead of a brother I see being slandered as a “cult leader”, “spiritual pedophile”, “Satanic pied-piper”, “Charles Manson in sheep’s clothing” or an “usher of the Anti-Christ”?
In Ken’s case, we have someone with a good number of substantive questions being asked of him (not slanderous accusations) who evades by sound-bite smarmy comments, condescending use of scriptures reserved for Christ’s authority, accusations of hypocrisy, shunning and anything else he can do to avoid answering. In my experience, people who won’t answer simple questions either don’t know the answers, aren’t confident of the answers, or have something to hide. It’s not like we haven’t given him a chance to answer, but yet all we get are things like this slice-cast – warmed-over innuendo of little substance. Bitter fruit, just like the picture on the page…
Chris L.,
As I have said before there’s nothing I’m going to say that will change you mind. You constantly invent things I don’t say, construct your straw man and then knock it down. The truth is you and John (from Verum) haven’t really the foggiest of ideas where I stand and just keep misrepresenting me. I have no obligation to answer for things I have not said.
Bell is neo-orthodox at best and even according to the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer this Brathian view denies the inerrancy of the Bible because in their view it “becomes” inspired when the Holy Spirit illuminates it to each believer. This is an existential and subjective approach to the Bible and is the perfect root for postmodernism.
By the way, is your Cambellite Christian Church/Church of Christ restoration movement church group still teaching baptismal regeneration?
Ken,
Here’s my church’s view on baptism. As for the “Campbellite” label, that has never been used internally, as it is Christ’s church, alone.
As for inventing things you’ve said, I’m not sure what you mean, as it seems that the posters to the big thread frequently quote your own words back to you for clarity and get none. When you’ve quoted scripture, I’ve questioned the usage back to you, and gotten no reply.
And, when it comes to inventing things, above you say that Bell’s view
Yet, I have never heard Bell say anything close to that. Now who’s constructing a straw-man?
To Chris:
1) Where Ken takes issue with Bell is that in Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, >he (Bell) states that all too often when people argue on a topic and >then say “let’s see what scripture says”, they are bringing a >personal bias to what they believe scripture says in many cases. >Additionally, Bell understands PaRDeS – a method used by >Jewish/Messianic >scholars to interpret scripture, encompassing >many techniques used by Jesus – in which there are many >scriptures which have multiple layers of meaning.
This is very dangerous ground you’re sliding on here. And I would like to state right off that the reason Rob Bell’s premise is dangerous is not readily apparent, so be careful. It is not true that scripture has within it multi layers of meaning and it is false that Messianic Jewish Scholars say this or that Jesus used this Technique. And if anyone says Jesus used this Technique it means they do not understand who Jesus was. Jesus was God come in the Flesh, since when did he need a Technique to undertand the TORAH, He gave the TORAH. I will tell you who uses this technique. Orthodox Jewish Scholars and Catholic Scholars and we know where it got them. God Bless the Jews they are belloved of God but they went very wrong in their interpretation of Scripture.
Now Orthodox Jewish Scholars believe in a concept know as the “White Fire and the Black Fire” The Black fire is the actual letters on the page which they believe have a surface meaning. And then there is the White Fire, the White Fire in Orthodox Jewish Beliefs is the spaces between the letters. And this is where they believe the deeper multi layer meanings can be derived and where they have license to reinterpret sciputre according to cultural norms. But what the White Fire actually is, is the Traditions of Men added to the Black Fire. And this is where Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Scribes. The Traditions of Men he spoke of (The White Fire) was the commentary that the Pharisees and Scribes had written outside the Bible which they used to enforce their Traditions. They used these written traditions to force people to live to the letter of the TORAH instead of living the Spirit of the TORAH.
This is also how the Catholic Church built its traditions. Now where both groups have wound up is requiring their adherents to live a life of rituals.
Now having said that, to truly understand any and all scripture you have to understand it in its totality as a holistic book. No piece can be pulled out and understood separately without understanding all of it. This is where the true multi-layered technique resides. In addition and the most important part of this technique is to pray before you read and ask God to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal the Truth to you. And when this happens you find that there is no contradiction in the Bible, you will also find there are no secret hidden multi layer meanings. The Truths of God are Simple Truths available to all who genuinely want the truth revealed to them, and in this way the Holy Spirit will guide the reader into how to apply within their life what is written in the Bible, and the revealed truth of the Bible is not constrained to any Cultural interpretation. It is timeless, it allows the Holy spirit led reader to understand that since God is timeless his word is timeless and unchanging and does not need re-interpretation for each new “Emerging” Culture.
What you have to understand about Rob Bell is that his goal in challenging the obvious and timeless Truths of the Bible is not to give a deeper understanding of Scripture it’s to re-define scripture according to his views base don today’s cultural norms and you cannot do that with Scripture. And this is what is not readily apparent in what he is doing. True Revelation from God does not contradict what the Bible says nor does it bring confusion.
The Emergent Movements most obvious hallmark is one of confusion. A confusing cacophony of differing voices, not over minor differences but very large and fundamental differences. If the Emergent movement was a true new revelation from God it would not be defined by such confusion. The ideology of allowing so many major differences in viewpoints within the Emergent movement is intentional because it major advocates believe in concepts such as “chaos theory” which says that if we just let all of these voices in no matter how aberrant the viewpoint, then chaos theory will take over and eventually all of the chaos will boil over and what comes out of it will be a defined Theology. And this Methodology is not how God works or reveals Truth.
Knowing this It amazes me that anyone would want to attach Emergent to their name.
Woah. You just went a long way down a road unlike anything I suggested. I’m not Kabbalhist. My apologies if I was unclear. PaRDeS techniques weren’t used by Jesus to interpret scripture, but to teach it (it wasn’t even well-defined as PRDS before the 3rd century).
For instance, the D stands for ‘drash – which is the telling of stories to demonstrate a concept in scripture. Did Jesus do this? Ever read parables?
The whole “white fire – black fire” thing is foreign to me, and I’ve never heard it before now.
I won’t argue with you on that. The purpose of “layer upon layer” is to bring clarity, not confusion (see my example above w/ Jesus & Ps 22).
As for “chaos theory” – the way you’ve described it is the opposite of rabbinical teaching, which says that the opposite of God is chaos, that His creation brings order to the chaos, and that when He makes everything complete there will be no more chaos. As His children, we are to bring order to everything (in His image) and to avoid sin (which brings about chaos). I would not support anything that you’ve outlined, and – to stay in topic – I’ve not heard any of that nonsense from Mars Hill Bible Church, where Rob Bell teaches.
“I’ve not heard any of that nonsense from Mars Hill Bible Church, where Rob Bell teaches.”
Our point is that you will on his present course because he is quite enamoured with the unregenerate teachings of Judaism.
Once again, Ken never said any of the things that Ken said. Like Chris, I’ve heard this many times at this point. So let me be specific. In this post about Rob Bell on his own site, Ken wrote:
Also in this comment on my site, discussing Rob Bell:
Again, it sounds like it’s the “Reformed position” he’s defending. And here’s another comment on the topic in which he wrote:
Also, for the record, I never said the argument was over whether or not you were a Calvinist. I said that you seemed to believe anything other than Calvinism was outside the truth. I said this because you left a list of versess suggesting that “no one seeks God.” I think most people would describe this as an anti-Arminian view. If I was wrong in assuming that being anti-Arminian made you a Calvinist, I apologize. It does often seem that people who reject one view tend to accept the other. Also, when people refer to “reformed theology” they frequently have Calvinism in mind, at least partly.
So please correct the record. Where do you actually stand? Can men seek God in accord with Jesus statement in Luke 11:9-10?
“Woah. You just went a long way down a road unlike anything I suggested. I’m not Kabbalhist. My apologies if I was unclear. PaRDeS techniques weren’t used by Jesus to interpret scripture, but to teach it (it wasn’t even well-defined as PRDS before the 3rd century).
For instance, the D stands for ‘drash – which is the telling of stories to demonstrate a concept in scripture. Did Jesus do this? Ever read parables?”
No Jesus did not use parables to teach:
The disciples did not like Jesus using parables, for they and the multitude could not understand them. So they asked Jesus, “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” (Matt 13:10).
Jesus said He used parables to confuse the people and keep them from understanding, for He did not want them converted (Matt 13:11-15).
“Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”
Parables are dark and difficult sayings – like riddles, and Jesus used them to keep the multitude from understanding, for He chose to hide the truth from them.
These two errors are also taught in Bible colleges and seminaries, for men cannot stand the idea of Jesus Christ being a sovereign King, Who shows His truth only to His elect.
Did the disciples’ concern cause Jesus to stop using parables? Not at all, for Matthew 13:34 tells us He used them exclusively with this crowd:
“All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:”
Jesus is a great King, and He does not owe the truth to any man. Truth is a great blessing, which He hides from most and reveals to a few saints in the earth.
Our glorious Lord has concealed His truth from the wise and prudent, and He has revealed it unto babes – even His elect (Matthew 11:25-27).
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”
Hve you heard the song, “Break Thou the Bread of Life,” written by Mary Ann Lathbury? Consider the last half of its final verse:
“Show me the truth concealed within thy Word,
And in thy Book revealed I see the Lord.”
God has written His Word and designed gospel preaching to conceal the truth from the unregenerate and to reveal it to His saints (I Cor 1:22-24).
“For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
This is why it is a dangerous path to start down using unregenerate methods for understading the Bible. God opens his word to only those who he chooses to open it to. The Jews did not want the truth they wanted a King to overthrow the Romans and re-establish the Jewish State.
Cultural Interpretations are similiar to how the unregenerate Jews read the TORAH With an intent to make it fit personal desired goals, not Gods goals. Gods goal is for it to be opened to those who he knows will accept it as it is, timeless and unchanging as he is. Those who accept it become timeless in their thoughts, they see with eternal eyes and Cultural norms no longer have any meaning. Personal goals melt away. God then guides us, leads us to who he wants to reach. this is why the modern methods of evangelism are so abhorant because they do not rely on God to lead. They rely on the methods of men.
True dsiciples are not concerned about how relevant they are. Because what is relevant to man is not relevant to God. True Disciples are not concerned about being Hip, Cool, accepted. they need no acceptance from man. Why should eternity need acceptance from the temperal?
This is why the Social Gospel is so wrong. Beause it uses the methods of man which are temperal and inadequate. When you become a Spiritual / Eternal Man you see how God sees the world, you see the Heart, you see where the true need is. Everyone thinks Jesus just hung out with sinners, no he didnt. Each moment of Jesus time on earth had a specific purpose. He knew the heart of each sinner he met with and each meetin had a specific predetermined purpose. But today his actions are misinterpreted to mean he just hung out with sinners.
We all need to think eternal not cultural.
“Can men seek God in accord with Jesus statement in Luke 11:9-10?”
Of course they can, after all this is God speaking. And I’m not about to argue with Him!
I took Ken up on his challenge to respond to verses he’d selected regarding seeking God. In fact, I wrote a two part response.
Part one.
Part two.
Despite the fact that he specifically challenged me to address these verses, Ken never acknowledged or responded either positively or negatively to what I said. Perhaps he would be kind enough to do so now.
Then why didn’t you approve and not correct commenters on your own post when they said things like the following:
That was LadyDoc, one of your most frequent commenters. You made several comments after this one but never said a word about her statement, even though it mentioned you by name.
And why did you post these verses on my site? What was your point?
In comment #5, you accuse me of a straw man attack. How was I supposed to interpret your approval of LadyDoc’s comments (she specifically claimed to be speaking on your behalf yet you never bothered to correct her), and the group of verses about seeking God you left on my site and which you asked me to respond to?
Should I have taken from all that the idea that — of course! — you have no problem with men seeking God? Then why not correct your own commenter? Why post those verses on my site and ask me to respond to them?
Once again, I am a reader not a mind reader, Ken. If you’ve been misunderstood, the problem is not my reading comprehension.
I would like to make a humble comment about Luke 11:9-10. Jesus was speaking to his disciples here. Is everyone in the world a disciple?
Rachel,
You are absolutely correct. The Master speaks to His disciples and we are no longer in the world. Thank you for your kind comments earlier as they do mean much to weary soldiers.
Also a small note *
Jesus says in Mathew 11:27
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Just from reading this, not including the epistles, just this, it would seem that Jesus reveals himself/God the Father to those he chooses. If this is true, which Jesus says it is, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that only those that Jesus reveales himself to will be able seek him?
Now taking into account Romans 3:11 Paul says “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”
So if what Paul is saying is true, and since the Bible is the innerrant Word of God, then it would stand to reason that we seek only because the desire has been placed in our hearts to be drawn to God by God. It’s really all to His glory isn’t it?
I haven’t studied all of the teachings of Calvinism or Armenianism so please don’t think I’m trying to go there.
I am just commenting on the above question on Luke 11:9-10 and going off of what I have studied in the Bible. I may not be as studied as some of you but I am a growing babe who is looking to mature!
With Love,
Rachel
Thank you, Ken. Thank you.
So your criticism is of where he’s heading (but not yet actually gone) on his present course. Can you point me to which of the teachings in Judiasm are unregerate that Rob is enamoured with? Is he leading his flock back to ceremonial, dietary or sacrificial laws that the Church fathers in the Jerusalem church (which was mostly, if not completely, Jewish) agreed the Gentiles did not need to follow? After all, Jesus was Jewish and all of his teachings were in line with Orthodox Judiasm, but not with the “hedges” drawn by groups of pharisees. As Jesus said, he did not come to do away with the Torah (to destory it), but to interpret it correctly (to fulfill it).
Question: If a Jew becomes a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah, is it acceptable for him/her to continue to follow the practices outlined in the Old Testament specifically for Jews (Shabbat, diet, etc.)? I have friends in the Messianic Christian church who do keep Shabbat, the festivals and the dietary laws, as they have explained to me that they are still part of the Mosaic Covenant (aliyah) but they recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They do not believe they are saved by these “works” (as defined by some), but they honor G_d and show their love to Him by keeping the instructions given specifically to His people.
John (but not John from VS) -
No offense meant, but there are so many strange concepts in your dialog that I do not have the time to unravel them all. I will just look at a few here:
Jesus did speak in parables that not all understood (and there are much clearer interpretations of the one section you mention). As Brad Young, a Christian theologian in Israel has documented, Jesus re-used many First Century parables used by other rabbis, but put different “spins” on them, which was part of the source of peoples’ confusion. For instance, the parable of the Prodigal Son (as we call it) was told by Shammai, but in his version the father refused to take the son back. Jesus changed the end of the story and drastically changed the way the father reacted to the son. And then, just to twist the knife a little more, the brother who had never left the faith was shown in a bad light.
Jesus most definitely ate with ’sinners’ – all three synoptics confirm this – and in Jewish culture, you only eat with people you desire to become close to (or are already close to).
You are also correct that disciples don’t need to be hip or cool or accepted for their own sake. However, in using neutral cultural elements (like music, worship style, speaking style, etc.), the purpose isn’t to be hip, cool or accepted – it is to follow Paul’s advice to be all things to all men for the purpose of building the kingdom. What is required, though, is discernment between what is ‘neutral’ culturally and what is ‘negative’ (the ‘eating meat sacrificed to idols’ dilemma).
Rachel,
Jesus last command to his disciples (talmidim) was to “go and make disciples (talmidim) of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you”, so He instructed His disciples to go out and make more disciples. And, unlike the common English understanding of disciple (to know what your teacher knows), the Hebrew understanding is “to be what your teacher is” (or, more plainly, to be as much like your teacher as you can possibly be). So, I would interpret Luke 11:9-10 to apply to us as well when we pray – I would also add that the full context is about persistence in prayer and asking God to provide for our basic needs, not the properity gospel of some of the ‘Jabez’ crowd.
I’m headed off with my son for the weekend, but will try to catch up with all the goings on when I get back Monday night.
grace & peace,
Chris
Rachael,
If I may address your comments in reverse order. Rather than rehash it all in this thread, please see comment 21 for links to my response to the questions you raise about who can seek God. I deal specifically with the Romans 3 verse you mentioned in part two.
As for Luke 11, you are correct that Jesus was speaking to his disciples but mistaken about the application of 11:9-10. Verse 13 — which concludes the passage that starts in verse 5 — says:
Jesus says God the father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. I hope you’ll agree that God does not need to give the Spirit to those who already have the Spirit. In other words, Jesus can not be talking about people who are already believers in this parable, since they have already received his gift. They are — in the terms of the parable — people who already have the bread of life and therefore have no need of knocking on anyone’s door.
The overall point of the parable is that those seeking God’s bread of life will not be given a spiritual snake instead. On the contrary, they can expect good things. Jesus promises that “he who seeks finds.” Similarly, Hebrews 11:6 notes that God rewards those who seek him.
“John (but not John from VS) -
No offense meant, but there are so many strange concepts in your dialog that I do not have the time to unravel them all. I will just look at a few here:
Jesus did speak in parables that not all understood (and there are much clearer interpretations of the one section you mention). As Brad Young, a Christian theologian in Israel has documented, Jesus re-used many First Century parables used by other rabbis, but put different “spins” on them, which was part of the source of peoples’ confusion. For instance, the parable of the Prodigal Son (as we call it) was told by Shammai, but in his version the father refused to take the son back. Jesus changed the end of the story and drastically changed the way the father reacted to the son. And then, just to twist the knife a little more, the brother who had never left the faith was shown in a bad light.
Jesus most definitely ate with ’sinners’ – all three synoptics confirm this – and in Jewish culture, you only eat with people you desire to become close to (or are already close to).
You are also correct that disciples don’t need to be hip or cool or accepted for their own sake. However, in using neutral cultural elements (like music, worship style, speaking style, etc.), the purpose isn’t to be hip, cool or accepted – it is to follow Paul’s advice to be all things to all men for the purpose of building the kingdom. What is required, though, is discernment between what is ‘neutral’ culturally and what is ‘negative’ (the ‘eating meat sacrificed to idols’ dilemma).”
Chris:
no offense taken, but I will finish with this and it is not meant as an insult. But you are Blind and Poor. You read the Bible from the persepctive of an unregenerate Intellectual and as Jesus said:
“Our glorious Lord has concealed His truth from the wise and prudent, and He has revealed it unto babes – even His elect (Matthew 11:25-27).”
God scoffs at Intellectuals, and you want to know why? They trust too much on their own intellectual abilities,not that knowledge is bad but when you try to use it to pull yourself up to God, then you are relying on your own work and you cannot reach God in that way. Yes I would imagine that my words do seem strange to you. but I say Praise the Lord! for his words are forever true. A fool for God that is what I will forever be.
It is sad as you will never have the joy of truly understanding the word. You will forever search the word but you will not find God in the manner you have chosen. To actually say that Jesus took a Jewish Parable and changed the ending of it to use the parable is unbelievable. What you are basically saying is that Jesus was not God come in the Flesh, because if you did you would not have the arrogance to say that he borrowed parables and changed the endings to fit his use of the parable for effect. wha tyou have falied to see becuse you blind yourself is that the Jewish Sages and Rabbi’s right after Jesus was on the earth copied his parables not the other way around. you still cannot understand that you cannot rely on the writings of the Jews after the end of the Old Testament because they had went so far into legalism and corruption that they became blind to the Truth , and after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven the Jews went further in to legalism and intellectualism, reducing the TORAH, The Prophets and other writngs in the old testament to nothing more than allegorical myths.
This is my last post and I will pray for you, that whatever it takes, God will open your eyes. I do not dialogue I present the Truth and if somoene does not accept it I leave them to their selves. I can say I present the Truth because contrary to what you say from your perspective, the Bible has crystal clear clarity on the truth. and we do not need to become blind and search the writngs of those who truly missed it to try and find it.
Wow, John – I’m speechless. You have to deny historical record from the century before Jesus’ birth, recorded teachings of rabbis Hillel, Shammai and others just prior to Jesus’ ministry and a whole lot of other historical evidence contrarty to the view you just espoused. Check this out as a starting point.
(I decided to check in real quick before leaving for the weekend, and couldn’t help but give a brief response).
Wow. Ken – our discussion with you has been completely rational compared to what ‘John’ has just espoused in #28, above. I think this is an example of what Frank the centuri0n might classify as hyper-Calvinism (Frank, are you watching?). Suggesting that Jesus borrowed parables already in existence is not questioning His deity in any way, shape or form.
As for reading Jewish writings contemporary to Jesus and just prior to His coming is imporant in understanding the stage on which He spoke. You are coming from a seemingly arrogant standpoint, as summed up by Paul in Romans 11. Please remember that we gentiles have been grafted into the tree, we have not become the tree, and we definitely have not become the root. To deny the root and the tree to which we have been grafted is foolish.
As Moses wrote in the shema in Deutoronomy, and as Jesus re-emphasised , we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Anti-intellectualism denies this, and in doing so, denies this greatest of all commandments, as defined by Yeshua.
Grace & peace,
Chris
P.S. I am truly gone for the weekend now – see you Monday.
I have been unable to directly involved in the dialog due to being away at training this week, but I have been doing my best to keep up with the thread. I have a few comments I would like to say:
In all that has been said, and what I believe Ken (and others including myself) have been sincerely trying to say in criticism of Bell and emergent ideals, was best said by John in comment #19:
“True disciples are not concerned about how relevant they are. Because what is relevant to man is not relevant to God. True Disciples are not concerned about being Hip, Cool, accepted. they need no acceptance from man. Why should eternity need acceptance from the temporal?”
Thanks John, for those comments and for your clear defense of the truth.
I find that the major problem that leads to much of the confusion discussed here is the emergent hermeneutic of unclarity, and it comes from a faulty postmodern worldview. The emergent conversation began as a claimed attempt to “reach the postmodern culture.” But in doing that, they espouse the very worldview that that culture breaths. In doing so they error on many things.
When we read the Scriptures we do not get this bizarre confusion and unclarity from the Biblical writers. They write in a way that demonstrates that they expect it to be clear and understandable. For example, look at not only what Paul says, but the way that Paul talks in 1Thess 4:13-18 when he is encouraging believers about the coming of the Lord:
“Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep,…And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.”
He doesn’t want us to be ignorant because he wants us to understand the teaching in clarity and recognize it as truth. He concludes that believers should be encouraged “with these words.” For Paul, words are not liquid like they are for McLaren and other emergent leaders. They are clear and defined. As a popular talk show hosts said, “Words mean things.” For many emergents, they don’t mean things, clearly, and that is precisely what allows the postmodern ambiguous “interpretations” to be defended as legitimate views when they are contrary Biblical teachings.
In Eph 4:8 Paul says, “This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.”(What does “he ascended” mean…?” Notice Paul’s focus on what the Word says and what it means. He doesn’t defend a liquid interpretation. It reminds me of a statement John MacArthur said at the “Together For The Gospel Conference” back in April. He said that “the meaning of the Scripture IS the Scripture.” This is true and it is a worldview that is opposed to the emergent leaders and why they defend confusion and unclarity, while others defend Biblical truths as “true.”
Emergent defenders miss this point and like to take passages that are indeed hard to understand and interpret, in order to conclude that the Bible is hard to interpret altogether. So either no one can interpret it, or that everyone can anyway they want. This is just wrong and stems from a postmodern worldview. Just because some passages are hard, it doesn’t mean the whole thing is, nor that the author’s original intent can’t be discerned. Especially when it comes to the teachings of what is required for salivation. People quote things that are hard and unclear and debatable, and they may be right on those things. However when they conclude that since this thing is unclear then all of it is, or that some historical doctrine is now in question, they run headlong to the top of heresy mountain with a hang-glider.
Many critics of Ken grab on to his individual words and phrases and challenge him to make his overall point with each quote or each phrase. I see this in comments like “show me where X said…” or “you said this about X…” It is easy for us to get wrapped up in that, but I see Ken’s words as not trying to say “Rob Bell said X and that makes him a heretic!” as much as I see him warning the church of this errant hermeneutic, which if followed to its logical conclusion, will deceive and confuse many. He shows examples of areas where this is already happening, and those are good examples. But lets not get caught up in refuting all the examples and ignore his clear and true warning of what this postmodern hermeneutic of unclarity is truly doing to our culture, generation, and church.
Finally, I would like to say that many people in the emergent crowd seem to use the “all things to all people” phrase to endorse believers not just “hanging out with sinners” but condoning and endorsing sin. Jesus did the former but not the latter. To say that “all things to all people” means we are free to participate with sinners in their sin in order to reach them is errant thinking. Jesus “hung out with” sinners, like prostitutes, in order to tell them the truth, even if it went against their views and hurt their feelings. Jesus didn’t go into brothels and hire prostitutes and sleep with them in order to show them he empathized with them so he could reach them. This is much of the difference between the way the Christian life, walk, and evangelism is viewed by the emergents and by those who are defending Bible truths which are contrary to this thinking.
I tire of hearing the charge of “legalistic” and “Pharacitical” leveled at those who defend the Biblical position of Christians avoiding sin and preaching that we should be sanctified (”set apart”) for holiness. Sure we should not claim that we are “holier than thou,” but the Christian should be striving to avoid sin and grow in holiness. We should not be ignoring and participating in it to “be all things to all people.” That is simply a wrong view of Scripture and the Christian worldview and attitude. Consider these words of Paul from Eph 4 as he espouses clear teachings as the premise for his admonition for the Christian to be avoiding sin and growing in holiness:
“Don’t be an infant, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speak the truth in love, and in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the world does, in the futility of its thinking. It is darkened in its understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in it due to the hardening of its heart. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your mind; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully, for we are all members of one body.”
When Paul says that we should not be tossed around by false teaching and instead speak the truth, he implies that those teaching truths are discernable and knowable for the Christian, and that error should be rejected and not condoned. Rejection of false teaching and error, as well as rejection of sin, is a default for Paul, and it should be for us. If we refuse to reject and expose error and sin we go against the Word of God, and therefore, against God. Emergents who disagree with this should get off of the blogs and into the prayer closet, and ask the Holy Spirit to teach them the truth of this passage:
“For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God” 1 Thess 4:7-8
It is actually quite sad to witness the Truth of this passage beginning to show itself and the time we live in is no time to be in some spiritual playpen searching to prove what you already decided to believe:
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. (2 Timothy 3:5-7)
Dr. Walte Martin was right when he said in “The Annihilation of Hell” (thanks Tony!): “Today we see a spector rising in [the Cult of Liberal Theology] the greatest of all the cults: Universalism; Karl Barth taught it, neo-orthodoxy taught it.”
And the emerging Cult of the Hollow Men (see: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/08/emergent_church_24.html) now bow before Barth and their neo-liberalism “having a form of [our religion] but denying its power.” (Martin translation)
“Wow, John – I’m speechless. You have to deny historical record from the century before Jesus’ birth, recorded teachings of rabbis Hillel, Shammai and others just prior to Jesus’ ministry and a whole lot of other historical evidence contrarty to the view you just espoused. Check this out as a starting point.”
Chris: Ok I couldnt let this one pass. Hillel was almost contemporary with Jesus, and to try and extrapolate that Jesus took from his writing based on Brad Young’s book is ludicrous. I know Brad Young and have read his books. The mistake he makes is the one you make. He assumes the Jewish perspective as base and then tracks Jesus Parables back to the Jewish Rabbi’s, to understand Jesus from their perspective, and that is dangerous ground. Also there is no existing proof that the Judism in Jesus days (his ministry time) was anywhere close to 2nd and 1st century BC Judaism.
Hillel’s school operated even after the crucifixion of Jesus.
“Please remember that we gentiles have been grafted into the tree, we have not become the tree, and we definitely have not become the root. To deny the root and the tree to which we have been grafted is foolish.”
I never said that we had became the tree. We have been grafted into the tree, and I have not denied who the root is. The Root is the Jews. But the Jews that Paul is speaking of are the Jews who are the spiritual descendents of Abraham. Those Jews that live by faith.
I think you need to read Romans 4.
The Jews are Blessed because they were given the Law, which pointed to Christ. And many of the Jews will be grafted back into the Tree.
Abraham was counted Righteous before his circumcision based on his Faith in God. Circumcision was an outward sign of his inward Faith. Those Jews who live by an inward Faith and not the works of the law will be grafted back in.
As Paul said we as Christians are not to boast, because boasting could cause us to be broken off from the tree just as the Jews were.
And as Paul said as well the Jews are our enemy for the Gospels sake that is why it is dangerous ground to use the Jewish perspective to understand Jesus. it is not Hyper-Calvanism. it is Scriptural. From Paul!, but othe Jews are our friend for God’s sake because God loves them and made covenent with them and God’s covenents are forever.
“Anti-intellectualism denies this”
I never espoused anti-Intellectualism. You misinterpreted what I said. I said a certain type of Intellectualism is wrong, the type that tries to pick apart the Dvinity of Jesus.
I want to be clear I support the Jews 100% and Israel 100% . They are beloved of God, but we are to be skeptical of the writings of Jews who do not recognize Jesus for who he is. It can lead us astray. One must be carfeul of how far one tries to go in buring Jesus into Jewish tradition. Yes he was Jewish and observed the law, but he observed the spirit of the law. Not the Dead leaglaistic Traditions, of which Judaism of today is based on. the Pharisees were the dominant sect to survive after the destruciton of Jerusalam. And their Traditions became the norm for the post temple era up through today.
In the interest of fairness because John from Verum has decided to continue his misrepresentation of my teaching I share with you his response to this quote I used from Dr. Walter Martin:
Dr. Walter Martin was right when he said in The Annihilation of Hell: “Today we see a specter rising in [the Cult of Liberal Theology] the greatest of all the cults. It is the doctrine of universalism. Karl Barth taught it, neo-orthodoxy teaches it. It is the leaven of the Sadduccess and Pharisees..”
I present this as a glaring example of spiritual pride which isinherent in the evangelical camp of our Lord’s Church. Correcting me is one thing as I’m little more than pastor of a local church, but watch as John from Verum can’t even stop himself from correcting a noted scholar of the Bible:
Ken,
I’d be interested in seeing the rest of that quote. If W. Martin said universalism was the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he was taking great liberty with the text.
As I’ve already pointed out, Jesus was pretty specific about what his problems were with the teaching of the Pharisees (their leaven). It was not that they were universalists. Quite the opposite. The leaven of the Pharisees was their extremely rigid and false teaching which blocked the entrance to the kingdom by placing burdens on those wishing to enter. They were the opposite of universalists.
The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Something which Jesus castigated them for in one of your favorite verses:
You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God
(And please note that no one to whom you have quoted this verse holds the view of the Sadducees regarding the Resurrection. You have taken it out of context and levelled it at fellow believers.)
Aside from that, the Sadducees like the Pharisees were also extremely strict legalsits who refused to accept anything but the Torah as scripture. They interepreted the Torah literally and legalistically, and were known for their strict application of the letter of the law in criminal matters, i.e. “an eye for an eye.”
So, again, if you quoted Martin correctly, he was taking liberties with the text. The leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees is not a blank space in which we can fill in whatever error we wish to condemn. Jesus was clear about the error of the Sadducees and Pharisees. A significant part of that error was legalism and overly narrow views of scripture. They were the polar opposite of universalists.
(http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529#comment-3058)
Here was my response:
John,
Are you really so spiritually obtuse that you cannot recognize a spiritual metaphor when you see it? Really John, your dialogue with me has been a pretty clear example of one who reads the Bible making the error of “the letter of the Law” which would be why someone like me attempts to show you that this is exactly what the Pharisees were doing.
I’ve tried to be nice about it hoping you’d finally see it on your own but this is now getting out of hand. You will presume to correct a world renouned authority on cults, and a seminary professor with a doctorate in ancient Church history? In me, a little ol’ high school graduate with tiny house church of 4-5 people (O look how I “puff” myself up) is one thing, but you don’t see your spiritual insolence now?
Dr. Walter Martin, the original “Bible Answer Man,” is saying that opening the door to a little universalism is like placing a little “leaven” into the evangelical community which will spread throughout and corrupt it (this is now quite obvious) just as “the leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees” (who held differing but faulty views) slowly spread through Judaism corrupting it.
Jesus is teaching an inalterable and timeless spiritual truth: When one compromises even slightly on Biblical doctrine, he will continue to drift until he becomes completely corrupt. You and men like Rob Bell would do well to listen to someone like Dr. Walter Martin and cease with your straining at gnats to simply pick apart what everyone says. I for one will be in prayer this afternoon that you will do just that. (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529#comment-3059)
galatiansc4v16,
Your comments are quite thoughtful. I think I agree with the principles by which you argue and I certainly agree with much of the good that you seek to defend. My problem is not with the principles but with some of the specific applications. If you would allow me to point out a few areas where I see things differently, I hope we might even find some further agreement.
First, you said that there is an emergent hermeneutic of “unclarity.” There is a difference between unclarity in particular things and unclarity in a system based on those particulars. For instance, in this thread I pointed out that Ken seemed to have a Calvinist inclination (having posted a bunch of verses on my site claiming no one can seek God, a very anti-Arminian sentiment). However, in a comment just above he acknowledges that according to Jesus we can indeed seek God.
My point is that there is no disagreement about the clarity of what was said. Pauls says God calls us and predestines us. Jesus says we should seek God and that God rewards those who do so. Paul (in Acts 17) also says God wants us to seek him. We are clear about what was said and even about what the particulars mean. However, when we try to fit the pieces together, we find that the picture is more complex.
There is (as emergents often say) a tension between two apparently opposing statements. This uncertainty is not — at least in my case — a statement of a post modern view of truth. I am not saying words have no clear meaning. I am saying that the clear meaning of words in this case seems to lead me to a kind of paradox. God calls before time begins and yet Jesus says man should seek God. It is only because we have clarity on the particulars that the big picture becomes less clear.
If I could point out a similar area of “unclarity.” The Bible refers to “the Spirit of Christ.” The Bible refers to Jesus as “I am.” And so on. From the very earliest days of the church, it was accepted that Jesus was God and yet it took almost 400 years for us to come up with the proper language to express what was present in scripture: God is three in one: the trinity. The problem was not that the text was unclear. The text is very clear in the particular. The problem is that His thoughts are not our thoughts. As far as the heavens are above the earth so are his ways above our ways. We struggled to fit the particulars into a system that makes sense to us.
I’ve listened extensively to Rob Bell and read his book. I am convinced he is not trying to suggest that we can not know the truth, particularly the truth about God in the Bible. On the contrary, he is trying to acknowledge that our own limitations may be the problem in understanding God’s revelation fully. And that is not to say we should abandon the effort, only that we should approach the task with the appropriate humility since — in central areas of our faith such as the trinity or the nature of Christ’s being — we find concepts that are simply alien to our simple experience (”triune God” and “dual nature” in this case). The same may one day be said with respect to Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Indeed this is precisely what Rob Bell suggested in his recent Everything is Spiritual talk.
There are many things in scripture that are clear, i.e. Jesus is God and what is required for salvation. There are also many things which require deep thought to grasp (God is three and yet one) and there are still some things which we struggle to grasp fully (pre-destination and free will). I believe there is a healthy uncertainty in these cases that reflects our proper position before God’s infinite superiority. This will not apply to everything ever said by every “emergent” pastor, but I do think it addresses a common criticism and misunderstanding of a portion of what they say. Certainly I think it explains much of Rob Bell’s outlook.
On the topic of Ken and his ministry you wrote:
If that were true, I wouldn’t have such an issue with Ken’s approach (I would but a much smaller one). In truth, Ken has indeed taken passages and proclaimed Rob Bell (and others) heretics, vipers, tools of Satan, spiritual pedophiles, etc. If Ken were issuing a warning, that would be one thing. He has gone far beyond that to issuing outright condemnation and even a declaration of war. This is irresponsible.
In order to make these kind of judgments, Ken continually minimizes or outright ignores the fruit being produced in chruches like Saddleback, which has baptized more than 15,000 new believers since 1980. Given that Jesus specifically told us to judge the fruit, I think all of Ken’s criticism should be weighed against the fruit on the other side of the scale. No doubt there are individual acts that may be questionable or simply silly, but the fruit is real and it is impressive. We have no Biblical grounds to ignore it.
Finally, I agree with what you said here:
We should avoid sin, but in my opinion much of what the Slice authors decry (not all but much) is not really sin but a reflection of their own personal style biases. For instance, Ken has written three times that Rob Bell likes punk music, as if that proved something in itself. Many if not most of us under a certain age have enjoyed “Rock the Casbah” or “Rock and Roll High School.” Enjoying this type of music is not necessarily a sign of a sinful life. On the contrary, this is a matter of personal taste, a “meat sacrificed to idols” issue. There’s a lot more to say about this issue as it relates to Slice authors. In fact, I have said a lot more about it here.
There’s some truth in that, there is a difference between exposing cultic error and slandering other brothers and sisters. Even if we assume everything Ken says about the EC is correct, there is no call for his method unless you truly believe these men have never been saved. Ken is willing to go that far, despite mountains of evidence (fruit) to the contrary. Unless Ken is willing to prove Rob Bell and others are unregenerate heretics, Gal 6:1 applies:
I don’t think anyone can read Slice or Ken’s blog and suggest that he is correcting Rob Bell, Rick Warren or others gently. He treats them as unbelieving cult leaders. He is wrong to do so.
Hello all,
I have read some of the comments on here and commented myself a few times since yesterday. I really didn’t know anything about Rob Bell and had not checked into the “red flags” I have seen posted on other sites. The main reason is that I have been investigating another apostacy that has been trying to creep into the corner of our church. So I don’t know much about Bell. I have seen some statements made by Bell that were red flags to me as I started to research him late last night. I will do more research before commenting on him.
John,
I have done pretty extensive research on Rick Warren and I can say he is beging used by Lucifer to usher in the New Age of the Anti-Christ. You said:
“In order to make these kind of judgments, Ken continually minimizes or outright ignores the fruit being produced in chruches like Saddleback, which has baptized more than 15,000 new believers since 1980. Given that Jesus specifically told us to judge the fruit, I think all of Ken’s criticism should be weighed against the fruit on the other side of the scale. No doubt there are individual acts that may be questionable or simply silly, but the fruit is real and it is impressive. We have no Biblical grounds to ignore it.”
Putting seats in a church folding chair does not equate fruit. Please check out the parable of the sower. When tribulation comes, we will know if these souls are fruit or not. Remember that wheat and tares grow side by side.
Aside from this, Rick Warren has said one too many things that lead me to believe he is false. Also, Rick Warren is friends with too many new agers and demon channelers. He isn’t just friends with them, he quotes them in his books, shares platforms with them, they promote his books etc. He is one of the wolves in sheeps clothing that is ravenous on the inside. I have spent many many many hours researching him. Before you ask me to give you quotes, examples, etc., which by the way I can, do your own research. I think you will find some astonishing quotes and even some from people who are trying to be complimentary to his “ministry”. Remember we are not supposed to lean on man. We are ultimately always to give God glory and look to him for Truth. We don’t ever want to support a man, and be in error of not supporting the Truth. We can’t really trust any man completely. Even a trusted pastor can be wrong in one area or statement, he is after all just a man. Nothing is Truth but Gods’ Word. That is why we must always be correcting with Scripture. Where Rick Warren is concerned, he has been contacted and corrected by many but either does not respond, definately does not correct his own wrong stances, and when he has replied back to a list of errors, addressed the least of the errors only to say he was correct. He quotes a demon channeler in Purpose Driven Life as a positive example. Whose friend do you think he is?
P.S.
If the number of converts equals a successful ministry, instead of the Truth of Gods Word equaling a successufl ministry, then Noah and Jeremiah were real failures.
Also, the path and the gate are “narrow” so when I see 400,000 people worldwide and now a Global PEACE PLAN in place through this “ministry” I see LUCIFER. You should check out the U.N.’s official prayer and who the writer was. If you read a couple of her goals, I think you will see that Rick Warrens PEACE PLAN and ties to the U.N. are pieces of a puzzle that are comming together. Rick Warren is friends with or quotes people who quote Lucifer worshippers. This is a fact. You will see who I am talking about if you take the time to research. Just research who he quotes in his books. Then see what they believe or who they say they love and who they quote. Look them all up. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
In the interest of fairness, here was my response to Ken’s response:
Just to clarify, I do know what a metaphor is. Based on the brief quotation Ken left [quoting Dr. Martin], I don’t think it’s clear whether it was meant as a metaphor or not. The rest of the sentences are straightforward and declarative and clearly meant to be taken literally. That’s exactly why I said I’d like to see the whole quote.
But even if it is a metaphor, I still think it’s worth pointing out that in reality the leaven of the pharisees was, in large part, the direct opposite of what Martin was condemning here, i.e. universalism. If it’s a metaphor, I think it’s a poorly chosen one.
And I can’t let it pass. After saying this to me:
Ken is now outraged that I would question Dr. Martin:
For the record, Ken, here’s the CV of the guy you dismissed as a man of “empty scolarship” [N.T. Wright]:
Once again, Ken has two standards. One for himself and a very different one for others. At a certain point the word “hypocrisy” attaches to people like that.
John Said:
“My point is that there is no disagreement about the clarity of what was said. Pauls says God calls us and predestines us. Jesus says we should seek God and that God rewards those who do so. Paul (in Acts 17) also says God wants us to seek him. We are clear about what was said and even about what the particulars mean. However, when we try to fit the pieces together, we find that the picture is more complex”.
I say:
No the picture is not Complex at all if you read the Bible as a Holistic God inspired document and listen to how God describes himself as opposed to how man is:
God describes himself as: I AM. He describes himself as not bound by time. That means he is outside time. Since he is outside time he sees all of history as a now. Fallen man on the other hand lives within space-time. His existence is bound by past, present and future. When you read the Bible and listen to the Words of Jesus he is speaking from the perspective of Eternity (Timeless, everything is in the now). Paul is speaking from the perspective of linear Space-Time. God has foreknowledge of all of history because all of history is within linear space-time. Since God sees all of history as a now, he can see the end at the same time as the beginning or even before. This incidentally has been proven via science. Light Photons were placed in a chamber at near absolute zero. And the Photon was fired at a specific destination at the other end of the chamber. Physicists were stunned to find that the Photon arrived at its destination before it left its origin. So this clears up the problem of Predestination and Free Choice. Since God sees the end he knows who will run the race and complete it at t= 0 (if you don’t know what t= 0 is look it up) Paul on the other hand is, remember, speaking within linear space time. And from Man’s perspective and which is true within linear space-time we do have a free choice to choose God and even seek him as seeking and choosing are valid space-time activities. So there is no Paradox and no Tension.
John said:
“There is (as emergents often say) a tension between two apparently opposing statements. This uncertainty is not — at least in my case — a statement of a post modern view of truth. I am not saying words have no clear meaning. I am saying that the clear meaning of words in this case seems to lead me to a kind of paradox. God calls before time begins and yet Jesus says man should seek God. It is only because we have clarity on the particulars that the big picture becomes less clear.
If I could point out a similar area of “unclarity.” The Bible refers to “the Spirit of Christ.” The Bible refers to Jesus as “I am.” And so on. From the very earliest days of the church, it was accepted that Jesus was God and yet it took almost 400 years for us to come up with the proper language to express what was present in scripture: God is three in one: the trinity. The problem was not that the text was unclear. The text is very clear in the particular. The problem is that His thoughts are not our thoughts. As far as the heavens are above the earth so are his ways above our ways. We struggled to fit the particulars into a system that makes sense to us.”
I say:
Again you are creating unclarity where there is none. The reason it took 400 years to come up with the proper language was at first it was not needed, but as Heresies began to crop up with aberrant teachings it became necessary to define a proper fixed terminology and language to describe Jesus and his relationship to God. As far as God’s thoughts not being our thoughts I think I cleared that up as well in describing the nature of God and that would classify to most people as God’s way being so much higher than ours.
John said:
“There are many things in scripture that are clear, i.e. Jesus is God and what is required for salvation. There are also many things which require deep thought to grasp (God is three and yet one) and there are still some things which we struggle to grasp fully (pre-destination and free will). I believe there is a healthy uncertainty in these cases that reflects our proper position before God’s infinite superiority. This will not apply to everything ever said by every “emergent” pastor, but I do think it addresses a common criticism and misunderstanding of a portion of what they say. Certainly I think it explains much of Rob Bell’s outlook.”
I say:
Again no uncertainty if you read what I wrote above about Predestination and Free-will.. The problem is again, Intellectual man becomes arrogant and proud, and he in many ways treats everything including God’s word as something to do mental gymnastics with. a sort of self-adulation of intellectual ability. And this is what God scoffs at.
What you and other Post-Moderns do is come into the reading of the Bible with a Subjective viewpoint of Uncertainty and unclarity and whne you do this you look at what seems to be Paradox and call it thus, and what seem sto be Tension, you call it thus. And your posts are shot through with such language.
Galatiansc4v16,
Unless you study the articles on Verum Serum relating to Ken Silva, and look at the articles and responses on SLICE beginning with Take off the Gloves and following, you will not be able to understand all the undercurrents of this dialogue.
Just a thought. Do with it as you would like.
I forgot one thing:
John said:
“If I could point out a similar area of “unclarity.” The Bible refers to “the Spirit of Christ.” The Bible refers to Jesus as “I am.” ”
I say:
No paradox here. Have you ever heard of Super String Theory? Super String theory Allows for up to 11 dimensions. Our current fallen existance has four dimensions: Height, width , length, and time.
Read: “Hyperspace” by Michio Kaku
He explains how Super String Theory validates Jesus in his resurrected body being able to walk through a door and still have a Physical body, Him being able to ascend in to Heaven. And he explains how Spiritaul beings in higher dimensions could see all aspects of our four dimensional space-time existance because it would be a sub-set of their existance. He also confirms what Paul says about a cloud of witnesses being all around us. As Higher dimensional beings could be all around us without us knowning it. It confirms the truth of the bible for the existance of Angels, Demons, etc etc.
But unforntunatley man chooses to ignore these findings or even though it confirms the clear writings of the Bible, to still deny God and try to come up with alternative explanations.
John,
How in the world can you condemn people who think hard and deep about the struggles they have melding their heart with their brain in the area of faith, telling them that they are over-intellectualizing:
“The problem is again, Intellectual man becomes arrogant and proud, and he in many ways treats everything including God’s word as something to do mental gymnastics with. a sort of self-adulation of intellectual ability. And this is what God scoffs at.”
and:
“But you are Blind and Poor. You read the Bible from the persepctive of an unregenerate Intellectual”
Then you turn around and start talking about the ideas of string theory, dimensional space-time existence, light photons and t=0. You can not have it both ways. And the condemnation of other humans’ thoughts and ponderings, and treating them as inferior — Nothing arrogant about that!
John (the not VS one),
As it happens I’m familiar with all of the scientific theories you mentioned. To pursue this interest I have enrolled in Biola’s Masters in Science and Religion program.
I would actually agree with you, at least in a general way, about most of what you said. I do believe science, for instance, can complement our understanding of scripture, in that we find some of the same paradoxes operating in the physical universe as are described in the Bible. To say that it is not “complex” is I think quite an overstatement. Einstein struggled to accept quantum theory. I don’t think we should expect anyone to grasp it as simplicity itself.
As Suzanne said, I think you are trying to have it both ways. On can not say that quantum experiments done in the last 10 years reveal the simplicity of scripture that has existed for thousands and simultaneously decry “over-intellectualizing” of faith.
For myself, as I say, I don’t think the two are ultimately in conflict. Both science and theology can be as simple as looking at a flower or as complex as sequencing a genome. Christianity is available to children and yet deep enough for the greatest intellects to struggle to tread water.
I think we could have some interesting conversations about these things. We have more in common (including the name) that not.
For the two Johns,
)
This is really off topic, but I’ll risk it anyway – -
I remember puzzling over something I read in a physics book one time – the the cat in the box problem – the cat that is alive yet dead – am I remembering this right or not? I wonder if either of you could explain this (if you know what I’m talking about
Suzanne said:
Then you turn around and start talking about the ideas of string theory, dimensional space-time existence, light photons and t=0. You can not have it both ways. And the condemnation of other humans’ thoughts and ponderings, and treating them as inferior — Nothing arrogant about that!
I say:
Its not having it both ways. Again you also have misinterpreted what I said about intellectualism. So I will repeat the intended meaning:
Presenting Scientific facts which are absolute and which underpin our existance is not over-intellectualizing. Over-Intellectualizing is the act of using your intellect to doubt absolute and simple truths, and to attempt to make them into a Gnosis, or a Secret knowledge not readily available to anyone who does not utilize a type of intellectual method. and this is a key point in this thread and one which Chris is trying to say you need to use to understand the Bible.
God did not inspire the writers of the Bible to make it difficult and full of Dark Sayings. He inspired it so anyone could understand it. Chris and others want to make it seem that a person must become a scholar of Cultures past and present in order to illuminate the word.
It needs no outside assistance it illuminates itself.
Basic Human Traits do not change when a culture changes. The man of a thousand, two thousand years ago is the same as a man of today at his very core. And this is why the Bible does not need to be reinterpreted for each new culture.
But what does happen is each new culture that comes into contact with the Bible is scorched by its obvious truth so they attempt to lessen the impact of its fundamental truths by adding all kinds of Cultural clauses to it. Just as the ancient Isrealites asked Moses to cover his face to hide the brightness of his countenance after meeting with God and receiving the Law on Mount Sinai, so cultures shroud the Bible to lessen its brightness.
John,
Thanks for your cordial discussion and kind words towards our disagreements. I have to agree with the other John though, that you are creating uncertainty where it is unnecessary. It appears to me even, that at times, the purpose is to be unclear rather than striving to find the clear. I mean that as an honest criticism and not inflammatory, please receive it as such.
For example, many of the “paradoxes” you seem to see, are only “paradoxes” to you and other emergent sympathetics. Yes the Bible does say that “none seek after God,” while it also discusses those who “are seeking God.” This may appear to be a paradox that allows those in the fringes of both sides of the argument between Calvinism and Arminianism to have legitimate points. Emergents look at that and cry “Unclear! We can’t know! We are too humble to know!” rather than doing the hermeneutical work to find the answer. Both teachings are Biblical and true however. There ARE none that seek after God. All have gone astray, and without God intervening that is where each of us will stay. However, once God intervenes into the lives of those He calls, then, and only then, are there some which NOW seek His face. When the Bible talks of “none seeking” and “those who seek” it isn’t contradicting or paradoxical, it is simply speaking to individuals who are on opposite sides of “being called.” Those God has called and intervened with, seek him. Those who He hasn’t (or hasn’t yet), don’t. You see the answer to the “paradox” is in the understanding and seeking the truth and additional information needed to gain understanding. The answer is not in questioning our know-ability and forfeiting the effort in resolving the apparent conflict. I don’t find this a complex picture or a reason to claim we can’t know the meaning of the words, or the clear teaching.
I would also call into question the 400 years theory of deciding on doctrines that you espouse. This sounds very “Dan Brown” and “Da Vinci Code…gnostic gospel” type of teaching. This is just historically not true. The doctrines were very clear in the first century and we have the same text the early church had. No one ever questioned the doctrines and the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, or the church. When heresies later developed, councils were formed to codify those teachings and doctrines into creeds and formats so that Christians would not be confused by the heretics. The councils were not the invention or deciding of the truths. I don’t intended to be offensive or question your understanding, but I think some NT textual criticism and some early church history studies would help your understanding in that (not from higher critics or liberal theologians either). Much of Dr. Martin’s work is good in this area. Also, the work of John Warwick Montgomery is very good as well.
Lastly, you said,
“In order to make these kind of judgments, Ken continually minimizes or outright ignores the fruit being produced in churches like Saddleback, which has baptized more than 15,000 new believers since 1980. Given that Jesus specifically told us to judge the fruit, I think all of Ken’s criticism should be weighed against the fruit on the other side of the scale.”
You seem to define “fruit” by the number of baptized new believers. This is not Biblical and I reject that numbers are a legitimate way to measure “fruit.” “Fruit” should instead be judged by the perseverance of growing in holiness, obedience to the Word, and sticking to the sound doctrines of the faith taught by the apostles.
I also notice something here that you might want to consider. You might even recognize it as a legitimate “paradox” ! You condemn Ken for denouncing that certain leaders are not believers because of their teachings, but then you turn around and pronounce that 15,000 ARE indeed believers. The truth is, you have no more way to judge for sure that those 15,000 ARE believers than Ken does to judge that they ARE NOT believers. None of us know for sure. But what you are missing, and maybe Ken hasn’t gotten it across to you, is that he is not judging the leader’s eternal condition, but rather, what they say they believe.
If Brian McLaren or Robert Schuler says and teaches that universalism is true, then they are not believers because they reject the true gospel. That is not judging their eternal condition unfairly, or condemning a “brother in Christ,” that is just recognizing what they say they believe. That is NOT the gospel and if they believe that they are not believers. And what is worse, is that those they “evangelize” to believe that “other gospel” also can’t be saved because they have believed a false gospel.
If Rick Warren writes a book and millions buy it, and in that book he defines a gospel that involves “purpose” instead of dying-to-self, repentance, and faith in the one mediator, then he can’t be saved himself if that is the gospel he believes. Again, what’s worse is that the millions who read that book and think that is the Christian gospel are deceived into thinking they are saved, when they are not. They become inoculated to the true gospel because they are “already Christians” in their own eyes. This is very dangerous and is the reason why those of us speak out against these teachers who are at best confusing people, and at worse, inoculating them from the truth.
Some people will read those words and scream “that’s judgmental…you can’t condemn them to hell like that!” Well, I am not doing the judging, I am just proclaiming what the Scriptures say is true. If someone tells me, “This is what I believe is true,” and then they go on to tell me that the gospel is something other than what it really is, then they are not a believer, and those they “evangelize” are not believers because they do not understand the true gospel.
One must comprehend the gospel (in truth) before they can accept it. That is why clarity is important, and the exaltation of uncertainty is of the devil. I say that not meaning to be shocking or inflammatory. I mean that in all doctrinal seriousness. Any “gospel” that purports to be “the gospel” and isn’t, is of the devil and is evil. Paul said that those who teach it are under the eternal condemnation of God (Gal 1:6-8). It is something we should take very seriously when leaders and movements claim the name of Christ and equivocate on what is “the gospel.” True Christians should be “pricked in the Spirit” when that happens. They should not defend those who do the equivocating, but should call them to task on their teachings.
Your admonition to Ken on Gal 6:1 also does not relate to a 1:1 Scriptural scenario either. These men he is calling out are teaching publicly. Paul never refrained from issuing public warnings about those who teach error publicly. If these men were teaching in his local church Gal 6:1 would apply more appropriately. When the error is introduced by the millions, a public expose is not unbiblical, but necessary.
In closing, I am just not going to get into a debate with you about “much of what the Slice writers write” and so on. I agree with much of what they write. I will concede that at times they may, as we all do, including you, let our zeal overtake our words. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to zeal, and look to see if what they say is true. I believe more times than not, it is true, even if you or I disagree with the zeal of writing style. I’ve been guilty of that myself, so I can’t condemn someone for being overzealous. I thank God that there are still those willing to stand up and expose error and defend truth, even if it costs reputation. I am not condoning extra zealous words of anyone, but I am saying, “listen to what they are saying and don’t get caught up in the zeal.” They have some very legitimate points to which you are missing because you are wrapped up in questioning motives and tactics. Dr. Martin was often untactful, but he was very truthful. Take the truth they speak, and “bear with one another” on the zeal if you don’t appreciate the style. Remember, they are your brothers in Christ too.
Peace,
tr
TR,
My purpose is to be clear where clarity is warranted and to allow for differing views where that is warranted. For instance:
This is essentially a piece of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. Your view happens to line up more with Calvin than Arminius. That’s fine. However, it is not the only view one can reasonably arrive at from the available evidence. There are plenty of theologians (not to mention bloggers) on both sides who would take issue with what you’ve stated. It is just not that simple.
Nevertheless, we are both saved by the same Lord. We both believe the Gospel and accept it. I don’t think I’m wrong, otherwise I wouldn’t hold the views I do, but I recognize that I could possibly be. I don’t feel uncertain, but neither do you. Should we accuse each other of heresy? I hope not.
Another case in point. There are at least four major views of eschatology and many minor variations. Personally I am a partial preterist (the view held by the current Bible answer man!). I feel very confident in my view on this topic. Yet I recognize that very bright men have studied the subject and come to very differient conclusions. Both RC Sproul and Tim LaHaye are quite confident that they have “done the hard work” and come up with the right answer. But the answers they’ve come up with are very different. So again, when you say this:
I think you are oversimplifying and ignoring the obvious disagreements that take place over these issues (among Christian men) on both sides. Where I would agree with you completely is that few of these issues have a bearing on salvation. The Gospel — the truth one actually needs to accept to be saved — is remarkably simple and clear: Jesus was born of a virgin, he died and rose again on the third day and was seen by many witnesses. These are the things that Paul said were of “first importance” in 1 Cor. 15. The thief on the cross is a good example of this simplicity. Clearly he didn’t even know of the resurrection. He simply had faith that Jesus could save him if he cried out for help. That seems to have been enough. So when you say:
I agree. But the issues we are talking about — that I was talking about at least — are not part of the simple Gospel. One does not need to hold a certain view on Calvinism in order to be saved. One does not need to hold a pre-trib or amillenial view of eschatology to be baptized. The issues we’re describing as areas of uncertainty are not those of “first importance.”
Because salvation is based on the simple areas of first importance, I think both you and Ken go too far in accusing someone like Rick Warren of preaching a false Gospel. The statement of faith is on his website is perfectly orthodox. There is no “other Gospel” involved.. What Ken and others are reacting to are style issues not Gospel issues. You reject Warren casting the Gospel in terms of purpose. But there are purpose statements in the Sermon on the Mount.
For that matter, Bill Bright did the same when he wrote the four spiritual laws, which begin “God has a wonderful plan for your life.” Millions of copies of that tract were published around the world, far more than the number of copies of Purpose Driven Life. Was Bill Bright preaching another Gospel? I don’t think you’d find many takers on that one.
Not of those outside the faith…the Judaizers, the Gnostics. However when Paul had a disagreement with Peter over circumcision, he went and met with him. They sat down and came to an agreement in a private setting. Paul never accused Peter of being a “tool of Satan” as Ken has done with regard to Rob Bell.
The “400 years” may sound Dan Brownish but it actually comes from my professor of Historical Theology, Dr. Gomes. Dr. Gomes is as orthodox as you can get, yet he recognizes that our language and in fact the canon itself developed over time through the actions of faithful men who sought the truth. These things seem certain to us now, but at the time there was real disagreement. For instance, The Didache — which is an orthodox document of the 1st century church — was considered canonical by some. I believe God worked in this process to preserve the truth, as do you, but we still can not overlook the process that did take place. God worked through people over time, as he always has. As Dr. Gomes says, we take for granted ideas that took a long time to develop.
Finally, with regard to Slice:
Looking to see if what they said was true is how I got involved in this. Ken wrote a post damning Rob Bell for a single paragraph taken from a 3 year old interview. I pointed out that Ken had misunderstood the statement in question. (In keeping with what I wrote above, let me be clear: This was a simple matter of a single paragraph. The particulars were clear. There was no question of synthesizing complex ideas into a single position. It was a plain statement with a meaning which was not all that hard to discover.) I pointed this out to Ken in a respectful way.
Ken went on his merry way. In fact, he revised and expanded his attack without correcting his previous mistake. He even took a bit of a comment left by a reader on my blog and added that to his assault on Rob Bell. And once again, it was clear Ken was taking the words out of context. I contacted the writer of the comment and he clarified in an e-mail that Ken was indeed twisting his words into an attack he himself didn’t believe. I’m not saying this is true of every post at Slice, but in my experience there is often a great deal of zeal being presented with little or no truth at the center of it.
Amy Said:
For the two Johns,
This is really off topic, but I’ll risk it anyway – -
I remember puzzling over something I read in a physics book one time – the the cat in the box problem – the cat that is alive yet dead – am I remembering this right or not? I wonder if either of you could explain this (if you know what I’m talking about
I say:
It was called Schroedingers Cat. Erwin Schroedringer deviced a theoretical experiment where a cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, and the geiger-counter detects an alpha particle, a hammer hits a flask of prussic acid killing the cat. The pereived paradox comes from the theoretical coupling of the Schroedingers perception of qunatum mechanics and the classical sciences. To whit he says: Before the observer opens the box, the cat’s fate is tied to the wave funciton of the atomm which is itself in superposition of decayed and undecayed states. Thus said Schroedinger, the cat must itself be in a superposition of dead and alive states before the observer opens the box.
In Schroedingers words: Opening the box and observing the cat collapses its wave function, and the cat is no longer in an inbetween state.
Amy & John (VS) I will leave it to you to see if you can find the reason this does not apply to God and understanding the bible and why the perceived uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics should never be a basis for saying that all men should now rely on uncertainty in viewing and interpreting things.
To John (VS)
John said:
Einstein struggled to accept quantum theory. I don’t think we should expect anyone to grasp it as simplicity itself.
I say:
Einstein struggled because he did not believe in an active and alive God. Einstein thought God was the Math and that God was an impersonal force. He also blelieved quite arrogantly as most men do that God must explaim himself via science and that if man could not explain God fully via science then God did not exist. Wha tyou have otunderstand is that when you come into even science with a subjective viewpoint you dtermine the outcome. and this has been proven.
Dont get me wrong Einstein had a brillliant mind and I dont discount his contribution to science.
John,
I never suggested that the uncertainty principle did apply to God or scripture. I don’t think it does.
John,
It is not my desire to turn this dialog into a debate over Calvinism or end-times theory, as we both agree that these are not essentials to salvation. You will see that I agree with you on these in theory and practice by looking over my blog. Specifically, if you go to my “Audio,” “Articles,” and “Apologetics” tabs at the top you will see that I share respect for men of God who hold to different views on many non-essentials.
If you are an Arminian, then I think you are wrong, but I do not think that equates to your being lost. I’m fairly sure you won’t find me saying that anywhere. I am pretty familiar with the debate, and I understand how the Arminian view is derived from Scripture. I grew up a Methodist and now am not, so as you can imagine, I’ve been there and done that.
I do believe however, that the totality of Scripture, in context, better supports the Calvinist’s view of election and predestination (not hyper-Calvinism though).
As far as the end-times goes, I have a view, but I think it is extremely unimportant. We all believe Jesus will return. Amen. Certainly we are in agreement over freedom to disagree on such issues. I am not “oversimplifying and ignoring the obvious disagreements that take place over these issues,” I just think that they are really unimportant to debate. As Walter Martin puts it, “People are dying and going to hell in a hand basket while we’re arguing about NUTTIN’!” I have positions, I think they are Biblical, you don’t. I still love you even though I think you are wrong. We’ll sort it all out when we get to heaven ok?
I don’t think these differences separate us.
But we must discuss “the gospel” further. We seem to be in agreement over the importance of what the gospel is, but in disagreement over what it actually is. I think any message, whether it is from Bill Bright or Rick Warren, that starts with “God has a wonderful plan for your life” does not help the sinner see his need for a Savior. I am not questioning the motives of these men, just comparing their message to Scripture as commanded. As Ray Comfort puts it, “we don’t use the fruits of salvation as draw-cards.” “The patient doesn’t understand the need for the cure until he first understands that he has the disease.” If we entice people to “come” to have their felt-needs filled we are changing the gospel to something that is not Biblical. I believe that Rick Warren does this in overdrive. I don’t think you will find a clear explanation of the gospel from Warren’s material, which explains that each of us is helplessly lost in sin and that we must repent of those sins. I also think Warren does the sinner a disservice by presenting Jesus as the big-hugger-in-the-sky rather than “God who became man, and lived the perfect life that we could not, and then died in our place to pay the fine that God required for our sin.” This is not lingo you find in the writings of these men. If the sinner accepts a gospel that is one of self-esteem or purpose, and does not include an understanding of their depravity, what God has done for us, and what repentance is, they can’t be saved. It is that simple.
If you ask those 15,000 “Warren-ites” you mentioned, to explain the gospel and why they are a Christian, most can’t. I know because I ask! I find more witness opportunity with those who claim to be Christian that those who don’t. Most “Christians” and churchgoers WANT to be saved, they just don’t seem to know how. They say, “I have a God-shaped hole in my heart that only God can fill and I asked Jesus into my heart and God loves me.” They have no clue of sin, repentance, and righteousness. No clue of the holiness of God and unholiness of man, and what that means. “I asked Jesus into my heart at 7 years old because I wanted to see my granny in heaven” does not make one a Christian. People who preach this “false gospel” are not only creating converts to a false Christianity, they are making people think they are saved when they aren’t. I think there are many on the Christian landscape today that are doing exactly this.
9 Marks Ministry has a neat forum on the Emerging Church and they quote several pastors on the subject. I think the quote from Mark Driscoll in this forum says a good balance of what we have seen on the blogs recently:
Pastor’s and Theologian’s Forum on the Emerging Church
http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598016|CIID2249672,00.html
A good friend of mine and noted missiologist named Dr. Ed Stetzer has rightly said that the gospel of Jesus Christ must be both contended for (Jude 3) and contextualized (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
Relatedly, the hottest theologies today are reformed and emerging. Reformed folks have a legacy of being great defenders of biblical truth, while also being less skilled at contextualizing the gospel for various cultural groups in America. The result is sometimes an irrelevant orthodoxy. Emerging folks are skilled at contextualizing the gospel but often woefully weak at contending for the timeless truths of sound doctrine. The result is sometimes a relevant heterodoxy.
My hope is that what emerges is a blessing of both teams, so that contenders for the gospel become better at evangelism, and contextualizers of the gospel walk away from some of the heretical doctrines (e.g. denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, hell, and male pastors) they are considering by returning to Scripture and the legacy of faithful teachers who have guided the church in previous generations. In short, I hope for an uprising of cool Calvinists who can preach the Bible, teach the truth, fight the heretics, plant churches, evangelize the lost, comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable, and compel men to be manly.
9 Marks also has a good article called: An Emerging Church Primer
http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598016|CIID2249226,00.html
To demontrate what Ken has been trying to say about where the errors of the emergents are going, I would like to bring to the attention another well done article by 9 Marks called: The Emerging Consequences of Whose Ideas?
In this article they show a conglomeration of materials recently used on Emergent blogs and the theologies of those authors. We have seen some here. A brief synopsis of what I am talking about is below, but see the entire article for yourself:
http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598016|CIID2249680,00.html
…But where are these Emergent guys getting this stuff? Where do their ideas come from? It’s worth peeking into the Emergent classrooms to find out. A number of these popular level writers claim to eschew “doctrine.” But you cannot not have doctrine. The eschewal of doctrine is a doctrine, and it rests on certain presuppositions. Whose? What professors are teaching their classes? What books are they dutifully reading?
Until recently, emergentvillage.com, one of the primary Emergent websites for networking and discussion, offered the following list of recommended “theology” books and authors (listed here in its entirety). Scroll down further, and you will find a brief summary on each author. The jargon might get a little technical. But if ideas have consequences, it’s good to know what ideas are driving such a popular movement in our churches today.
Recommend reading “On Theology” at emergentvillage.com: (See the link for the entire list, but here is an example of a paragraph from their discussion on NT Wright:
N. T. Wright (1948 – )
However, Wright has also prompted concern amongst evangelicals because of his rejection/criticism of the historic Reformational understanding of key doctrines like justification, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, as well as his outspoken defense of women’s ordination and egalitarianism. More basically, Wright attempts to chart a middle way between what he considers to be equally errant fundamentalist and liberal views of Scripture and revelation (both of which he views as products of modernity that need to be transcended), and consequently his view of Scripture is different from the Calvin-Westminster-Warfield-Chicago Statement inerrancy position.
In Mark Dever’s Book “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church,” Chapter 3 is on “A Biblical Understanding of the Gospel.” I would highly recommend that chapter in regards to my dialog with John and all who are following it. The online version of the 9 Marks is located at: http://www.9marks.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID616736|CIID,00.html
Notice the intro to Chapter 3 on that page:
If you want to learn more on this you can follow this at: http://marks.9marks.org/Mark3
The last paragraph of the chapter in the book says:
I highly recommend this book to all. You can get it online from their ministry at:
https://secure2.convio.net/ccnmm/site/Ecommerce/112709684?store_id=1301&product_id=1002&VIEW_PRODUCT=true
Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith
http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID598026|CIID2249688,00.html
By Rob Bell
Reviewed by Greg Gilbert
Velvet Elvis(Zondervan, 2005, 208 pp.)
Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, is in many ways taking the Christian world by storm. His “Everything is Spiritual” tour sold out 24 of 25 venues in 2006, and his series of short videos, called NOOMA, are selling thousands of copies each.
Apparently, Bell has a message that is resonating with vast numbers of people, and he’s presenting that message in a way that’s obviously connecting.
On its surface, Bell’s first book, Velvet Elvis, might seem rather innocuous. His stated goal is to rethink the Christian faith in terms that will “strip it down to the bare bones” and get it back to “the most basic elements.” For the most part, he pursues that goal in a style that is reasonable and to-the-point. He talks about humility, about asking questions, about wrestling with the biblical text—phrases that many evangelicals use daily.
But I am convinced that when Bell brings all these things together, the result is something far more revolutionary than what appears on the surface. In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bell actually ends up throwing the entire Christian gospel up for grabs. God is made so mysterious, doctrine is deemed so questionable, and biblical interpretations are so relativized that in the end, Bell leaves us wondering if anything can be known for sure, or if any understanding of the Christian faith and gospel is any better than any other.
For example, take Bell’s reconception of the idea of doctrine. Bell argues that the doctrines of Christianity should be thought of as the “springs” that hold up the trampoline on which we jump and live in Christ. The springs are not the main point; they merely facilitate the greater goal of “us finding our lives in God” (25). Now that analogy has some truth to it. But it’s also more dangerous than it might first appear. Conceiving of Christian doctrines as springs allows Bell to say that getting the doctrines right is not really that important. If you don’t like one or two of the springs, you can just take them out of the trampoline and keep on jumping.
Here is Bell’s take on the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance: “It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it. It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches” (22). And what about Christ’s birth to a virgin? Bell asks, “What if that spring was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?” (26).
Bell affirms his belief in both the Trinity and the Virgin Birth, but he also says he wants to carve out some room to “question” those doctrines.
But what does he mean by that? Is he saying that one can study them, ask questions of them, learn from them? I wish he was. Yet why does Bell even pose the question? Why does he ask, “Could a person keep jumping?” and then not answer it? I can only conclude that Bell is saying that it wouldn’t matter very much if someone stopped affirming them. “Yes, of course you can keep jumping, even if you stop believing in the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.”
Bell’s “questions” are not as innocuous as they first sound. They are the means by which he permits one to disconnect and throw away the springs one doesn’t like.
The same relativizing tendency is present in Bell’s handling of Scripture as well. Bell likes to say that the Bible has to be interpreted, a point with which very few people would disagree. But Bell’s point is broader. He wants his readers to understand that they have as much right to interpret the Bible as anyone else (50). Even more, no one’s interpretation is any better than any one else’s.
When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their opinions about the Bible” (54).
Everybody’s interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective” (53).
In other words, some person or group of people simply made a decision that the text means this, not that. So the fact that we worship on Sunday, and not Saturday? “At one point in church history, a group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday, but Sunday.” (56) The fact that we do not sell all our possessions for the poor, or make women wear head coverings? Or even more to the point, the fact that we say a wife’s role is to submit to her husband? “This is because someone somewhere made a decision about those texts . . . Somebody in your history decided certain Bible verses still apply and others don’t” (55-56).
The effect of all this is to say that you can safely ignore just about any Christian doctrine or practice that doesn’t sit well with you. That’s the logical outcome of calling every interpretation a mere opinion.
Now of course there is some truth in Bell’s statement that every Christian can interpret Scripture for himself or herself. That is what we mean by the “priesthood of all believers.” But the point is to determine as accurately as possible what the author meant, and there are rules and systems and tools for determining that meaning. Bell is right to say that no one can come to the Bible entirely objectively. But even recognizing that, the fact remains that some interpretations are better than others. They make more sense of the words and the context. Bell seems to have no appreciation for that at all. By making all understandings of Scripture mere “opinions,” and all traditions mere “decisions,” he drives the priesthood of all believers to absurd, post-modern conclusions. The interpreter is now authoritative, not the text! Readers are invited to shape the Christian faith as they see fit.
There are other questions to be asked about this book as well. For instance, Bell’s reinterpretation of hell—that it is full of forgiven people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their story, rather than in God’s version of it—is open to serious scrutiny (146). So is his assertion that Peter’s problem was that he lost faith in himself, rather than in Christ (133). Neither of these ideas enjoys any support in Scripture. But as Bell understands Christianity, they have as much right to be believed as anyone else’s “opinions.”
That’s what happens when one relativizes Christianity in this way. Bell can so unashamedly offer up such novel ideas because he is convinced that the traditional body of Christian doctrine and the traditional interpretations of Scripture are just opinions. Thus they can be dismissed without a second thought, and replaced with doctrines and interpretations more to his liking. At bottom, Bell seems to have no patience with a well-defined, systematic Christianity. On the contrary, he appears to be on a mission to shove away anything which threatens to give the gospel hard edges or clear boundaries.
So what happens to doctrine? It’s demoted. Scripture? Relativized. Hell? Redefined. Faith? Redirected. And what Bell erects in the old gospel’s place is a new gospel heavy on openness, mystery, questions and rawness, but inexcusably light on biblical Christianity.
Greg Gilbert is the 9Marks lead writer on the topic of the gospel. He is also the director of theological research for the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an elder at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.
September 2006
Greg Gilbert
©9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: http://www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
John ,
From # 43 “Chris and others want to make it seem that a person must become a scholar of Cultures past and present in order to illuminate the word.” I haven’t read all of Chris’s articles – I wonder if you could point out what he has said that demonstrates this, especially regarding becoming a scholar of Cultures past.
Are you putting down the idea of understanding the various cultures in Biblical history altogether, or are you just putting down the idea of that a person MUST become a scholar of Cultures past . . .?
One thing I remember Chris writing about, on several occasions, are Ray Vanderlaan’s videos. Have you ever watched them? If not, I think you’ll see that there is much to be learned by looking back at cultures to illuminate scripture.
I was able to take the same course at the same school that Ray Vanderlaan attended in Israel, the course that probably inspired Ray Vanderlaan to create these videos. I had had many Bible classes before, but nothing could compare to visiting the geographical sites of Bible events and discussing the geography and culture that had surrounded the area. I gained new understanding,and new insights in what is meant by obedience to God.
Those who translate the Bible into other languages take a number of precautions to try to help nationals understand the culture of the Bible. That understanding can be critical to understanding the meaning. Isn’t meaning what we’re after? Shouldn’t Bible teachers, pastors learn about the cultures during bible times, and communicate what they’ve learned to their students/congregation?
Galatians,
Thank for sharing the article by Greg Gilbert. I’ve been wanting to see some specific examples like the ones that were discussed.
Some relevant comments from the Together For The Gospel conference on Amy’s post:
From John MacArthur:
“We don’t need to bring the Bible into modern times, we need to take people back to the Biblical times.”
“Be an expert on the Word of God and you’ll always know what to say to the culture.”
From Albert Mohler:
“Our primary responsibility is not to the culture but to the text of Scripture…Our concern for the culture is to reach sinners with the gospel. All else is passing… Our message is addressed to persons in every culture. It doesn’t have to be changed for the culture. The truths are constant. We need to put the culture in its place.”
If you’d like to hear these comments in context, their excellent sermons from this conference can be read about here on Tim Challies’ blog:
http://www.challies.com/archives/cat_together_for_the_gospel.php
and you can get the audio from CJ Mahaney’s website:
http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/category.aspx?categoryID=1841
You are welcome Amy. Thanks for searching out the truth. God Bless you.
tr
Bob DeWaay over at Critical issues Commentary has some excellent resources and articles on Rick Warren and PDL, that are related to much of our discussion above. His latest article “Recovering Reformation Theology Rejecting Synergism and Returning to Monergism” located at: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue93.htm is a very good explaination of where the ideas of Warren came from, why they are at odds with the Reformation, and why we should reject them.
He also has a neat tool called PDL Discernment Tool:
Free Purpose Driven discernment tool. Purpose Driven vs. Scripture verse. Easy two column guide for all 40 days. You can see it at: http://cicministry.org/berean.php
His article archives have a number of excellent articles on the emergent church as well.
Galatians,
Regarding your comment on what you call “overzealousness” if people “on the same side” don’t correct each other’s biting, sarcastic, and unkind remarks, who will?
Also, my comments (54) are discussing the validity of understanding cultures past. In that light, I would agree ” . . .we need to take people back to the Biblical times.” And that we need to “Be an expert on the Word of God and you’ll always know what to say to the culture.” (MacArthur) I also agree that “Our primary responsibility is not to the culture but to the text of Scripture.” It is impossible to properly translate scripture from one language to another without understanding something of the culture of both. Language and culture cannot be separated. Likewise, when one is looking at the meaning of scripture, it’s very helpful to be aware of what was going on in the culture at that time. Understanding cultures past helps us understand the text.
As far as applying these principles to understanding today’s culture, I agree with the underlying philosophy of what these men — MacArthur and Mohler – - are saying – the gospel does not need to be “weakened” for example, to make it acceptable because a culture doesn’t like hearing that they are lost and going to hell. Weakening the gospel only makes our sin look as if it’s of little consequence, and thus makes Christ sacrifice for us a joke. (What’d he do that for anyway? I’m not that bad!)
But we need to be careful that we don’t overeact to seeker-driven churches by not attempting to do all we can to make the Bible understandable to those who have no church background, and by not expecting non-Christians or new Christians to act like mature Christians. When new Christians become a part of our church, for example, much care and patience needs to be taken in helping instruct them from the ground up in learning how to learn from the Word of God. Gentle instruction is a must and caring community is a must.
Your words are true Amy. We certainly should make sure new Christians among us are able to understand the faith within the constraints of the culture around us. Much of my comments are not geared at what these leaders are saying to new Christians, but to their views of evvangelising non-Christians. The church is not a place where we invite unbelievers for a show in hopes that they like us and will get saved. The church is a place for believers to worship and grow in the Lord through the preaching and teaching of the Word, fellowship, and sacraments. In all honesty, unbelievers should feel uncomfortable in that environment. Evangelism is what Christians do outside the church service. I wrote about this here recently:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/what-is-church-gathering-of-the-saints-or-stroking-my-felt-needs/
I would recommend listening to the sermons from the T5TG Conference on this. They are awesome.
My comments on “overzealousness” was towards those who are criticizing the criticizers. If someone writes an expose on Rick Warren, then the attacking of the writer is getting old. People focus on the zeal and language used, and judge the motives of the expose writers and never look at the content of what they are saying. There is an excellent article on the NANC website regarding speaking the truth in love, and it makes the point that we have the obligation to do it in love, but if we fail, that doesn’t mean the truth we speak is invalid. The person in error still has an obligation to recognize the truth even if I mess the delivery up with my zeal. Correct me or Ken on our zeal if it clouds the message (which I pray it doesn’t), but don’t attack the zeal and ignore the content. That was my point. Here is the NANC article referred to:
What is “Speaking the Truth in Love”?
http://nanc.org/editor/filemanager/upload/asp/UserDocs/72truth–smith.pdf
Copy and paste that NANC link if it does not work. My broswer is doing something weird with clicking on it, but the copy and paste seems to work.
http://nanc.org/editor/filemanager/upload/asp/UserDocs/72truth–smith.pdf
Galatians,
Obviously I can’t respond to everything you’ve linked to or pasted in above. I do want to respond to one important point about the Gospel and Rick Warren. I think we’re basically in agreement about the fundamental truth of the Gospel: We all have sinned. Man can not work his way to a Holy God. We have been offered grace through faith in the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.
With that in mind, I think the follwoing statement gets to the core of the argument we’re having:
Clearly this is a key point in this whole debate. What you have just done is suggest — state really — that we should discount the apparent fruit of Warren’s ministry because it is not based on a genuine Gospel message. As you put it, he hasn’t created new Christians, only new “Warren-ites.” And if that is so, then indeed the numbers mean nothing.
Let me first say that if at the core of his ministry Rick Warren believes in a “watered-down” Gospel with no mention of sin or God’s Holiness, I would have to agree with you. If so his converts really are only “Warren-ites” and there is indeed a problem.
On the other hand, if he is preaching a genuine Gospel it would make a hash of your (and Ken’s) efforts to label him as a false teacher. If he is preaching the true Gospel, then those 15,000 baptisms should be presumed to represent genuine conversions. And if they represent genuine conversions, then the fruit of his ministry would weigh significantly against your accusations against him.
Those are the stakes. Let’s look at some evidence:
1) Here is the Saddleback statement on salvation from their website:
False Gospel?
2) Here is an answers related to salvation from their website’s Q&A page:
False Gospel?
3) Here is a section of their baptism page titled “What is the Meaning of Baptism”:
They quote 1 Cor, 15, the very verses we have already agreed was the core of the Gospel according to Paul.
4) Here is a link to an online teaching about Salvation on the Saddleback website. This is not picked at random. It is part of a series on “the 11 fundamental teachings of Christianity”, one of which is salvation. I won’t transcribe it here but I think John MacArthur would approve of the teaching on sin and God’s Holiness.
5) Finally, here is the man himself preaching the simple Gospel via video. This is readily available on the Saddleback website. Please note Warren’s use and explanation of Romans 3:23. Please note that his four point fomula for salvation (which sounds very much like Bill Bright’s four spiritual laws) starts with admitting sin and our need for help.
All of these items relate directly to the “core Gospel” that we’ve discussed. Show me any significant deviation from the Biblical Gospel in the five items presented above and I will admit we are talking about a false Gospel. If you can not, I think you should reconsider your statement about 15,000 “Warren-ites.”
Please understand, I am not suggesting that Rick Warren is above reproach, that he hasn’t said or done things that are ill-considered or even foolish, that we shouldn’t correct him when he errs, or that everyone at his church understands the Gospel. I am saying that there is significant evidence that his faith is genuine, that his core message is orthodox, and that his ministry has born significant fruit over a long period of time. You and Ken are wrong to dismiss that and to treat him as a cult leader and his church members as unregenerate.
to John (VS)
Your statements concerning Rick Waren show that you cannnot or will not separate the Leaven mixed in With Rick Warrens Teachings. It is not enough that Rick Warren have Elements of his teaching sound true to the Gospel. When the leaven so poisons the good elements.
And this is major point you are missing. Not only is Rick Warren weaving into his teaching poison. He is also turing pastors across the globe into mouthepieces for his teaching via Pastors.com.
Do you not see how this is turning Pastors into Hollow men? The only way a person can become a good Pastor is to search the scriptures out themselves. To say that a Pastor should go to a site like Pastors.com and download sermons it terms them into the same thing as junkies over time. The McDonalds of Sermons purveyor. Ha! To say that Rick Wrren is ok and a visionary is to say a person is Blind!
That anyone who claims to be a Christian would defend the man is unbelievable!
I have always been an objective researcher. I never believe the claims about anyone via the words of others. I reasearched his teachings myself, via the Word and his teachings on the surface sound ok, but when you research what he truly teches and put it all together, he is a destroyer of the faithful.
He has an agenda, and to get the agenda accepted he lures people in with waht sounds like goo theology, not until he is accepted and has the loyalty of millions does he begin to sew his agenda, just like all good Wolves.
john (not of VS),
*raising my Sword of the Spirit to you*
Thank you for your strong defense of the Faith. I’m sure it’s been an encouragement to others, I know it has to me. Well done my brother!
John,
I think your statement shows that you can not or will not accept the obvious fact that Warren is preaching the true Gospel. Watch that 15 minute video presentation. I’ve only watched it once, but my sense was that I could vouch for every single thing he said there.
If there is error please point it out in specific. Show me the leaven! If instead you want to ignore the evidence of orthodox preaching coming from the man’s own mouth that’s your business. But please don’t close your eyes to facts and then accuse me of being blind.
You’ve using ad homenim attacks directed at both Warren and me, mockery and a redoubling of accusations devoid of any evidence in your favor. This is a textbook case of a week argument. If you want to claim the messages on pastors.com are false, you’ll have to do that in specific. There’s simply nothing wrong with pastors sharing message idea on the internet.
Your research needs some peer review. Perhaps you should offer it next time instead of silly insults.
john (not VS),
Since neither John or I or several others have been able to get some straight answers from Ken, perhaps I can ask some questions from you:
1) What part of the Gospel do you believe that Rick Warren is missing? You said he has “elements” of the Gospel but that isn’t enough. What else should he have?
2) You say, “I have always been an objective researcher. I never believe the claims about anyone via the words of others. I reasearched his teachings myself, via the Word and his teachings on the surface sound ok, but when you research what he truly teaches and put it all together, he is a destroyer of the faithful.” SPECIFICALLY, what have you discovered that is so insidious. If John (or I) are too “blind” to see it, could you PLEASE spell it out for me/us clearly and GIVE SPECIFICS.
3) In asking the question above, I am taking you at your word when you claim to be an “objective researcher.” I would also ask you this: Did you arrive at your conclusions ENTIRELY on your own without any pre-bias influencing you in any way? What set you on the journey to research Rick Warren? Was it something that you heard? Something that you read?
Why is it that you feel that YOUR research is better and more thorough and more grounded than that done by John (of VS) and of others who have looked into things and have come away from this debate with a completely opposite conclusion?
Scott
At this point, I’m done with the ominous-sounding generalities and broad-sweeping statements where people claim to have found things in Warren’s teaching that is “poison” and that is “destroying the faithful.”
WHAT HAVE YOU FOUND?!?
Galatians,
“The church is not a place where we invite unbelievers for a show in hopes that they like us and will get saved. The church is a place for believers to worship and grow in the Lord through the preaching and teaching of the Word, fellowship, and sacraments.”
I agree with that. But I would add that where people in most churches, seeker-sensitive or not, fail, is in being willing to build relationships with non-believers, that draw them to Christ. This can sometimes require great self-sacrifice, and it much more difficult than making sure the focus of the church is for believers, or going all out to help believers be “entertained” in a service.
Regarding “overzealousness.” People do attack what you are calling “overzealousness” and ignore the truth of what is being said. I often agree with the truth of what is being said, but I think that the overzealousness does need to be addressed. My concern about “overzealousness” is that it places an unnecessary stumblingblock before some who truly want to follow God’s will.
I will give you an example. When I was disturbed by the use of PDL materials at my church, I went through the Purpose Driven Church and Purpose Driven Life books and wrote down my thoughts. I found many things that disturbed me, enough to fill about 20 pages. At some point I begin to look at interviews of Rick Warren on the internet, such as the PEW forum. In the meantime I came across several sites which were against Rick Warren and a lot of other things. The vitriolic nature of some of the comments amazed me.
Because of his own observations of PDL at our church, but primarily because of my concern, my husband began looking into Rick Warren. I don’t think he ever read PDC – we were at that time using PDL, so I assume he was reading that. Anyway, while his conclusions were being formed, he came across some of the sites I had discovered that discussed Rick Warren. And he was amazed, turned off, etc, etc, so much so that I had to caution him about being turned away from what was true because of the way some people choose to communicate what they see as truth.
There are many people who have questions about things, like PDL, seeker-sensitive churches, the emergent church, etc. And people who want to “fight the fight” against such things can turn such people away from learning about things they need to know.
Is it just to label sarcasm, name-calling, remarks that make one feel inferior if one hasn’t “arrived” at the same conclusions about something, proclamations of who is saved and who isn’t, taking things out of context, as “overzealousness?” By simply labeling these things as “overzealousness” we put the ball back in the court of those we are trying to help,” which include many who are new Christians, and many who are so immersed in a particular thing that they are blinded to the danger of it.
People see what they feel as “hatred” a lot quicker than they see “truth” which often takes much reading and discernment to come about. It isn’t enough for people to be “yelled at” and told such things as “I can’t believe people can’t see this (error)!” Decisions that people come to about what is right or wrong are best arrived at by their own study,which can be aided by gentle instruction, not because they accept what is dictated to them.
When a person in some type of “discernment” ministry does any or all of the things listed above –sarcasm, name-calling, remarks that make one feel inferior if one hasn’t “arrived” at the same conclusions about something, proclamations of who is saved and who isn’t, taking things out of context (and not apologizing if it was accidental)– what is their purpose? None of these things draw people towards being the least bit open to what they are teaching. Is their final goal to teach and help others come to what they see as biblical, or at least to consider it? Or is their final goal to lift themselves up, to be part of the group that is right about EVERYTHING? We are to gently instruct . . . .
To start off with I would like to state this: It is possible to make an Intellectual acceptance to Christianity. I am not going to get into whether it is the Holy Spirit that Guides you into that acceptance or whether you do it via your own freewill assisted by the Holy Spirit. That is not for this debate. But I will say this to remain within the true teachings of Christianity you must have the Word of God illuminated for you by the Holy Spirit.
The Intellectual process will only get you so far. The Holy Spirit is required for you to rightly understand the word. And that statement too some seems like a paradox but it is not. Because it seems to infer that you cannot rightly understand the word at face value. The word of God is written so that “Babes” can understand it. And that is where people go wrong, because with their intellectual mind they misunderstand the term “Babes”. The term “babes” means you must be lead by the Holy Spirit as a parent instructing a child. And a “Babe” or Young Child thinks of their parent as a “God”. The “Babes” mind has not yet been corrupted by the fallen world around them. The skepticism of Adulthood has not yet touched his/her innocent mind. And this is how a person must accept the word of God. And the only way a person can truly do that is to have crushed the flesh with all its desires, goals, aims, and intellectual learning’s. Those HAVE to be tossed aside. And virtually all of us cannot do that voluntarily or willingly. We have to be broken. We have to be cleansed of fleshly desires, goals, aims, and fleshly intellect.
And when that occurs, the Holy Spirit comes alive in us in power, and brings to our mind what Jesus truly taught, and we begin to decrease while Jesus increases in us. And as I have stated before when the Holy Spirit comes alive in power you begin to think of everything in terms of eternity and not via temporal fallen Intellectualism.
So with that in mind I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life, and this is not meant as sarcasm. It is a valid question and all it requires is a Yes or No answer and this will determine whether you are here either to honestly find the truth or whether you are here to just defend an intellectual position. And the Question is not a digression it has everything to do with finding out whether Rick Warren is a Wolf come to scatter the Sheep or a true follower of Jesus.
Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings.
Now all I ask for is a yes or no answer.
This will also determine whether it is productive to continue this conversation, and give you examples of Rick Warren’s poison, or I should do as Jesus said in Mark 6:11:
“And whoever will not receive you nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet as a testimony against them. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”
Because and this is not meant as sarcasm or an insult. It is futile to continue to debate and is actually contrary to what Jesus taught in witnessing to people.
And I will also leave you with this little story that may sound corny but to those who know, it will find an accepting audience:
“At the University of Chicago Divinity School each year they have what is called “Baptist Day”. It is a day when all the Baptists in the area are invited to the school because they want the dollars to keep coming in.
On this day each one is to bring a lunch to be eaten outdoors in a grassy picnic area. Every “Baptist Day” the school would invite one of the greatest minds to lecture in the theological education center. One year they invited Dr. Paul Tillich. He spoke for two and one-half hours proving that the resurrection of Jesus was false.
He quoted scholar after scholar and book after book. He concluded that since there was no such thing as the historical resurrection the religious tradition of the church was groundless, emotional mumbo-jumbo, because it was based on a relationship with a risen Jesus, who, in fact, never rose from the dead in any literal sense. He then asked if there were any questions.
After about 30 seconds, an old, dark skinned preacher with a head of short-cropped, woolly white hair stood up in the back of the auditorium “Docta Tillich, I got one question,” he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his sack lunch and pulled out an apple and began eating it.
“Docta Tillich … CRUNCH, MUNCH My question is a simple question, CRUNCH, MUNCH…Now, I ain’t never read them books you read…CRUNCH, MUNCH…and I can’t recite the Scriptures in the original Greek CRUNCH, MUNCH …I don’t know nothin’ about Niebuhr and Heidegger…. CRUNCH, MUNCH…
He finished the apple. All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate–was it bitter or sweet?”
Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: “I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven’t tasted your apple.”
The white-haired preacher dropped the core of his apple into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said calmly, “Neither have you tasted my Jesus.”
The 1,000 plus in attendance could not contain themselves. The auditorium erupted with applause and cheers. Dr. Tillich thanked his audience and promptly left the platform.”
Rick Warren has never tased my Jesus.
John,
I first want to thank you for your gracious reply. I thank God for the opportunity to dialog with someone over important issues, where the conversation doesn’t seep down into personal attacks and angry accusations. Thank you for that.
Please understand that I didn’t post all that information above to overwhelm you or to expect you to respond to all of it. There are many lurkers following our dialog, who have asked me privately for more information. I have chosen to post it publicly as part of the dialog so that all who are reading can have access to it as well. I think it is important for readers to understand that Ken and I are not some crackpot, radical, nutcases on the internet with wild views. I think it is necessary to demonstrate that these views we defend are shared by many respectable people within the church, and are defended by them just as vigorously, because they are Biblical, not because they are opinions of men. Thank you for not taking that personally.
You did a really good job of honing our discussion down to “the issue,” and realizing, as you put it, that “clearly this is a key point in this whole debate.” You are right. I also thank you for recognizing the truth that if what we are saying about Warren’s (and other’s) gospel is correct, then the alarms are justified; and of course, I concede the opposite to you as well. The issue really is, as you rhetorically ask several times, is it a “false gospel?” You think it isn’t, and I think it is…and from there we can proceed in love, understanding the stakes at hand.
You have listed several quotes and evidences that you believe demonstrates that Warren’s gospel is the true gospel. But I must reject that it is. One reason is because when I talk to, interview, and witness those people, they don’t know the gospel or have a clear understanding of it. Something is wrong! What? At best, if the gospel Warren preaches is true, he isn’t clearly teaching it so people understand it. At worst, it is because it isn’t the real gospel. I am going to demonstrate to you why the very evidences you gave, are actually proof of my point that this IS a false gospel, rather than proving yours that it isn’t. I just ask that you proceed with what I say with an open mind, asking God to reveal any truths I say to you, and of course, testing everything I say by the Word of God.
You said,
And on this, we agree on the “IFs.” Our difference is that I believe the first “IF” is true, and you believe the latter “IF” is true. This is our debate.
So in that debate you provide evidences, or proof-texts of Warren’s writings that are Biblical in wording. And I agree, they sound good. But the problem is, and what you are missing, is that Warren never explains what they mean so that a person can have a proper understanding of the gospel and thereby be saved. For example, you quote the Saddleback statement on salvation from their website:
A similar statement can be found in the PDL book. But you see, the problem is that leading up to this, he never defines “sin.” I read through 80 pages or so in the book learning that the void in my life is that I lack purpose. I am lead to believe that fundamentally I am a good person who has a purpose void in my heart that I need to let God fill. Then comes along this statement about me not being able to make up for my sin. What? What does that mean? You see John, you and me, as Christians, read that and go “ummm huh…that’s right?” Because we have a Christian context of already being believers to put that in. We understand it. But put yourself in the seat of an unbeliever who picks the book up for $9.99 at the Wal-Mart to see what all the fuss is about, and reads for several chapters how much God loves him and has a purpose for his life and how he needs to let God fill this purpose. Then comes along the sin statement which sounds good…to believers. But sin is never defined by the writer. The reader is lead to believe that sin is some kind of mistake or boo-boo, or a failure to have purpose. The seriousness of sin is never put in a way that one can comprehend it. This is Rick Warren’s main failure. He never explains this:
In the video you provide above, Warren says that sin is “wanting to control our own lives.” He calls sin “the source of all the trouble in your life.” But the Bible says that sin is the “transgression of the law of God.” (1 John 3:4) Sin is lawlessness. God’s law is given to us so that we can understand the perfect character of God and so that we can see how far that we don’t measure up to it. Paul calls it a mirror to show us how dirty we are, and that knowledge should lead us to discover we need a Savior. God is a perfect God of holiness, and any transgression against Him is an infinite transgression and requires and infinite sacrifice. It isn’t some boo-boo, mistake, or lack of purpose.
For example, think of the phrase “I’ll kill you!” If you hear two kids playing on the playground and one says flippantly, “If you do that I’ll kill you,” we may intervene and teach the child that is not healthy talk, but we aren’t going to execute the kid. If a 13 year old son gets angry at his dad and slams the door and says, “I’ll kill you!,” it may be taken seriously and discussed as inappropriate, but nonetheless, life continues as normal. If your co-worker gets angry and tells you “I’ll kill you!” you might call the police and have him arrested for a threat, but the charge, although serious, won’t involve too serious of a penalty. However, if you go up to the President of the country and say, “I’ll kill you!” you will immediately come under the wrath of the law, the secret service, and you may not see the light of day for a long time if ever! Now what is going on here? The threat is the same, but the relationships are different because of the positions. Child to child, no biggie, son to Father, bigger deal, adult to adult, even bigger deal, adult to the President, watch out! The threat becomes bigger when it is committed against someone in a higher authority. When we commit sin against a holy and just God, even a small one, IT IS A BIG DEAL in His eyes! It is such a big deal that He had to become a man, suffer and die a horrendous death on the cross in order to pay the penalty! What we consider to be a small thing, in the eyes of God, is HUGE! Never does Rick Warren, or emergents, explain this, because talking about sin like this is unpopular. However, it is true, and it is required for salvation. Someone can’t become saved unless they first understand what they are saved from.
When I go up to people who have just finished their 40 days of purpose and claim to have had a spiritual experience through it and are Christians, I often ask them what it means to be “saved.” They always hem and haw around and toss out something about a lack of an abundant life, or discovering God’s purpose, or that Jesus loves them and wants them to have a wonderful life. When I ask them what they are “saved from” they are usually speechless. Why? Because they don’t know. Why? Because Rick Warren hasn’t told them.
What ARE we saved from? We don’t become Christians because we want to be saved from Hell. We don’t become Christians because we want to be saved from a lack of purpose. We don’t become Christians because we have God-shaped hole in our hard that only He can fill. NO! NO! NO! We become Christians, because we need to be saved from……Watch this (as Charles Stanley would say)…. We need to be saved from GOD! That’s right! We have to be saved from the wrath of God!
You see, God’s holiness is so perfect that He HATES sin and HAS to punish it. His perfect justice demands that the penalty be paid. There is a story about a tribe that had a problem with stealing. The leader passed a law that anyone caught stealing would be whipped to death. The people caught the thief and reported to the leader and he showed up to the public square to watch the administering of the beating. The whole tribe waited anxiously to see what the leader would do when he saw that it was his own son. When he did, his heart dropped. He could not ignore justice by refusing to carry out the penalty, but he also could not bear to watch his own son be whipped to death. So as the whole tribe watched, the leader dropped his robe and walked naked out to the pole where his son was chained and wrapped his body around him and commanded the whipping to begin. In this act of love, both justice and mercy were demonstrated.
In essence, this is what God did for us! We deserved the penalty for our sins (law transgressions), which we could not pay. God demands justice for our transgressing the law. However, he loves us so much that instead of requiring that justice of us, he became a man, and lived the perfect life that we could not, and stood and took the penalty that He demanded. THAT IS THE GOSPEL AND THAT IS GOD’S LOVE!!! 2 Cor 5:21 says that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That is the great exchange. We broke the law but Jesus paid the price! My keyboard is wet from my tears as I write this to you because I can’t bear the thought of that amazing love! “How can it be? That You my God would die for me?” Yes, it is the beautiful gospel that God died to save us from Him!!! You have provided many quotes from Warren where he uses the word sin, but I challenge you to find for me, in any of his materials, where he defines what sin is in this manner.
Jesus told his disciples to count the cost before signing up. He said that “anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Matt 10:38). What is taking up “my cross?” The cross is a symbol of death, of execution. When one becomes a Christian they DIE to their self. Paul said in Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” There is NO place for finding a lack of purpose in that! Dead people don’t seek purpose!
Now don’t miss understand me. I am not saying that once we become a Christian that there is no purpose. Of course there is. I am not saying either that once we are a Christian that we don’t have an abundant life filled with joy and pleasures and fruit. But those things are from an eternal perspective, not a temporal one. And they are the results of becoming a Christian; they are not to be used as draw cards to entice sinners to Christ. If someone does not understand the grave offense towards God that their sin is, and they do not become humble and repent, and they do not die to themselves as a result, then they are not followers of Christ. Seeking to have your felt-needs met and seeking to die to yourself are mutually exclusive routes. You can’t be on them both at the same time. Sinners who come to Warren’s churches and teachings because he does it “like I like it” are by default on the wrong path. One has to crucify themselves and their desires in order to receive Christ. Asking Jesus in your heart doesn’t cut it. Asking God into your life doesn’t cut it. We don’t “accept Jesus” we “receive Jesus.” Jesus doesn’t need to be accepted, we do! In the video you provided Warren says that to get to heaven we need to “invite Jesus to be Lord of our lives.” What verse is that? No, Jesus already IS Lord of everything! We receive Jesus, we don’t invite him anywhere. He is the creator, not our personal invitee.
People say God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life! No, not really. Yes He does love you, but he loves you so much that He died for your sins. Whenever the Bible talks about God’s love it is always in the context of the cross. God so loved the world that He gave his only Son (John 3:16). God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). God’s love equals the cross, and the cross means God died for you because your sin is so great! Outside of the cross, God’s love doesn’t apply to you. No where does the Bible teach that God loves you just as you are (in your unrepentant sins), which is the sick message of Schuler, Osteen, and Warren. God hates sin so much that He describes our RIGHTEOUSNESS as filthy menstrual rags! (Isa 64:6). If that is what He thinks of our righteousness I don’t want to think about what He thinks of our sin! Yes God loves us that He became flesh and paid the penalty we could not pay, so that when we stand before Him on judgment day, Jesus can declare us righteous, not based on anything we did, but because of His blood. God can look upon us because He sees us through the blood of Christ. Without repentance and faith in Christ, this is not possible.
Rick Warren likes to use the words “sin” and “cross” and “blood” and “died,” etc. And in doing that he deceives people into thinking he is talking the right talk and giving the right message. But he never defines those words in ways that sinners can Biblically understand them. Just like the cults redefine our Christian words so they sound orthodox, but in reality they redefine them to MEAN something else, so does Warren with these words. He sounds good but the meaning he pours into the words is poison. It has been said that a little truth mixed with poison is more deadly than pure poison. That is true because it deceives many into thinking it is the real thing. I feel the words of Paul when he said in Acts 20:
After you have studied Rick Warren’s material, image what he would say to the person who ran up to him and said “What must I do to be saved?” What do you think he would say? “Spend 40 days in the wilderness seeking God’s purpose?” “Ask Jesus into your heart?” Do you think he would do what Jesus did? In the video you provided above he starts with “God loves you.” That is not Biblical. We don’t have to guess what Jesus would have done, because we have this exact account of the rich young ruler. Jesus didn’t say “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, and in a while I am going to die on the cross for you and if you accept me you’ll be saved.” No, Jesus rattled off 5 of the 10 commandments to him! Rick Warren would tell Jesus He needed to go to a friendship evangelism class. Why did Jesus do this? Because he recognized that the guy was proud, and God always gives “law to the proud” but “grace only to the humble.” When the man proudly proclaimed he had kept those, Jesus demonstrated that he violated the essence of the first commandment and loved his money more than God. Rick Warren thinks this passage is about giving away stuff to the poor! He turns it into a social gospel and misses the entire point of the passage. Jesus is using the law as a schoolmaster to demonstrate to the proud sinner that he doesn’t measure up to God’s standards and that he needs a Savior. When the guy “goes away sad” Jesus doesn’t chase him down and explain how much God loves him. Even though, the passage says “Jesus loved him” he lets him go because he knows that he is too proud to receive the truth.
The same truth is starring us all in the face. Have you lied? What does that make you? A liar! Have you stolen, even something small? What does that make you? A thief! Have you lusted? Jesus says that makes you an adulterer. James says one violation of the law means you are guilt of them all. We all stand in the face of God’s law guilty. What do we do? Do we accept the sacrifice God made for us or do we proclaim our goodness and walk away sad?
You see John, this is NOT the message of the PDL or the Warren gospel. You can’t have a purpose driven life until you have a repentant driven life! One can’t repent if he doesn’t understand his sin as God sees it. This is ultimately the problem with Warren and the emergents. They use Christian words but their either have different meanings or they are unclear as to the real meaning. Rick Warren can talk about sin and accepting Jesus all he wants, but until he explains to his listeners what that is and what that means, he is only creating false converts who are disciples after him, in search of their felt-needs and their purpose. They will never have either one met unless someone comes along and explains to them what it all means. It is my prayer that this post does that for the many people who are reading and following this blog thread.
John, I ask you to not accept these words as my words or the words of Ken, but to check it out. If you would like to hear it explained in a way that is MUCH better than I could ever do, I again ask you to stop and listen to Ray Comfort’s message “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” before you reply. He does a much better job at it that I can. Here is the link once again: http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml
If you think I am off-base with this post, then demonstrate to me where Rick Warren explains sin, Biblically. A while back I was saddened when a Sunday School teacher showed up with a Purpose Driven SS lesson for class. I sat quietly and gave it the benefit of the doubt. One day, we came to a lesson where Mr. Warren expounded on the words of Jesus when He said that the two greatest commandments were to “Love God and Love People,” a phrase that the emergents LOVE to use. Rick Warren then said that these were our “life goals.” HOGWASH! He so much doesn’t get it that it is pathetic. All of the law is summed up in those in order to demonstrate to us that we CAN’T DO IT and therefore need a Savior. Paul got it right! He said, “I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” (Rom 7:7) And again, he said, “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24). THAT is the purpose of the commandments Mr. Warren!
I cried at the end of the video you provided as Rick gives the person who prayed the sinner’s prayer with him the assurance of salvation, after he has not given the full council of God (Oh God have mercy on Rick’s soul for this deception and false hope). That is why I have such a hard time witnessing to the people he “converts.” He gives them the assurance of a false gospel. Oh how the devil is pleased when this happens. The Bible says to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 cor 13:5), but Rick tells the new “convert” that some days you may not feel saved and that is ok. What is his answer? He says “That is what the Purpose Driven Life” is for. Bllaaaaaaaph I think I’m going to puke!
Repenting is not asking for forgiveness for your mistakes. Becoming a Christian is not making Jesus “CEO of my life” as he puts it. Repentance and faith in Christ is dying to yourself and receiving His perfect sacrifice for the propitiation of your sins (Biblically defined). It is falling on your face before a holy and just God, and pleading for His mercy, admitting that you deserve the punishment of Hell, and clinging to the cross of Jesus and his spilt blood on your behalf. If you have never grieved over the sinfulness of your sin, there is no way you could have repented until salvation. If you are not clinging to Jesus as you would a parachute, you don’t understand the gospel of Christ. It is my prayer that if you are a “Warren-ite” that would get on your knees before God and realize these truths and call out to Him this way, and leave the PDL behind. You don’t need PDL, you need Jesus! You don’t need purpose; you need someone to pay the fine you can’t pay!
And lastly, I mentioned before about the affirmation and denial statement from the Together For The Gospel conference. I heard John MacArthur talking about these and he said that it will be interesting to see who will NOT sign the statement.
Well, I will make a public invitation to Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Padgett, Rick Bell, and all the other emergent leaders to read and affirm the statement. As I said before, I think that document is the litmus test in our age as to who will stand up for Biblical truths and who will not. Here it is again:
http://www.togetherforthegospel.org/T4TG-statement.pdf
The gospel IS important, and it IS worth dying for. It IS that which is capable to reconcile us to God. But it is only these if it is the true gospel we are talking about. Paul said that if he or an angel from heaven preached any other gospel for them to be anathema. Eternally cursed by God. He knew what he was talking about. I agree with him. Change the gospel from one of the glorious love of God who died to pay the price for our sin, and you are anathema. Those are strong words, but we serve a strong God.
Pray over it…hard…bend the knee.
In love with tears,
Tony
Amy,
Those are great words of exhortation for us all. I am in the process of writing an article for my blog on the very words points you make. Thanks for bringing them to this dialog. I think we can all learn from them. I think Paul summed it up in Eph 4:15. Speak the truth in love. Amen.
tr
Wondering which video of Rick Warren you’re discussing.
If you’re discussing the first one from the PDL video series that ends with something like, “If you just prayed that prayer, welcome to the Kingdom of God,” then I would like to say, imagine the average Joe unbeliever hearing that invitation and praying that prayer.” What elements of the gospel did he hear?” Yet he is assured by Rick Warren himself that he has been welcomed into the Kingdom of God.
When I heard that my church was planning to support several other churches in the neighborhood in having the PDL series, I thought of that video. I started feeling physically sick, and had to leave church. Thus began a long road towards trying to let my pastor understand the seriousness of spreading a gospel that contained almost no elements of the gospel at all. To think that one is saved when one is not is a huge step away from ever feeling the need to repent and accept Christ.
That video to me represents the gospel of Rick Warren. That is the invitation to salvation that most people have heard from him. Perhaps he presents a different (better) message at his own church. If that is true then why on earth has he watered it down so much for the masses?
Is that video available to download anywhere on the internet? I have suggested to several people that they watch it, and as far as I know that means they need to go borrow the video from the church or former leader of a PDL group.
Galatians,
Let me pose the same question to you that I did to “john” (not VS) – What SPECIFICALLY are the problems you have with Rick Warren. No generalizations, no sweeping condemnations, just some straight, simple, clear statements. I read over your recent comment to John (from VS) and this is what I gathered from your comments:
1) Your 1st complaint is an incomplete or false gospel: You said, “You have listed several quotes and evidences that you believe demonstrate that Warren’s gospel is the true gospel. But I must reject that it is. One reason is because when I talk to, interview, and witness those people, they don’t know the gospel or have a clear understanding of it. Something is wrong! What? At best, if the gospel Warren preaches is true, he isn’t clearly teaching it so people understand it. At worst, it is because it isn’t the real gospel.”
WHO have you spoken to, witnessed to, etc? All of the 15,000 converts baptized at Saddleback since the late 80s? Most of the 15,000? A large percentage of the 15,000? Some of the 15,000? A few of the 15,000? My point is that you speak as though you are qualified to pass some sort of judgment on the “quality” of salvation that these people have received through God’s use of Saddleback, whereas in reality I have to wonder how many of these people you have actually talked to coming out of Saddleback.
I don’t know where you live, but I live in So. Cal., less than 30 minutes from Saddleback. I know people who have come to the Lord or returned to the Lord after years of wandering, all because of Saddleback and the ministry structure that Rick Warren has established. I HAVE talked with many of these people and they DO know the “full gospel,” can explain the Gospel, and actively share the Gospel.
Is it possible that a few/some/many can’t explain things well? Sure. Is it true that there may be some whose “salvation experience” isn’t valid? Sure. Is it true that ANYONE (you, me, Ken, etc) is qualified to pass some sort of judgment on the validity or lack of validity of the “salvation experience” through Saddleback? No Way! NOBODY is equipped or charged to pass those types of judgment.
2) Your 2nd argument is an appearance of Godliness in his writing without any meat in the actually text: In writing to John you said, “So in that debate you provide evidences, or proof-texts of Warren’s writings that are Biblical in wording. And I agree, they sound good. But the problem is, and what you are missing, is that Warren never explains what they mean so that a person can have a proper understanding of the gospel and thereby be saved.”
So you admit that Warren’s writings sound “good” and Biblical, but then you say that they aren’t because they don’t give “enough” of what you think they need. You think that because at some point where he mentions salvation and sin, because he doesn’t stop an explain sin, then he isn’t presenting everything that is necessary to understand the whole of the gospel.
But that’s ridiculous. If he deals with sin, and explains sin at various times and locations on the website, in his sermons and writings, etc, you condemn him because he doesn’t explain sin again later at a time when YOU think it should be explained?!? I would say that YOU are looking for fault and playing with semantics to find what you already wanted to see.
You don’t like how Warren frames the discussion of sin. According to you, Warren says that sin is “wanting to control our own lives” and “the source of all the trouble in your life.” But you say that sin is “transgression of the law of God,” “lawlessness,” etc. I see those as very similar in connotation, if not in actual phrasing. Warren says that sin is wanting to take control of our own lives away from God so that we can do it ourselves. You say that sin is lawlessness/rebellion. SAME THING!
Warren says that sin is wanting to control my own life. You say that sin is violating the laws of God. SAME THING!!! If I want to control my own life, which means that I am rejecting God’s law in favor of my own personal law for myself. In order to approach God and to be ready for salvation, I need to be able to acknowledge that it isn’t what I THINK that counts (my desires, my wants, my laws), it is what GOD WANTS that counts.
I fully understand many of the points that you and Ken and the crowd are trying to make. I might even agree with some of them. But you are approaching the Gospel from one side whereas Warren (and John and I) are approaching it more from the other side.
3) Your 3rd Point is a de-emphasis on sin and judgment: You made the statement that “we need to be saved from God!” It is a clever turn of phrase if one isn’t expecting it, since most will expect you to say that we need to be saved from sin, death, hell, etc. And yet you guys are SOO caught up in the hatred that God has for sin, and for the judgment, that you never seem to bring up Grace. What about the unmerited favor that we each receive from God, even though we don’t deserve it.
Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is an amazing piece of writing. I teach it in my English classes many years. Edwards had some FANTASTIC images dealing with humanity and God and our relative positions to each other. And you can’t mistake Edward’s position when it came to sinners and where sinners belong. And yet in the middle of his diatribe against all of us sinners and those of us who are complacent, he reminds us that we are saved/spared the fate that we deserve because of the Love and Grace of God.
I’m not talking about watered down/cheap grace. I’m talking about the bonifide, genuine, limitless Grace of God. Your approach to the Gospel is all about presenting sin and judgment and criticizing those that don’t do it as much as you think they should. But not once have I heard Ken or any of his supporters talk about Grace when discussing the Gospel and sin and the position we hold before God. Grace is what draws the distinct contrast between the darkness of sin and the destiny that sin creates for us, and the brightness/lightness of God and the destiny that we CAN HAVE through God’s only Son.
I know this is a bit of a tangent, but when I read much of the stuff on your blog and what has gotten posted on ours, I am reminded of a question that I heard a pastor ask years ago during a sermon. The question was, “What about the Grace?” His point was that judgment alone and/or love alone don’t “get us there.” Grace is the mediator between the judgment and the love. It seems to me that you guys are all about the sin and the judgment and wanting to be sure that there is a clear explanation of sin so there is a clear explanation of what someone is being saved from. Obviously understanding sin is important, but is it of supreme importance? More than understanding Jesus as God incarnate? More than understanding God’s love for the whole world?
There is a doctor who sees a patient who hasn’t been feeling well. The doctor runs tests and has bad news for the patient. The patient has a fast acting malignant tumor that will spread throughout his body and kill him. Does the patient have to understand all of the subtle nuances between types of tumors and cancerous growths before they can have the operation that will save their life? No they don’t. They simply need to know that they have a tumor and tumors are bad, and this tumor will kill him. He only need the basics to understand his need and the solution. The doctor takes care of the rest.
Same with sin and humanity. We don’t fully appreciate the dark, twisted, deformed place that sin takes us to until after we are saved and have perspective and wisdom. It is only then that we REALLY appreciate what God saved us from. A person who recognizes their need for Jesus doesn’t have to have the full, in-depth “sin through the eyes of Romans” perspective. They do need to understand the basics: Sin is rebellion against God…We all have sinned and fallen short of God’s expectations…We can’t overcome sin by ourselves…God provided a way to break through the sin barrier through Jesus Christ his Son…etc, etc, etc.
That’s the basics of sin and its consequences. The rest…the full knowledge and appreciation of sin and where we might have ended up if not for Grace, comes later.
From John not (VS) to Scott , John (VS) or Amy
I have aksed a quesiton that has not been answered with a yes or no. the answer to this question is not only a very good litmus test for whether Scott, John (VS and or Amywant a valid discussion of the search for truth and it will also greatly vastly shorten the need to dig into the details of what is wrong with Rick Warrens Theology..
Here is the quesiton again:
So with that in mind I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life, and this is not meant as sarcasm. It is a valid question and all it requires is a Yes or No answer and this will determine whether you are here either to honestly find the truth or whether you are here to just defend an intellectual position. And the Question is not a digression it has everything to do with finding out whether Rick Warren is a Wolf come to scatter the Sheep or a true follower of Jesus.
Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings.
Now all I ask for is a yes or no answer.
Amy,
The video I was talking about is the one that John gives as evidence of a good gospel message from Warren. The link is in post #62. The link is in the item he listed #5.
John (not VS),
I’ll answer your question….. No!
Scott,
Whew! I think my last post was pretty SPECIFIC, but I’ll answer your last response asap.
tr
Galatians,
I appreciate your patient explanation of what you believe. I thank you also for offering to have a discussion rather than flinging accusations. I’ve heard quite a lot of that at this point from Ken and his supporters and, frankly, I’m tired of it.
There is certainly much that you said that I agree with. I do understand the concept of substitutionary atonement. I’ve heard a variation of the “tribe” story which involves a speeding train and a drawbridge operator. I do agree that this is what God did for us. “By his stripes we are healed.” That said, I do still have some disagreements with your understanding on a few key points. For instance, when you say:
I’m not sure exactly what you meant by this, but as a plain statement of fact, it is simply untrue. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves unregenerate men prior to salvation. I won’t bother to quote John 3:16 which says God sent his son because he loved “the world” but I will quote Romans 5 where Paul writes:
I don’t think Paul could be clearer that God does indeed love sinners though he detests sin. In fact, I know you know this since you say it yourself when you present a version of the Gospel:
God does indeed love us despite our sin. Therefore starting a Gospel presentation with “God loves you” is both accurate and acceptable. You said something else which — if I’m following you — seems to be a rather significant misunderstanding:
I agree with you so far as you go. My problem is that you don’t seem to go nearly far enough. Your argument stops at the cross as if that was the end of the Christian story for Jesus and those who follow him. It reminds me of something I heard once somewhere and have never forgotten. It was a bit of advise from an old preacher to a young one: “Never leave Jesus on the cross.” It seems to me you have done so in making this argument.
Yes, the cross was a symbol of death and exexution, but Jesus turned it into a symbol of resurrection and triumph over death. That is the potency of the symbol for us as believers. That is the image we imitate in baptism. The admonition to take up our cross is not only that we should die to sin and remain dead. If that were so, baptism would be merely public drowning (and I think few people would see such a mesage as Good News). Here is the complete passage from Matthew 16:
What you have given is only half the message. The remainder is that those who follow Jesus are raised in new life. The second half is just as important as the first, more so I believe. Dead people don’t seek purpose, but those alive in Christ should indeed be seekers. Jesus said:
As a “new creation” we have new priorities. Rather than serving the self and making ourselves slaves to the sinful nature we were born into, we are now slaves to God. And in that new life we do indeed find new purpose.
For example, believers all receive spiritual gifts with which to edify the body in any number of ways. Often these gifts are expressed in terms of service to fellow believers or demonstrations of God’s love to unbelievers. New life and new purpose go together (as you yourself admit). But when you say:
Again I have to disagree. In discussing this with Ken, he has already argued that Jesus parables were never intended to teach, only to conceal truth. I believe John or someone argued much the same in this thread. I don’t believe that for an instant, honestly, but rather than butt up against the same argument again, let’s skip the Gospels entirely and go to Acts.
In Acts 3, Peter heals a lame man. There is no preaching involved, merely Peter saying “what I have I give to you.” The man goes dancing through Solomon’s porch and a crowd gathers to see the lame walk. Peter takes the opportunity to preach. Just like Paul in Acts 17, he offers the crowd mercy for their ignorance, saying:
Then Peter calls them to repentance saying:
Here is how the New King James renders Peter’s call to repentance:
I’ve checked the Greek and the sense of what is being said seem pretty clear. Repent and get your sins taken care of, SO THAT times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.
Just to review the process here: Peter meets a felt need. He draws a crowd of onlookers. He preaches a message which absolves the very people who called for Jesus’ death, saying they did so in ignorance. Then he calls them to repent and become free of sins SO THAT they can have refreshment from the Lord.
I dare say some of the commenters on this thread would castigate Rick Warren for such a message. But this is Peter speaking. My point is that I think the scripture presents a very different picture from the one you are painting. Certainly there are examples of messages (Stephen) which were much harsher and led to martyrdom, but not all preaching was done this way.
I could make some of the same points from Paul’s message on Mars Hill, but I won’t belabor it further. I will just say that the promise of a new life is a significant part of the message we bear.
See point 4 above. I’ll transcribe a portion for the benefit of your readers. This portions begins about 2 minutes in:
Again, this is part of the standard teaching of 11 fundamentals of the faith at Saddleback. I think this is pretty clear teaching about sin and God’s holiness and what sin means for us and our need for his grace.
I disagree. See Acts 3 and Acts 17. Both Peter and Paul accuse the crowd of nothing more than ignorance.
I disagree. If you had said “If you have never acknowldeged your sin…” I would agree. But there is nothing in the scripture that specifies the emotional reaction we must have at the time of conversion. Look at Acts 8:26-40. Phillip is asked to explain a prophecy from Isaiah. The Bible says he “told him the good news about Jesus.” Then they come to some water and the Ethiopian asks if he can be baptized immediately. (Baptism, of course, always follows faith). He is baptized and the passage ends:
There is no grief in this text. Quite the opposite. Now, I will say that as we are conformed to Christ’s image, I believe we may become far more aware of our debt. I believe this is a natural part of sanctification, to reflect appropriately on what was done for us. However I don’t believe you can say that this is a pre-requisite for salvation Biblically.
Salvation is one need of mine that was met two decades ago. It was the end of one life but the beginning of another. I believe many, many people at Saddleback have had the same experience. The Gospel being preached at Saddleback is not false, as I think I have demonstrated. Don’t make the mistake the authors of Slice do, assuming that the plain Gospel is somehow not enough. It is enough.
John,
You’ve already issued judgment on me. I was not favorably impressed with your discernment then so I am not now inclined to offer you an excuse to botch it again.
john,
I find it interesting that you want to give some sort of litmus test before you answer and/or engage on a topic. I’m not sure if I’ve ever run into that before. It sounds as though if I don’t answer in a way that you approve of, you will decide to end the discussion or refuse to answer my questions.
Of course, it isn’t a new question. There are those that want to cry that the Catholic Church is the harlot of Revelation and/or is the body that will give rise to the Anti-Christ’s false prophet and chief evil-doer and/or is the leader of the great apostasy that begins with the rise of ecumenicalism around the world.
You ask: “Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings. I think that your question is shallow in its attempt to try and generate an artificial either/or type justification for your theological and philosophical paradigm. Your question is also shallow in its apparent attempt to cover all Catholics under the umbrella of “Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican.” Not all Catholics believe what comes out of Rome just like not all Nazarenes hold to all of the “big ticket items” in the Nazarene denomination.
However, so that you can’t accuse me of trying to dodge the question entirely, in terms of official church doctrine and dogma, I would say NO, the “officially sanctioned version of Roman Catholicism” is not valid.
The CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY (CARM) has a great summary of the answer to this question, and since Matthew Slick of CARM has a direct explanation of his view of Catholics and Catholicism that I agree with, here’s the link to his page and an excerpt from it:
http://www.carm.org/catholic/saved.htm
Are Roman Catholics Christians? They are if they have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. However, if they believe that they are saved by God’s grace and their works, then they are not saved — even if they believe their works are done by God’s grace — since they then deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It means being a member of the body of Christ, which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation…The official Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation is that the grace of God is infused into a baby at baptism — making him/her justified before God. This justification can be lost through sin and must be regained by repeated participation in the many sacraments found in the Roman Catholic Church. These sacraments increase the measure of grace in the person by which he or she is enabled to do good works, which are in turn rewarded with the joy of heaven: If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture. Therefore, as a whole, Roman Catholics need to be evangelized. They need to hear the true Gospel. They need to hear that they are not made right before God by being in a church, or by being baptized, but by receiving Christ (John 1:12), believing that Jesus has risen from the dead (Rom. 10:9), and that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by our deeds (Rom. 4:5). It is only true faith that results in true works (James 2), not the other way around. Roman Catholics, like anyone else, need to trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins and not the Catholic sacraments, not the words of the priest, not the pope, not Mary, not the saints, not penance, not indulgences, not the rosary, etc. Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).
So, john, MY answer to your question is: It is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE for Roman Catholics (along with Russian Orthodox, Egyptian Orthodox, etc) to be truly Evangelical. I have known many through the years. However, it is in spite of the doctrines of the Roman Church, not because of it, that this occurs.
Since you have made my position on Catholicism the litmus test upon which you will judge my worthiness for further discuss/dialogue, let me ask you this one last question.
Where do YOU stand on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics (notice that I have made a distinction between the two). Are you familiar with Jack Chick and his Chick publications including the expose/narrative created by Chick publications focused on Alberto Rivera? If so, what is your opinion of Chick, Chick Publications, Alberto Rivera, etc?
John (VS) said:
You’ve already issued judgment on me. I was not favorably impressed with your discernment then so I am not now inclined to offer you an excuse to botch it again.
I say:
There was no saracasm in my question or in my original message regarding Rick Warren. I am not here to get into an intellectual debate. Or to try and ridicule anyone or belittle anyone. What I stated was valid. Rick Warren is a wolf in sheeps clothing. You choose to turn this into an intellectual debate based on Intellectual reasoning and I am telling you when you do that you do not know Jesus. I have not issued Judgement on you, by your position you have issued judgement on yourself.
After my original message you replied in great and lengthy detail of why you think Rick Warren is true to the Word in what he teaches. And then you said to show where he teaches contrary to the word and I then asked you a question and you have not answered it. So where have I botched it?
I want to be clear my aim is not to defeat you in a debate but to find out if indeed you are truly seeking after the truth or if you are wanting to defend an intellectual position.
But by you avoiding the answering of my question, you are pretty much saying that you cannot defend your beliefs, biblicaly and therefore you wish to attempt to redirect attention away from that fact by making some statement that you are not impressed with my discernment. I apologize but discernment hardly ever impresses, because it shines light into darkness or areas that do not want to be revealed but must to ensure people are not decieved.
I am sorry that you feel injured. But the natural fleshly reaction when it encounters truth is to recoil and recoiling usually makes a person reply with some afronted statements such as yours.
But I will not continue this and close by answering my own question:
Roman Catholicism as promulagated by the Vatican does not reflect the teachings of Jesus. Rick Warren promotes the Purpose Driven Church in Catholic Churches for Catholics. Rick Warren considers Roman Catholicism a valid Christian Fatih and Biblically based. This is why I said the debate over Rick Warren could be ended very quickly. On this point alone Rick Warren is shown to be a Wolf come in to scatter the sheep. Nothing else needs be said about the finer details of his Theology.
And in closing I would like to reiterate my aim has never been to belittle you or defeat you. My aim is to let you see the Truth. The Truth is life to those who are saved and death to those who are perishing. I pray that you will have your heart iluminated to the Truth and it will become life to you, because where the Heart is there your intellect will follow.
God Bless.
Sott said:
So, john, MY answer to your question is: It is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE for Roman Catholics (along with Russian Orthodox, Egyptian Orthodox, etc) to be truly Evangelical. I have known many through the years. However, it is in spite of the doctrines of the Roman Church, not because of it, that this occurs.
Since you have made my position on Catholicism the litmus test upon which you will judge my worthiness for further discuss/dialogue, let me ask you this one last question.
Where do YOU stand on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics (notice that I have made a distinction between the two). Are you familiar with Jack Chick and his Chick publications including the expose/narrative created by Chick publications focused on Alberto Rivera? If so, what is your opinion of Chick, Chick Publications, Alberto Rivera, etc?
I say:
Scott do not get me wrong I was not attempting to trap anyone or do a bait and switch tactic. Again my aim here is not to win a debating war. It has been to reveal the truth. And that is all. I personally think that trying to slam someone in a Cristian debate is well rather Un-Christian.
In regards to whether someone can be Catholic and be saved would say a layman possiblythey can, but if they are practicing a faith of Grace in Jesus Christ alone. But I would say I think it would be very difficult because they do have to take the Catholic Catechism so very difficult but not impossible, but for Priests and Nuns no, because they have too much knowledge of the gross errors. so as a faith it is as you said it is not a valid Fatih. And anyone is in such a leadership position such as Rick Warren who supposedly knows the Bible does not warn warn Catholics concerning the gross errors of official Catholic Dogma,but instead assists the Heirarchy of the Church perpetuate the Catholic Dogma then he is a wolf come to scatter the flock fill stop.
“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchmans hand.” Eze. 33:6 NASV
It will be required of Rick Warren to answer to God as to why he assisted in leading people astray.
Again this is not to win an argument or debate it is to open peoples eyes to the Truth.
God Bless
P.S. as far as the Chick publications I’m not sure why they are even brought up, where do they fit into this? And as far as the Revelation and its interpretation I think that would probably need not only a thread of its own but most likely an enitre Blog to debate. as interpretations of it are very numerous.
“john,”
John may not have answered your question, but I DID,…so why not just answer me? You have obviously placed yourself in a position of attempting to discern more than is really possible apart from having the omnicience of God. I am assuming that you are not claiming particular attribute of God.
For get your ridiculous, “What I stated was valid. Rick Warren is a wolf in sheeps clothing.” You CAN’T know that because you can ONLY point to what YOU consider to be things that YOU DISAGREE WITH. YOUR HANG-UP WITH CATHOLICS is YOUR DEAL. The Body of Christ does NOT rise or fall with YOUR opinion of Catholicism and Catholics.
You want to believe that ALL CATHOLICS within the Catholic Church are in darkness (at least that is how it appears). You want to believe that since Rick Warren has decided that he wants to reach people in the Catholic Church, this means that he has endorsed those things within the Catholic Tradition that you (and I) do not agree with (Mary as co-redemptrix, saints as mediators, purgatory,etc).
You IGNORE the fact that even Jesus hung out with people whome he didn’t agree with. He hung out with the “sinners,” the tax collectors, the prostitutes, etc. He ATE with them, he TAUGHT them, he SOCIALIZED with them. I’m sure that was distasteful to the religious “system” at the time, just as that is distasteful to you today.
But it doesn’t change the fact that Rick Warren is reaching Catholics that YOU AREN’T. At this point it appears that your only concern is to be sure that anyone who becomes a “john approved Christian” is someone who can meet all of YOUR criteria. There is no room for debate or disagreement in “john’s Christianity,” which is interesting because there was obvious room for debate and disagreement during the 1st Century. Read through ACTS and look at the disagreements between the apostles.
You said: “Rick Warren considers Roman Catholicism a valid Christian Fatih and Biblically based. This is why I said the debate over Rick Warren could be ended very quickly. On this point alone Rick Warren is shown to be a Wolf come in to scatter the sheep. Nothing else needs be said about the finer details of his Theology.” You have just dismissed every Roman Catholic. How can you do that so glibly? And then, because JOHN has said so, the matter is ended?!?
WHAT ARROGANCE!!!!!!!! WHAT SPIRITUAL FOOLISHNESS!!!!!
What I have said to Ken before I say to you now: your self-important blather and puffed up, spiritual-sounding pronouncements give evidence to the COSTCO-SIZED helping of spiritual pride that you obviously carry around with you at all times.
Whereas John (from VS) and others are able to actually discern the majors from the minors and are able to distinguish between matters of true orthodoxy and matters of secondary importance, you have the prideful stubbornness of the Pharisees and the blindness of the prideful.
Scott Said:
For get your ridiculous, “What I stated was valid. Rick Warren is a wolf in sheeps clothing.” You CAN’T know that because you can ONLY point to what YOU consider to be things that YOU DISAGREE WITH. YOUR HANG-UP WITH CATHOLICS is YOUR DEAL. The Body of Christ does NOT rise or fall with YOUR opinion of Catholicism and Catholics.
You want to believe that ALL CATHOLICS within the Catholic Church are in darkness (at least that is how it appears). You want to believe that since Rick Warren has decided that he wants to reach people in the Catholic Church, this means that he has endorsed those things within the Catholic Tradition that you (and I) do not agree with (Mary as co-redemptrix, saints as mediators, purgatory,etc).
You IGNORE the fact that even Jesus hung out with people whome he didn’t agree with. He hung out with the “sinners,” the tax collectors, the prostitutes, etc. He ATE with them, he TAUGHT them, he SOCIALIZED with them. I’m sure that was distasteful to the religious “system” at the time, just as that is distasteful to you today.
I say:
Ok let me get this straight. You said that and I quote:
“However, so that you can’t accuse me of trying to dodge the question entirely, in terms of official church doctrine and dogma, I would say NO, the “officially sanctioned version of Roman Catholicism” is not valid.”
And then you come out with your latest statment? Where did that come from? You have a serious contradiction here, first you agree that Roman Catholicism is not a valid Faith, and then you cannot understand why it is wrong for Rick Warren to perpetuate Roman Catholicism by assisting Catholic Clergy with teaching the Purpose Driven Church within a Catholic Church? He is not attempting to reach people wihtin Catholicism to led them out of Catholicism. He believes Offical Catholic Dogma to be valid.
I think we just got down to the bare facts now and you have revealed very cleary that you have no understanding or refuse to understand the problems with what you are saying and maybe you are just here to argue a personal unregnerate Intellectual position or maybe worse yet, just to argue.
And as far as myself or Pastor Ken judging you. Apologies but you have judged yourself by the contradictions in your statements. It shows that the author of your views is confusion.
And I will make this my last post as it is obvious that you either want an acceptance of your confusion or some kind of compromise to make valid what cannot. Also with all due respect it matters not to me that you think Pastor Ken or myself arrogant in what we say. I dont personally attack people I state the facts if you take issue with that and begin hurling personal insults around what does that say about you allied with your contradictory statements? You need to seriously think about that.
Truth cannot ever be considered to be anything else but arrogant to those who despise it.
John,(not vs)
I was a little surprised that you addressed this question – “Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings.” – to me, as I wasn’t aware that I was part of your discussions with John and Scott. By the way I have read very few of the comments on this site by you, John or Scott and I may have skimmed one by John. I don’t have time to look at all this right now. When I do answer the Roman Catholic question it will be without reading anyone else’s answer. Anyway, please don’t make assumptions that my silence about what others have said means that I agree with them.
The reason I wrote on Scott and John’s site is that I got linked there from SLICE. I had been trying to get some specific information about Rob Bell to no avail, so thought I would give another site a chance. I thought that since Ken Silva was having interaction with them on their post, and since the main issue seemed to be that they (and I don’t remember if this point if it was both of them, or just one of them) also wanted specific details to back up the accusations against Rob Bell. I had no idea who John, Scott, and later Chris, were.
I did appreciate the fact that John, and Scott as well,tried to answer my questions about Rob Bell and that John was willing to let me put questions on his site. For I once again asked serious questions to Ken Silva about his authority and attitude towards those he is ostensibly trying to help, that have yet to be answered. If you look at that site, you will seem that the main concern ends up being, not Rob Bell, but the authority and attitude of Ken Silva. That’s how I perceive it anyway.
Scott, Chris, and John, and I have ended up talking about a variety of issues. I appreciate and agree with some of their viewpoints. I’m sure we have differences of opinions and philosophy. But they are not differences that want to make me start calling them names, treating them as if they are intellectually inferior, or that they aren’t concerned about truth and obeying God.
Some of them seem especially concerned about making sure that both sides are understanding what the other is saying, before they jump to conclusions. I see them doing this more than people from “the other side.”
They do want to hear specifics about the details of why people believe the way they do about certain things. Look at the appreciative comments towards Henry Frueh.
At least one of them has pointed out that it is not our place to decide who is damned. They recognize the danger of someone seeming to claim a special authority from God. They recognize the unhelpfulness of belittling words and no or vague answers to questions.
About the video – when it was shown in my very small small group- a couple of people said things like “I wouldn’t exactly call that a gospel presentation.” and “I’ve never heard the gospel presented like that before.” Then most people seemed to conclude that since the pastor was so excited about PDL series, there must be some good things in it.
For me, from that day on I was more than wary.
Other people were in small groups that met in houses with a general relaxed atmosphere. One man whom I talked to about it later, who had a position of authority in the church, said he wasn’t even listening when ithe video came on. He may have been out in the kitchen getting popcorn. I think that the level of attention given to the video wasn’t what it should have been for most people to have even realized what wasn’t being said.
And Christians aren’t taught to be wary of “Christian” things brought in by the pastor and/or leadership.
Many people in my church didn’t like PDL, but we were the only family who left because of it. I still have many friends in that church – they are godly, bible-loving people. Most of them just had the idea “we’ll just get through this.” Later, when they were told by the pastor that they were going to do PD Community, some said “Oh, boy, here we go again” and endured.
As for John’s view on the video, John can never see the video”cold,” as one who has no friends/family at Saddleback, as one who has not read the Saddleback statement of beliefs. He will never see Rick Warren as I have seen him., because of this.
And another thing, why did I react so strongly against the video, when other of my very godly friends didn’t? Could it be that for some reason God gave me that discernment? I mentioned earlier that when it was announced at my church that we would be purchasing the PDL series for other churches, that I immediately felt physically sick and had to leave. As I drove home, I knew that the “burden” I was feeling actually went far deeper than anything that I could explain. One thing I did understand – when my small group had watched the video, we had discussed how, at least at our church, there were people who did understand the gospel, who could help unbelievers in the group understand the gospel, and even explain to them what was left out. But we said what about other churches? So, when I heard that the video was going to other churches, I realized that at those churches, people could be saved, without understanding the significance of Jesus death, what sin was, repentance, etc. But my burden went far beyond that . . .
I have refused to judge all of my friends who remain at the church I left. The leadership I will say I am sadly disappointed in – for they admitted that the gospel of Rick Warren was “weak” – but most of them didn’t see this as a big problem. If the gospel is not at the heart of the church, what is?
But I cannot judge those who haven’t come to exactly the same conclusions as I have on the matter. So much of what I perceive I see as a burden that comes from God – I take no “credit” for that burden, and no “credit” for my “better” discernment.
“Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings.” NO.
But I wonder if you ask this as a question of fellowship for everyone. If so, I wouldn’t. Many people, including Roman Catholics, do not even know what Roman Catholicism is, and what they believe.
Here’s another question. Do all protestant churches have their doctrine absolutely correct? Do they understand everything about God and all his doings?
NO.
And here’s another question: Does any one protestant churches have their doctrine absolutely correct? We would all like to think so, but . . .
Does any one denomination understand everything about God and all his doings? Definitely not.
Can Roman Catholics be saved? I would say yes, just as I would say God has saved many protestants in spite of what I consider their gross misunderstandings of Scripture.
John (not VS)
I just reread your question. I hadn’t realized that you had said, “So with that in mind I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life”
Whoa!
Let’s imagine that I have grown up in a non-Catholic area and know absolutely nothing of Catholocism. Imagine I have no tv (which I don’t by the way) and have only heard random bits here and there about “the pope.”
You are DEMANDING, not of me, BUT OF GOD, that he must reveal a truth to me so that you can know if the Holy Spirit is active in my life?
What PRESUMPTION!
Let me give you a question. IAre some of the South Seas Evangelical churches in the Pacific adding to the word of God? No looking on the internet! Let the Spirit reveal it to you. According to your answer, I will decide whether or not the Holy Spirit is at work in your life.
(Of course the Holy Spirit has a 50% chance of getting it right.)
I don’t know where you are coming from, but I do see your question as extremely presumptuous. I would see it as even more presumptious if I wasn’t sure from my own investigations that the Catholic church’s teachings are unbiblical.
What you have done gives me far greater concern than anything I have read by John, Scott, or Chris.
Amy said:
A person will almost always eventually see exactly what they already wanted to see.
I’ve appreciated TR’s approach to this debate so far. He runs a real blog where honest disagreement is respected. However, I think the tenor coming from john is quite different. That is why I refused to answer his (dumb) question. As we’ve now seen, it was all a set up for a guilt-by-association attack.
john says:
Which of course explains this:
Which was obviously directed at me since I was the one saying so. But we’ve moved far beyond the “spiritual blindness” accusations now:
Riiight. No judgment there at all. I just don’t know Jesus. Thanks for clarifying that, john.
As Amy has pointed out, this is not the only time john has let me know my salvation was in question in this discussion. We’ve all heard similar “spiritual blindness” accusations from Ken over at my blog though, to his credit, he never accused any of us of being unsaved.
Putting aside the discussion at hand, this tactic of literally “demonizing” the opponent is not appropriate when disagreeing with other believers. That has been the core of my argument regarding Rick Warren and the people baptized at Saddleback. Now I think that argument is being validated before our eyes as a disagreement in this thread has led to questioning my salvation as well. This tendency is not healthy either intellectually or spiritually.
Ken Silva,
I have not read everything that Scott, John, and Chris have written. For example, I have hardly read anything they have written on this site, as I made clear. I have read things on Verum Serum that they have written with which I have disagreed.
Perhaps you have read something I have missed that was much much worse than John- not- vs litmus test. If so, I’m fine with you holding that opinion. But don’t assume that I’ve read what you’ve read, or would even agree with your opinion.
I doubt that whatever I find would shock me as much as someone coming up with a statement that is essentially “forcing” God to reveal whether something is of God or not on the spot.
I fail to see how this statement, “A person will almost always eventually see exactly what they already wanted to see” could possibly apply to this situation. Have I “already been wanting to see” that John -not -VS does something that I consider very unscriptural and inexcusable? You make this sound as if it has been going on for a long time. I read John-no-VS’s comment immediately before replying to it – I’ve lost track of time but I think it was a couple of hours ago. I have hardly read any of John-not-VS comments before that.
And what have I been wanting to see about John of Verum Serum (hey that has a nice ring), Scott, and Chris? Nothing. My writing on their site was for the purpose of asking you a question. And then more questions. The main thing I’ve been wanting to see regarding them, since reading some of the dialogue that has gone back and forth between them and others, is for people to treat them like the with respect. I’ve wanted to see someone start with the assumption that these men are not out to stray from God, but rather want to learn. You and some others are making it very difficult for them to even listen to opposing viewpoints.
If they’re indeed out to deny the Cross, I’m missing it. But let’s say that they were – who is going to reach them – someone who treats them with respect, or someone who essentially acts like he despises them? They don’t mind truth – I say again, look at their reaction to Henry Frueh.
I can only imagine that you addressed this issue because you are defending what John-not-VSdid. And the real issue here, is, not what I think about Chris, Scott, and John of Verum Serum, but whether what John-not-VS did is biblical or not.
So, if you want to talk further about this, let me know what the Bible says that would justify what he did. I would like to hear a scriptural defense of coming up with such a statement. And realize that my South Seas Evangelical in the Pacific example, though it might sound overboard, represents what some people actually know about the Catholic church.
Since I have decided to end my comments related to this whole thread over at Verum Serum, I wanted to make it clear that I will do the same thing on this blog. This being my last comment related to this thread, let me say a few things:
Tony-As John said above you run a respectable “real” blog that allows disagreement and discussion, and I truly appreciate that. Unlike others who have contributed to this discussion who filter their “blog” comments to allow for mainly positive, supportive statements, you have allowed “both sides” to speak. I thank you for that greatly.
“john” (not of VS)-I knew that your question was a set up from the beginning and was, at its core, stupid and ridiculous because of its obvious nature. However, I still felt that I should give it a shot and answer it so that you wouldn’t be able to accuse me of dodging the question and/or avoiding some important point out of fear or whatever other ridiculous accusation that you might make.
Regarding your question and my answer, they are not contradictory. You just only want to see things YOUR WAY.
First, let’s be clear. Contrary to your previous statement, I DID NOT SAY that Roman Catholicism was not a valid Faith. I did not say that because that was not your question. Your question was, “Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings.” To that question my answer was NO. I believe that through time they have ADDED to what was intended, and what has been added has changed the intended view of salvation through Christ.
I would NEVER be so arrogant as to try and declare that a particular expression of Christianity was not a valid faith. I leave those kind of pronouncements to your judgmental hands. To hold that kind of view would be to pass judgment on all who call themselves members of that particular expression of Christianity. Since I’m not God, that isn’t my call. Since you seem to feel that you HAVE been called to take over the judgment seat, feel free. Knock yourself out. Just be ready to explain yourself to THE JUDGE. He might have a difference of opinion with you.
As my initial explanation points out, the “officially sanctioned version of Roman Catholicism” as promoted by the Vatican is NOT valid. WHY? Because their view of Salvation differs from that presented in the Bible. They have added a variety of works-related items and intermediatory steps that take away the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive act of crucification and resurrection.
However, YOU now make it completely obvious that YOU want to assume that ALL CATHOLICS follow ALL TEACHINGS from the Vatican and focus ALL of their attention and faith upon what the POPE tells them. This is where you reveal your arrogance and pride and, dare I say it, spiritual blindness.
Not all Catholics pray to Mary and the Saints. Not all Catholics hold to a faith + works view of salvation. Some are Catholics because of the deep, rich tradition and veneration shown to God through these traditions while also being completely Evangelical in their views of orthodox Christianity.
This may surprise you, “john,” but not all Nazarenes believe that dancing and attending movies are bad, AND not all Nazarenes believe that the spiritual gifts ceased in the first century. Not all Presbyterians believe in baptising infants. Not all Baptists believe that baptism is essential for salvation. A label is a label, not a certification of all things that a person believes. Perhaps that “subtle” truth is lost on you.
Regarding your statement: “I think we just got down to the bare facts now and you have revealed very cleary that you have no understanding or refuse to understand the problems with what you are saying and maybe you are just here to argue a personal unregnerate Intellectual position or maybe worse yet, just to argue…It shows that the author of your views is confusion.”
Again I must say that you have HUTZSPA in a serious way. Because I disagree with your characterization of all catholics, that means that I either have no understanding, or refuse to understand, or I am hear to represent the devil (the author of confusion).
HOW ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT I AM A GROUNDED, WELL-EDUCATED, WELL-RESEARCHED, IMMERSED-IN-THE-WORD, INVOLVED-IN-MY-LOCAL-CHURCH, LEADER-IN-MY-LOCAL-CHURCH, LOVER-OF-THE-LORD CHRISTIAN who happens to disagree with you on some points? THAT never seemed to cross your mind as an option. I am guessing that never crossed your mind because your mind is so narrow as to assume that the ONLY right way of believing is your way.
You are like the Inquisition of the Internet.
And yet you seem to forget the Lord’s words in Matthew: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
Based on this passage, you have created quite a standard by which you will be judged. Good luck with that.
Scott,
When I have heard “HUTZSPA” used, it’s been with positive connotations.
With that understanding, I say that you have Hutzspa.
John not Vs,
John claims that this “I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life, and this is not meant as sarcasm. It is a valid question and all it requires is a Yes or No answer and this will determine whether you are here either to honestly find the truth or whether you are here to just defend an intellectual position…Is Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican a valid expression of Jesus teachings”
John says, “As we’ve now seen, it was all a set up for a guilt-by-association attack” That’s the way I understood it too, after reading your reply to their answers.
Is this assumption right, that this was just a set-up, or primarily a set-up? Then I would ask, how in good conscience you could have presented your main goal as “find(ing) out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life?”
Perhaps instead of writing “this is not intended as sarcasm,” you could have written, this is intended as a trap.
Scott,
I am responding to your comments back on #72 where you asked me for specific problems with Rick Warren and not generalizations or sweeping condemnations. I thought that comment was quite interesting, especially since I had just posted 5 pages of very specific comments, and I do not believe any of them were generalizations or sweeping.
In your response, you misrepresented some of what I was saying, or either you didn’t understand me. I hope this response will clear up those things where you may have been unclear in your understanding of my words.
I’ll respond with your numbers accordingly, in case you want to refer back to your comments:
1) When you ask me “WHO have you spoken to…of the 15000 converts” and you demand to know which percentage of THOSE people, you are simply creating a straw-man argument to knock down. I never said that I spoke to THOSE specific people. You then go on to toss the straw man around and talk about where I live and if I could possibly have talked to THOSE people. I never said that, so such an argument is moot. I simply said that when I witness to people and discover that they claim to be Christian and have come to that place through the “Purpose-Driven” methods, that they frequently do not have a grasp of the gospel. THOSE people I have spoken with are a combination of people in my own church, people in my community, people online, etc. the 15000 converts was used as an example, made my someone else I might add, at a different point in this thread, and I was continuing the example. Specially, I said that those who claim that these 15000 are legitimate converts have no more way to judge that stance than someone who would say that they aren’t. The part that you seem to miss is that no one is judging the individual souls of anyone specifically: individual or group. What is being judged, and rightly so, is the gospel they are hearing, and whether or not it is a saving gospel. When someone gives their testimony and they mention certain words like “purpose,” “hole-in-heart,” “ask Jesus into my heart,” etc. and they do not mention other words like “sin,” “cross,” “repentance,” it is not judgmental to conclude that they may be a product of the modern gospel and have bought the trendy gospel and think they are Christian when they are not. It isn’t being judgmental to assist them in a proper understanding to make sure they get it, and in doing so helping them really get saved. What is unloving is to assure them of a false salvation, or not help them see the truth, and let them find out the truth when it is too late.
I can tell by the way you write to me that you have a faulty perception of the way I might speak to someone this way. I don’t yell hell-fire venom at them. I explain to them the real gospel, and usually it ends with them saying, “Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me…I have never heard it like that and I can see I have some things to think about.” You are hearing in my words something you want to hear, and you are attacking and criticizing something that does not exist. I don’t judge people, but I am commanded by Scripture to test the message people teach (and have believed). If I fear someone thinks they are saved when they aren’t, I am not being judgmental; I am being faithful to Jesus by carrying the true gospel to the people who need to hear it.
2) Your attack of my 2nd argument is equally without merit, as once again you seem to be responding to something I didn’t say. You are quoting me out of context and applying meanings to my words that I didn’t intend.
You said,
You imply and state something from these words that I did not say. My point, which I thought was pretty clear, was that sometimes the words sound Biblical “to the Christian” because they already have an understanding of the lingo used. But the unbeliever does not know or understand the meaning of those words. I believe when a writer spends 80-100 pages telling someone that they are basically good, and that their main problem is their lack of purpose, to then toss in the word “sin” in a prayer, it does a disserve to their understanding. They think, “What do you mean I am sinner? You just told me for 3 chapters that I am good and just need purpose.” I am saying that is unclear and confusing, and the seriousness of sin is never really addressed in a manner that the reader comprehends it.
You then proceed to discuss how my criticism is invalid because Warren doesn’t do it like “I” want it done. This is a common emergent tactic that is used when a point is made that they don’t want to address. Instead of conceding the point, they just go postmodern on you and make it “your opinion.” Well I never said that this was right or wrong because it was the way “I” wanted it. My authority is not “me,” it is the Scriptures. I am claiming that it is not in accord with the Scriptures. How “I” want it is completely irrelevant. How God wants it done IS! I am simply saying to you, and to Warren, that the Bible is very clear in its definition of what sin is. It clearly says in 1 John 3:4 that sin is “transgression of the law.” So why not use the Biblical language to explain it to unbelievers? Why does it need to be redefined to “wanting to control our own lives.”? While that is definitely a “result” of sin, it is not the definition of sin. Just because man may get rid of that result of sin, doesn’t mean sin is ultimately dealt with.
God gave laws for a reason (which I explained in my previous post – to demonstrate to us his perfect character) and sin being defined by God as “transgressing the law” is done so for a purpose (so we can understand we can’t measure up to His perfect character and need to be driven to a Savior who can). We do not have the privilege or permission to change it. I ask you: why not use the Biblical language and be accurate instead of being cutesy and trying to be inoffensive and changing it to something that diminishes it’s understanding? “Wanting to control your own life” is not the same as “transgressing the law.” If I loose my pride and decide to “ask God in my life,” and now He is in control and I no longer want to “control my own life,” is that enough? No! Because even though that may be the case, I still have broken commandments and transgressed the law, and there still is a penalty to be paid for that. Just because I no longer want to “control my own life” doesn’t mean that sin is gone and paid for. Defining sin Biblically helps people understand the need for the Savior’s perfect sacrifice. We should not change it.
3) My statement that “we need to be saved from God” was certainly not a “clever turn of phrasing” as you accuse. It is simply Biblical and true. It is God’s demand for a perfect sacrifice that we can’t pay, and it is God who will judge the ones who do not have that sacrifice accredited to their account. Without understanding that the gospel is about being saved from God, one can’t really see the magnitude of the love of God. WE was willing to DIE to meet His own standard of justice in order that WE might be forgiven? Wow! That is love my friend! Me saying that doesn’t decrease the love, it increases it!
All of your words about me focusing on and being “caught up in the hatred that God has for sin” are just simply off base. God has an intense hatred for sin and proclaiming that is not bad or wrong. It is true. We speak the truth in love, but we still speak the truth. God hates sin. Why are you afraid to tell people that?
You said,
Scott, did you even read what I wrote? You act like my words here on this blog is how I would witness to a neutral unbeliever. I would not sit down with an unbeliever and start attacking the message of Rick Warren. Of course I would include the grace of God in the message! Perhaps you missed my concluding point above when I said, “In this act of love, both justice and mercy were demonstrated.”
The reason why you see an over-enunciation of sin and judgment in this dialog is because THAT IS WHAT RICK WARREN WATERS DOWN! I am not hung up on sin and judgment, but since that is the area that needs to be addressed, that is what I have to speak to.
You don’t need to ask me “what about grace?” I understand grace and preach grace as much as a proper understanding of sin. Where you seem to be missing the point is that one can not grasp the magnitude of God’s grace if they don’t understand the magnitude of sin. You can’t separate the two. The glorious and awesome magnitude of God’s grace is that He would die to save a sinner like me! The deeper you understand sin, the better you appreciate the mercy, love, and grace of God! God’s love isn’t some syrupy chick-flick kind of “aaaaawwwwwww… isn’t that cute.” We aren’t talking about teddy bears here, we are talking about the death of the Creator to pay for our sin. That is BIG! The sin is BIG, and the cost is BIG. Why are you ashamed of that?
You said,
That is right! He needs to understand it will KILL him! That is precisely my point. The PDL gospel doesn’t explain that sin is something that will KILL him. The PDL doctor would tell him that the tumor wants him to have purpose and be fulfilled. Without comprehending the need for the cure, the patient never can understand the sacrifice made to get it for him.
Ray Comfort explains that if I walked up to you and said that I sold my house and all that I own to buy you this medicine” you would think I was crazy. But if I first sat you down and explained you had a terminal illness, but I had but I had sold my house and all that I own to get you the rare cure, your perspective would be much different.
When you say,
You speak some truth here. Sure someone doesn’t have to be a theologian, and I am not saying they do. They do need to understand that they have transgressed the law of God (sin) and therefore need a mediator, and then of course who that mediator is.
You show your influence of Warren in this paragraph when you say “Sin is rebellion against God.” When you put it like that rather than the Biblical way, you can lead someone to believe that if they stop rebelling against God, then they are no longer a sinner. It avoids the issue that past sins are specific acts of transgressing God’s law. It undermines the sacrifice of Jesus and His death as a propitiation and substitution atonement, which pays for those acts when we couldn’t. I simply ask, why not use the Biblical language in our evangelism so that it is clear to the sinner, what sin is, and therefore so they can understand just how great and amazing grace God’s love is?
Peace,
Tony
To John (VS) Scott and Amy,
My questions were never set ups. True and in fact they were intended to be an indicator of where you stood on some very basic Biblical Christian teachings, as no one can get into a debate with an another party without knowing whether they first agree on some foundational assumptions for a debate to start from.
If you cannot agree on some basic assumptions then there is really no point in debating.
The assumption I was trying to find (contrary to what you keep throwing out there that it was a trap or litmus test) was whether there was any common ground or agreement that Roman Catholicism as promulgated by the Vatican is a valid expression of Jesus teachings in the Bible.
But what YOU chose to do is to react like most Emergents react, and start throwing in all kinds of hidden meanings into the question I had stated very plainly, based on an Emergents paranoia of anything that may define something in concrete terms, You show yourself to be in some ways neurotic in not being able to even agree any assumptions for a “conversation” to be based on. And this is where Emergents positions on anything collapse into a defenseless chaotic heap. And then when an valid and concrete factual answer is given to you that refutes something you have wrongly defended, you go into some kind of Cognitive Dissonance, and explode at the messenger from the inability to reconcile the truth to your false assumptions.
What is doubly evil about your methods is because of your Emergent Paranoia you immediately jump to conclusions about some “hidden meaning or agenda” that someone may have slipped into a simple question.
This is a tactic that Emergents use on weaker Christians who don’t know the Bible and do not have a relationship with God. Emergents do not allow any baseline assumptions to be agreed on because from a Paranoia and Neurotic based Emergent position “Everything Orthodox” is suspect. Defining anything in concrete terms in automatically suspect and anyone who defends True Biblical teachings from an Orthodox position cannot be trusted or is arrogant and a Pharisee.
Your fine as long as Orthodox Christens will play along with your “Emergent Conversation” and allow you to spout chaotic rubbish!
Go ahead scream your head off about me not being nice to you. Let me ask you a question? Who said anyone has to be nice to false teachings and beliefs? Who says anyone has to allow their chaos to twist Christians up into a Gordian knot?
I have no issue with you getting into bluster over my comments. God’s true word is not relative. It’s absolute and simple so a babe can understand it. It’s only a problem for those who want to do intellectual summersaults with it in their heads.
So if you ever want to debate on an open and logical basis I will be quite happy to do so. But I am quite sure you don’t want to actually do that because it would reveal as has this thread how ludicrous your position is. Oops cant say that can I because in relative terms you cant have a defined position. Oops cant say defined either, that’s to concrete. Oops can’t say that word either. Lets say this, you sort of kind of see how possibly maybe ludicrous it could be?
John of VS,
I am addressing your concerns in post #75 above where you had some disagreement with me on a few things.
You said,
You are right, I don’t think you understood me exactly and what I meant. Let me clear that up. Of course God loves sinners even before repentance. In fact, in my post I even quoted the very verse you did (Rom 5:8) which says he specifically does. You are right, so does John 3:16 and my other verses.
Where you missed my point was that I was not saying that God doesn’t love us before repentance. When I said ““Outside of the cross, God’s love doesn’t apply to you” what I meant was that God’s love is provided to us THROUGH the cross, and that if you end up on judgment day “as you are/in your sins” then the loving sacrifice that God has provided for you will not be credited to your account and you will suffer judgment for it. I in no way meant that God doesn’t love sinners or that He is withholding love until we repent.
Clearly, each breath a sinner takes is a gift from God and another chance He has provided for him to repent. Scripture clearly teaches that it is God’s will that ALL come to repentance.
The point I was stressing was that God’s love is demonstrated through the cross. Outside of the cross, God’s love does nothing for you except woo you to the cross. If you resist that, God’s love doesn’t affect you. God loves you so much that he sent His son to die for you. That IS God’s love. Don’t accept it, and God’s love is irrelevant to you on judgment day because the sacrifice he provided doesn’t apply to your account.
Does that help?
I still disagree with you here (but love you still too):
I think the gospel presentation needs to be done the way Jesus and the apostles did it. There are no Biblical examples of the “God loves you” first approach. Scripture teaches demonstrating the “law” first to people who are proud. The gospel is given to the humble. Once humility is reached then the “God loves you that he sent His son” is then appropriate. For example, Nicodemous expressed humility by coming to Jesus as a rabbi himself and saying “we know you are from God.” Jesus responded by teaching him to be “born again” and the famous John 3:16 passage. But this was not the approach with the woman at the well or the rich young ruler. In those He used the law first to bring humility. With the women, humility was recognized and he proceeded with “God’s love.” With the rich young ruler pride never went away, humility never recognized, and therefore “God’s love” was never mentioned. We should use the same approach they did. I HIGHLY recommend Ray Comfort’s “The Way Of The Master” for understanding the truths of this approach and how to use it effectively to bring proud self-righteous people to humility in order that the loving gospel can be given and not “casting pearls before swine.” Coming out of the gate with “God loves you” puts the cart before the horse and it is not Biblical.
Let me also address this from you too:
You said,
Let me first say that perhaps in this dialog and arguing these specific points, I did not achieve giving a full gospel presentation to the end as you mention. That wasn’t my purpose as I was only addressing these parts that are pertinent to the discussions. Of course I don’t want to “leave Jesus on the cross” and I do think that the resurrection is equally important to the gospel message (1 Cor 15).
When I was saying that Jesus said that we must die to ourselves and take up the cross, I was speaking in the context of the costs of accepting Christ, to make that point. I wasn’t attempting to be complete in the gospel presentation. Of course we are to be raised in new life and we aren’t to drown in our baptism (good graphic, I liked that). I just wasn’t discussing that point; I was discussing costs. I believe in the “new creation” as you stress as equally important, and I agree.
But I must make this point in regards to that. We can’t achieve the “new creation” and the “new life” if we don’t first have the regeneration which comes through understanding the gospel. It is not my desire to stop at the cross, and in my own walk and in my church growth and sanctification is fully stressed. I fully believe in being consistent in our walk in our new life.
Where I have a major beef with the emergents in this dialog is that they stress the fruits of the “new creation” but they often breeze over the requirements of becoming a “new creation” by having a watered down or false gospel. It isn’t that we are at odds John on needing to be regenerated and then needing to focus on growth and living that out. It is just that I think the emergent and Purpose Driven gospel is not giving enough information to the sinner to really get regenerated, and then it is rushing them off to “living the Christian life” without being born again. I think that this is setting them up for failure, because you know as well as I do that the carnal mind can’t live the Christian life.
I address this very issue in a post from a few years ago called, “A Letter To My Emergent Friend” which was a real letter I wrote to a friend of mine. I later posted it generically on my blog and it stressed this very point. You can read that short letter here:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2005/06/23/a-letter-to-my-emergent-church-friend/
I once was talking to a girl at my work that I knew went to a local seeker-sensitive church. When I started talking to her about her faith I asked her if she considered herself a Christian. She responded that she was not a Christian, but she lived a Christian lifestyle (the cross around her neck was what started this dialog). This seemed like a very confusing position to take so I proceeded in my questions with her. It turns out, that her church clearly had her understanding what it was like to be living like a Christian (morals, works, etc.) but they had never explained to her the gospel in a way that made sense. She was not saved, and was not concerned about it. That is what the seeker-sensitive / emergent gospel creates. The real gospel corrects it.
You said that you disagree when I say that we should not use the fruits of salvation as draw-cards to entice sinners to Christ. That does not mean that I disagree with the way Peter preached. I am not sure I am comfortable with how you pitted my words against Peter’s. I wasn’t saying that. Peter was preaching to Jews, who understood the law of God in depth. When he preached at Pentecost he didn’t start with the law as I described above because they already knew that. Jesus and Paul, and other apostles started with the law when necessary, and we should too. And more importantly, they never appealed to the fleshly desires in order to entice sinners to come. That is the problem with the seeker-sensitive models I criticize. They not only start with “God loves you” they also change things to appeal to fleshly desires to get people to come. In order to understand what I am saying, I would sincerely ask that you listen to that message by Ray Comfort “Hell’s Best Kept Secret.” I have posted the link several times in this thread. Have you listened to it? If not, would you please take the time and do that?
You said,
“Just to review the process here: Peter meets a felt need. He draws a crowd of onlookers. He preaches a message which absolves the very people who called for Jesus’ death, saying they did so in ignorance. Then he calls them to repent and become free of sins SO THAT they can have refreshment from the Lord.”
Well I am not sure about him meeting a felt-need, but he does call them to repent SO THAT they can be saved from their sins. Peter is preaching to those who knew the law and that understood sin. Quoting Peter here doesn’t disprove what I have been saying. Besides, I’d LOVE to hear Rick Warren say, “Repent then and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out.” Do you think he would stand up like Peter and say that in his next ecumenical meeting with UN leaders?
You quoted me and said,
I wasn’t defending an emotional reaction. Sorry you read that. I was using the word grieved to indicate that one must come to the understanding of the magnitude of sin. You used “acknowledge” and I would not debate the semantics of that with you. I would just say that “acknowledge” would have to be a Biblical acknowledgement of sin, not some “I made a boo-boo and told a little white lie.”
I appreciated your testimony at the end of this post. I disagree with the overall and general view that most of the gospel from PDL is creating the results you testify to. I did like the words you quoted above and believe that those are the best words I have heard attributed to Warren. I just wish they were a prevalent teaching in PDL. I don’t see that in the texts he writes, and I don’t’ hear it from his converts.
I’ll respond more later. Whew you guys are amazing. Don’t you ever sleep? ☺
I must make a point about the emergent hermeneutic of postmodern authority. I see this a lot when I dialog with emergents, and it has become apparent here to which it should be pointed out.
What I am talking about is that postmodernism teaches that authority is within person to determine truth rather than it being objective. We see this worldview in the words of the emergent church leaders as they question the authority of pastors, theologians, and most importantly Scriptures. What was once a movement to reach postmoderns has accepted their worldview.
I see this worldview come through in many different mechanisms, but I see it in the debate form like this:
Christian: “The Bible says X”
Emergent: “That’s your opinion”
Christian: “The Bible says X”
Emergent: “You are arrogant for saying that is truth. It is your opinion”
Christian: “The Bible says X”
Emergent: “You are arrogant because everyone doesn’t agree with YOU!”
Do you see how the emergent makes the Christian the authority for their views, and doesn’t acknowledge that the view is (1) from Scripture, (2) is supported by many well educated theologians and (3) has been the view of the church for 2000 years. No, the view is reduced down to the opinion of the Christian. The emergent who has been trained that he is the authority for himself rather than the Scriptures, finds it easy to flip those whom he disagrees off of their Scriptural authority and onto their own authority. This way, he doesn’t has to deal with the argument being made, but only the person making the argument.
If you look back over the last few blogs on my blog, and on the other blogs that preceeded this 3 week discussion, you will see the constant attacks of the emergents where arguemtns are constantly reduced to “your opioin” or ignored beucase “you disagree because no on agrees with YOUR opinions.”
Scott, I am not picking on you personally, but I am going to use your words on this thread to demonstrate this point. I think it is important for people to understand and recognize this emergent debate tactic when in dialog with them. I don’t believe they know they do it, but it is a common thing that reduces arguments down to “he said she said” and everything to a postmodern squish mush with no truths.
Tony (hope that’s cool),
Once again, I appreciate the tone of the discussion you offer. As I’m simultaneously being accused of being a non-believer in this thread, it’s very refreshing.
So let me say, my apologies if I misunderstood you. I hope it was clear that I was allowing for that very possibility.
I completely agree with that, which is why I still feel it is appropriate to start a Gospel presentation to unbelievers with “God loves you.”
I agree that threre are no examples in Acts which use this approach, but I think the fact that this message is plain in the Gospels indicates that it is a Biblical statement. To use John 3:16 as a starting point does not seem invalid per se.
God does indeed resist the proud. I think I agree with you here in principle, but I think we have to examine the context of the materials we’re criticizing in specific. On the web, we never can know who is coming by to read or view what we offer. Not unless they announce themselves. It’s possible there are some really angry atheists reading this post right now.
So, in theory, when Rick Warren places a Gospel presentation on a page about “Getting Started” on a church website, all sorts of proud and unrepentant people might view it. And I agree that it is not a message suited for them. That is the danger of any presentation on the web. However, speaking as the webmaster for my own church, I’m confident that message wasn’t placed there for arrogant people. On the contrary, I’m certain it was placed there in the hope that those seeking God, who are looking to understand more about the Christian faith (like the Ethiopian in Acts) would find it.
I agree. But again, I think you have to judge the Warren presentation from the point of view of its intended audience: people who may come to Saddleback’s website genuinely seeking to understand the very first steps of the faith. It is there for people who, like Nicodemus, come with an appropriate heart. They are watching the presentation, presumably, because they want to know God. Remember the page where I found this was titled something like “Gettings started.” I believe if you judge it in that light, it is an appropriate message.
And, while I have not read it, I think there is some sense in which PDL was also intended for a certain audience. Remember the first book was PDChurch. It was aimed at believers. I think this book was also. I don’t think anyone expected it to get the overwhelming response it did from people outside the faith. I haven’t read the book, but that is my sense of what happened. It surprised everyone. But again, I think we have to presume that people picking up such a book by a pastor are probably not the arrogant who need the law. Many of these people wanted the kind of life described in this book. If the book failed to explain how to get there completely that is a failing, but it still represents a huge opportunity. In any case, what was said in the book does not detract from what has been done at Saddleback. As the bit of teaching I transcribed shows, the teaching on salvation there is orthodox (if colloquial).
If I may quibble with you slightly, that’s not how it went. The woman at the well is a beautiful example of a “seeker-sensitive” message and I mean that in a non-perjorative way. Jesus first of all engages a Samaritan woman (a double no-no) in a conversation. He reaches out to her in a neutral way, simply asking for a drink, thoug it’s clear he has a plan in doing so. In the ensuing discussion he then says:
Jesus has just offered her eternal life. He is clearly trying to woo her with a promise of new life, exactly as we discussed before. It is only when she asks how she may receive it, that Jesus confront her with her sin. Conversation, offer of new life, confrontation with sin…in that order.
And please note that after he confronts her very plainly, she doesn’t skip a beat but goes right on to the next question. Has she been humbled? Yes. Has she deeply understood her separation from God or dwelt on it extensively? Probably not. At least not at that moment. Finally, Jesus reveals himself as the messiah and source of the eternal life.
Engagement, offer of new life, acknowledgement of sin, proclamation of Jesus as the way and the life. If this method of offering salvation is good enough for Jesus, shouldn’t it be good enough for Rick Warren?
I agree completely that we can’t have new life without an end to the old one. Again I may be misunderstanding, but you write as if the Gospel is preaching death to the old and the Christian life is living out the new. But that is simply not how it is described in the Bible. Conversion, which is symbolized by baptism, is both death AND life. As I think Jesus discussion with the woman at the well shows, it is the life we are offering, the death of the old (acknowledging sin and trusting Christ for forgiveness) is what is necessary to get there.
Similarly, sanctification is the process of mortifying the old and of growing into the new life. Like conversion it involves both elements of the cross at once, death and life. In general, I agree with your desire to deeply acknowledge sin and to recognize God’s Holiness. I believe God’s spirit makes us aware of this. It is a Godly and proper response.
And yet, I think you underestimate the extent to which that comes from your own maturity. It makes no sense (to me) to ask unregenerate people to display a profound and sanctified understanding of sin before they even have the Spirit or new life. I don’t think this is the sort of thing we are to expect from new babes in Christ.
Jesus does require humility from us to enter the kingdom, but I don’t think he expects mature understanding of sin from unbelievers. The woman at the well certainly didn’t display it and Jesus didn’t correct her. Unless we are prepared to assume Jesus message to her was not sufficient (I am not) then I think we need to reevaluate what is required for one to enter the kingdom.
Sinners must acknowledge sin and humble themseves to enter the kingdom. The extent of that acknowledgment is not specified in scripture. I don’t think we should place an undue burden on the backs of spiritual infants.
John,
Thanks for your words. I think that you and I are probably not as far off as the average reader may think. I believe in my emphasis on sin and judgment (because of its lacking in the PDL discussion) has left you with an overall impression that I think that the sinner has to have a level of understanding beyond what I really believe. I agree with your closing words about maturity. In my saying that sin is not dealt with properly in the PDL message, I am not equating that to having a necessity of a theological PhD in order to understand the gospel. I believe the gospel is beautiful and understandable by a child. I really think you would benefit from hearing Ray Comfort’s message that I keep asking you about. I also think you would really appreciate the teachings of The Way of The Master evangelism course. Would you be willing to look those over so you could better understand what I may not be enunciating clearly to you?
Here is the audio link again:
http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml
Here is the training course link:
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
I will look over your last message again tomorrow and try to add some more insight. For now, my eyes hurt! Please understand I am not promoting a deep theological understanding as a requirement for salvation. I am simply saying that the person needs to understand they are sick before the will accept the cure. Check out the links.
Thanks buddy,
Tony
John,
I want to conclude again that ultimately I don’t think we are that far off on the gospel. But I think we still are far off on whether the Purpose Driven achieves the goal. I don’t think so, but you do. However, you have admitted that you haven’t read the book, and I would encourage you to do so. I would also encourage you to take a honest look at some of the better critical works of the book and search for the truth.
This tool here goes through each chapter and explains some things that might actually surprise you:
http://cicministry.org/berean.php
Also, Todd Friel on this radio program did some excellent shows on:
Who’s Driving The Purpose Driven Church 1-2
John MacArthur- Purpose Driven Life Part 1-3
The Purpose Driven Life 1-3
The Purpose Driven Life Summary
You can listen to these and others at:
http://ttwministries.com/audio.php?topicId=4
I really would ask you to honestly consider some of these things I have posted as resources before you come to a final conclusion on this matter. Thanks man.
Tony
Tony,
I also appreciate your tone and the way you give detailed explanations. There is too much on here, too little time for me to read all your explanations, but I feel from what I have read that there are things I can learn from you.
John not of VS,
You yourself described the question as a litmus test (#73).
My response to you has nothing to do with my being Emergent. Because I certainly am not.
I will not speak for the other people to whom your question was addressed,but for myself. May I suggest that your labeling me simply gives you an excuse not to listen to legitimate criticism. And by so doing you may actually miss something that God wants you to hear. I can’t help but wonder if labeling is something you generally resort to when someone has a different opinion than your own.
I will use as much of your own terminology as I can in responding to your comment. My discussion goes pretty much point by point with your comment #91.
You defined as “a simple question” a statement that said this:
“So with that in mind I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life”
You claimed that you wanted to see if we “agreed on an assumption.” I wouldn’t have had a problem with that. You could have explained, and simply asked the question.
You claim that it is my “emergent paranoia” that caused me to respond the way I do. No, as I explained, it is the potential of “forcing God (the Holy Spirit) to reveal something because you have demanded it that bothered me. Also, though I didn’t mention it before, it is the assumption that if someone is ignorant about something or has arrived at a somewhat different analysis, the Holy Spirit is not an active part of their life.
If I am paranoid about anything it’s abusing the Holy Spirit. You have no right to “force” the Holy Spirit to reveal something to someone so that you can make a judgement on whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in them or not. You have no idea whether any of us have studied the Catholic church at all – but you demand a “yes” or a “no” for a “litmus test.”
If you want to see how “paranoid” I am about abusing the Holy Spirit, feel free to look on SLICE at my comments regarding the worship video at saddleback, the one with the rapper called “Fill with the Spirit.” I’m sure my comments offended someone – I don’t really care, I feel very strongly about treating the Holy Spirit as God, not something to be made light of, joked about.
If you felt in my response to you, that I “exploded at the messenger” it is because I saw what you were doing as “forcing” the Holy Spirit to perform.
You imply that what you say is “factual” and what we express shows “cognitive dissonance.” Does it help you feel better about yourself to say such things? How are such remarks treating your enemies with respect?
I assure you my “evil methods” have destroyed many weaker Christians over the last two decades. That’s been my major goal in life, which is centered around Bible translation. It’s to take those very weak Christian (sometimes VERY weak because they don’t have a Bible yet) and muddle their brains so they can never know Jesus Christ as the Saviour who shed His Blood for them . So they can never understand the scripture that is being translated. The nationals ask me simple questions and I just jump off into questions about “hidden meanings” instead of answering them. In my spare time – when I’m not off leading people astray – I contribute to the Bible translation task – amazing that I could be so schizophrenic (but perhaps that goes with being paranoid.) I make sure that the people to whom I’ve been sent remain completely confused about what the Bible actually says because I am indeed so neurotic that I suspect “everything orthodox.” I make sure to point out to the nationals that EVERYONE who comes and teaches Ortodox positions cannot be trusted. Or sometimes I say they are arrogant. Or sometimes I say they are a Pharisee. (What I say is dependent upon which personality of my many personalities is predominant.)
It’s amazing that the Orthodox Christians play along with me, seeing as how I call them so many negative names.
If what I am saying now sounds like “chaotic rubbish,” I can show you where I got the idea from.
It wouldn’t really help for me to scream my head off because you wouldn’t hear no matter how loudly I typed.
You ask, “Who said anyone has to be nice to false teachings and beliefs? Who says anyone has to allow their chaos to twist Christians up into a Gordian knot? ” May I ask, whose chaos is twisting up who?
Amazing, even though I have been told I am an emergent, I agree that “God’s true word is not relative.” But I unlike you, don’t understand it all – does that make me emergent, or just human? .
You suggest that if I “ever want to debate on an open and logical basis I will be quite happy to do so.” It takes two people who believe in logic to debate – and since you don’t think I am interested in and probably not capable of logical debate, and since for some reason I have the same opinion of you, I guess we won’t debate.
I am amazed though, that you’ve spoken favorably of “logic.” It doesn’t fit in with the “Babes” idea.
As an emergent, I have cared so much about sharing what I believe (or don’t believe – who indeed can say?) with non-Christians, that I have suffered in health, in leaving loved ones, in “becoming a baby” over and over again in several new cultures and languages. Our Bible translation tasks sure could have gotten done quicker if we had simply been content to devote our time to bible translation and relationship building, and educating our family, instead of spending so much time corrupting the nationals. Language learning has been EXTREMELY difficult, because it’s difficult enough for a non-EMERGENT person to express themselves in another language. But for an EMERGENT? It’s taken years to discover that paranoid, neurotic style that always asks questions, is completely illogical, and never believes that a word can actually have meaning.
I’m not interested in communicating further with you, unless you would like to apologize.
John (and others),
Listen to this. This is very short. It is Kirk Cameron speaking a short message to seeker-sensative pastors. It is a good start to understanding what i am saying.
http://ttwministries.com/media/Fear%20of%20God.mp3
In anyone really wants to hear John MacArthur speak to this discussion, I’d recommend listening to this sermon in 3 parts:
http://ttwministries.com/media/John%20MacArthur-%20Purpose%20Driven%20Life%2001.mp3
http://ttwministries.com/media/John%20MacArthur-%20Purpose%20Driven%20Life%2002.mp3
http://ttwministries.com/media/John%20MacArthur-%20Purpose%20Driven%20Life%2003.mp3
To Amy:
Amy said:
You yourself described the question as a litmus test (#73).
I say:
No you are once again twisting the meaning of what I said to fit your own intended meaning. What I said was that it was and I still maintain that it is a good test to see if there was any basis from which to debate on. I think if you will take a step back you might understand that. As I have said before if people are going to debate an issue they must at least be able to agree on some basic assumptions. Now if you choose again to reinterpret what I said then remember that is your own self created meaning and not mine and I will not be made to say something I did not.
Amy Said:
I will not speak for the other people to whom your question was addressed, but for myself. May I suggest that your labeling me simply gives you an excuse not to listen to legitimate criticism. And by so doing you may actually miss something that God wants you to hear. I can’t help but wonder if labeling is something you generally resort to when someone has a different opinion than your own.
I say :
Amy one thing you must learn is not project onto someone else your own created opinion of what you think they are thinking. What you are attempting to do is take your experience from other people or personal past life experiences and form an opinion in your mind of what my motivations were, when in actuality they couldn’t have been further from what you are saying.
But in answer to your question of labeling you. I didn’t label you. I would like to point out that you came on the attack at me stating I was saying and I quote:
“essentially “forcing” God to reveal whether something is of God or not on the spot. “
Where did I say that said came anything close to this? What I said was that if the Holy Spirit is Active in Power in your Life, the Holy Spirit WILL reveal to you what is false teaching. This could in no way be construed as Forcing God to reveal something. Once again you have taken something out of context and placed your own meaning into it. And the proof of that is using the word “essentially” By using this word you are saying that’s the way YOU perceived it. But it does not mean nor does it make it what I said.
The can be active in someone’s life to such a level that the he can and will reveal to you if need be on the spot if something is of God or not. If a teaching is of God or not. This Is not forcing God to do anything. Do not force your own opinion on this to reinterpret it. Additionally wha ti essentially seem that you are saying is that because you have not experienced it then it is not valid.
Amy Said:
You defined as “a simple question” a statement that said this:
“So with that in mind I will ask you one question to find out whether the Holy Spirit is active in power in your life”
I say :
still the above is true and valid and I think you need to read your Bible because it is validated there.
Amy Said:
You claimed that you wanted to see if we “agreed on an assumption.” I wouldn’t have had a problem with that. You could have explained, and simply asked the question.
I say: Yes and what is the issue with the above it is a straight forward question. And a valid one.
Amy Said:
You claim that it is my “emergent paranoia” that caused me to respond the way I do. No, as I explained, it is the potential of “forcing God (the Holy Spirit) to reveal something because you have demanded it that bothered me. Also, though I didn’t mention it before, it is the assumption that if someone is ignorant about something or has arrived at a somewhat different analysis, the Holy Spirit is not an active part of their life.
If I am paranoid about anything it’s abusing the Holy Spirit. You have no right to “force” the Holy Spirit to reveal something to someone so that you can make a judgement on whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in them or not. You have no idea whether any of us have studied the Catholic church at all – but you demand a “yes” or a “no” for a “litmus test.”
I say: Once again you are reinterpreting what I said and changing it to mean what you want which is: “Force” The Holy Spirit. Again what I said had nothing to do with “Force” this Force thing is some private interpretation of your own. Some private meaning of your own, which you chose to inject I might add very Forcibly into the thread, It is obvious by your repeated use of the word “Force: that you do not believe that the Holy spirit can be active enough in someone’s life to enable them to discern error with out an extended investigation or research. If you do indeed believe this then you are denying what the Bible very clearly says in support of it. As far as abusing the Holy spirit, be very careful that you do not speak against the active work of the Holy spirit as then you place yourself against God and the Bible.
Amy Said:
If you felt in my response to you, that I “exploded at the messenger” it is because I saw what you were doing as “forcing” the Holy Spirit to perform.
I say: Once again you are inserting your own personal private interpretation and not what I actually said. I will repeat it for you again: The Holy spirit can be active in someone’s life to the level to enable them to discern false teachings with out the need for that person to do extended research on the teaching in question, and that is not “Forcing the Holy Spirit to perform. After all if you had to do an extended investigation to uncover whether it was false teaching or not, it wouldn’t be discernment or the Holy Spirit that led you to the conclusion that it was false teaching.
Amy Said:
You imply that what you say is “factual” and what we express shows “cognitive dissonance.” Does it help you feel better about yourself to say such things? How are such remarks treating your enemies with respect?
I say: Once again you are taking a statement and adding your own interpretive spin to it to make it something that it was not. What I was saying was and is factual. It is obvious by your reaction that you could not and still cannot understand how the Holy Spirit can be active in someone’s life to equip them to be able to spot Wolfs and False Teachings.
Amy Said:
I assure you my “evil methods” have destroyed many weaker Christians over the last two decades. That’s been my major goal in life, which is centered around Bible translation. It’s to take those very weak Christian (sometimes VERY weak because they don’t have a Bible yet) and muddle their brains so they can never know Jesus Christ as the Saviour who shed His Blood for them . So they can never understand the scripture that is being translated. The nationals ask me simple questions and I just jump off into questions about “hidden meanings” instead of answering them. In my spare time – when I’m not off leading people astray – I contribute to the Bible translation task – amazing that I could be so schizophrenic (but perhaps that goes with being paranoid.) I make sure that the people to whom I’ve been sent remain completely confused about what the Bible actually says because I am indeed so neurotic that I suspect “everything orthodox.” I make sure to point out to the nationals that EVERYONE who comes and teaches Orthodox positions cannot be trusted. Or sometimes I say they are arrogant. Or sometimes I say they are a Pharisee. (What I say is dependent upon which personality of my many personalities is predominant.)
It’s amazing that the Orthodox Christians play along with me, seeing as how I call them so many negative names.
If what I am saying now sounds like “chaotic rubbish,” I can show you where I got the idea from.
It wouldn’t really help for me to scream my head off because you wouldn’t hear no matter how loudly I typed.
I say:
This is an unfortunate selfish diatribe. And what is completely evident in it and quite ironic is it reveals in yourself what you have accused me of. What you are in fact saying above is that you have a fixed standard of your own for which you use to label people. Remember check your own heart before you begin to pull the speck out of someone’ else’s eye.
Amy Said
Amazing, even though I have been told I am an emergent, I agree that “God’s true word is not relative.” But I unlike you, don’t understand it all – does that make me emergent, or just human?.
I say. First off, if indeed you do not understand all of it. Then maybe you should temper your attacks on others. If indeed you do not understand all of it them maybe you should be more careful about putting labels on peoples such as Pharisee. You do not speak as someone who does not know you speak as someone who ahs formed hard opinions and ready to jump to defend those opinions.
Amy Said:
You suggest that if I “ever want to debate on an open and logical basis I will be quite happy to do so.” It takes two people who believe in logic to debate – and since you don’t think I am interested in and probably not capable of logical debate, and since for some reason I have the same opinion of you, I guess we won’t debate.
I say: Now what the above sounds more like is a childish tantrum.
Amy said:
I am amazed though, that you’ve spoken favorably of “logic.” It doesn’t fit in with the “Babes” idea.
I say: This Is not meant as sarcasm or an insult and I say it ready for your wrath to come barreling back about forcing God to do something on the spot. Logic is a basic attribute of God. Additionally you are placing your interpretation of “Babes” into what I said and not what the word truly means within the context that it is used in the bible. This is a common problem when attempting to use a word in the bible in a cultural context. And it seems you are using the word “Babes” within the context of todays culture and not how the Bible uses the word, which is culturally neutral.
Amy said:
As an emergent, I have cared so much about sharing what I believe (or don’t believe – who indeed can say?) with non-Christians, that I have suffered in health, in leaving loved ones, in “becoming a baby” over and over again in several new cultures and languages. Our Bible translation tasks sure could have gotten done quicker if we had simply been content to devote our time to bible translation and relationship building, and educating our family, instead of spending so much time corrupting the nationals. Language learning has been EXTREMELY difficult, because it’s difficult enough for a non-EMERGENT person to express themselves in another language. But for an EMERGENT? It’s taken years to discover that paranoid, neurotic style that always asks questions, is completely illogical, and never believes that a word can actually have meaning.
I say: and all I can say is I agree with the statement on Emergent
Amy said:
I’m not interested in communicating further with you, unless you would like to apologize.
I say:
If I classified you as an Emergent then I humbly apologize in keeping with a good Christian spirit. However and I say this with all humility. What the Church (The body) has lost which it needs to regain is the active power of the Holy spirit in peoples lives as I have described. It is there but there is much that prevents it from being active for more people. It will be active in such a way in the future but it will be at a time when the true Church (the body) is as it was in the Acts Church,and wholly dependent upon God for its very life.
God Bless
Tony,
I listened to the brief fear of God message. I recognize the spirit behind what he is saying and yet I think he’s probably made some judgments that are misguided about seeker sensitive churches.
I’ve hesitated to talk about my personal experience thus far, because some of the commenters are clearly looking for a rope with which to hang me. I’m sure they will try, but I think the sort of dialogue you’ve offered suggests that you are a reasonable person who can be trusted. I want to describe a bit of my practical experience and why it leads me to disagree with the content of that particular message. Not it’s truth mind you, but its wisdom as an approach to the people I minister to.
I work at a church which is actually a daughter church of saddleback located about 30 minutes to the North. My church is in a town of 200K people. Twenty years ago my town was known to church planters as “the graveyard of churches.” Since then things have only improved slightly.
My community is affluent and well educated. Partially as a result of this, less than 10% of the people here attend church at all. Even fewer attend regularly. Many if not most of the people we encounter have a firm image of the church and the church’s message, either from past experience as a child or from forming their own opinion via things they have read or seen on TV. By any measure this is hard soil in which to work.
Please understand I am not a post-modernist. If you’re looking for someone to express frustration with mushy post-modern thinking, I’m your guy. Shortly after I became a believer I shared my faith with my younger sister. Her response was the classic “Well, that’s good for you. But the God I believe in…” The concept that if God was real he could only be one way for all of us…Well, it was simply Greek to her. I wanted to pull my hair out in frustration.
I believe in truth and one meta-narrative, which is God’s story. That said, almost everyone in my community has (though they probably don’t know it) embraced a post-modern view of truth, i.e. they don’t really think there is such a thing. They believe in what they can experience and suspect anything else is a sales pitch.
Obviously, this creates a real problem for someone, like me, who believes Jesus message is the hope of every man, woman and child in town (for starters). How do I communicate at all with people who are convinced anyone who wants their attention is selling something? In a very real way, the culture has trained them that the louder someone talks the less they should listen. How do I overcome that and preach to them in a way they will hear?
As I say, it’s a wealthy area (and we both know what God says about that). People have nice homes near the beach, cars, money — and yet they find themselves feeling surprisingly unfulfilled. What is the problem? They don’t really know, but at some point (often when they have families) they being to wonder if God (whatever that is) isn’t the missing element in their life. Their need is strong enough that for the first time, or maybe just for the first time in years, they’re willing to give it a respectful listen. And so they find us on the web or when someone invites them to church, they humble themselves a bit and say yes.
It’s tempting to say “This is your one chance, hit them with Stephen’s message from Acts and hit them hard!” Tell them they are “enemies of God who will burn in hell for their sins!” I don’t disagree that all of that is in fact true. But the fact is many of them are no where near being able to understand half of Stephen’s message, or any of the theology associated with substitutionary atonement. They’re not even sure who God is yet. Stephen, of course, was speaking to fellow Jews who shared nearly all his beliefs. But for the people we see, the foundation of truth isn’t there. Belief in the Bible isn’t there. And as I’ve already said, the louder you talk the more they tune out.
And yet, I really want to win these people to Christ. Given the audience, I believe an approach similar to Paul’s message on Mars Hill is the most appropriate. Paul couldn’t give the Gospel until he’d laid a foundation of who God was and what he wanted with man. Similarly, I want to take the little opening these visitors offer — their curiosity about the unknown God that they’ve come seeking — and I want to fill in the blanks as best I can. If that means giving them a few weeks to absorb some basics and, in effect, let their eyes adjust to the light, I’m okay with that. My goal as an ambassador isn’t to hit them with a flash bulb of truth and leave them blinking in confusion. I want them to “get it” and to respond by trusting Christ with their life.
As you said above, once someone has shown an open heart God gives grace not law. The people who accept an invitation to our church have shown that humility, so we give Grace, try to build up genuine trust, and allow them to privately count some of the cost of following Jesus’ path. If it takes them several weeks or even months to commit, that’s fine with me and I trust with God also. The bottom line is, at some point they do get it and join the kingdom.
I can assure you that people who do come to faith at my church know that this involves repentance, acknowledgment of their sin and acceptance of God’s grace to cover them. Could they immediately explain it back to you or someone else in correct theological terminology? Some could and some probably not. They are assenting to something, but are not ready to teach others quite yet.
But we don’t let things remain that way. Over 200 people at my church have completed a year and a half long discipleship course. Every graduate can explain the gospel, can give his personal testimony, can recite more than 50 verses with citations from memory has identified a spiritual gifting with which they can serve the body and has learned a great deal about their faith and the Bible. Many of these are the same people who, a few years ago, weren’t sure what they believed. That they would commit to 100 hours of “class time” and at least that many hours of homework, I think, demonstrates genuine change.
In addition to our local efforts, my church gives 15% of our budget to missions. We support missionaries in Africa, China, Germany, and until recently, Lebanon.
My point is only to say that, while you may disagree with the methods, the fruit of conversions, baptisms, changed lives, saved marriages and hearts that seek the kingdom first is not something that can be discounted. Style aside, our message is orthodox and God has blessed our efforts with some genuine results. As we’ve both agreed, that is the core of the discussion. We don’t produce cultists, we produce grounded believers. Yet I believe our approach is not all that different than Saddleback’s.
Thanks again for the fruitful discussion. I will look at some of the other materials you’ve recommended as I have time. I’m convinced that the baptisms at Saddleback represent real conversions, in part because I know people who have attended there, but that doens’t mean the book is 100% kosher. Having not read it, I don’t claim to know.
To John (VS)
John (VS) Said:
I’ve hesitated to talk about my personal experience thus far, because some of the commentators are clearly looking for a rope with which to hang me. I’m sure they will try, but I think the sort of dialogue you’ve offered suggests that you are a reasonable person who can be trusted. I want to describe a bit of my practical experience and why it leads me to disagree with the content of that particular message. Not it’s truth mind you, but its wisdom as an approach to the people I minister to.
I say:
John (VS) First off let me say that if it appeared to you that I wanted to “hang you out to dry”, then I apologize, that was never my intent. I have a very visceral response to Rick Warren, his false teachings and beliefs, when anyone defends him while proclaiming to not only be a true Christian but in a leadership role. It is very difficult to accept that someone you admire and respect is leading people astray. And it does cause what is known as a Cognitive Dissonance in the mind. The Mind resists and can actually feel stress when presented with certain facts that contradict long held assumptions.
My question in regards to Roman Catholicism was in no way meant to trap you or expose you. It was an honest question that would very quickly provide you with an answer as to Rick Warren’s false teachings and beliefs, nothing more. And it was used as an example because it also shows how far away his beliefs have went from Jesus teachings and Biblical truth. There is a thing called: The Tyranny of Good Intentions. What this means is someone can have the best of intentions but those intentions can have the same affect as anyone with evil intentions.
So any good intention is far outweighed by the serious and far reaching devastation it brings. And this is the case for Rick Warren, his intentions may be the best and in his mind he may actually believe he is doing God’s work, but he is not. That is at first in his beliefs and second via his methods.
His beliefs concerning Roman Catholicism is a TRUE Litmus Test for his false beliefs. Rick Warren believes that Roman Catholicism as taught by the Vatican is a Valid Christian Faith. I apologize but this cannot be ignored. And while it is true that all people may have some small area in their belief system that does not square with others interpretation of the Word, there are some fundamental Beliefs that must be present for someone to say they are a true follower of Jesus. What really gets me upset is how Emergents try to paint True Christians as people who need to define themselves by what they believe. They are so blind that they cannot see that People had to define what they believe because history ahs shown us that Satan’s most devastating work is carried out by those who have been among us and went out from us. In other words they seemed to be a true Christian but then they started to deviate slightly, and then deviate more and more and more, until they went into Heresy. There came to be so many of these leading people astray that Church body’s had to begin to define on paper and denomination what they believed. For heretics such as Brian McLaren to throw this back into the face of true Christians makes my blood boil. Men like him are the cause of it. And so it shows why his master is the Father of confusion.
But getting back to Rick Warren , his beliefs and methods may not appear to have went into heresy, that is because either unintentionally (Tyranny of Good Intentions) or intentional he has couched them in language as Christians we recognize and have already accepted or he couches them in language that to deny what he says makes a Christian appear to others as having a hard heart. And this is very powerful. Its implications are dire for many millions of Christians. It forces Christians to either Stand Up and accept being painted as a Trouble maker, Judgmental, Pharisee or sit down and keep your mouth shut or worse still agree with his beliefs and methods.
What Rick Warren and many others have forgotten is how deceitful the heart can be. It can lead a man to hell while allowing the man all along the road to Hell think he is doing the right thing. And I want to be clear that is if he is following his Heart. And this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. And I know you find my words on this troublesome. But hear me out. If the Holy spirit is active in power in a person’s life then the word of God is illuminated in such as way that the person will see very clearly what God is saying in his word for every aspect of life, and this is needed doubly so more in a leaders life, especially a Leader as far ranging as Rick Warren. So this takes us back to the Catholic Church. If Rick Warren’s life was being guided by the Holy spirit, the Holy Spirit would not allow him to substantiate and validate the Roman Catholicism. The Holy Spirit cannot cohabitate with Heresy and paganism. The Bible is very clear on this. Christ tried to say that maybe Rick Warren was going into Catholic churches to try and reach people, but that is not what is happening, he is working within the Catholic Church Hierarchy to assist the Catholic Church in making Catholic Bodies purpose driven within a Catholic context. This alone is devastating to True Christianity and because of Rick Warrens position he is essentially telling people that Roman Catholicism is ok. And this in no way can be compared to Jesus meeting with sinners. What it could be compared to is Jesus going in and assisting the Jewish Sanhedrin to help them make their Traditions of Men Purpose Driven! There is so much more where Rick Warren ahs went wrong but I have only written here abut his beliefs on Roman Catholicism as it would take volumes to show where else he has went seriously wrong as is leading millions astray.
And again this is why it is a true fact that the Holy spirit is not guiding him. His own ambitions in his heart are guiding him and no matter how good it looks or sounds it is still wrong.
John,
Here is what you said in #73:
I have aksed a quesiton that has not been answered with a yes or no. the answer to this question is not only a very good litmus test for whether Scott, John (VS and or Amywant a valid discussion of the search for truth and it will also greatly vastly shorten the need to dig into the details of what is wrong with Rick Warrens Theology..
Here is what you said in #100:
Amy said:
You yourself described the question as a litmus test (#73).
I say:
No you are once again twisting the meaning of what I said to fit your own intended meaning. What I said was that it was and I still maintain that it is a good test to see if there was any basis from which to debate on. I think if you will take a step back you might understand that. As I have said before if people are going to debate an issue they must at least be able to agree on some basic assumptions. Now if you choose again to reinterpret what I said then remember that is your own self created meaning and not mine and I will not be made to say something I did not.
I do make mistakes sometimes but I do see very clearly in comment #73 “litmus test.” Also, I’m not going to go back and look right now but my impression was that immediately after John and/or Scott’s answer you begin talking about Rick Warren’s associations with the Catholic Church. That’s why it appeared to be a set-up.
You say, “I didn’t label you. But in 91 you said:”What is doubly evil about your methods is because of your Emergent Paranoia you immediately jump to conclusions about some “hidden meaning or agenda” that someone may have slipped into a simple question.
This is a tactic that Emergents use on weaker Christians
do is to react like most Emergents react, and start throwing in all kinds of hidden meanings into the question I had stated very plainly, based on an Emergents paranoia of anything that may define something in concrete terms, You show yourself to be in some ways neurotic
(Most people would assume you are labeling me as Emergent, neurotic . . .) I could probably find other labels, certainly implications, such as that all my logic will be ludicrous, and that I want to do “intellectual somersaults” with Scripture.
You say, “It is obvious by your repeated use of the word “Force: that you do not believe that the Holy spirit can be active enough in someone’s life to enable them to discern error with out an extended investigation or research. If you do indeed believe this then you are denying what the Bible very clearly says in support of it. As far as abusing the Holy spirit, be very careful that you do not speak against the active work of the Holy spirit as then you place yourself against God and the Bible.”
I do believe that the Holy Spirit can be active enough in someone’s life to enable them to discern error without an extended investigation or research. I could give several personal examples of this in my own life. (I could also in almost all cases show the Bible study, research that I have done after being “shown” the error, that would back up my belief that what I believed was the Holy Spirit showing me error, was indeed the Holy Spirit showing me error.) But I still say that it is ASSUMPTION to assume that the Holy Spirit is going to do this, and especially “immediately” with anyone, and I still say that your presenting the litmus test could be “forcing” the Holy Spirit to reveal something to a person. I don’t mean that you could possibly force God, but rather that it is along the lines of disobeying, “Do not put your Lord God to the test.”
You have no more right to demand that the Holy Spirit reveal a “yes, no” answer to the Roman Catholic question than I have a right to demand that the Holy Spirit demand a “yes, no” response to the South Seas Evangelical question. We are not to try to manipulate the Holy Spirit. He is not a genie who performs at our command.
You comment further on the matter, “The Holy spirit can be active in someone’s life to the level to enable them to discern false teachings with out the need for that person to do extended research on the teaching in question, and that is not “Forcing the Holy Spirit to perform. After all if you had to do an extended investigation to uncover whether it was false teaching or not, it wouldn’t be discernment or the Holy Spirit that led you to the conclusion that it was false .” Yes the Holy Spirit can be actuve in someone’s life to the level to enable them to discern false teaching without the need to do extednded research – I firmly believe that. But the way the Holy Spirit sometimes works is through a “nudge,” an uncomfortableness about a particular thing, that leads one to investigate not only the false teaching, but to look more indepth into scripture. For me to assume that God is going to show me immediately when something is wrong about everything is wrong. Personally I have seen God “nudge” me about something many times in the last few years. In these cases I have been with other mature Christians who haven’t felt the nudge at all, or misinterpreted it as their own lack of intelligence about the matter. But the nudge has led me to trying to write and share what I believe God is showing me about the matter. It has not led me to insist or worry about everyone experiencing the same “nudge” or “burden” than I have experienced.
I remember one particular book study in which I told the group that I was going to drop out, and why. Specific scriptures were being taken out of context to develop false teaching (this was a “Christian” book) The group continued to study the book “to see what they could get out of it.” I thought that was a very dangerous thing, especially since some of these women were being distracted by small children during the study. A couple of weeks later I got a call from the teacher. She told me simply that another lady who liked to understand things had read the book through twice and it had upset her so much that she was in tears throughout the second reading. They decided to drop the book. Another lady told me that she thought that her discomfort with the book was within herself – that she just wasn’t at the same intellectual level as the author. (And she happens to be very intelligent.) I pointed out to her specifically how scripture had been taken out of context in the first chapter – it was enough to help her see that the problem indeed wasn’t with her. My point is God works different ways in different people to lead them away from error. We cannot demand that he work the same way in everyone.
Your response to my long “diatribe” where I temporarily clothed myself with the emergent skin that you seem to think I wear was this “This is an unfortunate selfish diatribe. And what is completely evident in it and quite ironic is it reveals in yourself what you have accused me of. What you are in fact saying above is that you have a fixed standard of your own for which you use to label people. Remember check your own heart before you begin to pull the speck out of someone’ else’s eye”
To be honest, I don’t know what half of that means. Honestly, I think a simple “I’m sorry for misjudging you” would have been much more to the point.
On my remarks about having a logical debate, You say, “Now what the above sounds more like is a childish tantrum.” Okay, if you see it that way, fine. I thought it was just a statement of truth, though I would admit that by this time my emotions and sense of humour were running pretty high. Perhaps I was having a ‘childish tantrum.” Not to make an excuse, but if you do want to view it as a childish tantrum, please take a look at your own paragraph that was the inspiration of that.
I don’t really understand your other responses.
Thankyou for the apology:. And I say in all kindness, reread what you said. If I classified you as an Emergent then I humbly apologize in keeping with a good Christian spirit. And I say in a tone of kindness, please reread what you wrote in 91 and consider that probably most readers reading that would indeed think you were classifying me as an emergent, a paranoid, neurotic one at that. In your future communications with people double-check what you are saying.
Now for a look at your last statement:
” However and I say this with all humility. What the Church (The body) has lost which it needs to regain is the active power of the Holy spirit in peoples lives as I have described. It is there but there is much that prevents it from being active for more people. It will be active in such a way in the future but it will be at a time when the true Church (the body) is as it was in the Acts Church,and wholly dependent upon God for its very life.
I agree that, “What the Church (The body) has lost which it needs to regain is the active power of the Holy spirit.” I don’t agree with “in peoples lives as i have described.” There is very little doubt that it could be more active in people. There are thousands of things that Christians do that take them away from being sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
But we cannot demand that the Holy Spirit be active in an equal level of discernment in people’s live. The bible speaks of a special gift of discernment. Some people have that. They may, however, not have the gift of teaching. God could use their gift in this way – he could have them go to someone who is a teacher, who is teaching from a book that has a Biblical error in it. If the discerning person points the teacher in the right direction, the teacher may be able to use his gift of teaching to teach what is true, and not false.
Anyone who is given discernment in some area may use the body of Christ to help them help others. Someone who is shown by the Holy Spirit that something is wrong, but doesn’t know how to back up what they are saying with scripture, may be helped by a person who knows scripture very well. Even new Christians can be led of the Holy Spirit to have a sense that something “just isn’t quite right.” (Or even, a sense that something is very good, is coming from God.)
If you choose to use Acts as your guide, be aware that, yes they had the Holy Spirit – but they also had men who were steeped in Old Testament scriptures. We must know scripture, and much of the Holy Spirit’s work in our life is shedding light on scriputure. And also realize that even though they were led by the Holy Spirit, there were legitimate disagreements among them.
Satan is an Angel of Light. Be very careful that when the Holy Spirit gives a yes or no to something, that it is indeed the Holy Spirit. Know the Word of God and check things out with the Word of God.
One final note – when I took on myself the role of emergent, I played it as I thought you would define it. I realize however that there are people who may be calling themselves emergent who love the Bible and do not want to distort truth. I believe in the end that these people may have to distance themselves from the term “emergent” and I pray that God will show them this. I don’t know that much about “emergent,” but I don’t want to falsely condemn everyone who labels themselves, just as I don’t want to make wrong assumptions about everyone who calls themselves Fundamentalists, Charismatics, Calvinists, Christians, Evangelical, etc, etc.
To Amy:
Amy Said:
I do make mistakes sometimes but I do see very clearly in comment #73 “litmus test.” Also, I’m not going to go back and look right now but my impression was that immediately after John and/or Scott’s answer you begin talking about Rick Warren’s associations with the Catholic Church. That’s why it appeared to be a set-up.
You say, “I didn’t label you. But in 91 you said:”What is doubly evil about your methods is because of your Emergent Paranoia you immediately jump to conclusions about some “hidden meaning or agenda” that someone may have slipped into a simple question.
This is a tactic that Emergents use on weaker Christians
do is to react like most Emergents react, and start throwing in all kinds of hidden meanings into the question I had stated very plainly, based on an Emergents paranoia of anything that may define something in concrete terms, You show yourself to be in some ways neurotic
(Most people would assume you are labeling me as Emergent, neurotic . . .) I could probably find other labels, certainly implications, such as that all my logic will be ludicrous, and that I want to do “intellectual somersaults” with Scripture.
I say:
Again I already apologized if I wrongly associated you. So what do you want to do? Labor the point? This confuses me to as why you repeat this? And addtionally you said:
“when I took on myself the role of emergent, I played it as I thought you would define it.”
So you say here that you were playing the role of an Emergent and I recognized it and now you want to say that I unjustly labeled you an Emrgent? hmmm . . . . scratching my head on that one.
Amy said:
I do believe that the Holy Spirit can be active enough in someone’s life to enable them to discern error without an extended investigation or research. I could give several personal examples of this in my own life. (I could also in almost all cases show the Bible study, research that I have done after being “shown” the error, that would back up my belief that what I believed was the Holy Spirit showing me error, was indeed the Holy Spirit showing me error.) But I still say that it is ASSUMPTION to assume that the Holy Spirit is going to do this, and especially “immediately” with anyone, and I still say that your presenting the litmus test could be “forcing” the Holy Spirit to reveal something to a person. I don’t mean that you could possibly force God, but rather that it is along the lines of disobeying, “Do not put your Lord God to the test.”
You have no more right to demand that the Holy Spirit reveal a “yes, no” answer to the Roman Catholic question than I have a right to demand that the Holy Spirit demand a “yes, no” response to the South Seas Evangelical question. We are not to try to manipulate the Holy Spirit. He is not a genie who performs at our command.
I say:
again you are making a gross error and placing your interpretation of how the Holy Spirit works onto what I said. I did not say this. I will show you where you are going wrong you are making it seem that what I said was the activation of the Holy spirit is by the initiation of the person and that it is not what I said! You seem to believe in a weak indwelling of the Holy Spirit via your own personal experience with the Holy spirit. And this is where I say you keep misinterpreting what I am saying! It is very dangerous ground to say that the Holy Spirit can not be anymore active in someone’s life than what you personally have experienced. The Holy Spirit can be active to such a level that the person can without need for thought recognize heresy and false teaching via the Holy Spirit, that is NOT forcing the Holy Spirit to act. And The Doctrine of Roman Catholicism is so grossly in error that there is no need of the Holy spirit to prompt anyone claiming to be a Teacher or leader for True Christianity to recognize the errors. And I maintain that Anyone who actively assists the Roman Catholic Church in perpetuating their Doctrine, does not have the Truth within them and therefore do not have the Holy spirit active in their life. You can reinterpret this anyway you choose. But it does not change this fact.
Amy Said:
Yes the Holy Spirit can be active in someone’s life to the level to enable them to discern false teaching without the need to do extended research – I firmly believe that. But the way the Holy Spirit sometimes works is through a “nudge,” an uncomfortableness about a particular thing, that leads one to investigate not only the false teaching, but to look more indepth into scripture. For me to assume that God is going to show me immediately when something is wrong about everything is wrong. Personally I have seen God “nudge” me about something many times in the last few years. In these cases I have been with other mature Christians who haven’t felt the nudge at all, or misinterpreted it as their own lack of intelligence about the matter. But the nudge has led me to trying to write and share what I believe God is showing me about the matter. It has not led me to insist or worry about everyone experiencing the same “nudge” or “burden” than I have experienced.
I say:
And above you are limiting the working of the Holy Spirit by what you have experienced with the Holy Spirit. And I am here to tell you that you are wrong to assume that the Holy Spirit can be no more active in someone else’s life than yours. This is not Biblical. This is your opinion based on your personal experience. Do you see where it is wrong for you to make an assumption that this is the standard for the extent of the Working of the Holy spirit in everyone’s life?
Amy Said:
I agree that, “What the Church (The body) has lost which it needs to regain is the active power of the Holy spirit.” I don’t agree with “in peoples lives as i have described.” There is very little doubt that it could be more active in people. There are thousands of things that Christians do that take them away from being sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
But we cannot demand that the Holy Spirit be active in an equal level of discernment in people’s live
I say:
Again you are making a wrong assumption of what I said, You seem to have some predilection for a specific interpretation for this, and you seem to be getting into splitting hairs so to speak based on that predilection and it is wholly unprofitable to keep injecting that interpretation. And once again because of that misinterpretation you keep limiting what the Holy Spirit can do within a person or their life, there is no difference in saying “in them” or “in their life”. If The person of the holy Spirit is working in a person it is therefore working in their life.
Amy Said:
Satan is an Angel of Light. Be very careful that when the Holy Spirit gives a yes or no to something, that it is indeed the Holy Spirit. Know the Word of God and check things out with the Word of God.
I say: and it was an assumption on my part that the evidence of the Holy Spirit being active in your life was by it lining squarely up with the word.
Amy Said:
One final note – when I took on myself the role of emergent, I played it as I thought you would define it. I realize however that there are people who may be calling themselves emergent who love the Bible and do not want to distort truth. I believe in the end that these people may have to distance themselves from the term “emergent” and I pray that God will show them this. I don’t know that much about “emergent,” but I don’t want to falsely condemn everyone who labels themselves, just as I don’t want to make wrong assumptions about everyone who calls themselves Fundamentalists, Charismatics, Calvinists, Christians, Evangelical, etc, etc.
I say:
No we don’t condemn them, but they should be told very truthfully and if all else fails very bluntly how the label is being used for by Satan, and that by attaching that title to their beliefs they are unwittingly being an accomplice to Satan. And many innocent Christians are.
John,
A couple of points. I took your comment (#100) point by point, not reading through to the end first. I was glad to see that you apologized because I was feeling that I was going to need to send you a reply whether you apologized or not, and apologize for going back on what I had previously said, which was, “I’m not interested in communicating further with you, unless you would like to apologize.”
So at the beginning from my point of view I was not “belaboring a point.” I did not realize that you were going to apologize. Your comment back to me (#100) seemed from the very beginning to merely be a defense of all you had said, and further commentary on how what I said was wrong.
I will say three things about your last comment to me. One, is that a lot of things you are saying don’t make sense to me.
Two, I don’t believe that your are hearing most of what I’m saying.
Three, you have no place to know or judge how the Holy Spirit is working in my life. I will tell you this – the Holy Spirit has worked in my life in ways that I could have never imagined possible. You don’t have to believe me, and I don’t need to prove it to you. I have a very LARGE, UNBOXED view of the Holy Spirit that I believe is in keeping with scripture.
I am not seeking to limit the Holy Spirit; neither am I seeking to control Him.
I will not attempt to go point by point through your comment to me. I don’t believe it will be fruitful. You may see it as a cop-out, that I am unteachable, that I am too stupid or unspiritual to understand your reasoning. It really doesn’t matter to me what you think.
Amy Said:
Three, you have no place to know or judge how the Holy Spirit is working in my life. I will tell you this – the Holy Spirit has worked in my life in ways that I could have never imagined possible. You don’t have to believe me, and I don’t need to prove it to you. I have a very LARGE, UNBOXED view of the Holy Spirit that I believe is in keeping with scripture.
I say:
Amy I never said anything about how or whether the Holy spirit is working in your life. So I am not sure where that came from. I already apologized for possibly misreading the fact that you were speaking from an emergent perspective.
Amy Said:
I am not seeking to limit the Holy Spirit; neither am I seeking to control Him.
I will not attempt to go point by point through your comment to me. I don’t believe it will be fruitful. You may see it as a cop-out, that I am unteachable, that I am too stupid or unspiritual to understand your reasoning. It really doesn’t matter to me what you think.
I say:
Amy once again you are placing upon me what you yourself are thinking of what my motivations are. Let me ask you this, If I was a True Christian do you really think my motivation could be construed as being any of the above. It couldn’t be, they cannot coincide.. My motivation was to simply show you how the Holy spirit can control people to a very high degree, but it requires a sacrificed life.
John,
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences with your church. That was very enlightening to understanding our discussion and where you are coming from. I am a firm believer that we should not use our experiences as a plumb line for truth, and that all experiences should be tested by the light of Scripture. But I also think that they can be very useful to understanding our world-views and why we see things the way we do. Thanks for sharing that. I can see that you are obviously working hard for the Lord in and I will definitely add you and your church to my prayer list of churches and pastors that I pray for specifically.
Pragmatism doesn’t equate to truth, so I am a little apprehensive to statements like “I want to describe a bit of my practical experience and why it leads me to disagree with the content of that particular message.” However, I am not there and i would not begin to judge the spiritual nature of you, your church, or your church members. I definitely can see you are sincere and wanting to reach the people in your area with the gospel. My only hope is that our dialog would help you in thinking about some different angles you might explore and how they are related to Scripture. I certainly am not judging your efforts. I pray that God will continue to bless your efforts with fruit, but not PDL fruit!
Your comments about the affluent and well educated area were particularly interesting to me. It reminds me of a dialog that Todd Friel and Kirk Cameron did about that. It was ironic to me that you considered those influences as reasons to be more seeker-sensitive, when the role-playing they did explained that there was even more reason in that environment to use the law first in evangelism. Some people think you can evangelize only when people are “down” and when they have life going good it is hard to reach them. I think that is true with the seeker-sensitive message because often affluent people have a hard time, with all that they have in the temporal world, seeing their need for an eternal Savior. Often convincing someone that they are unfulfilled when all they can see is fulfillment can be a daunting task; especially for the seeker-sensitive evangelist.
That is what is so great about the truth Biblical gospel, is that it reaches everyone where they are. Everyone can understand that they have lied, stolen, lusted, and that they therefore don’t measure up to God’s standard. It is possible to teach this to people in an inoffensive way, and that is what the Way of the Master program is all about. When I meet someone and ask them “Do you consider yourself to be a good person?” When they say “yes” I ask them if I can ask them a few questions to see if that is true. They give me the permission to do that in an conflict-free manner. When I simply ask, “Have you ever told a lie?.. Have you ever stolen?…Have you ever (any commandment you choose)?…” I am doing the same thing Paul did in Romans 2. The person admits to themselves that they are law breakers, I am not condemning them and they do not receive it that way. This approach allows them to be humbled by the law, not by me. Their conscience testifies against them, because they know they are law breakers, I do not have to proclaim them to be. You would be amazed at how humbling this is to people and how conflict free it can be, and it then opens the door for me to explain to them the holiness of God, sin, and the gospel.
I understand the situation you find yourself in in wanting reach people with the “one chance.” I am all about “reaching people where they are” and I don’t think we need to be unnecessarily offensive in sharing the gospel. When you say…,
…you are inadvertently implying that that is the approach I am condoning. It certainly is not. Ray Comfort says that hell-fire preaching created “fear-filled converts” and that is not what we want. We don’t want people coming to the cross because they are afraid of hell. He says we need “tear-filled converts,” people who understand their sin and the gap it creates between them and God. Those appreciate the love of the gospel message.
John I am glad to hear about your church and the fruit that is there. In closing I’d like to say that you said you listened to the message “The Fear of God” and I would just ask that you go back and start with the “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” as that is the first message in the series, and I think the conclusion you came away with may be a result of not starting with the first message. I think it will certainly add to your program if you understand this teaching, not take away from it.
I also can say that the things you describe here that are going on at your church does not change my views on the overall message of the PDL and Warren gospel. You say that you envision what is going on with Warren is what you describe. It may be, but if so, it is not consistent with what he is teaching other pastors and another Christians through is PD programs. I would ask you to at least spend some time critically analyzing those products against the Bible before you publicly endorsed or recommended them to your church members. I think you will be surprised when you look at those PD programs in light of Scripture.
Peace bro,
Tr
P.S. I am glad to hear that we share the frustration of dealing with the postmodern mindset. I think that was an important point to come out after this long dialog/debate.
Tony,
Thanks for the kind words or encouragement.
I do agree with that statement on its face, however I would return to the argument I have been making for weeks, which is that pragmatism is the measure of a ministry, at least it’s the one Jesus gave. Fruit is not all numbers, but that is part of it. Whether it’s my church or Saddleback, the fruit is significant. Therefore, according to Jesus, we can conclude that the tree is good. Does that mean it can’t be improved through Godly criticism, no of course it can. As I’ve said before, I’ve no problem with Ken or Slice taking on PDL or other things as weak or beggarly teaching in need of help. Let them make the argument and let the chips fall. What I can’t stand is the dismissal of fruit and the insinuation that it should all be discounted as false. In the case of my church and many people I’ve met from Saddleback, this is a lie. These are believers. If we could just get back to accepting that one truth, I think it would change the discussion significantly.
I have listened to Ray Comfort’s first message. I believe there is some solid truth there, some good principles for sharing the faith and also some (possibly unintentional) error. I think he’s a brother, his heart is good, he speaks truth. However I think it’s ultimately an incomplete picture. Now that’s not to say there’s no value in what he says. I think there is value. And I’m not looking to tear down a brother who is bearing fruit. Part of the problem is, I think, people have misapplied his teaching and used it to do just that to other ministers of the Gospel. I’m planning to write a response on my own blog. When I do, I’ll let you know and I’d be genuinely interested in your response.
In any case, I was surprised to see how many phrases I recognized from this one teaching on the lips of Ken, john and others. This seems to be the spring from which a lot of this debate flows. I will address it.
BTW, he preaches down near the pier where I live. I’ve seen this guy out there. Didn’t know who he was.
I was sitting here listening to the radio in my office today and I realized how much the song currently playing was an excellent balance of our discussion here. Although things get animated at times, I think that all parties here love the Lord and desire to when others to Christ. Although we may disagree in some things, I believe we all have the same desire to see others won to the Lord. It is my prayer that we all can learn and grow from one another’s points.
Does this song not sum it up?
Jeremy Riddle – Sweetly Broken
From the album Sweetly Broken
To the cross I look, to the cross I cling
Of its suffering I do drink
Of its work I do sing
For on it my Savior both bruised and crushed
Showed that God is love
And God is just
Chorus:
At the cross You beckon me
You draw me gently to my knees, and I am
Lost for words, so lost in love,
I”m sweetly broken, wholly surrendered
What a priceless gift, undeserved life
Have I been given
Through Christ crucified
You”ve called me out of death
You”ve called me into life
And I was under Your wrath
Now through the cross I”m reconciled
Chorus:
In awe of the cross I must confess
How wondrous Your redeeming love and
How great is Your faithfulness
Thanks John. I think ultimately, we can’t endorse or condemn “fruit” because only God knows the heart. But we can be fruit inspectors as Jesus commanded. We can and should judge the message one preaches as compared to the Bible. I suppose we’ll just have to leave room for disagreement as to whether some of the things we’ve discussed are or are not Biblical.
Yes, Ray Comfort is in your area and I would recommend you going and talking to him in person and becoming familiar with his ministry. I think if you look at the fruit of his ministry in the same “benefit giving” spirit that you are requesting others’ do of Warren, you will see just how he is truly teaching people to do “what Jesus DID”. I would recommend though listening to his Way of the Master training before writing a response. I would love to read your response to it though so yes please let me know about that.
As far as the comparable wording, I haven’t noticed that coming from “the lips” of the others you mentioned in this thread, but I am sure I have used some of his examples and phrasing myself, which is why you recognized some of it. I have used his method of witnessing for some time now, and I can assure you it is a very effective way to reach sinners with the gospel in a Biblical manner so they can understand the reason for the cross, without confrontation or condemnation. I know you’d disagree, but I think if Rick Warren would preach the message “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” to his PDL fans that we’d see some tremendous revival from many who would discover although they were sincere, and church-going, that light bulbs of understanding would go on, and many may find that they weren’t saved after all. That has been experience when I witness this way to PDL-ites. I’m encouraged to hear that this wouldn’t be the case if I witnessed to your church members! Sadly, it is my experience when I witness to strangers and they say, “Oh… I’m a Christian…” I know that I am in for a dialog that will surprise them.
Maybe we have arrived at the “purpose” for this whole discussion. I think you and he would make a powerful 1-2 punch to delivering the gospel to your affluent neighbors. Consider it…!
John not of VS,
Amy I never said anything about how or whether the Holy spirit is working in your life.
Yet you very clearly said, “You seem to believe in a weak indwelling of the Holy Spirit via your own personal experience with the Holy spirit.” I could find other things like that in the same comment, but I’m not going to waste my time.
Honestly I wonder if what you are saying is what you are genuinely thinking or if you are someone who is having great fun creating chaos and confusion.
Tony,
Agreed. I appreciate your posting of Mark Driscoll’s comments re: the direction of Reformation and Emergent and the balance between context and content. That “balance” is where I hope the hope the church is moving toward, and it is really what I’ve been trying to argue for. It just seems most of the arrows right now are being slung from the Reformation side of the equation while those on the Emergent side just ignore differences.
What the balance requires, though, is some discernment and grace.
little-john,
I found it ironic that the only other person I’ve heard recently discussing super string theory and multi-dimensional theory was Rob Bell, and in the same context as that you’ve chosen. It may be a way to describe an aspect of God, and it may well be a way to describe why Calvinism, Armenianism and other similar -isms are irrelevant.
As for Jesus & parables – I can’t think of any scripture which indicates that Jesus came up with them from whole cloth, or that there is any theological reason that it must be. On the contrary, scholarly evidence indicates that many of the types of parables Jesus used were in existance before his ministry. This is a perfect case in which a doctrinal interpretation has been created by men without scriptural support, and any information to the contrary must be wrong because it doesn’t jibe with man-made doctrine. As Rob Bell described it in VE, you’ve created a type of brickianity where everything must be ‘just so’ – as you’ve defined it – or it doesn’t work (or those who disagree must be heretics).
I have to say that your posts show an awful lot of condescention and judgmentalism (in the bad sense), assuming you know the mind of God so well as to who is saved and who is not. It is neither your place nor mine to speculate, and it only detracts from any point you might be trying to make. You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread, that I’ve decided I really can’t respond to anything (other than what you’ve directed to me, specifically), as I can’t make heads or tails of your basis for belief.
As I’ve read through these posts (and all the -isms tossed about), the other thing that comes to mind is what I posted on VS earlier today:
Grace & peace
Chris
Chris L.
You are welcome, and thanks for posting. However, after that (what you said to ‘little-john’) I am not real sure what you actually said.
It sounds to me like you are excited about not having to be certain about doctrines. Do we have to be certain of that?
Amy Said:
Yet you very clearly said, “You seem to believe in a weak indwelling of the Holy Spirit via your own personal experience with the Holy spirit.” I could find other things like that in the same comment, but I’m not going to waste my time.
I say:
now I thingk yo are jsut picking an argument or a fight. Becasue onece again you have taken a statement and applied your owne perosnal interpretationoutside of tis origanl meiang and intent.
So lets rewind. You said: “I firmly believe that. But the way the Holy Spirit sometimes works is through a “nudge,” an uncomfortableness about a particular thing, that leads one to investigate not only the false teaching:
And this is why I said: “You seem to believe in a weak indwelling of the Holy Spirit via your own personal experience with the Holy spirit.”
And it is a fact that if you belive that, it can therefore be deduced to mean that this is in your opinon, the extent of the Holy spirits capabilities. Now my question is are you just wanting to be argumentative in order to win an argument? It seems that way. My aim as I have already said is not to win an argument.
Amy said:
Honestly I wonder if what you are saying is what you are genuinely thinking or if you are someone who is having great fun creating chaos and confusion.
I say:
Now you are devolving down into ridiculousness. it seems that you do not want to make peace but want to be argumentatvie and pick at phantoms ot continue an argument for the express purposes of finding some kind of error or some kind of dishonesty for the sake of winning an argument.
Galatians,
I would say that there are certain things we must be certain of – who God is, who Jesus is, salvation through grace, Love God – Love others. Other than that, why do we have to be certain on what man calls “doctrines”. Does it matter, really, that I be absolutely certain of the other things? Does that affect my salvation? If so, how, as long as I understand Who my salvation comes from? I may spend my entire life seeking God through the Bible and prayer, living an upright and Godly life, but never being totally sure on some of these “doctrines”, but so what? And, btw, what do you believe are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines? That would probably be the 1st place to start.
I am not trying to be antagonistic…I truly want to understand what you mean here.
Tony,
Do you understand what John is saying most, any of the time? Do you see the contradictions in his writing? Don’t you think he may be someone playing games with your site? Or someone who is so focused on one idea- the Holy Spirit revealing truth and error in the way that he describes – that he is blind to anything else?
I find Chris’ statement to John interesting “I found it ironic that the only other person I’ve heard recently discussing super string theory and multi-dimensional theory was Rob Bell, and in the same context as that you’ve chosen.” Maybe you could ask John for the source of his comments about string theory.
Chris said:
little-john,
I say,
now Chris is you truly want to discuss something in an honest and respectful manner then here is a bit of advice. Do not do it in a maneer to try and provoke someone. Would you prefer it if I began to call you “Little Chris”?
It seems that both you and Amy seem to be aobut baiting people for the sake of argumentation.
Chris said:
I have to say that your posts show an awful lot of condescention and judgmentalism (in the bad sense), assuming you know the mind of God so well as to who is saved and who is not. It is neither your place nor mine to speculate, and it only detracts from any point you might be trying to make. You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread, that I’ve decided I really can’t respond to anything (other than what you’ve directed to me, specifically), as I can’t make heads or tails of your basis for belief.
I say:
Now lets be very clear about something. I never stated in any of my posts who as individuals are saved or not. So I would suggest you try another weak tactic to attack what I did say which if factual and Biblical and does not require someone to know the mind of God in detail to give a defintive and concrete answer on whether a doctrine is of God or not. I do not specualte. If you have an issue with not being able to make a concrete decision whether a doctrine is of God that sadly is somethig you need to work out. I have absolutely no issue with you having a problem with me being able to do so. And your comments do not detract from that ability in any way. Nor do they bother me in any way.
And to be quite honest I have already written you off as one who blogs for the express purpose of bating and being argumentative.
You want to have an honest debate devoid of sarcasm I am quite happy to do that. Unfortunatley there are far too many Bloggers who think sarcasm somehow passes for intelligence and Knowledge or an ability to prove someone wrong. When in fact all it shows is an incredible lack of maturity.
Although I rarely endorse TBN, Paul Crouch let Kirk Cameron host the PTL show a few weeks ago. He had Todd Friel on the show talking about the Way of the Master program. If you want to watch it here is the link:
http://www.tbn.org/watch/files/index.php?file=2006_8_10_300k.wmv&show=85
Amy,
I don’t think john is trying to cause chaos. He is causing chaos, but I don’t think he’s trying to. I think the problem is just that he’s a bit wound up in some of these posts and not really writing as carefully as he probably could. Clearly that last post could have benefited from a bit of proofreading.
The results is that he uses phrases like “litmus test” that don’t really correspond to the meaning he probably had in mind. So then later when you point out that he applied a “litmus test” he feels he’s being misunderstood. I think he is being somewhat misunderstood, though I think the fault is almost entirely his own. The job of the writer, as CS Lewis once said, is to move the sheep forward being careful to close all the gates except the one you’re driving toward.
Tony,
What I am advocating against is tying too closely to Calvinism, Armenianism, etc. – systematic theologies which rely on the “system” to hold them together, and not the Word. Each has strong points to make, but just like Newtonian physics, they start to fall apart at the edges. I appreciate some of those strong points, but if someone bangs a hole in one of them (like the “free will” vs. “predestination” debate), it doesn’t throw off my walk with God (and really doesn’t engage me to care) because they are trying to explain systematically how God works, and maybe there are some things about Him we just don’t, won’t, can’t and shouldn’t be fixated on.
Is the Bible inerrent? yes – the Word of God is true, even if every man be a liar.
Is Sola Scriptura true – it depends. I’ve seen lots of definitions of this, and the ones I’ve seen are approximations of truth that pull multiple scriptures together to lead to a higher-level systematic doctrine. If one of the interpretations that supports Sola Scriptura is proven false? So what – it was a man-made doctrine anyway.
Did Christ raise from the dead? Yes, He did, and I would be without hope in any other case.
Did Christ give us an example to remember in the supper in the upper room, the night before he died? Yes, he certainly did.
Does the bread literally become flesh and the wine literally become blood when taken in Communion? I don’t think so, and this man-made doctrine is irrelevant. Would believing this or disbelieving this make or break one’s salvation? I’m not familiar with any passage saying so, one way or the other.
Jesus yoke as a rabbi was very simple – love God, love others. Learning to accept His grace and to follow his yoke – out of love and not obligation – and to be just like Him (as much as is humanly possible) is the call of a disciple. Whether you believe Calvin’s system, the Armenian system or no system at all is irrelevant – unless it is in direct contradiction to the gospel we have been given. That’s all I’m saying – and since it is somewhat of an anti-system system, I’m sure there are exceptions that cause it to fail, as well…
Tony – please do not take this to mean that I think all doctrine is irrelevant or that “true interpretation” is unknowable – that is not the case. It is when doctrine becomes once-removed from scripture and is still treated as it if it were scripture that I take issue, whether it is a conservative or liberal doctrine.
_____
john (or should I say little-”j”-john?)
Sorry – no disrespect was intended – I was just trying to distinguish you from big-J-John (who is also posting here). It was just my way of distinguising between the two as I was reading. My apologies – no slight was intended.
As for determining salvation, beginning with post 28, in using terms like “unregenerate”, and phrases like “It is sad as you will never have the joy of truly understanding the word.”etc., you ARE implying this. Like it or not.
You have said
I assume you’re referring to persons on all sides of the current discussion and not just those you disagree most with. I’ve not seen much sarcasm on my side of this debate, excepting some instances of admitted frustration on the writer’s part – and typically not for the purposes you describe.
If you can better understand God through understanding Super String Theory, more power to you – but I’ve not found many people that I can explain SST, Quantum Physics and Schroedinger’s Cat to without their eyes glazing over after the first sentence or two. I think you have some very narrow, some might say ‘quirky’ or ‘limiting’, views of contextual analysis and certain doctrines (like how the Holy Spirit works – or more accuratly does NOT work) and you are welcome to them – I just don’t see how they really lead to a clearer understanding in the discussion at hand.
I’ve taken the painstaking time to re-read many of your posts, and I’m going to agree with Amy here that it seems you’ve chosen a purposely contrarian role (or there’s more than one person using your account) with no purpose other than to sow chaos. As such, I think I will just let this discussion die and agree to disagree with most of what you have to say in this thread.
John,
I said,
“Honestly I wonder if what you are saying is what you are genuinely thinking or if you are someone who is having great fun creating chaos and confusion.” I really didn’t say that for any reason other than that I am “honestly wondering.”
But I now realize that my saying so may be a way of slandering you if that is indeed not the case. If I am hinting at something that is false, (that you are deliberately creating chaos) then I apologize. I have never met anyone who carries on a discussion the way you do and I find it very puzzling; that’s what led me to think that you might be creating a character.
Perhaps we just have really different thinking and communicating styles.
John (VS) said:
don’t think john is trying to cause chaos. He is causing chaos, but I don’t think he’s trying to. I think the problem is just that he’s a bit wound up in some of these posts and not really writing as carefully as he probably could. Clearly that last post could have benefited from a bit of proofreading.
The results is that he uses phrases like “litmus test” that don’t really correspond to the meaning he probably had in mind. So then later when you point out that he applied a “litmus test” he feels he’s being misunderstood. I think he is being somewhat misunderstood, though I think the fault is almost entirely his own. The job of the writer, as CS Lewis once said, is to move the sheep forward being careful to close all the gates except the one you’re driving toward.
I say:
Where is the chaos? My statment is very clear and to the point and valid. the Litmus test everyone is having brain cramps over is not difficult to understand
I stated very clearly and I quote from comment #102 directed to John (VS) which he never replied to.
“His beliefs concerning Roman Catholicism is a TRUE Litmus Test for his false beliefs. Rick Warren believes that Roman Catholicism as taught by the Vatican is a Valid Christian Faith. I apologize but this cannot be ignored. ”
Where is the chaos in that statement? You cannot understand that it hsi postion on Roman Cahtolicism is a valid test (litmus test) to use to see if Rick Warren teaches a False Theology?
Here I will repeat it for you: Rick Warrens position on Roman Catholicism is a valid test (Litmus Test) as to whether or not he teaches a False Theology.
if there is anyone creating chaos it is John(VS), Chris and Amy. By completley aoviding direclty answering any question.
In regards to the Holy Spirit being active in someones life there is also no confusion or chaos in what I said there either. Go here and read essentially the same thing that I said to Amy:
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.319
It says in the third paragraph in bold text:
“The Holy Spirit will honor truth, and will honor nothing else. Whatever else we may do, if we do not honor this truth He will not honor us.”
And in regards to the indwelling power of whether the Holy Spirit can be a much more powerful force in a life than Amy seems to accept. Read from the same article link above:
“This is surely one of the major problems in the Church at the present moment. Everyone is aware of the fact that the Church is lacking in power.” . . . . . . . . .
“Nothing matters in the spiritual realm except truth, the truth given by the Holy Spirit, the truth that can be honored by the Holy Spirit. Is there anything more glorious in the whole of the Old Testament than the way in which this great principle stands out? God often used individual men, or but two or three, against hordes and masses. Is there anything more exhilarating than the doctrine of the remnant? While the majority had gone wrong, the ones and the twos saw the truth.”
no confusion there. I would like to close with saying this. it is the tactic of weak debaters to try and insinuate that they cant understand where the person they are debating is coming from. or to insinuate that he or she is lacking in the ability to articulate a message correctly here. It sort of exempts the debater form having to show anwer. And that is what is happening in this thread..
What is happening here are some bloggers want to win a debate no matter if winning the debate means they have to ignore truth to do it.
Its called the carnal flesh rearing its ugly head.
John,
“And in regards to the indwelling power of whether the Holy Spirit can be a much more powerful force in a life than Amy seems to accept.”
I’ve already argued with you over the validity of this statement, or one similar to it. You can go back and look over what I’ve already said.
But I would like to know John, in what ways does the Holy Spirit work powerfully in your own life? Are you willing to share any examples – you can change the details a bit if you want to protect your identity. Specifically I would like to know what things he has apparently given you discernment about, and how He has done that.
And what would let you know that somebody was like one of the “two or three men” mentioned above?
And by the way, I have great difficulties with Rick Warren’s associations, especially since he makes a point of saying that “doctrine doesn’t matter.”
john (small “j”)
Ok – I will bite, against better judgment.
What question have I not answered, or answered indirectly? (NOTE: You did not ask me the ‘litmus test’ question…)
Certainly, I would not argue in favor of Catholic doctrine, but neither would I suggest that Rick Warren, by including them in his partering with them against the AIDS crisis, supports all of the tenents of Catholocism, either.
Is complete rejection of Catholocism of being a “christian doctrine” a test of salvation? There are certain aspects which I see in direct contradiction to scripture (Mary worship, the inerrant papacy, etc.), but I also know a good number of Catholics who don’t believe in these doctrines, either. Are Catholics “saved”, my suspicion is possibly (they claim to believe the basic tenants of the gospel), but I think there are areas of the Catholic faith which lead to idol worship or belief in redemption through works, so I would have to give a firm “I don’t know, but I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.”. Do I try to convince my Cathoic friends to become non-Catholic Christians, yes. Do I tell them I think they are going to hell? I don’t think I’ve got that level of surety on the issue, but I have addressed particular doctrines and how they seem to be opposed to scripture, and have opened that avenue for “safe” discussion – hoping to raise enough questions/concerns to bring them to a level of action.
Now, ask me about the LDS church, or Islam or Buddhism or non-Messianic Judiasm, and I will rest pretty firmly in saying that, as I read scripture, there is no way to the Father except through His Son, which pretty much excludes Buddah, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Moses.
As for encouraging honest debate, attempts to categorize those you disagree with as ‘weak’, ‘lacking in ability’, etc. is no more effective than the other forms of denigrating those you disagree with, as I posted before. On multiple occasions (as documented by many above), you have contradicted yourself, sometimes rather wildly.
And, even when you’ve tried to make some sense (as with the narrow view of the Holy Spirit), you’ve gone through some initially unexplained gymnastics to arrive at those conclusions. Then, when pressed for explanation, you have resorted to condescending, patronizing blather. In this particular case (the Holy Spirit), you’ve based your, dare I say goofy, interpretation of what it does and does not do based on a narrow interpretation of what Martyn Lloyd Jones had to say on the subject. Last time I checked, I didn’t see MLJ’s signature as one of the gospel writers, so you’re starting to make some pretty brazen statements based on thin theology. It is perfectly fine for you to state that you agree with MLJ and that you tend to believe X, based on his interpretation, but it is of another magnitude to declare it as positivly as if it were canon.
And this is just one example based on the conversation to date. Ignoring the truth does not equal disagreeing with the truth as john sees it. Seeing you as fractious, unfocused and chaotic is not ‘carnal flesh rearing its ugly head’ – maybe it’s just closer to the truth than you’d like it to be. Sorry, dude, but that’s life.
Amy,
Do you have the quote from Warren on ‘doctrine doesn’t matter’? I’m just interested to see the context of it, as at some level, I do think doctrine matters…
To Chris first:
As I have already said your a blogger who specializes in baiting and being argumentative and sarcastic. You proved that once again by not actually providing an answer to the question I asked but instead created your own question and then answered your own question. While hutrling sarcasm and as I said before I do not converse with Sarcastic Bloggers whose aim is to bait and be argumentative and not to have constructive discussion.
Further your continued asnwers show that you choose to reinterepret very clear statements I have made into your own narrow meaning in order to fit the a sarcastic answer of your choosing.
And let me correct you on something: Ignoring truth is the same as disagreeing with the Truth.
So you need to read this below and seriously think how it applies to you and your continued sarcasm:
Titus 3: 9-11
“But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
And in a last closing post on this thread I will show how from Rick Warrens own mouth he opens the door to universal salvation by completley misunderstanding? Or maybe intentinally changing the Words meaning to fit his “Purpose”
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_32
“What about those who haven’t heard about the cross? They can be saved the same way that the people in the Old Testament were saved. The book of Romans tells us again and again that Abraham was saved the same way that we are, by his faith. Abraham didn’t know the name of Jesus or that one day Jesus would die on the cross for his sins, but he trusted all that he knew about the God who had shown Himself to Abraham. Because of that trust, when Jesus died thousands of years after Abraham, the same forgiveness that was offered to us was given to Abraham.
God still reveals Himself to people who haven’t heard the name of Jesus today. Romans 1:19-23;10:13-21″
So Rick Warren is saying that if you havent heard the name of Jesus you are saved if you believe that there is a God. Muslims believe in a “God” but as Christ said they are not saved.
john
simply – what question did you ask of me? (additional diatribe not needed)
John,
I do want to apologize for my sarcasm when I responded to your comment about being emergent. And for any other way I’ve offended you.
Chris,
The statement about doctrine is in the PDL book. I believe it’s in several other places too – You might try typing in Pew Forum Rick Warren and seeing what you can come up with. Also, there was a conflict he had with the Southern Baptist when the Southern Baptists pulled out of a mission organization (name?) because another group of Baptists (Cooperative?)had joined them. (Maybe Tony can help you with the specifics of that.) I think he made similar statements there as well. I have a lot of information written down (about 25 pages altogether) Perhaps sometime I can read through it and see if any of it might be helpful to you.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest article up on slice about the WSJ article about purpose driven. It might be interesting to discuss that on this site.
john,
thank you for the link, as well – one of the first items of substance I’ve seen from your side of the debate.
I disagree with Warren’s conclusion, and the univeralist extrapolations that could be made from it. Why even send missionaries into the third world, if this is the case? Does this interpretation make him a ’sinner’, particularly since he carries the additional responsibility of being a teacher? I can’t say, but it’s not something I would want to answer for – while I suppose it is a possibility that God works that way, it seems to be stretching, and its more of a stretch than I would want to be responsible for teaching.
Good point. Thank you.
Chris,
If you look into his relationship with Jews, you will find the same kinds of thinking displayed I think. That issue wasn’t current when I was researching Warren, so I’m sharing this as something you might want to look into, not something I know for a fact.
I do know that when I read what I read about Warren and Jews it made me very sad. I love Israel . . .
Satan will do everything he can to stop people from coming to God. One of his current tactics seems to be by giving people the idea that they don’t need to accept Jesus as their Savior to be accepted by God.
john,
you said
I never disagreed with this statement – nothing to correct there. What I stated was
Meaning – just because someone disagrees with your particular view or interpretation doesn’t mean they disagree with/ignore the truth. Or, to be blunt – you don’t have a corner on the truth, and it’s pretty arrogant to assume you do…
The silly thing with Warren’s view is that:
a) The person asking the question, by its very nature, has already been faced with the choice of accepting Jesus or not – thus making the universalist “opt out” clause irrelevant.
b) The only action that can be elicited on the part of the questioner is to conclude that sitting on their hands and doing nothing to bring Jesus to those who have not heard of Him is no better or no worse than leaving them in ignorance. This is in direct contradiction to the Great Commission – why would Jesus command this of His followers if it is of no consequence, and would (ultimately) lead to the deaths of 11 of the 12 people present when He gave the command?
To both Chris and Amy:
I would like to be able to wipe the slate clean here. it seems that maybe we all have suffered the tyraany of miscommunication and misunderstanding. I think when that happens everyone goes to their defensive corners.
From me I apologize for any statements I made that may have come across as insulting or disrespectful.
In regards to Rick Warren I agree with what Amy is saying conerning Rick Warren and Jews as I have found this through my research. And this why I have been attempting to warn people about Rick Warrens teachings.
Follow this link:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=16029
“Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters”
Some addtional background on Rick Warren:
“Warren is part of the ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Convention, and all his senior staff sign on to the SBC’s doctrines, such as the literal and infallible Bible and exclusion of women as senior pastors. Yet Warren’s pastor-training programs welcome Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jews and ordained women. ”
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-07-21-rick-warren_x.htm
The recent quote from Warren, saying those who don’t hear of Jesus today are still able to be saved like those in the OT is very troubling. I am working on a response to the last questions asked of me, but wow, you guys fly faster than I can!
However, I had to add that quote is troubling because it demonstrates a serious flaw in Warren’s understanding of the continuing message of the Bible. The OT is looking forward to the Savior/Messiah to come, and they are saved through that Messiah because they believe and have faith in the Messiah who will come. We live after the cross, historically speaking, and the difference between everyone who lives “A.D.” and the OT believers, is that we look back at the historical event of the cross. Jesus’ Great Commission in Matt 28:19-20 alone refutes this answer by Warren.
Although Warren’s misunderstanding of this doesn’t surprise me considering all the other things I see from him, certainly this is a point that those defending him have to concede, as we see Chris L. in good integrity has done.
tr
john,
agreed.
I have seen the PD model (having an intentional strategy for your church – based on the Great Commandments & the Great Commission, organizing around key principals taught by Jesus, tailoring the style of worship in different services for different style preferences, etc.) coupled with strong teaching first-hand, and it was effective at reaching the lost and helping them grow – not just leaving them as spiritual babes. I have an extended family member who attended Saddleback 10 years ago before moving away from that area, who gave me information beyond the seeker-sensitive large services, and has left me with a favorable impression of the church there.
With that said, I find Warren’s dedication to the “purpose driven” model above the importance of the message troubling in the past few weeks especially, with the increased media attention.
I have a love for those in the Jewish faith – that which gave birth to my own – but those in it who do not accept Yeshua as the Messiah are set to die in slavery in Egypt all over again. I know how sensitive it is when talking to them – you’re talking to someone who’s 90% of the way there, and oft-times (at least in those I have regular contact with) more knowledgable about their faith than most Christians I know, but it’s that last 10% that makes 100% of the difference. With Catholocism (to draw a broad generalization), it’s more of a question on how to deal with all the extra doctrine, and whether acceptance of that doctrine invalidates acceptance of the basic gospel message… With Judiasm, on the other hand, it is acceptance of the basic gospel message that is at question.
I would like to see quotes from Warren, particularly on the subject of his work with the Jewish synagogues, as what you have pointed out is troubling. If he continues down this road, I just hope that as elements linked to PD methodologies are looked at on their own merit and not judged GBA, as I have seen some of these be “contextual” and “contended for” – which is where I would like my own walk to be…
I would also have to agree that statement goes beyond what can be proven by scripture. That said, I did want to clarify that this is not really a statement of universalism in the sense that john suggested (Muslims all go to heaven because they believe in God). This view would properly be called “inclusivism.” It is certainly a minority view, but there are some theologians who hold it. I believe John Stott has said it’s at least a possibility and C.S. Lewis also held a view like this.
The Old Testament portion of this doctrine (on which Warren’s statement was based), is taught explicitly in Hebrews 11 and in Romans 4 by Paul. Paul wasn’t suggesting that everyone who believed in any god (i.e. Baal worshippers) were saved by their faith. Paul was talking about those who knew the true God and responded to him in faith. And in this group he seems to include a fair number of people including those who walked around Jericho, those who crossed the red sea, and all the prophets and patriarchs.
The principle in action seems to be that while all have sinned and fall short and therefore we are all condemned (Romans 3), yet those who walked by faith like Abraham were saved (Romans 4). This is worth pondering for a moment. We tend to think of Romans 3:23 as the prison from which we can not escape judgment. Yet Paul says in Romans and in Hebrews that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness and he was saved.
Indeed, it’s clear that Paul believed all of the people mentioned in Hebrews 11 (the hall of faith) lived by faith and were saved. This, again, is despite the clear statement of Romans 3:23. So clearly the fact that all have sinned and fallen short does not preclude Old Testament saints from living by faith and escaping judgment for their sin. This is despite the fact that their faith had only God the father and not Jesus as its object. God seems to have forwarded their faith to the proper object on their behalf.
Inclusivists take this understanding of faith without a proper object as exemplified by Abraham and say that the same can happen today. The classic case would be the unreached islanders who have no knowledge of Christ but who have responded in faith to general revelation. In this case — the argument goes — God excuses ignorance, forwards faith to its proper object, then credits it as righteousness as he did for Old Testament saints.
Given that this is something God did do in the past it wouldn’t seem to be against his nature. Therefore it’s at least possible he could still do something like this today. Inclusivism is really an argument from God’s character and his past actions. I don’t think it’s completely without merit, but it’s not what I’d call a slam-dunk case.
I agree with Chris that it would seem to be a discouragement to fulfilling the great commision, though I feel the same about strict Calvinism and lots of people believe in that. The rapture, which is the core belief behind the Left Behind novels — which have sold more copies than PDL — has scarecly any more scriptural support than inclusivism does yet it’s widely held. So I think we should keep our condemnations of apostasy in perspective.
Bottom line: I’d be wary of teaching it as anything but a possibility that might hold in certain rare circumstances. I think if Warren wants to hold this view he should not present it as something we know. We don’t know. That said, it’s still distinct from “universalism” which is something God has never done and which, it seems to me, goes directly against his revealed character.
John of VS,
You are right about how inclusivist take this errant view and expound upon it in order to answer other questions they struggle with theologically.
You said,
Many people who have a hang up over this issue have to resort to universalism in order to “feel good” about their stance. But inherent in the question over the “unreached islanders” is the flawed view that they look at the human race as inherently innocent of sin rather than inherently guilty of sin.
They look at the “unreached islander” as if he is innocent and that God would be unjust by condemning him to hell without them hearing the gospel.
But we know that God is just and will do the right thing. We also know that everyone is already guilty, and God would be perfectly holy and just by snapping and sending us all to hell immediately. In fact, it demonstrates the greatness of His love that he doesn’t do that to us all.
So if we see the “unreached islander” as guilty and deserving of sin and hell, instead of innocent and deserving of heaven, a better question isn’t “What about those who didn’t hear?” but rather, “What amazing love it is that is extended to those who do hear?”
The irony is that those who raise this objection are usually those who have heard, and want to use this as an excuse to reject Jesus.
How sad it will be on judgment day for them to say to God,
Only to hear him say,
This comment is in response to Chris’s discussion (#112) about too many “isms” (meaning doctrinal positions), as well as Suzanne’s question (#115) regarding what one must be absolutely certain of, doctrinally, to be a Christian.
Chris said,
Suzanne said,
As I started to think about these assertion and questions I realized that in this discussion and debate that some may have misunderstood the stance some of us have taken on the importance of doctrine, vs. what is required of salvation. I think that distinction is important to explain.
Suzanne, you are right when you talk about things we must be certain of in order to be saved, and you list some of them. However, you and Chris error when you extrapolate me and other saying that other doctrines, which are important, are required for one’s salvation.
In that error, I think you miss the understanding of “justification” vs. “sanctification.” Let me explain:
I fully agree that when someone becomes born-again by repenting and trusting in Christ, they do not immediately become a theological scholar. They may hold to many theological positions at that point that are incorrect, but those positions would not disqualify them from everlasting life. I think that anyone who would disagree with that will have a hard time with the thief on the cross, and they would be at odds with Jesus’ own words. Of course this guy had little time to figure out if he was Calvinist or Armenian, but nonetheless Jesus declared that he would be “with me in paradise.” He was justified, but as far as his Christian walk as a new babe in Christ, his sanctification didn’t have far to go. His lack of sanctification didn’t disqualify his justification. However, the fact that we are justified by only assenting to the basics necessary for salvation, that isn’t a legitimate excuse for being lazy and not pursuing holiness and sanctification. We should be growing in our understanding of the faith, and in doctrine. Someone who claims to be justified who doesn’t grow in sanctification is probably not saved either through misunderstanding of the gospel or through simply being deceived.
Paul demonstrated his frustration with Christians who didn’t grow in sanctification because of their lack of willingness to be devoted to learning the faith and doctrine:
Also, the writer of Hebrews explains as well,
And Peter chimes in,
One cannot read through 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus without understanding the importance that Paul placed on the growing Christian growing in and sticking to the teachings of sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:3,10; 4:16; 6:3; 2 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1)
Paul also accounted the Bereans “more noble in character” because they “examined the Scripture daily to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11
This doesn’t mean they have to be experts at conversion (doctrinally perfect) to be saved. It means someone who is really a Christian, who has truly been regenerated by the true saving gospel, will at justification time, enter into a process of sanctification and growing in the Lord. This should be evident by an increase in their love for the Word, which will express itself in an increase in the fruits of the spirit becoming more evident in their life, and by their continuing rejection of error and adherence to truth, as it is revealed to them through the Scripture and confirmed by the Sprit. As time goes on, their sanctification process brings them closer to truth and further from error (doctrinally speaking).
Let me use a good analogy to explain this:
Imagine an Olympic swimming pool with swimming lanes. Inside the pool represents being regenerated, justified, saved, a Christian, but where one is swimming in the lane is indicated by their sanctification process. Being outside the pool represents being unsaved.
When one becomes a Christian, they jump in the pool (justified) and start swimming (sanctification process). All of us who are saved are in “in the pool” but we are at different distances along the sanctification process. The Christian attitude is that we should not look up and see someone who is in front of us and be jealous because they are “more spiritual than me.” Likewise, the Christian should not look behind him and see those who are further behind and judge them as being “less spiritual.” Moreover, we should not be jealous of the person who jumps in the pool after we did but swims faster (or slower) than we do. We don’t judge one another as far as where we are in the pool, because we are all “in the pool” and we are all swimming.
However, it is not judgmental for us to expect everyone in the pool to be swimming and moving forward! This was Paul’s beef with the Christians. They all jumped in the pool but then were having a “pool party” instead of swimming in the lanes. The postmodern mindset that we see today seems to want to endorse this type of Christian life. They want to jump in the pool (justification) but then they don’t want to swim (become sanctified) because that means they have to learn and grow, and become more holy, rejecting error, and endorsing truth. When I hear people discounting the importance of doctrine this is typically where I find that they are. In this effort they will often reject sound adherence to doctrine by saying, “I’m in the pool and that is all that matters, and you are judging that I am not in the pool at all because I don’t want to swim.” No, no one is saying you aren’t in the pool, but we are saying that you should be swimming! However, if you persist in your refusal to swim at all, and persist in endorsing error, it is not judgmental to question if you are going to drown. This type of concern is evidenced, when those who are swimming, see consistent behavior of Christians bobbing around in the shallow end, endorsing sinful lifestyles, refusing to let go of error, endorsing those who teach error, and rejecting those who stand up for the truth of God’s Word (the authority of doctrine being Gods Word, not the person teaching it).
So to answer your question Suzanne, in order to be justified and jump in the pool, one needs to understand and respond to the gospel. This means that they must properly understand their sin and that they are currently under the wrath of God and deserving of hell. Then they must respond to the gospel, which says that through, God becoming man in the incarnation, He paid the penalty we deserve as a substitutionary atonement for us (on the cross), and defeated death through the resurrection of Christ.
Now I am not saying that they have to be able to articulate it that way, but they should understand those concepts (and even a child can). If someone is assured of salvation without understanding those concepts they have been done a disservice. I think this is why we have so many people thinking they are saved and acting like they are swimming in the pool, but in reality they are just lying down on the concrete beside the pool. This is why I am so concerned about the modern gospel and all those leaders who promote it (regardless of their affiliation).
Once someone is justified and saved, then they are in the pool and they should be growing and learning in the faith, which means they should be in a process of learning, rejecting error and endorsing truth – and of course, all the while having the fruits of the spirit and service evident in their life.
Doctrine is important, and as John MacArthur puts it, “Doctrine divides!” Jesus said it was so and the NT demonstrates it. We can’t avoid that truth. Do I think that adherence to doctrinal purity is important? YES! Do I think it is required for salvation? For the gospel, YES! Other doctrines will come in the growing process. But if someone goes down a path of endorsing doctrines that deny fundamentals of the faith; things like the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the Trinity, they are outside of important Christian doctrines and they can’t be saved because they don’t adhere to “the faith.” This is why the teachings of the cults like Mormons, JWs, and Oneness Pentecostals is of such concern to Christians. It is also why Christian apologists are becoming increasingly alarmed at such teachings when they start creeping inside the church. It is not judgmental to say that an endorsement of these contrary teachings is indicative of one being outside of the faith. However, that does not mean that honest and well-meaning Christians can’t have debate over non-essential differences, like when Christ will return, etc. As Dr. Martin use to put it, the difference between denominations and cults is the adherence to the fundamentals of the faith and differencing on the minors (denominations – inside the faith), vs., the rejection of those fu