Brian McLaren questions “The Gospel”
Here is a great article by Todd Friel, from “The Way Of The Master Radio“ called “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” where he does an excellent job of demonstrating that the current seeker sensitive movement is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem of redefining the doctrine of justification. In this piece, he quotes an incredible interview with Brian McLaren, and then argues that the logical end of his questioning the doctrine of justification and the historical “gospel” and its meaning, is….. universalism, which is where the church is headed. I’ve quoted the article here, but you can get Todd’s pdf of it here.
It is a great read, and his conclusion is very true:
“If you choke on the squishy gospel of the seeker sensitive movement, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”
tr
Any Fifth Street Promenade tarot card reader would be thrilled to nail a prediction as accurately as William Booth did one hundred years ago. “I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.”
Was the founder of the Salvation Army accurate?
>Is there religion without the Holy Ghost? With a red face I confess that we conservatives have veered from the zany antics of televangelism into a ditch with little recognition of the active work of the Holy Spirit.
>Is there Christianity without Christ? Have you been to an Episcopal church lately?
>Is there forgiveness without turning from sin? Ask Dallas Theological Seminary.
>Is there salvation without regeneration? Google “Carnal Christianity.”
>Is there politics without God? www.ACLU.com
>Is there heaven without hell? Paging Rob Bell.
How was General Booth able to make such an accurate prediction? He surveyed the doctrines that were under assault, and then forecasted where that errant theology would take us. What deficient theology did he see? He witnessed a forsaking of the preaching of the Law. While he did not know what the result would be named, he knew that anti-nomianism (no law, lots of grace) had to lead to what turned out to be watered down mainline Protestantism and the seeker sensitive movement.
Now that General Booth’s predictions have been fulfilled, we would do well to survey the latest threat. “Isn’t the seeker sensitive movement the latest threat?” you ask. I would suggest it is not.
The seeker sensitive movement is the result of the squishy, anti-nomianism that General Booth witnessed; it is not a new threat. Seeker Sensitive is the manifestation of bad theology. Seeker sensitive is merely a fad (a bad fad, but a fad, nonetheless), and it won’t be long before it is replaced by another fad that is the result of new bad theology. What is the bad theology of our day?
Redefined justification.
Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Every puritan who followed in his wake recognized that justification is the core doctrine of Protestantism.
How did they define it? Man=sin. God=holiness. Consequence=hell. But God chose to demonstrate His kindness by taking the punishment we deserve by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to live a sinless life and die on a cross, rise from the dead and defeat death. Therefore, if people will repent and trust the Savior, the righteousness of Jesus will be imputed (credited to our account) that we might be made the righteousness of God (see II Cor.5:21) so that God can be glorified for His kindness. That is justification.
But alas, today’s “progressive” theologians have decided we need to take a fresh, new look at our cherished corner stone. Emergent leader, Brian McLaren says he simply wants to have a conversation and re-think long-held evangelical assumptions. While he acts like he is taking us on a journey whose destination is unknown, Mr. McLaren seems to know exactly where this conversation is headed: a new definition of justification. From the article “Interview with Brian McLaren about ‘A Letter to Friends f Emergent.’”
o Interviewer: I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the Gospel.
McLaren: What do you mean when you say “the Gospel?
Interviewer: You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross.
McLaren: Are you sure that’s the Gospel?
Interviewer: Of course. Aren’t you?
McLaren: I’m sure that’s a facet of the Gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical Protestants have assumed is the whole Gospel, the heart of the Gospel. But what’s the point of that Gospel?
Is it beneficial to question whether Christians should have Christmas trees? Sure. Is it necessary to question whether Christmas trees are green? The doctrine of justification has been long settled. To open up the doctrine for the sake of conversation screams of a hidden agenda.
While Mr. McLaren’s framing of the issue is under the guise of, “Let’s just open up the issue for discussion,” does Mr. McLaren know where he wants this conversation to go? It sure seems like it. He just seems to recognize that if he does not take a slow, meandering, deconstructionist path, he might be labeled for what he is.
“Is getting individual souls into heaven the focal point of the Gospel? I’d have to say, ‘No,’” states Mr. McLaren. Sure seems like the conversation is closed.
Mr. McLaren considers the classic understanding of penal substitution as “cosmic child abuse.” Is it any wonder that Brian thought the manager in Hotel Rwanda was a better example of love than Jesus in The Passion of the Christ?
The new bad theology is mangled justification. That means we have no further need for the Bible, Jesus or the cross. Christianity will be nothing more than a work righteous religion on the same level of Islam or Buddhism.
Christianity will no longer be about forgiveness of sins for the glory of God. The cross is no longer about satisfying the wrath of God. Faith is no longer about being in a right relationship with the Creator and inheriting eternal life.
Now, let’s put on our General Booth goggles and take a look into the future of Christianity. What will be the result of this bad theology?
Universalism.
If the emergents have their way, Jesus Christ will no longer be the exclusive way to everlasting life, nobody will go to hell and everyone will go to Heaven.
Brian McLaren offers this oxymoronic defense. “I am not embracing a traditional universalist position, but I am trying to raise the question, ‘When God created the universe, did he have two purposes in mind—one being to create some people who would forever enjoy blessing and mercy, and another to create a group who would forever suffer torment, torture, and punishment? What is our view of God? A God who plans torture? A God who has an essential, eternal quality of hatred? Is God love, or is God love and hate?’”
Straw man aside, that is like stating, “I am not saying I think everyone is going to go to heaven, I’m just saying that God is so loving He won’t send anyone to hell.”
In 1759, William Romaine presented, “The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended.” This was an effort to fend off the advances of the Catholic merit system (infused righteousness) into Protestant circles. The doctrine of justification that Luther had rescued was under assault. Here is what William Romaine begged. I have taken the liberty of replacing “Catholicism” with “Emergent”.
“A sinner made righteous by the righteousness of Christ is the doctrine upon which a church stands or falls. Upon it our church was established, and has long stood; but do we stand upon it now? Are we all champions for the protestant doctrine, or are we in general departed from it? Alas! Our enemies can tell, with triumph they tell of the increase of the emergent interest among us. And why does it increase? Whence is it that they make so many converts? Is it not because our people are not well established in the protestant doctrine? If it was taught and preached more, our churches would not be so empty as they are, nor the emergent houses so full. Many of our people know not what it is to be a protestant, and therefore they become an easy prey to the emergents, who are so busy and successful in making converts.”
Our new bad theology is redefined justification. The result can only lead to universalism. Mr. McLaren might try to obfuscate his position by saying he does not believe in “traditional universalism”, but universalism by any name (or with any adjective) is heresy. Heresy means people will go to hell.
Listen to William Romaine. “I fear this may be true; but is it not alarming, and ought it not to stir up the clergy, to try to put a stop to the spreading of the emergents? May the Lord raise up faithful and able men to defend His righteousness against them who have established a meritorious righteousness of their own, and will not submit to the righteousness of God.”
If you choke on the squishy gospel of the seeker sensitive movement, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
More on this demonstration of McLaren’s deception can be gleamed from Ken Silva’s new piece at Apprising Ministries, “Brian McLaren is a Mass Distraction: Sowing Division with a Gentle Voice and a Smile“
Ken sent me the following so I thought I’d share:
FYI I wrote on that same McLaren deal on justification last year here:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2005/12/brian_mclaren_i.html
And here:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2005/11/emergent_church_5.html
So where was McLaren going with his statemnent? The article sets up the strawman well and certainly dismantles it handily. But what did McLaren say was the full gospel?
The problem is that they (McClaren et al) are confusing the fruit with the seed. The Gospel,(the testimony of the life of Jesus),is the seed that falls into the ground and dies, later producing a tree that bears fruit. The Lord and the Word of the Lord are synonymous.
This is why He puts so much emphasis on fruit as a sign of authenticity. Only that which comes from the true seed is true fruit. There is a lot of “fruit” that looks good,(Genesis 3:6), but contains nothing which sustains life, and produces more life-giving seed. What these men are doing is going to the local garden center, bringing out a full grown tree, and then presenting that as the Gospel. This is why you are hearing more and more “christians” quoting Ghandi and others like that. They preach a salvation based on the evidence of works, but, unlike the classic “works to get saved” theology, they believe in a universal “all are already saved, therefore any and all works (fruit) are good” What I call neo-pelagian. Hence they come up with terms like “pre-christian” meaning that everyone is predisposed to believe.
The true Gospel is as stated in the article; by grace through faith, both given from God revealing us as God’s workmanship, now able to do the real work that was predestined long before the creation came about. Eph 2:8-10
This is the real fruit of faith that James speaks of.
All of this emerging/emergent/pdl stuff is social welfare programs masquerading as the Gospel.
Wow didn’t mean to go this long. Good post.
John,
McLaren has not said anything, clearly, since he got started.
tr
Good word Chris.
tr
It has reached the point that having a never ending “conversation” with the Emergents/postmodernists is simply a waste of time. For a while now, I’ve been taking the Elijah to the prophets of Baal approach & simply openly ridiculing the outrageous comments by these folks.
Enjoy with parody interview with “Cryin’ McLaren”
http://thekingdomcome.com/cryin_convo
Roderick -
You’re gonna have fire come down from heaven and lap up your sacrfice? And the water you covered it with? And the altar? Then you’re gonna take all the ECs and slew them with the sword?
COOL! If that happens, I’ll DEFINATELY believe your theology. Just tell me the time and place!
I was just wondering if you guys knew about the “Bible Project” called The Voice that McLaren was a part of. Apparantly he is retelling the book of Acts and the book of Luke for this. You can read more of this retelling at http://www.hearthevoice.com.
john
“a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign” Even pharoah’s priests could mimic some nmiracles, up to a point. Signs and wonders follow the men of God as confirmation that the word they preach is God’s true Word. But as the Lord said to Thomas, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” It’s faith, guy.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word, and as I pointed out before, faith comes from above, not from us. It is the gift og God lest anu man should boast. You are right though; the Bible doesn’t exegete itself. lol
You have tried the “you think you’re Ezekiel, Elijah, whomever” argument with me also.
Vanity of vanity, all is vanity.
h.d.
Thanks for the link. It is my opinion that one day the scriptures will be unrecognizable.
Speaking of “re-telling” or revising Biblical stories to fit the Emergent frame, here is another little piece of ridicule against the Emergent, called “The Emergent Elijah”
http://thekingdomcome.com/the_emergent_elijah
It starts out:
What if the Emergent Church crowd could re-write some of the “meanie” parts of the Bible? What would it look like? The following is an account from the story of Elijah & the prophets of Baal. Much of the narrative is from actual things Brian McLaren has written in his books (McLaren is one of the main advocates of the “emergents”).
And if you liked that, be sure to view “How to git postmodernism to country folk” — http://www.thekingdomcome.com/parodymonth/scooters_parody.swf
If you want to see Emergent rewriting of Scripture, check out this I posted a while back. It is lengthy but well worth the read:
Jesus Talks To A Young Gay Man
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2005/09/15/witnessing-to-a-homosexual-jesus-talks-with-a-young-gay-man/
tr
[...] fascinating article, with an interesting interview with Brian [...]
McLaren said, “I’m sure that’s a facet of the Gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical Protestants have assumed is the whole Gospel, the heart of the Gospel. But what’s the point of that Gospel?”
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the GOSPEL which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures… 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
McLaren seems to miss the very clear teaching of Scripture.
verse 14″…if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.”
Point of the Gospel? Christ is risen!
v.17-19 “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”
How could it be possible to NOT understand?
Isn’t the gospel good news? The good news that God loves us and hasn’t given up on us? Isn’t it also the news that the kingdom of God is here right now - not just waiting for us in heaven? Isn’t the good news that everyone has a chance at a relationship with their Creator?
The problem is that the gospel is presented as many things throughout scripture. Christ never spoke of some of the thing Paul referred to. You guys want everyone to sign on to some sort of “official definition” (you do the defining of course).
But by your definition, people like Rahab wouldn’t be in heaven - although I think scripture clearly indicates that she’ll be there. She certainly didn’t look the way someone who loves God was supposed to look.
I think we can love God in Christ and not know much more - and that is enough. Even if we’re wrong about predestination or pacifism or whatever. God sees our heart and there are enough surpises in scripture that I won’t try to second guess Him.
“>Is there forgiveness without turning from sin? Ask Dallas Theological Seminary.”
Can you elaborate on this?
Laz-
I think what they teach is that repentance is just turning to God.
However, the Biblical “definition” of repentance is a change of mind, change of heart, which results to a change of heart.
John- Great comment “Isn’t the gospel good news? The good news that God loves us and hasn’t given up on us? Isn’t it also the news that the kingdom of God is here right now - not just waiting for us in heaven? Isn’t the good news that everyone has a chance at a relationship with their Creator?
The problem is that the gospel is presented as many things throughout scripture. Christ never spoke of some of the thing Paul referred to. You guys want everyone to sign on to some sort of “official definition” (you do the defining of course).”
Why do we need to over complicate things just to argue? Here’s a quote from a Christian author about belief in God but I think it applies to this situation as well “Sooner or later you just figure out that there are some guys who don’t believe in God and they can prove He doesn’t exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now its about who’s smarter, and honestly I don’t care.”
Its like the disciples coming back to Jesus in Mark 9 saying they rebuked a man for casting out demons in Jesus name but I guess according to the authors of this article Jesus said “spend a majority of your time bashing this man and make sure that we’re the only ones who perform miracles in town.”
TR, upon further review, doesn’t the pastor of Agape Baptist Church have a degree from Dalls Theological Seminary? “Is there forgiveness without turning from sin? Ask Dallas Theological Seminary.”
When is the fragging from The Way Of The Master Radio going to hit too close to home?
Eric,
You are all over the place so I’ll take your statements one at a time:
No. That is not the Good News at all. The “good” news can’t be realized until the “bad” news is first understood. Without a proper understanding of the consequences our sin has placed us in, we can’t understand the “good” news of a sacrifice being provided for us.
The good news is not that “God loves you and has a plan for you,” the gospel is that Christ died for you because you are a “child of wrath” (Eph 2) in your pre-conversion state, and that “while we are sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).
Your Brian McLaren, emergent “kingdom-now” theology leaks out with statements like “Isn’t it also the news that the kingdom of God is here right now - not just waiting for us in heaven?” and demonstrates that these false leaders have led you to a false understanding of what the gospel is…which is precisely why this and other blogs exist, to demonstrate that truth to you and to others in order that you may hear the correct gospel and be saved by it.
You said,
Again, nope. Christ died for all who will repent and put their trust in Him, accepting His sacrifice as their only hope. It isn’t “chance.” Perhaps, “opportunity.” The gospel is, that God created us perfect and we rebelled, making Hell our chosen destination. God, being rich in love, sent his perfect son to pay the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, in order that we may be saved and return to fellowship with him. His general love is extended to everyone in that with each breath they have a chance to repent and believe. But his sacrificial love is only experienced by those who repent and trust in Christ. For those who reject and continue in rebellion, they don’t experience that love, and when their general love expires with their last breath, their opportunity for the sacrificial love also ends.
You continue,
No friend. The gospel message is not presented as many things. The gospel IS a specific message, but the Scriptures do the defining, not me or others. That is a straw-man attack created by McLaren and his cronies. I don’t want anyone to sign anything. I want everyone to be born-again through repentance and faith in the Jesus, the only path to the Father.
Still you say,
We don’t need to argue, but we do need to defend THE faith that was once for all given to the saints (Jude 3). And when false teachers come along and change the gospel, we are commanded to defend the truth against that. You are saying things that indicate you believe those that teach a false gospel. I would plead with you to reconsider what you have learned and quit running the Scriptures through the emergent leaders who are teaching a false gospel, which is no gospel at all (Gal 1:6-9)
You said,
This is a weak argument not to evangelize with the correct gospel message and to defend the truth against those who would distort that message. This quote is from page 103 of “Blue Like Jazz,” by Donald Miller, an extreme emergent author and book, confirming all that I have stated about my concerns regarding where you are getting your theology from.
tr
Eric,
I’m not really sure of the purpose for this post, but you said,
Your investigative work is interesting and I’m not sure of your point. My pastor has had over 30 years experience, and seminaries change their messages during such a time span. I’ve said nothing in conflict with my pastor’s teachings. I would never speak presumptuously for him, but I would imagine he would reject much of what is taught out of Dallas these days. Your investigate work is thorough enough though, why don’t you call him and ask him yourself?
I’ll be honest, maybe I’m not culturally relevant enough, but I don’t even know what that means.
I was nice and responded to this particular post, but I must admit, it seems to be more attacking in nature than seriously being a “seeker” of knowledge. I hope I’m incorrect in that conclusion.
tr
Eric,
In another post, I gave you a link to The Way Of The Master Radio show from 2/15/07… here it is again:
http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2007/02/15/february-15-2007-hour-1/
If you go to the segment starting at 22:40 you will hear a very good explanation of what the gospel IS, followed by why the emergent gospel is erroneous.
Check it out,
Tr
First of all I need to point out that about 3/4 of your respose was dedicated to a quote from the previous poster john which you falsely attributed to me…
That being said, I did not mean any of my comments to be attacking and I apologize if they came off that way. In regards to your last response, I was not passing judgement on your pastor or otherwise trying to presume anything about his teachings and the beliefs of the DTS. However, I was trying to make a point that sometimes other Christians (Mr. Friel, for example) tend to fire so many shots at other Christians that sometimes it hits very close to home for their own followers. (i.e. Your pastor’s connection to the DTS and Mr. Friel’s comments regarding their current state of affairs)
Fragging is not a cultural term but a military term (from wikipedia: Frag is a term from the Vietnam War, most commonly meaning to assassinate an unpopular officer of one’s own fighting unit, often by means of a fragmentation grenade. A hand grenade was often used because it would not leave any fingerprints, and because a ballistics test could not be done (as it could to match a bullet with a firearm). A fragging victim could also be killed by intentional friendly fire during combat. In either case, the death would be blamed on the enemy, and, due to the dead man’s unpopularity, it was assumed no one would contradict the story.)
I was making the corelation between what Mr. Friel seems to be doing all over the Christian spectrum except for his sect. Destroying the beliefs and viewpoints of other members of your same (universal) church body seems, to me, more like indoctrination than discipleship.
The only affiliation I claim to the “emergent” movement, which I guess I’ve been pegged into (but that’s a totally different discussion all together), is that I applaud anyone who is willing to have these discussions. I’m appreciate your willingness to discuss your beliefs and I thank you for engaging with an open mind as have I. I trust you would agree with me that Jesus (and Paul) advocated questioning anytime “religion” becomes more important than being a follower of (or in pauls words, a “slave” to) Christ.
TR,
I appreciate the links to wayofthemasterradio.com segments but to play “Christ’s advocate” (pun intended) everyone, by their nature, has a bias and therefore we must always use our God-given power of discernment to make sure we are not blindly following the doctrines of man. I believe this applies not only to Mr. Friel and co. but also to McLearen, Bell & all others who claim to “know the truth”.
Eric,
Thanks for your clarification. It was my view that my response was relevant to you to since you were quoting Jon with the endorsement of “Great comment.” So my comments were to you both.
It appeared that you were attempting to make a point that I was at odds with my own pastor in regard to what I was saying on the blog, which is not true. My pastor and I are in full agreement with Todd’s contemporary critiques of Dallas and has no reflection on his degree from there over 30 years ago. Ministers grow, and seminaries often slide, in 30 years.
I got you on the fragging definition now. Thanks for the clarification. In this case, it doesn’t apply. My pastor has matured in knowledge and Dallas’ slip in orthodoxy makes Todd’s comments right in line with all 3 (me, my pastor, and Todd) of our theologies.
I believe Mr. Friel compares the teachings and sayings of others to Scripture and comes to accurate conclusions on them. It isn’t that I am following Todd or that he is always right, but rather, his hermeneutic of searching the Scriptures to see if things are so is done very well and accurate and I agree with many of his conclusions. I also like his humility in admitting when he is ignorant of a subject or when he is “W…Wr…Wro…Wron…Wrong.”
Comparing someone’s teachings to Scripture and demonstrating where it doesn’t line up isn’t “Destroying the beliefs and viewpoints of others,” as you put it. It is a command of Scripture to “test all things and hold fast that which is good and true.” This is not indoctrination as you claim. That would be telling others what to think. Demonstrating why one’s beliefs and teaching are not in accord with Scripture is different.
I would agree with you that Paul and Jesus was concerned when “religion became more important than following Christ,” but that would be ‘false religion.’ Following Christ begins with having proper thinking and doctrine about Him. Otherwise we have a “false Jesus” (1 Cor 11:4) and a “false gospel” (Gal 1:6-9).
Thanks for your input too,
Tony
Additionally Eric,
I would like to add that you seem to be misplaced in what out authority should be. Our authority should not be other people, Todd Friel, Brian McLaren, or even ourselves.
Scripture should be our authority.
Where Todd agrees with Scripture he should be “accepted” and where Brian defies Scripture he should be “rejected.” I maintain, not that Todd is always right and Brian is always wrong, but that such is consistently the case when their teachings are compared to Scripture.
You would do well to listen to Todd and of course compare what he says to Scripture. I believe you’ll find what he is teaching, especially in regards to evangelism and gospel is consistent with Scripture. Likewise I think you’d do well not read McLaren and reject what he teaches because he is often in conflict with the Scripture, especially in the areas of evangelism, salvation, and the gospel.
If you disagree I’d love to discuss which areas and why, specifically.
tr
Tony,
“Following Christ begins with having proper thinking and doctrine about Him” (your quote)
I agree but I was more referring to valuing doctrine over actions (like the Pharisees). If our thinking and doctrine supercede our actions towards God and one another (the greatest commandment) then faith without works is dead. I do not like most of the “emerging/emergent” (whatever) doctrine because of their tendency to lack of a firm stand in extreme cases which leads to relative moralism. But likewise I am turned off from the fundamentalist doctrine because of their tendency to lack grace and the love for others in extreme cases. That is why I seem critical, I know that being labeled “Emergent”, “Seeker Sensitive”, “Evangelical”, “Fundamentalist”, “Liberal” or “Conservative” carries along all sorts of extra baggage. I don’t want to make the mistake of “voting a total fundamentalist or emergent ballot” so to speak. I don’t think God would consider Himself one or the other and I certainly don’t think either aligns with the scriptures totally agenda free.
“Scripture should be our authority.”
Again I agree, but to say that anyone human or religious sect has a bias/agenda free hold on the original intent of scripture would be ignorant. This is where I would agree with the emergents but if I were on a pro McLearen blog, we would have a whole new set of discussions…
And again I want to point out that I had no ill-intent with regards to your church or pastor. I apologize again if it came off that way.
I agree I don’t like the labels. Call me a fundamentalist, but I believe that one can’t have proper actions without proper doctrines (essentials that is). If we have a wrong understanding of who God and Jesus is, or a wrong understanding of what the gospel is, then our actions, not matter how loving they are, are irrelevant.
But in the other hand I also agree that a proper doctrine and regeneration of an individual will result in proper actions. Faith without words is dead because works are evidence of the faith, not the means by which we have faith.
It isn’t about labels and who to follow, it is “what does the Bible teach is the truth on these issues?” McLaren-ites are hung up in their rejection of modernity and modernity is hung up in forcing dead orthodoxy. Jesus would reject both.
I deplore the errors on the fundamentalist side that thinks faith does nothing and only “being right” is necessary. I also deplore those who slide over the necessary message and doctrines and emphasize “doing,” and thus encourage people to “do” their way to hell.
Thanks for your clarification the pastor issue.
tr
“I deplore the errors on the fundamentalist side that thinks faith does nothing and only “being right” is necessary. I also deplore those who slide over the necessary message and doctrines and emphasize “doing,” and thus encourage people to “do” their way to hell.”
Bravo Tony! That’s the type of discernment and independent thinking I was looking for! Now I have no reason to judge you as a mindless fundamentalist drone as I hope you don’t judge me as an Emergent McLaren-ite!
I look forward to your next blog…
Untill then, God Bless!
LOL. Amen.
I am constantly confirmed with my persistent dialogs with those who allow me the opportunity to clarify terms, define meanings, and clearly determine positions.
That is, as opposed to post-modernly defining what one another says as if it only matters what I think you said instead of what you actually said (which is kind of my point in my last post on the 80s music).
When I am successful in such dialogs I often find that I am closer than originally thought with others, or that each side learns and gives on positions and mutually grow to more true-er positions and understandings.
Thanks,
tr
I’ve spent the better part of the last 2 hours reading many posts about McClaren. My post reading began as I was searching “Elijah and Baal” for a sermon that I’m preparing.
I’m quite frankly stuck somewhere between angry and sad. It appears to me that there is two decided camps on these issues. 1)Those that think they have it right 2)The rest of them who also think they have it right.
Many, Many, Many people that I’ve read last night and this morning continually deride McClaren because they percieve he’s “perverted” the gospel. But I’ve yet to read a complete interview or accurate quote (not a proof text) to describe their interpretation of McClarens “theology”.
I get that you understand what the gospel is and that you can fully defend your belief of grace (with scripture and all) but most of your presetation of those truths is garbed in a “we’re right you’re wrong” syntax.
The truth of the matter is I’ve yet to see anybody in my reading today that has used the words of Jesus to defend their position. Sure you can argue and explain the Roman Road but do you understand “The WHOLE Law is summed up in these two…”
After re-reading your posts I’ve decided to edit my own piece of scripture much like has been done with a percieved reading of “Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the Emergent Movement”.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side; screaming about Atonement and the need to understand the “true” gift of God. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he throw a bible tract at him and screamed SINNER REPENT and then passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ The inn-keeper questioned “Why would you do these things for this man?” The man replied “I’m a follower of Jesus and he says ‘for what you do to the least of these you do unto me’ So I believe in loving others is truly loving God” and that day both the inn-keeper and the man that was helped gave their lives to Christ; because they saw him incarnate.
36″Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
While you continue to point out faults of the emergent movement the emergent movement continues to have mercy. So now I ask “who understands the Gospel message?”
Many of the people that I’ve read tonight would do well to read COMPLETELY the works of the early church fathers and other shapers of the faith. Surprisingly you would find much of their views similar to those of the Emergent movement. So I’m not buying into your rhetoric that the Emergent movement is causing a heretical slide that we need to correct.
Chris,
Do you get the same sentiment when you read Jesus’ words in John 8 and John 10? Do you get the idea that he was concerned with one way being right over another?
tr
Hi
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night
I have a book by Noel Piper (wife of pastor John Piper) written to children. In it, it says to little children that “most of all Jesus loves you”. Given what galatiansc4v16 says about being in a preconverted state, how can we tell our children that Jesus loves them? My 2 year old hasn’t been converted yet. Doesn’t Jesus hate him then? If he was born in sin, and is preconverted how can Jesus love him?
Taylor,
Absolutely not. If that is what you are reading into my words then you are not reading my intentions.
All of my comments regarding the preconverted state are talking about those who are beyond the “little one” stage and are in no way referencing that issue at all.
Here is an article by Albert Mohler talking about this, and as you can see, it is a entirely different issue. Just for the record, I agree 100% with Mohler and with Piper on the issue of “little ones.”
The Salvation of the ‘Little Ones’: Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://albertmohler.com/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036
Can you name a non-contemporary calvinist theologian who prescribes to that tteaching? Pretty sure Calvin taught they would burn. So maybe Calvin would look at Piper, and Mohler kind of how Piper and Mohler look at Rick Warren, as being to soft.
Well I gave you two in Piper and Mohler, and I understand their view to be that of Calvin’s. I could also add John MacArthur, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, RC Sproul, and CJ Mahaney to that list very easily - as well as many others.
I think the question for you to ponder is, can you provide any evidence that Calvin taught as you claim? I think you have confused the heresy of “hyper-calvinism” with true Calvinism and I would exhort you to consider studying the differences before you conclude on the lacking evidence you currently have.
tr
Sorry, further research shows that perhaps Calvin did teach infants would go to heaven. My question is: if God made vessels for wrath before the foundation of the world, why does it really matter how old they are? It sounds to me like a concession in the theological system was made so that parents could tell there kids “Jesus loves you.” Which in the end is the very same thing you hate on Hybels and Warren for doing.
Taylor,
I appreciate your desire to find a contradiction here, but there isn’t one to be found because the contexts of dialog in these scenarios are different.
First of all, with the kids, we have to acknowledge that God is just and whatever He does is fair and right. Our lack of complete clarity on the matter doesn’t indicate God is wrong for whatever He chooses to do.
The question you ask about God making vessels for wrath indicates your confusion on this. God didn’t make vessels for wrath. He made man perfect originally, and man sinned. God knowing this would happen doesn’t make him guilty of causing it to happen. Calvinism does not teach that God made vessels of wrath. No one dies unjustly, all have sinned, and death and eternal punishment is deserved because of sins committed, not because God didn’t give someone a chance. Now if there was a sinless person that went to hell this argument would fly, but there isn’t. Everyone who goes to hell will be there because of their sin, which is just.
You also confuse the issue further by bringing the infant issue into what otherwise would be a discussion over salvation. Deut 1 demonstrates that there is a level of accountability for children when God sees them “knowing good and evil” and holds them accountable. That doesn’t mean that Christ’s blood isn’t required for their salvation prior to this time, as they were born in sin with a sin nature (I’ll refer you to the Mohler article for further enumeration of this). But that God is just and isn’t going to send someone to hell who doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand their need to repent and trust in Christ. Again, the Bible doesn’t tell us how God does this, but that He will deal with it in a just manner. We can’t conclude that since God didn’t explain this to us that He must be unjust.
Anyway, ALL of this talk has nothing whatsoever to do with the criticism of Warren and Hybels you refer to on this blog. That criticism isn’t talking about extenuating circumstances such as Calvinism or infants. Rather, this issue is over normal cognizant people. Do we tell them “Jesus loves you,” as a gospel message, unlike anywhere in the Bible, or do we use the law to expose sin, so that hell and the gospel makes sense in the gospel presentation, which IS like the Bible says?”
The issue is, what is “the gospel” and how it is preached. Warren and Hybels endorse a non Biblical man centered gospel, which is not the gospel that the Bible preaches.
tr